Deity of Christ in the Gospel of John

Deity of Christ in the Gospel of John

In John's Gospel, the term Son of God is used very frequently but people do not derive the spirituality of Jesus from this title, in fact they refer this title to the messianic position of Jesus. Such a belief has put forward a number of interesting questions, because according to John (20:30-31), in order to obtain an eternal life one needs to have a firm believe on the fact that Christ is the son of God. The question here arises, that what should be believed by the people about Christ if they want a gift of life? Or should the people consider Jesus as their God to get a gift of eternal life? The answers to all these questions are obvious implications of one's eternal fate (Wilson, 2006).

None of the other Gospels talk about the divinity of Jesus. According to the other Gospels there is no sign of Jesus being in existence before the humans. Many authors along with Erickson (2000) believe that the purpose behind all the Gospels has always remained the same, but Erickson (2000) further adds by acknowledging that only John's Gospel contains facts regarding the divinity of Jesus (Erickson, 2000).

Only in John's Gospel, the signs are used for remorseful purposes, i.e. For the eternal life of Jesus (Harrison, 1962). This purpose has not been claimed by any other Synoptic Gospels. Theophilus was a believer who needed most accurate knowledge about the life of Jesus and he even believed Christ as God's personified (Luke 1:3-4; Acts 1:1) (Robinson, 1916). Luke-Acts was a book which was written for this believer. On the other hand, the purpose of John for writing Gospel was to make people believe that Jesus is the son of God, he is the Christ and if these two facts are believed by someone, then he may get a life in the name of Jesus 20:31. It has been believed by Witherington (1995) and Robertson (1916) that John's Gospel has been written for unbelievers.

What is the reason behind John's Gospel having immense focus pertaining to the deity of Jesus? Is John's statement of purpose complete enough to explain well the logic behind one's belief on the eternal life of Jesus? (Wilson, 2006)

The belief in the mere human Messiah anticipated by ancient Jews justifies the concept of eternal life, if "Son of God" does not bear any meaning of divinity. The faith in Christ's divinity does not serve to be a core requirement for eternal life if "Son of God" is considered purely messianic. However, considering "Son of God" from the perspective of divinity in John's Gospel makes it essential to belief in the deity of Christ's eternal life. Eternal destinies are determined by focussing on the answer to these questions (Wilson, 2006).

Richardson (1962), Messianic Barrett (1955), Bruce (1983), Hobbs (1968), Beasley-Murray (1987) and other hold a messianic view regarding the term "Son of God." Fuller (1965) is of the view that Son of God holds a Messianic title in pre-Christian Judaism similar to son of David. Marshall (1990) opines that church emerged as an inescapable corollary of Jesus's position despite the fact that it was not concerned about the divinity of Jesus in the beginning. A more extreme and firm point-of-view is presented by Collins (1976) where he believed that Thomas has subsequently confessed the sole expression of Jesus's divinity in the entire Fourth Gospel and has clearly expressed it in 20:28.

Several authors had been exemplified by Kasper (1976) who have excluded the possibility of divinity associated with the term. He opines that the term "Son of God belongs to the Creeds of the Church as the synoptic Gospels Jesus never considered himself as the Son of God. Moreover, his viewpoint is that dogmatic statements presenting the metaphysical sense of Jesus as the Son of God are absolutely outside the conceptual possibilities of Jesus or the New Testament as described by Hellenistic ideas or in the Old Testament Judaism (Wilson, 2006).

On the other side, some authors are of the view that variations in the meanings are due to context in which the term is used. Ellis (1986) declared in the International Bible Commentary that "Son of God" bears a more in depth meaning than 'Mesiah' (cf. Psalm 2:7) on Nathanael' lips. It means even more to Evangelist. Another important distinction was made by Reith, which supported this messianic concept. The distinction claimed Jesus to have two titles only; one the prehistoric "Only begotten of the Father" and the other the historic "Christ." Both titles considered Messiah as certain and considered them equivalent on the lips of a Jew in the Lord's day. However, the concept understood by Nathanael regarding the designation of "Son of God" needs to be distinguished from the one which involved the concept of Son's pre-existence and necessary relation to the Father, afterwards (Reith, 1889).

The understanding of the term "Son of God" in the remainder of the Gospel as perceived by John is depicted when Gospel first confessed "Son of God" by Nathanael. The connection existing between the two dates back to centuries. According to John Chrysostom, Peter confessed Him as the 'The Son of God' and Nathanael as the mere man. The evidence of this fact becomes clear when he declared Him as the Son of God after these words and yet again declared him as the King of Israel, who is meant for the entire world and not for Israel only (Chrysostom, 2004).

Contrary to the concept of Chrysostom, several authors of the earlier era consider "Son of God" to denote the divinity of Jesus (Wilson, 2006).

The View of "Son of God" as Divine

Early Authors

If Chrysostom had read the work of Tertullian, he would have definitely identified his mistake. According to Tertullian (1919), Jesus was the king of Israeli nation and he was very committed to his people and their welfare.

It is firmly believed that as he is the Son of God - the Almighty's Son, he himself is the Almighty and God to. There were many authors that agreed to this. John 1:49 was paraphrased by Nonnos of Panoplis (1998) by stating that You truly are the King of the kingdom of Israel, Son of GOD, Jesus. He was proclaimed as God-King of Israel as well as the son of God! (Nonnos of Panopolis, 1998)

Many lectures on John's Gospel were related to this by Augustine by stating that something incredible Nathaniel acknowledged in the words. When you were under the fig tree, I saw you, before Philip called you; because his words were showing that He was the Son of God - also Israel's King. This thought is not much different to the words of Peter when he was told by the Lord that he was not blessed, because flesh as well as blood was not meant to be revealed to him (Augustine of Hippo, 2004), but to Jesus' Father who is present in heavens.

Christ's deity was also expressed as "God's Son" by John Calvin:

Nathanel acknowledged that Christ was different from other men, in the way that he reflected a divine look, as well as the way he spoke which no mortal human being could do. The proof is derived from simple things, as it is not in the domain of man to see things beyond his reach and power, and is only possible for God to judge the exact cleanliness and purity of our hearts. Thou are God's Son (Wilson, 2006).

It is uncertain why Christ is being called the King of the people of Israel, even though he is being acknowledged to be the Son of God and possessing divine power. These 2 things do not seem to co-relate with one another. Nathaniel's view was a much loftier one. It was well-known by him that indeed the Messiah is Christ, and to this belief is being added another confirmation. One of his other principles reflects how Christ, being God's son, would not come to the people without having the authority of the King as he is Son of the Almighty. He believes that God's Son is Israel's King, and faith should not be fixed on Christ only, but upon his power and divine right to the (Calvin, 1949).

Modern Authors

Christ's deity was also acknowledged by many recent and modern authors. According to Ellis (1999), "Son of God" can be interpreted as reflecting the Synoptic, either the kingship of Jesus, or his divine nature. The latter represents being equal to God, which the Jewish Churchmen claim to be blasphemy which does not differ from the Synoptic (Ellis, 1999)." C.F. Moule (1977) further differentiates the Synoptics and the Gospel of John, by stating that Jesus' divinity was at the heights in Gospel Four. One portion of the New Testament that was edited by late Sir Edwyn and the late Davey, stated that no matter what one perceives or believes regarding this topic, gospel tradition could not be properly analyzed without the factor of divinity existent in it. Dissection here would rather imply murder, as the divinity is inseparable (Moule, 1977)."

Many authors have interpreted "Son of God" in a much wider context of the Gospel of John. According to Pink (1975), one proof of the Jesus' divinity was his baptizing in the Holy Spirit. In response to John 1:48, Robertson (1916) wrote that he might be aware of the Baptist regarding Jesus and thus he proclaims Jesus to be the King of Israel, as well as acknowledging his Deity. Moreover, Even Jenson (1997) rejected that the particular status given to Jesus of Son was much more than just meaning a Messiah: "You're the son of the One that is blessed? In consideration of this context, God's Son cannot be understood as consisting of having the title of Messiah, as it was not blasphemy to claim oneself as a religious and political Messiah."Similarly, Jenson (1997) rejected the idea of considering the title of Son only for a Messianic view: "you're the Son of God?' As reflected by this question, Son of God represents more than a Messiah, and one's claim to be a religious and political Messiah was not considered as blasphemy."

According to Loader (1984), the fourth gospel presents Jesus as phenomenon consisting of two folds, that He is not a commoner, but the Son of God, and thus one heavenly being.

Even Kasper (1976) seemed to identify the divinity presented in the Gospel of John. The internal unity of the ontological and messianic theology turned into something rather thematic, mostly reflected by Gospel Four. The divinity of Jesus and his being the Son of God is explicitly mentioned in this Gospel. These tend to bring about a sort of stereological interest and not just as being understood for personal sake as just statements. Christ's Deity is mentioned thoroughly in John's Gospel, which is well acknowledged by all these authors. That deity is more vividly expressed by the title "Son of God." Thus, it is entirely improbable to keep a messianic view according to the arguments of these authors.

John's Internal Evidence for the Deity View

Overview of the Gospel of John

According to the works of Kostenberger (1999), he seemed to express the bigger purpose of Johannine tended to emphasize the deity as well as the pre-existence of Jesus. Where Jesus' designation mixes the elements of both deity as well as humanity, the other aspects of John's Gospel have a more direct focus on the divine nature of Jesus. The following elements were listed:

1) Claims to the pre-existence of Jesus as well as "Word" (1:1,14) being used for him

Pre-existence of Jesus (8:58; 12:41; 17:5)

2) "Signs" of Jesus (e.g. 2:11)

3) The "I am sayings," of Jesus, that are much similar to Old Testament (cf. esp. Ex 3:14)

4) The possession of abnormal knowledge by Jesus (1:48: Nathanael beneath fig tree; 2:19: Jesus' death's nature; cf. also 12:24; 11:14: Death of Lazarus; 13:38: Denials of Peter; 21:18-19: the nature of the death of Peter)

5) The confession of Thomas regarding his narration of Jesus as his God and his Lord (20:28)30

Many witnesses were identified by Ellis (1999). It needs to be considered that there were seven that signified the Deity of Jesus in the 4th Gospel. These included the Baptist John (1:34); Nathanael (1:48); Peter (6:69); Lord Himself (10:36); Martha (11:27); Thomas (20:28); and the one who wrote this Gospel (20:31)."

A total of 8 specific signs were mentioned by the author of the Gospel of John regarding Jesus (Niemela, 2003) that were meant to create belief in Jesus as being divine, a Messiah, and God's son. These were: (1) conversion of the water into the wine-2:1-12, (2) the curing of the son of a nobleman even at a distance-4:46- 54, (3) the curing of the man in Bethsaida-5:1-15, (4) feeding of the 5,000- 6:1-14, (5) the walking on top of water-6:15-21, (6) the healing of a man who was naturally blind- 9:1-7, (7) the raising of Lazarus-11:1-44, and (8) most importantly the crucifixion as well as Christ's resurrection-2:18-22, 19:1-20:29. It was because of these abovementioned signs that led people to believe Jesus as being the Son of God as well as divine (see 2:11; 4:53; 6:14; 7:31; 10:41-42; 11:45-48; 12:10-11, 37, 42; 20:8, 29). It was not because of the believers following in the nature of discipleship, but as a belief on the results, according to John. All these proofs formed the basis of the content of the book which was essentially required for eternal life. John introduced Jesus in the extended prologue as:

1. Torchbearer of the life of mankind, vv. 4-13

2. Son of God who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, vv.31-34

3. Eternal Creator, vv. 1-3

4. Only begotten Son of the Father's glory, vv.14-18

5. Omnipresent and omniscient Song of God possessing direct access to heaven, vv. 46-51

6. Messianic Lamb of God who needs to be followed, vv. 35-45

7. Preexistent Messianic Lamb of God who takes away sin, vv. 19-30

The above mentioned seven titles correspond to the seven "I am" statements and eight signs of John. Carson believes that two "I Am" sayings tend to be absolutely undeniable from the aspect of content and form (8:58; 13:19). They form an explicit self-identification with Yahweh who had also used similar terms to reveal himself to men (see esp. Isa. 43:10-11) (Carson, 2001).

John introduces Jesus in every form in the initial verses of his Gospel and reveals the uniqueness and exclusiveness of Jesus in the remainder of the book. The introduction revolves around different titles like Lamb of God, Messiah, Christ, Son of Man, Son of God and Son. All these titles are not isolated, in fact they are deliberately interrelated well by the author to portray Jesus as God-man (Wilson, 2006).

The Eleven "Son of God" Passages

There exist eleven "Son of God" passages within John's Gospel. The pre-existence of God's Son is expressed in the first one (1:34, "he was before me"). The second one revolves around the long debated Nathanael's declaration of "Son of God" and "King of Israel" in 1:48. The next chapter highlights the concept of omnipresence and omniscience by quoting 2:24, which declared that Jesus knew All and thus he did not commit himself to them. The metaphysical concepts associated with omniscience, pre-existence and omnipresence of Jesus are supported by the first two uses, if they are considered to be true.

Jesus is being identified as having His sole privilege in following 3 terms of granting eternal life (3:18; 5:25; 6:69). Jesus has been found of receiving worship in the seventh use (9:35) on the fact that being the God's son. Jews regard it blasphemy to which John regards as Jesus being the Son of God (10:36). Lazarus was given life by Jesus so as to establish that he is the Son of God (11:4). Hence, Martha considered Jesus as the Son of God, the Christ, who has the power to give rebirth and eternal life (11:27). Jewish law and Jesus were quite opposite as per the belief of Song of God (19:7). John's Gospel states about "Son of God" as being the Messiah who can provide eternal life.

Pre-existence within the prologue is a well-established concept. According to Lewis (2001), some text of New Testament may be ambiguous in terms of pre-existence; however, it is not acceptable that some are trying to remove that doctrine from the Prologue of John. It is not surprising to note that the author of Gospel would push forward the concept into Testimony of John the Baptist as well.

Proclamations made by Baptizer argue pretty well regarding pre-existence of Jesus as deity. Some verses confirm about pre-existence's attribution as being the Son of God by stating that who comes after me, is more preferable then me (1:15). Similarly, verses also state that following God's lamb is the only way through which sins can be eliminated from world (1:29). At one more place, it has been stated that a Man will come who will be preferred more than the God (1:30). Lastly, it has also been testified for Jesus as being the God's Son (1:34).

When John pointed out about beholding the Lamb of God, 2 disciples pondered over it and concluded that this One could remove sins from the world and is before John, hence, He is the God's only prerogative (Luke 5:21). Thus, two characteristics that are exclusive to deity only have been explicitly stated in the extended prologue of John.

Sins can be forgiven by Jesus, who was actually pre-existent as well. Peter was told by Andrew (1 of the 2 disciples) 1:41 that they have been successful in finding the Messiah. Andrew considered Jesus as being the Messiah due to the testimonies of Baptizer regarding of deity of Jesus. Everyone who attended the session when John was speaking (Matthew 3:5; 4:25) was well-aware about the statements of John regarding Jesus too. Everyone in the region knew about John quite well (Mark 1:28). Rose has rightly clarified that Evangelists did not consider Jesus Christ as the Son of God as he was a Messias but they considered Him the Messias as he was the God's Son. Nathanael narrative was also understood by Hoskyns (1947) and concluded that it was way of John to provide a prologue by stating that "we saw his glory." It was only an interpretation.

Nathanael as a Prototype of Belief in Christ's Deity (John 1:48) The "Ludicrous" Response of Nathanael John's insertion of the Nathanael narrative bears investigation. It is important to ask one question that why did Nathanael burst out with eternal life's Johannine proclamation by hearing only 2 sentences about it. Did it match the purpose statement in 20:31 or not? Narrative's interpretation cannot be reconciled with Nathanael's response and Koester (1990) observed the same as well. The main reason is that this view fails to connect between the comments provided by Jesus and the royal titles Nathanael as bestowed upon Him instantly.

Koester (1990) cited Barrett (1978) and Brown (1970) by rejecting the Hebraic legal convention of "under the fig tree."

The interpretations pertaining to the concept of fig tree with reference to rabbinical study of law and prophets or a confession of sins were also considered hypothetical by him. According to Koester, this referred to the prophetic Messianic Branch where every man is under his fig tree and vine. He cited the Old Testament texts of Kings 4:25; Zechariah 3:8-10; Micah 4:4; and Maccabees 14:12. Koester believed that Nathanael interpreted Jesus as the one claiming the Davidic Messianic Branch as "King of Israel" refers to an Old Testament term used for Messiah (Koester, 1990). According to him, several allusions were associated to Jacob's (Israel's) guile and the ladder leading to heaven with angels as interpreted by John.

Koester's interpretations did not appreciate the uniqueness of the Johannine term "Son of God" despite the fact that might have correctly determined several aspects associated with this passage. According to his viewpoint, Nathanael was unaware of Jesus as the real God, and thus the Old Testament designation "God's son" presented in Samuel 7:14, Psalm 89:26-27 and Psalm 2:7 all simple refer to Messiah. Nathanael and other authors supporting his viewpoint would later on realize that God made manifest. Koester also seconded the view of authors and believed in the first level of meaning as a human Messiah. However, he did not believe in the second level pertaining to incarnate deity. Many passages within Midrash, Dead Sea Scrolls and other rabbinic sources presented the same concept which considered Branch as Messiah, Son of God and King of Israel, especially by the Jews belonging to the NT period (Koester, 1990).

The concept of considering Son of God to be purely Messianic rather than divine has been broadly accepted. However, the question arises that whether this human messianic interpretation is adequate enough to explain the response of Nathanael. Does the two brief sentences from Christ to Nathanael determine his proclamation about Christ? What reason does Nathanael consider valid for Jesus, if Christ referred to fig tree only for referring to the passages of the Old Testament? Nathanael's dramatic utterance does matches with John's stated purpose in 20:31 coincidentally, yet it cannot explain this view. It was cleverly notified by Lindars (1972) that Nathanael hold a daring confession of faith which represents a complete contrast with the contemptuous question presented in verse 46. This makes him strike as ludicrous and also makes the modern reader interpret his view as an impossible conclusion drawn from Jesus's display of insight (Wilson, 2006).

Christ officially pronounced Nathanael as a true Israelite who did not possess any kind of deceit and was a person without guile. This seemed to be a very strange occurrence as he hand never met the man. Due to this Nathanael inquired how he came to know about him and did not ask as to where he heard that statement. Jesus's next sentence is strong and catchy enough to convince sceptical Nathanael of Philip's regarding the concept of Messiah. This is the point where Jesus has inspired this disciple. Jesus replied that he encountered Nathanael under the fig tree before Philip had called him. Now the question arises that how this answer could satisfy Nathanael regarding Christ being the Messiah? Several persons referred in New Testament and Old Testament possessed supernatural knowledge or vision, yet this sentence could not convince a devout sceptical Jew than the human who was speaking was Yahweh (Wilson, 2006).

The Deity View Best Explains His Response

Numerous incidents have indicated visions that were been observed at the time of Christ's epitome were unusual. According to John this seems abnormal. Jesus has never mentioned that he has envisioned Nathanael. Significantly, the attention is pulled down to one concept that why has Nathanael declared 'Jesus as the heir to the God' and 'King of Israel?' Various studies have proven that Nathanael has studied about Jesus to the core of it than any other modern authors have actually done. An unbeliever like Nathnael should not have cried out loud the proclamation of a messiah which has been resulted in seeing a vision and the character of him was been judged by such a man who he had never met before (Schnackenburg, 1982).

Hence, Nathnael purely believed in Jesus as 'the Son of God' and 'the King of Israel (Messiah) because of the reference that Jesus has given in the concept of fig tree.

According to our believes and values Nathnael should have studied Jesus more thoroughly because Nathnael gave more weight age to the words of Christ which showed him that he was the son of God and the king of Israel.

Jesus Christ declared that Nathnael was naive. What Nathnael narrated was that he heard Jesus say that Nathnael been seen under a fig tree and neither this was a vision nor was a revelation from God. According to Nathnaels point-of-view only God can judge a man's true character even from miles away. Even the figurative explanations of the fig tree cannot explain the response that was given by Nathnael. As said by Ellis (1986) "Jesus had immense knowledge over the topic of the fig tree. There is no figurative importance quoted over here." Many authors- Gaebelein (1965), Gill (2003), Godet (1886), Matthew Henry (1996), Pink (1999), Reymond (1990), Walvoord (1947), Westcott (1978), and many others, perceive this study as indicating omniscience. Even though the authors who view Jesus as the son of God and believed in what Nathnael said, see Jesus Christ as the one who has divine knowledge which has also been highlighted by John.

The supernal concept of Jesus exactly reflects John's mind which has been stated in Chapter 1 and his book. In his Gospel, John starts with a metaphysical declaring in which Christ becomes a human and the authors record this as a witness of John that I have seen and researched that Jesus is the son of God. In v.41, this was evidence from Andrew. It is said that we have found the one that is profound, the Messiah (which is translated as the JesPhilip also joins in the league by saying that We have found Him of whom Moses in the law and also of the prophets wrote). Clearly the purpose of writing Gospel made sense since the two titles were been discussed in it that were Jesus was the 'son of God' and 'Messiah' as stated in Johns introduction which clearly focused on God becoming human in order to wash away the sin of the universe (Wilson, 2006).

John's vision of writing Gospel was extremely clear: But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God, and believing you may have life in His name. The Christological confessions showcase the eternal life that has been introduced in Chapter 1. Nathnael got to hear it from John that the Messiah is coming and has also experienced His glory. That is why the Christological truths were exclaimed by Nathnael. Some authors insist human messianic reference to 'Son of God', John has already talked about the 'begotten son' of God as the heavenly logos of creation (Wilson, 2006).

His sacrificial future has already been announced in the shape of Lamb of God who actually takes away the sins that are in the world. The God-man had the force to christen with God who is the Holy Spirit. John attested and proved that Jesus was the Son of God. Therefore, this all concluded that we should agree what Nathnael had to say about Jesus that he is the 'Son of God' as well as the 'King of Israel'. This gauges and sums up that the introductory chapter, the book and the perception of Nathnael do coincide at one point showcasing that it was preexistent God who became man (Fennema, 1985).

Arguments for Messianic vs. Divine Meanings

It has been argued by Dunn (1980) on the narrow view made over time related to Christ's deity. Assuming a later time or date for Gospel of John. In the point-of-view of Dunn (1980) the basic meaning of Son of the God is basically either the God's representative or it can be His descendent but there are many more different meanings that exist in Greek and Hebrew literature.

At the end it is stated that with respect of the johannine view that the divine sonship is stranded in the pre-existence so whatever the basic content is but the meaning cannot be mistaken by the readers.

It is explained by Hawton (1963) that there is no specific proof that the title of Son of God has ever became a Messianic. In a few words Cullmann (1963) also summed up that the concept of a true messianic Son of God.

The major difficulty is that there is no known literature that calls Messiah the Son of God and so if possibly or theoretically the Jewish Messiah was called as the Son of God but there is so much lack of evidence that it can be predicted on these basis that this title wasn't an essential attribute and also according to the New Testament this title of Son of God can never be the result of the Christ messianic calling (Wilson, 2006).

The title of the Son of God given by election and not by any sort of divine conception and the term can be thought of as the Jesus deity in the Gospel, Cullmann (1963).

The evangelist, in a very literal sense means it, when he calls the logos God and this is also has been confirmed in the Gospel's conclusion when Thomas said My Lord and My God to the Christ (John 20:28).

With this last critical 'witness' the evangelist finishes a circle and proceeds to his preface. If God has exposed himself in the time of Christ that in this life the entire completeness of the heavenly glory had become obvious (John 1:14ff), then Jesus should have also been God's disclosure to men and so from the very start when someone thinks of the God he should also think of Jesus Christ (Cullmann, 1963).

A distinction was posited by a Roman Catholic author Mlakuzhyil (1987) who believed that the word Son of God had a much deeper me metaphysical meaning of the divine sonship and so it is basically in the latter sense that the term is used in the end and because it come immediately after the confession of Thomas in the glory and lordship of Christ.

Mlakuzhyil (1987) have also differentiated amongst the Son and the Son of the God and unlike the term the son of the God the term the Son mostly tells the noble sonship of Christ to God.

The whole time in John's Gospel Christ has claimed that he had the power to give eternal life, bring back to life the dead and to be the eternal judge.

These sorts of arguments lead in the advantage of deity for Son of the God but one thing should be kept in mind that the difference between the functional and ontological deity must be considered for sure.

Functional vs. Ontological Deity

Kasper (1976) understood that the term Son of God as a title of relationship via determination to service from relatively something that is based upon real meaning.

The Christ however assert to speak and act in God's place and to be in a communion with God that is unique and so this claim shows something unique in the religion's history that cannot be sufficiently expressed by both the Jewish-theocratic and the Hellenistic-essential perspective of Son of the God.

But in contrary to this Carson (1991) wrote that Christ's sonship to God basically involves a metaphysical and not a messianic relationship. De Jonge (1977) wrote that play acting and function and nature does not make any sense against each other.

Fourth Gospel is dealing with the nature of the Son with his Father in a mythical discourse. But on the other hand Tenney (1948) has been agreed that there was a unity of fellowship between the Father and Jesus which actually started of the unity of nature.

Harris (1992) said that, even though admittedly the New Testament Christology is functional, God is Christological label that is principally ontological in nature.

The assumption of functional Christology is ontological Christology and Christ did godly functions because he is divine. Murray's scrupulous study of Theos seats the climax of John's preface at v. 18, thus linking the pre-existent Logos.

The evangelist thus indicates that the acceptance of the Messiah ship of Jesus essentially involves faith in his deity (Harris, 1992). Bauchkam (1999) has disagreed for differences in John's presentation of Jesus belong innately to who God is, relatively than trying to make clear his nature.

The Jewish perspective of God was rational rather than metaphysical. Only afterwards did the Greek pressure shift the importance from Godly identity. Judaism professed Yahweh's individuality as the one and only Creator and Ruler of everything. Just the Yahweh as God got special worship as the only true God (John 9:35).

The major problem occurs here with John 9:35 that a Jewish man worships another man in reply to being told that he was actually speaking and seeing Son of God/Man. Moreover the Son of God must indicate divinity, or the Son of Man should disclose divinity.

Not matter for which ever reason the man worshiped the title of Son of God/Man, it appears that the person having this title deserved to be worship as God. With this instance, the follower proves the title Son of God/Man was adequate for worship of a human as Yahweh. Von Wahlde (2004) said that John (5:19 -30) controlled the vital convictions of Johannine Christology. It is also written in v. 20 that Christ explains particularly that the Father loves the Son and let him see all that he does himself.

Jesus explains particularly that he has been provided with the authority to give life and the authority to judge and these authorities are most traits of God the Father himself. Although not as important to a Jewish person, the previous logos with omniscience and omnipresence will actually plea to a Greek reader (Smalley, 1998), and also being understood by a Jewish person. Dunn (1980) has mentioned related to John 1:14 that the avant-garde importance of v. 14 may be that it basically mark not only the evolution in the thinking of the poem from pre-existence to manifestation, but even the change from impersonal representation to actual person. It was actually the basic purpose of John that to make believe that Jesus is the Christ and he is the Son of the God and also to have faith in his name (John 1:12). Something that cannot be seen in the Gospel is that Jesus is God (YHWH) and it should not be astonishing for a monotheistic society. Neither do we discover the sentence which says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God and that is factual still in the Pauline body.

As a consequence, Hengel (1976) debated that sonship give the idea that it is an activity of God to a certain extent than sameness with God, such that monotheism was managed in early Christianity and in John's own mind. Yet this hardly does fair dealing to the framework of John's Gospel. The Christians' acknowledgment of Christ's divinity proceeded from individuality in the association, in godly attributes (the two basic fundamentals that thrive in the Gospel of John). It has been acclaimed in the introduction of John the pre-existence of Christ with God as God.

His pre-existence was alleged six times in the heaven with God. There are four places where the omniscience of Christ can be seen (1:47; 2:24; 4:16-18; 6:64). John even stated that Jesus knew all and this Lamb of God has come to take the sins away of the world (1:29-30).

There are almost ten places in John to Son with the Jesus saying Son of God and the Son of man that can be interchangeable.

Opposing to Cullmann's (1963) declaration, only a public announcement of his sonship could have approved the decree Jews to blame him of sameness with God (10:36). In 19:7, the Jews' appeal to Pilate for Jesus fatality was based upon His declaration to be the ultimate Son of God, not just the Messiah and even Jesus had called himself the Son of God in 5:25 and 10:36.

Jesus educated that it was his one and only privilege to award everlasting life and to act as eternal judge, as bestowed by the Father (Hengel, 1976). These point towards a godly person, although the word "deity" is not used. Burke (2001) wrote, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology that whereas Son of God and Messiah are related in the Gospel of John, godly prerogatives for himself. Jesus has been blamed by Jews of making himself equal to God and they lay blame on him of putting himself right at the height of God, by admitting to do all that God does when actually he has not even been appointed by the God himself. So they think that Jesus has done some sort of blasphemy by making these declarations, they think that he has insulted God. Different Views on Messiah and Son of God Jesus' divinity go beyond hopes, Witherington (1990) and Nicol (1972) plus the others said that the Jews were not thinking anything apart from a human Messiah. There was an accurate assessment made by Edersheim (1993) who said that there was no formation of a Divine Personality but saw a belief of the Messiah as superhuman (1993). But even on the basis of the superhero theory, this notion of Messiah does not do fair dealing to the obviously divine depiction of Jesus as found in John's Gospel. According to Liddon (1869) who educated at Oxford about 100 years back said that St. John, away from any other of the sacred writers, is the constant indication and teacher of our Lord's Divinity