We not proceed from the pre-existence of Christ to His deity for a very good reason. While the concept of the pre-existence of Christ does not require the deity of Christ, the deity of Christ does require the pre-existence of Christ. If His pre-existence is eternal, then His deity is established.
What must be in order for what is to be what it is? If the authors of the Bible believed that the Messiah existed from all eternity, how would they express that idea in Hebrew and Greek? What words would they use? They would have to use whatever contemporary words and phrases meant "eternity" or "before the creation of the world."
What if they did not believe in the eternal pre-existence of the Messiah? Then they would not use such words. And when we open up the Bible what do we find?
Following the traditional Jewish hermeneutic, Micah 5:22 is given a messianic interpretation in Matthew 2:6 and John 7:41-42. This was perfectly in line with the Septuagint, the Targums, and the early Jewish writings.
Micah 5:2 not only states that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but also that He pre-existed His birth from all eternity:
Micah 5:2 (NASB) "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."
While the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, He did not begin to exist at Bethlehem. His "goings forth" (Greek: ἔξοδοι αὐτόυ) stretch back beyond the womb to:
| English | Hebrew | Greek |
|---|---|---|
| "long ago" | קֶדֶם | ἀπ’ ἀρχῆ |
| "days of eternity" | יוֹם עוֹלָם | έξ ἠμερῶν αἰῶνος |
Micah 5:2 is an example of Hebrew parallelism in which the second phrase expands upon and goes beyond the first phrase to deepen its meaning. In this sense, you go from the lesser to the greater as you proceed from the first phrase to the second phrase. It is a classic example of climactic parallelism.
The first word "long ago" is found many times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and has several different meanings depending on the context. When used geographically, it refers to east as opposed to west (i.e. Isa 9:12; Eze 25:10). When used chronologically, it means "before" (i.e. Pro 8:22). It is also used to describe the eternity of God in Deu 33:27; Psa 74:12; and Hab 1:12.
Since Micah is using climactic parallelism, he begins by saying that the "goings forth" of the Messiah took place "a very long time ago." How far back "his goings forth" goes is determined by the words of the second phrase.
The Hebrew word "eternity" used in the second phrase, is found in the Old Testament 420 times. Langescheidt defines it as:
time immemorial, time past, eternity, distant future, duration, everlasting time, life time; pl. ages, endless time.
All the standard Hebrew Lexicons and grammars agree with Langenscheidt. It is a word which was used to contrast one thing to another. The mountains are seemingly "everlasting" when contrasted with the brief life span of man (Hab 3:6). But when used of God in such places as Psalms 90:2, it means that He is eternal in contrast to the universe which had a beginning and will have an end.
In Micah 5:2, the prophet emphasizes that the Messiah not only pre-existed "a long time ago," but He has in fact existed "from eternity!" In Lange's Commentary, Kleinnert pointed out that Micah's use of the word "eternity" "gives a strict proof of the antemundane life of the Messiah." Laetsch's Commentary states that "eternity" here means "the timeless eons of eternity."
Some liberal commentators have attempted to reduce "the days of eternity" to just "a long time ago." But this is grammatically faulty because they are going backwards. In this kind of parallelism, you go from the lesser to the greater and not the other way around. Thus, the parallelism in Micah 5:2 reveals that the Messiah was "from a long time ago," i.e., "from days of eternity."
This understanding of Micah 5:2 is clearly in line with the pre-Christian Jewish interpretations of the text. The Septuagint translates "from long ago" as ἀπ’ ἀρχῆ, meaning that the Messiah pre-existed "from the Beginning," i.e., He was there at the Creation event. Micah's use of the word ἀρχῆ in Micah 5:2 is paralleled to Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
The Septuagint goes on to translate "from days of eternity" as "to days of eternity." This indicates that the Messiah existed before Creation. Since the space/time universe was created at the beginning, the concept of "eternity" is used in the Bible to describe what transpired "before" Creation (Mat 25:34; Eph 1:4, etc.).
The Greek word αἰώνιος "eternity" is the word used by the Greeks to indicate eternity. The use of αἰώνιος in the second phrase as a magnification of ἀρχῆ in the first phrase reveals that the pre-existence of the Messiah extends before the Creation of all things described in Genesis 1:1, to eternity itself. Bagster's English translation of the Septuagint correctly renders it as:
... his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity.
When we turn to the New Testament, we are told the same exact thing. The Apostle John says:
John 1:1 (NASB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Greek verb ην "was" is the imperfect of εἰμί "eimi" and indicates that the Word already existed when the Beginning began. Rienecker and Rogers point out:
The imperf. expresses continuous timeless existence (Bernard), and is contrasted with εγενετο of v.3 (Barrett).
Murray Harris, at one time Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge, points out that:
Since the Greek Bible begins with the expression ἐν ἀρχῆ ("in the beginning"), rendering רֵאשִׁית, it seems likely that John is alluding to Gen 1:1. But whereas the first verse of the Torah continues "God created," John follows with "the Word [already] existed." In Genesis the creation of the world is contemporaneous with or marks "the beginning”; in John the existence of the Word is anterior to the "the beginning"... John implies the eternal pre-existence of the Word.
John is clearly emphasizing that when the Beginning began, the Word was already in existence.
In John 17, we read:
John 17:5 (NASB) "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."
There are three things this text clearly teaches:
Once again, in the book of Colossians Paul states:
Colossians 1:16-17 (NASB) For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
The different prepositions used by Paul reveal the following points:
| Christ's Relationship to All Things |
|---|
|
Christ's eternal pre-existence forms the context of the Trinitarian doctrine of the deity of Christ. The anti-Trinitarians have always had a rough time dealing with such passages and usually avoid any serious exegesis when confronted with such texts as examined above.
The liberals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries admitted that Jesus was a real person, but denied that the Bible taught that He was deity. The Unitarian controversy of the nineteenth century generated thousands of books, booklets, and sermons attacking the Trinity and the deity of Jesus on the grounds that the Bible did not really teach such doctrines. The great question of the day was "Does the Bible teach that Jesus was divine?"
The nineteenth century Unitarian controversy produced the most detailed and sophisticated anti-Trinitarian arguments and works. Orthodox and liberal scholars debated Hebrew and Greek grammar and syntax. Although in its infancy, textual criticism was utilized by both sides.
The influence of the nineteenth century Unitarian controversy is still felt today in the writings of such groups as the Jehovah's Witnesses who still depend almost entirely on the arguments developed at that time. Watchtower books and magazines are filled with quotations from nineteenth century anti-Trinitarian works. One wonders whether anyone at the Brooklyn headquarters has read anything from the twentieth century.
The liberals did their best to undermine all the texts that Trinitarians have used for nearly two thousand years. But when the dust finally settled, the Trinitarian scholarship triumphed and the liberals grudgingly admitted that the New Testament did in fact teach that Jesus was God. But this did not mean that they were ready to become Christians. Instead, they now used the New Testament doctrine of the deity of Christ as a reason to reject Christianity.
Modern liberalism was born at the beginning of the twentieth century when the liberals shifted gears and began to argue that the New Testament idea that Jesus was God was an idea borrowed from pagan Greek mystery religions. The man Jesus had been elevated by Paul into a God due to pagan influences.
On example of modern liberalism is Thomas Sheenhan's book The First Coming. Section three of the book is entitle "How Jesus Became God." Sheehan admits that the New Testament clearly teaches:
Sheehan demonstrates from John 1:1-16; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4; Philippians 2:6-11; and Colossians 1:15-20 that the New Testament teaches the eternal pre-existence and deity of Christ. But does this lead Sheehan to become a Christian? By no means.
Sheehan asserts that Jesus was turned into God by the Gentile converts who flooded into the early church. They drew upon their pagan religious background and turned Jesus into a God patterned after Demeter, Dionysos, Orpheus, Isis, Osiris, Cybele, Attis, Atargais, Adonis, and Mithra. We are once again back to the old Wrede-Boussett thesis.
Sheehan is not unique in his reliance on Wrede and Boussett. The same problem surfaces in P.M. Casey's From Jewish Prophet To Gentile God, John Hick's Myth of God Incarnate, and hundreds of other liberal books. Even Bultmann, in his introduction to the 5th edition of Boussett's Kyrios Christos, admitted that his work was built on the a priori assumption of the validity of Boussett's thesis!
The liberals first said that the Trinitarians were wrong because the Bible not not teach the Trinity. Then the liberal said that the Trinitarians were wrong because the Bible did teach the Trinity. It would seem that even when the Trinitarians are proven right, the liberal still said they are wrong! This reveals an underlying anti-Christian bias at work.
Of course, as we have already documented, the Wrede-Boussett thesis upon which modern liberalism rests, cannot be reconciled with the literature of early Judaism. Both Wrede and Boussett were grossly ignorant of this literature. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was the last straw which broke the back of the idea that the Christology of the New Testament is pagan in origin.
Why then do so many modern liberal still assume the Wrede-Boussett thesis? As Hendrikus Boers points out, Boussett's:
Kyrios Christos remains unchallenged. This applies not only to its fundamental concept of the origin and development of NT Christology, but also to its methodology and its presentation of the Christology of the NT. The fact that NT scholarship has moved beyond it on many points makes it all the more unfortunate.
The only reason the Wrede-Boussett thesis remains a pillar of modern liberalism is that it has proven itself a quick and easy apologetic against biblical Christianity. This is why atheists and skeptics love it so much. The secret of its survival must be traced back to anti-Christian bigotry.
If the authors of the New Testament believed that Jesus was God as well as man, how would they express that idea? What words would they use to indicate that He is God as well as man? Trinitarians assume that the authors would use the same words which they used to indicate the deity of the Father.
Trinitarians begin with the assumption that once we accept the validity of the arguments used to prove the deity of the Father, we must accept the validity of these same arguments when applied to the Son. No amount of special pleading can overcome the simple observation that once an argument is deemed biblically and logically valid, it cannot be dismissed later on because it takes us where we do not want to go. No one should start out on the path of truth unless he is willing to accept its ultimate destination.
Did the authors of the New Testament ever use the Greek terms for God (θεός, κύριος etc.) in reference to Jesus? If they believed that He was divine, then we would expect them to do so. They would also use Hebraic terms such as "I Am." But if they did not believe that He was God, then we would not expect them to apply such terms to Jesus.
The liberal attempt in the nineteenth century to deny that Jesus as referred to as θεός "God" in the New Testament was refuted by their own scholars such as Unitarian Greek scholar Joseph Thayer. No one today bothers to deny that the word θεός is applied to Jesus in the New Testament. Such passages as John 1:1 preclude any attempt to deny this grammatical reality.
Where the disagreement comes in is the issue of the meaning and significance of the word θεός when it is applied to Jesus. Is He really called "God as in the full sense of Deity or only "a god" in a metaphorical sense like the devil or some pagan deity? This means that we must understand how the word θεός was used in the Greek New Testament.
Dr. Murray Harris has done the most extensive and exhaustive analysis of the usage of the Greek word θεός in ancient extra-biblical and biblical literature. It would be helpful to summarize his work at this point.
First, the Greek word θεός is used in the Septuagint as the translation of the following Hebrew names of God.
| Heb. equivalent | Count |
|---|---|
| אלהים (Elohim) | 2,280 |
| יהוה (YHWH) | 353 |
| אֵל (El) | 163 |
| אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) | 11 |
The Septuagint's usage of the word θεός formed the basis of its usagein the New Tetament as a generic therm indicating any and all deities in general, including the true God. It was a title of deity and not a personal name of God. Thus, it is used of Satan (2 Cor 4:40), men (Acts 14:11), pagan deities (1 Cor 8:4), and even the belly, i.e., fleshly appetites (Phil 3:19).
One question frequently asked is "If the word θεός does not have a definite article, does this mean that something less than true deity is in view? Could Jesus be θεός but not ὀ θεός?"
The word θεός appears 1,315 times in the New Testament.Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the time it appears with a definite article and 21.6% times without an article. Those unfamiliar with the Greek language often assume that when the true God is in view, the word θεός will have the article. When θεός appears without the article, the word θεός does not refer to the true God. Thus, the typical Jehovah's Witness defends their organization's translation of John 1:1c, "the Word was a god," on the basis that the word θεός does not have the article.
After his detailed analysis of the presence or absence of the article, Murray Harris concludes that generaly speaking:
ὀ θεός and θεός are often used interchangeable. It is therefore not possible to maintain that whenever θεός is anarthrous [without the article], it differs from ὀ θεός in meaning or emphasis.
[See also this file for all instances of θεός with or without an article. This file discusses the instances of anarthrous θεός in John chpt 1.]
The statistical evidence bears this out. For example, the Father is referred to as θεός without the article in such places as John 1:6, while Jesus is referred to as θεός with the article in such places as John 20:28. If the presence or absence of the article indicates whether true deity is in view, then the Father is only "a god" and Jesus is the true "God!"
But this does not mean that the presence or absence of the article never has any meaning. There are times when it has a grammatical significance. For example, in those cases where both ὀ θεός and θεός appear with the connecting word καί (kai = and) in the some verse, the Granville Sharp rule may apply. We will develop this thought later on the chapter.
There are a few other times when the absence or presence of the article before the word θεός does have a grammatical significance. But these are rare exceptions to the general rule that in the vast majority of cases, the absence or presence of the article before ὀ θεός has no significance whatsoever.
With this brief introduction, we will now examine the passages in the New Testament where Jesus is addressed as θεός "God."
John 1:1 (NASB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Wescott Hort) εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεὸν και θεὸς ην ο λογος
John used an early Aramaic Christian hymn to Christ as God as the introduction to his Gospel. It has three stanzas each having ο λογος "the Word" in focus.
When the dust finally cleared on the nineteenth century controversy over whether the meaning of the word λογος is to be sought in ancient Greek philosophy or in the Old Testament and in early Judaism, it became clear that John was referring to Jesus as the "Word of the Lord" mentioned so many times in the Old Testament, the Targums, and in other early Jewish works. Hendriksen concludes, "It is rooted not in Greek but in Semitic thought." [Ftn: Willian Hendriksen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (London: Banner, 1964), p. 70. See also Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1969), 2:25-33, for a good summary of the various theories on the meanings of Logos.] Modern commentators agree with him. [Ftn: Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 3:238; Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, 29-33; Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:6; A.T. Roberston, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashvville: Broadman, 1932), 5:3-4.]
The nineteenth century liberals had tried to inject an element of philosophic sophistication into John's use of the λογος Logos, which was nothing more than eisegesis on their part. They forgot that John was a simple man writing to a simple people and not to Greek philosophers. John's point is quite simple: Just as your words reveal what is in your mind, even so the pre-incarnate Word is the revelation of the mind of the Father (John 1:18).
Of course, there are those who are still caught in a nineteenth century time warp and think that John was referring to pagan Greek concepts of the Logos. They have yet to read the Targums or the Dead Sea Scrolls. They need to break free from the erroneous pre-archeological speculations of nineteenth century German rationalism.
εν αρχη ην ο λογος
We have already demonstrated that the first phrase refers to the eternal pre-existence of the Word. Godet explains:
The imperfect ην, was, must designate, according to the ordinary meaning of the tense, the simultaneousness of the act indicated by the verb with some other act. This simultaneousness is here that of the existence of the Word with the fact designated by the word beginning. "When everything which has begun began, the Word was." Alone then, it did not begin; the Word was already. Now that which did not begin with things, that is to say, with time, the form of the development of things, belongs to the eternal order... The idea of this first proposition is, therefore, that of the eternity of the Logos.
The modern Greek scholar Randy Yeager concludes:
Thus the Word existed before the beginning, since He has always existed. With Him there is no beginning. He is eternal and everlasting... It is impossible to avoid the force of John's grammar.
Since the deity of the Word is already established in the first phrase of John 1:1, the next two phrases in this hymn to the deity of Christ expand upon what has already been established:
... and the Word was with God
και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον
John 1:1 describes the relationship of the Word first to the Creation and then to the Father. When we think of the relationship between the Word and the Creation, the Word is not a part of the Creation because He existed "before" it. And since He is "before" it, His is not "with" it. Since the Word is not "with" the Creation, then He must be "with" the Father from all eternity. John's logic is simple and straight forward on this point.
John's use of the preposition προς "with" is significant. It implies that the Father and the Son had an intimate as well as eternal relationship. Lenski explains:
The preposition προς, as distinct from ἕως, παρά, and σύν, is of the greatest importance... The idea is that of presence and communion with a strong note of reciprocity. The Logos, then, is not an attribute inferring in God, or a power emanating from him, but a person in the presence of God and turned in loving, inseparable communion toward God and God turned equally toward him. He was another and yet not other than God.
John's use of the preposition προς is also significant in that it shows that he did not view the Logos and the Father as being the same person. They are two distinct persons in an intimate eternal relationship of fellowship and communion.
In the biblical world and life view, there are only two realities. The Creator or the Creation (Gen 1:1). The two are qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from one another. The following chart illustrates the differences between the two:
| The Creator | The Creation |
|---|---|
| infinite |
finite |
| eternal |
temporal |
| omnipresent |
limited in presence |
| omnipotent |
limited in power |
| omniscient | limited in knowledge |
| immutable | mutable |
| perfect | imperfect |
Under which column do we put the Father, angels, man, rocks, etc?
| The Creator | The Creation |
|---|---|
| the Father |
angels, man, rocks, etc. |
Angels, man, rocks, etc. are not put under the left column "with" the Father. If we made the mistake of putting them "with" the Father, they would have to be God as much as He is. No, they have to be placed "with" all other created things under the right column.
Where do we put the pre-incarnate Word? Under which column? Do we put Him "with" the Father or "with" the angels, man, rocks, etc? Does He belong under the Creator column or under the Creation column?
In the second phrase of John 1:1, John clearly places the pre-incarnate Word under the Creator column προς "with" the Father:
| The Creator | The Creation |
|---|---|
| the Father the Word |
angels, man, rocks, etc. |
Given the grammar of the Greek text and the verses which follow, we have to place the pre-incarnate Logos "with" the Father under the column marked "the Creator." That this is true is seen from verse 3.
John 1:3 (NASB) All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
With this said, let us now examine John 1:1c.
... and the Word was God.
Since the deity of the Logos was already set forth in the first two phrases of the hymn, the third phrase should not be that difficult to accept. Indeed, the hymn has been building to the climax "the Word was GOD."
In Greek syntax, when you want to emphasize a word, you take it out of its normal word order and put it as the first word of the sentence. This is particularly true with New Testament because it was intended to be read outloud.
This is the exact situation with John 1:1c. When you read John 1:1 outloud, you should emphasize the word "GOD" by raising your voice. Instead of "the Word was God," the word order of the Greek text is "God was the Word."
John assumed that the reader would put the emphasis on the word "GOD" as the climax of the hymn: "the Word was God." Any attempt to water down the word θεὸς "God" into something else than true deity is due to a failure to observe the syntax. It would be anti-climactic to say that the Logos was "a god."
The word θεὸς in John 1:1c does not have a definite article in front of it. This does not mean that we should follow the Jehovah's Witnesses and downsize it to "a god." We have already pointed out that the word "Father" is modified by θεὸς without the article. Do the Arians downsize Him into "a god" because of this? No. Then on what grounds do they do this to Christ?
The article was not placed in front of θεὸς for two very good reasons. First, in terms of Greek grammar and syntax, Colwell's Rule 20 states that when a noun is taken out of its normal word order and placed before its verb, 97% of the time it does not have an article. This is what we find in John 1:1c.
What this means is that instead of beginning with the a priori assumption that θεὸς should have and then seeking to explain why it does not have one, we should begin the other way around and assume that it should not normally have the article. Thus, anyone who thinks that it should have the article will have to justify that assumption.
The second reason θεὸς does not have the article is that it would lead the reader to the mistaken idea that the Word was the Father. Murray Harris explains:
Having just distinguished the Logos (the Son) from ὂ θεὸς in verse 1b, would he be likely immediately afterward to dissolve that personal distinction? For him to have used ὂ θεὸς in the predicate of verse 1c would have implied either that subject and predicate were identical or coextensive or that this predicate referred to none other than the ὂ θεὸς of the preceding clause. As it is, in verse 1c John maintains the distinction between the Logos and the Father that he has drawn in verse1b, while at the same time affirming the participation of the Logos in the divine essence (ὂ θεὸς).
John did not place the article ὂ in front of θεὸς in order to maintain the distinction between the Father and the Son. This is why he made that distinction once again in John 1:2.
John 1:2 (WH) ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον
The futile attempts of nineteenth century liberals to dilute the meaning of θεὸς in John 1:1c down to something less than true deity or to reduce it to the mild adjective "divine" were successfully refuted by the best Greek scholars of that day. Arian cults, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Way International, The Assemblies of Yahweh, etc., are the only ones who still use old nineteenth century arguments as if they were still valid.
John 1:18 (NASB) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 1:18 may be part of the same ancient hymn which John started quoting in verse 1. As such, it is very important to our understanding of the early Church's doctrine of the deity of Christ. Murray Harris comments:
Probably no verse has a more strategic position in the Fourth Gospel than 1:18, looking back as it does over the Prologue from its peak and also forward to the expansive plain of the Gospel narrative. Of crucial import, therefore is the interpretation of this verse and, in particular, the determination of its original text.
In the nineteenth century, before the discovery of the multitude of manuscripts we have available today, liberal scholars fought long and hard to avoid the reading "unique God" (μονογενης θεὸς). They did not want or need another New Testament text which called Jesus θεὸς. But as the manuscript evidence began to mount in its favor, even Marcus Dods reluctantly admitted, "The MS authority favours the reading θεὸς".
Today, after the manuscript evidence has overwhelmed any lingering doubts, Lenski could state:
The question of the true reading is no longer in doubt. It is μονογενὴς θεὸς and not ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, nor ὁ μονογενὴς without the substantive.
Modern commentators agree with Lenski. Hendriksen comments:
The reading the only begotten God (μονογενὴς θεὸς) instead of the only begotten Son is supported by the best and oldest manuscripts.
With the discovery of the Bodmer papyri which must be dated no later than 200 A.D., it can no longer be doubted that μονογενὴς θεὸς was the true reading of the original text. The greatest Greek scholar of the twentieth century was without a doubt A.T. Robertson. After investigating all the manuscript evidence, he concludes:
The best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenes theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ho monogenes huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like 3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called theos in verse 1. The Incarnation is stated in verse 14, where he is also termed monogenes. He was that before the Incarnation. So he is "God only begotten."
The only ones who do not admit that μονογενὴς θεὸς is the true reading of the Greek text are Arian cults who still depend almost exclusively on nineteenth century anti-Trinitarian writers.
It is thought by many modern scholars that John 1:18 is a part of the ancient hymn John is quoting. Having proclaimed the Logos "God" in verse 1 and incarnate in verse 14, the hymn now proclaims Him the "unique God" in verse 18:
John 1:18 (NASB) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John now states that the Logos ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο "is in the bosom of the Father." The tense of the verb and the preposition he uses to describe the intimate relationship between the Father and the Son should be noted. The verb ὢν is the present participle of εἰμί and clearly indicates a timeless, i.e., eternal quality to the Logos' relationship to the Father. As Lenski points out:
These are the assured grammatical facts regarding ὁ ὢν, which we should not yield when they are modified in the interest of a wrong view of the person who is truly "God Only-begotten."
The use of the present participle to indicate a timeless relationship between the Father and the Son has been noted by many other commentators. John's choice of εἰς instead of ἐν is also to be noted.
John 10:33 (NASB) The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
Often overlooked when discussing passages where the word θεὸς is applied to Jesus, the accusation of blasphemy is quite significant.
When Jesus said in verse 30, "I and the Father, we are One," the Jews rightly understood that He was saying that He and the Father were one in nature and essence. The Jews logically deduced from this that Jesus was claiming to be God. Lenski comments:
This, however, the sharp ears of these Jews at once caught, that by saying, "I and the Father, we are one," Jesus was making himself God. They caught this because it as exactly what they wanted, a word on which to base the charge of blasphemy and thus full justification for the summary inflection of the death penalty... This Jewish charge of blasphemy must stand against Jesus to this day if he, being nothing but a man, either by implication or by some direct statement (here or elsewhere) made himself God.
The words in the original are quite striking. The charge was blasphemy (βλασφημίας). This is the only time John used the word in his Gospel. The charge of blasphemy could be leveled only if Jesus was claiming to be the one true God of Israel. The contrast is, thus, not between paganism (a false god) and Judaism (the true God) but between man and God.
The crime of blasphemy was punishable by death according to Leviticus 24:16. In that passage the crime has to do with the misuse of the name Yahweh. Thus, it is the one true God which is in view and not pagan gods. Marcus Dods concludes:
It was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God. And it is noteworthy that Jesus never manifests indignation when charged with making Himself God; yet were He a mere man no one could view this sin with stronger abhorrence.
This passage is exactly what Trinitarians expect to find in the New Testament. If Jesus claimed to be God, then the unbelieving Jews would have picked up on this. They would object and charge Him with blasphemy.
On the other hand, if Jesus never claimed to be God, then we would not expect to find the charge of blasphemy leveled against Jesus. The expectations of Trinitarians are fully satisfied while the anti-Trinitarians have to scramble to find ways to wiggle out of such passages.
John 20:28 (NASB) Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Faced with irrefutable proof that Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead, he concluded that Jesus was God. The Greek text is quite clear that Thomas was addressing Jesus when he said unto him, "My Lord and my God!"
This passage is without a doubt where Arians meets its greatest defeat. The Greek text is free from variant readings. The word ὁ θεός has the definite article in front of it. The phrase is introduced by the words "he said unto Him"(εἶπεν αὐτῷ) which means the statement "My Lord and my God!" is addressed to Jesus. The grammar of the Greek is clear. The form of the address is in the vocative case. Robertson even uses John 20:28 as an example of the vocative in his Greek grammar and concludes:
When Thomas said ὁ κύριος μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου (John 20:28), he gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and of the fact of his resurrection.
There is even an Old Testament precedent in Psalm 35:24 (LXX. Psa 34:23):
Psalm 35:24 (NASB) Judge me, O LORD my God, according to Thy righteousness, And do not let them rejoice over me.
Since this psalm cleary has Yahweh in view (Psa 35:1), any attempt to interpret the words as indicating anything less than true deity would put Yahweh in jeopardy.
The nineteenth century liberal answer was to omit translating the words εἶπεν αὐτῷ "unto Him" and turn Thomas' vocative address to Jesus into a blasphemous exclamation. They claimed that Thomas was so surprised by the appearance of the resurrected Jesus that he uttered a first century version of the modern day blasphemy "O my God!" But the grammar of the text is clearly against such an idea. The famous Church historian Philip Schaff points out:
The Socinian view is worse than absurd, it turns an act of adoration into an irrelevant and profane exclamation unrebuked by the Lord! There is no instance of such profane use of the name of God in exclamations.
Marcus Dods agrees:
The words are not a mere exclamation of surprise. This is forbidden by εἶπεν αὐτῷ; they mean "Thou art my Lord and my God." the repeated pronoun lends emphasis.
We must remember that first century Jews did not go around using God's name in vain as people do so flippantly today. To insert a modern form of blasphemy into a first century text is not exegesis but eisegesis.
Most liberals now admit that Jesus is called God by Thomas. Even Bultmann admitted, "Jesus is undoubtedly designated more more exactly, addressed as God." The liberal Catholic theologian Raymond Brown admits:
Here Jesus is addressed as God (ὁ θεός μου), with the articular nominative serving as a vocative.
Once again, the only ones trying to carry on the nineteenth century blasphemy argument are modern day Arian cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses or a few old-fashioned liberals who seem to be totally unaware of modern scholarship within their own camp.
John's Gospel begins with the statement that the pre-incarnate Christ was God (John 1:1). It continues that theme by showing that He claimed to be God during His ministry (John 10:30-33). It then ends with Him worshipped as God by the disciples (John 20:28). Could anything be clearer?
Acts 20:28 (NASB) "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
It never ceases to amaze that Arians will ignore the established rules of textual criticism whenever those rules support Trinitarianism. For example, one well establish rule is that the more difficult or controversial the reading, the more likely it was the original text.
Why do we say this? If you were given the responsibility of copying the text of Scripture, what would you think when you came to some words which seemed strange or controversial to you? Would you not be tempted to think that the scribe before you must have made a slip of the pen and that you should replace the difficult reading with simple or non-controversial wording?
The reverse rule is just as obvious. If the wording of a text is quite simple and straightforward, would there be any reason for you to make it difficult or odd? No. We all naturally want to make things go from the difficult to the simple, from the strange to the familiar. And this is why there are nine variant readings in Acts 20:28. They came from the natural desire of scribes to correct what was perceived by them to be mistakes made by the scribes before them.
The two rules mentioned above are well established and utilized by all scholars. Acts 20:28 is a classic example of this process. As we approach the text, Murray Harris reminds us:
There can be no objection (on broad a priori grounds) to understanding the verse to refer to Jesus, for elsewhere the NT refers to Jesus as θεός and depicts him as acquiring the church through his death.
Of course, as we have repeatedly emphasized, anti-Trinitarians begin with the a priori assumption that Jesus is not called θεός "God" in the New Testament. Thus, when they are confronted with texts which contradict that assumption, they will often ignore the normal rules of textual criticism.
It is important to point out that the doctrine of the Trinity is not jeopardized if "the church of the Lord" is found to be the best reading. Trinitarians are happy either way because neither "God" nor "Lord" threaten their belief system. They have the luxury of following the textual evidence to an objective conclusive.
On the other hand, Arians do have a tremendous problem if "the church of God" ends up the best reading. The phrase "the church of God" in and of itself is not controversial. But if it is the best reading, then the pronoun "his" in the next phrase ("his own blood") would grammatically have to refer to the immediate antecedent which is "God."
This would mean that God shed His blood for us. Since this is surely a reference to Jesus, then He is here called θεός. Thus, the belief system of the Arians is jeopardized if θεός is allowed to stand. They have to support "Lord" instead of "God" for theological reasons instead of following the normal rules of textual criticism.
All the critical evidence is in favor of the words the "church of God" (τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ). This is now supported by nearly all modern textual critics, grammarians, commentators, and translators. Since they all go into great detail on the manuscript evidence, we will not do so here. The reason there was so much controversy over this text in the nineteenth century is explained by Heinrich Meyer:
With the reading τοῦ θεοῦ this passage was a peculiarly important locus for the doctrine of the divinity of Christ and the communicatio idiomatum against the Socinians.
The Socinians and their descendants the Unitarians did their best to defuse this text before it blew up in their faces. But in the end, they had to admit that "God" and not "Lord" was no doubt the original reading.
How did the variant readings arise? Given the fact that the word θεός would imply tat Paul is referring to "the blood of God," some scribes replaced the word θεός with the word κύριος "Lord" because they felt that it would be more normal to speak of the "blood of the Lord [Jesus]." Also, the word θεός might give the wrong idea that the Father's blood was shed. Raymond Brown explains:
One very plausible reason why some scribes may have changed "God" to "Lord" is that a reading which has God shedding blood seems to smack of Patripassianism.
Patripassianism is the ancient heresy which says that the Father died for our sins on the cross. In order to avoid this heresy, some scribes replaced "God" with "Lord."
The same holds for the variant readings for the phrase "with his own blood." Which is more likely? Would a scribe be more likely to change the wording from "with his [i.e., God's] blood" to "with the blood of His own [Son]" or to change "with the blood of His own [Son]" to "with his [i.e., God's] blood?" Obviously, the more difficult and controversial reading would be "with his [i.e., God's] blood."
There wold be no reason to change a statement about the blood of Jesus as this is referred to elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom 3:25; 5:9; Eph 1:7, etc.). But to speak of the "blood of God" would seem strange. Thus the propensity to change the strange to the familiar and the controversial to the non-controversial would favor "with his own blood" as the original text instead of "by the blood of his own [Son]."
This is further confirmed by the numerous references to "the blood of God" in the Apostolic Fathers. They clearly derived the phrase from Acts 28:20. Given all the evidence, Yeager rightly concludes, "Jesus Christ our Lord, is here called God."
Romans 9:5 (NASB) whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Although there are no significant variant readings, this is the most discussed text on the subject of the deity of Christ. It is so controversial because if it is a doxology to Christ, then not only is Jesus here referred to as θεός but He is also here worshipped as God! It is the doxological factor that drives the anti-Trinitarians into a frenzy.
Arians can handle a few scattered references to Christ as θεός as long as they can be reduced to "a god." But a doxology is clearly an act of worship to true deity. Thus, a doxology to Christ as God cannot be reduced to anything less than the worship of true deity. This is why a storm of criticism broke out on this text in the nineteenth century.
Today, most commentators, grammarians, exegetes, etc., have come to the conclusion that Romans 9:5 is a doxology to Christ as God. If the sentence had been found in a secular writer of the first or second century, there would be no controversy over its translation or punctuation. As Canon Liddon in his Bampton lectures at Oxford University points out, a doxology to Christ as God:
is the natural sense of the passage. If the passage occurred in a profane author and its essence and structure alone had to be considered, few critics would think of overlooking the antithesis between "the Christ according to the flesh" and "God blessed." Still less possible would it be to destroy this antithesis outright, and to impoverish the climax of the whole passage, by cutting off the doxology from the clause which precedes it, and so erecting it into an independent ascription of praise to God the Father.
We translate the Greek text as follows:
and from whom, as far as his human nature is concerned, is the Messiah, who is sovereign over all things, God blessed forever. Amen.
As we have already pointed out, the working assumption which underlies this text is the dual nature of the Messiah. Hendriksen comments:
This item serves as a fitting climax. From them, that is, from the Israelites (see verse 4) Christ derived his human nature. He was and is a Jew. What a source of intense satisfaction and rejoicing this should be for Jews! The apostle hastens to add that although Jesus is indeed a Jew, he is also much more than a Jew. Though he has a human nature, he also has a divine nature. He is God! It should be clear that when Paul says, "Christ, who is over all God blest forever," he confesses Christ's deity.
In his Word Studies, A.T. Robertson writes:
A clear statement of deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after "flesh" (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. So Acts 20:28 and Titus 2:13 for Paul's use of "theos" applied to Jesus Christ.
That this is the correct interpretation is based on the following considerations:
The relative who must agree with the nearest antecedent. There is no other subject in the context sufficiently prominent to make a departure from this ordinary rule, in this case, even plausible.
Dean Alford points out, "The rendering ... is the only one admissible by the rules of grammar and arrangement. Raymond Brown comments:
This interpretation would mean that Paul calls Jesus God. From a grammatical viewpoint this is clearly the best reading. Also, the contextual sequence is excellent; for having spoken of Jesus' descent according to the flesh, Paul now emphasizes his position as God.
Christ is over all, i.e., the supreme Lord. This apposition is complete in itself. If no more were added, this apposition makes Christ God, for we have yet to hear of one who is "over all" and is not God.
The awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their explanations, or rather perversions, of the Word of God, are in nothing more obvious than in their attempts to evade the meaning of this celebrated testimony to the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ. They often shelter themselves under various readings; but here they have no tenable ground for an evasion of this kind. Yet, strange to say, some of them have, without the authority of manuscripts, alter the original, in order that it may suit their purpose. There is no difficulty in the words—no intricacy in the construction; yet, by a forced endeavored to turn away this testimony from its obvious import. Contrary to the genius and idiom of the Greek—as had often been incontrovertibly shown—they substitute "God be blessed"... Such tortuous explanations are not only rejected by a sound interpretation of the original, but manifest themselves to be unnatural, even to the most illiterate who exercises an unprejudiced judgment.
Philippians 2:5b-6 (NASB) ... Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Once again we are dealing with what may be an ancient Aramaic hymn sung to Christ as God. In this hymn, the deity of Christ is confirmed in two ways. Not only in the word θεὸς applied to Christ, but His equality with the Father is also confirmed. The Greek text literally reads:
... who being and remaining to be in essence God, did not regard His equality with God as something to take advantage of.
This passage was hotly debated for over two centuries and the literature on it is quite extensive. Given the confines of this chapter, we can only summarize the results of our research which covered much of this literature:
The present participle ὑπάρχων stands in sharp contract with all the aorists which follow it, and therefore points in the direction of continuance of being: Christ Jesus was and is eternally "in the form of God."
Before His descent from heaven, Jesus Christ was the essence of God. During His time on earth, He was the essence of God. After His ascension back to heaven, He was the essence of God. And today Jesus is still the essence of God. As Wuest points out, this is the impact of Paul's use of the present participle.
The nineteenth century Kenosis controversy would have never happened if the Unitarians would have begun with the significance of the present participle ὑπάρχων. Instead, they fixated on the phrase, "emptied Himself" and mistakenly thought that these words meant that Jesus "emptied himself" of His deity at His incarnation. But this erroneous idea is exactly what Paul deliberately tried to avoid when he used the present participle.
Since the word μορφῇ was used in the Septuagint, it has an Old Testament, i.e., Semitic, background. As the author of The Expositor's Greek Testament points out:
In LXX μορφῇ denotes the form, appearance, look or likeness of someone, that by which those beholding him would judge him... the word had come, in later Greek, to receive a vague, general meaning, far removed from the accurate, metaphysical content which belonged to in in writers like Plato and Aristotle. It seems, therefor, to us of little value ... to discuss the relation of μορφῇ to terms such as ἰχε, φύσες, εἶδος in their philosophical refinements. It is far more probable that Paul uses μορφῇ here "in a loose, popular sense, as we use 'nature'" (Guardian, Jan. 1, 1896). He means, of course, in the strictest sense that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. For μορφῇ always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it.
After all the word studies of μορφῇ and the contrasts made between it and the word σχήματι "fashion" found in verse 7, nearly all commentators now agree that the word μορφῇ refers to the inner essence or nature of something while σχήματι refers only to the outward appearance.
J.B. Lightfoot: "μορφῇ implies not the external accidents but the essential attributes."
R.C. Trench: "... none could be ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ("in the form of God") who was not God... μορφῇ like the Latin "forma," the German "gestalt" signifies the form as it is the utterance of the inner life; not "being," but "mode of being" or better, "mode of existence"; and only God could have the mode of existence of God.
A.T. Robertson: "Morphe means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.
M.R. Vincent: "μορφῇ is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχήματι fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form... As applied here to God, the word [μορφῇ] is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.... To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (verse 7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being.
W. Hendriksen: "... morphe or form refers to the inner, essential, and abiding nature of a person or thing, while schema or fashion points to his or its external, accidental, and fleeting bearing or appearance. What Paul is saying then, here in Phil. 2:6 is that Christ Jesus had always been (and always continues to be) God by nature, the express image of the Deity. The specific character of the Godhead as this is expressed in all the divene attributes was and is his eternally.
The words are actually and idiomatic expression signifying that although Jesus was and remained to be equal with God (being in nature the very essence of deity), He did not take advantage of this situation but was willing to be incarnate as a human being and to die for us on the cross. N.T. Wright explains:
The idiom here used clearly assumes that the object in question—in this case equality with God—is already possessed. One cannot decide to take advantage of something one does not already have. If, therefore, there is to be any ultimate distinction of meaning between Christ's being in the form of God and Christ possessing τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ ("grasp equality with God") such a distinction does not, at least, involve seeing either phrase as referring to something less than divinity and/or the honors pertaining to that state.
Rienecker and Rogers put it this way:
Christ did not use His equality with God in order to snatch or gain power and dominion, riches, pleasure, worldly glory.
Philippians 2:7 (NASB) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
In contrast to the present participle, Paul now uses the aorist tense to refer to the incarnation as an completed act. Jesus laid aside His glory and took upon Himself the form of a servant, being found in σχήματι "fashion" as a man. "The word [σχήματι] was used of a king who exchanged his kingly robe for sackcloth.
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for you He became poor while being and remaining to rich, that you through His poverty might become rich.
Paul did not use the aorist tense to say that Christ "was" at one time rich, but was no longer rich. Instead, he used the word ὤν which is a present participle. Greek grammars have pointed out that the use of the present participle in such cases is concessive. One example is found in Hebrews 5:8. The NASB translates it as:
Hebrews 5:8 (NASB) Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.
Did Jesus cease to be the Son of God when He learned obedience? No. Paul would have had to use the aorist to say that. Instead, he used the present participle ὤν to indicate that while being and remaining to be the Son of God, He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. His suffering is all the more wondrous because He was the royal Son throughout His life.
In the same way, when Paul used the present participle ὤν in 2 Cor 8:9 he is saying that while being and remaining to be rich, Jesus did not take advantage of His riches but He willingly lived as a poor man for us. Thus the mental picture is not that of a rich man who lost all his money and became poor, but that of a rich man who, while remaining rich, did not take advantage of those riches, but lived among us as a poor man.
This is why the use of the present participle in Philippians 2:6 "being and remaining to be in essence God" is so important. The Son of God did not empty Himself of His deity as some nineteenth century Unitarians mistakenly thought. Most modern liberals as well as conservatives now accept the orthodox interpretation as the obvious grammatical meaning of the text. Rienecker and Roger comment:
The word does not mean He emptied Himself of His deity, but rather, He emptied Himself of the display of His deity for personal gain. The word is a graphic expression of the completeness of His self-renunciation and His refusal to use what He had to His own advantage.
The point of the Apostle is not what Christ could have become or could have gained if He wanted. But, rather, Christ did not take advantage of His deity, which was always His by nature. Howard Marshall comments:
The point is, not that Christ gave up any divine attributes, but simply that he did not behave as one who was equal with God might have been expected to behave, but as a humble servant.
The deity of Christ and His dual natures are both clearly in view in this ancient hymn.
2 Thessalonians 1:12 (NASB) so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
Most English versions follow the KJV in making a distinction between God and Christ by adding the article "the" in front of the word "Lord." Thus, in most translations it reads: "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." But the Greek text is quite straightforward that the theos "God" referred to is none other than Jesus Christ:
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
our God and Lord Jesus Christ
There are three different issues:
The Granville Sharp rule states that when two nouns of the same case are separated by the word "kai," with the first noun having the article in front of it, but the second noun without the article, only one person is in view and is, thus, being described by both nouns. In contrast, when both nouns have a definite article, then two persons are in view. There are many New Testament passages which would not make any sense whatsoever if this rule was not observed.
But does this rule apply when the nouns in question are names or titles such as θεὸς? Some commentators have answered in the negative. But there are many passages whose interpretation would be impossible unless we applied Sharp's rule to them. For example, in Luke 20:37 the word θεὸς appears once with the article and then two times without the article.
τὸν θεὸν Ἀβραὰμ καὶ θεὸν Ἰσαὰκ καὶ θεὸν Ἰακώβ.
The God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.
The absence of the article before the second and third occurrence of the word θεὸν in reference to "God of Isaac" and "God of Jacob" means that there is only one God in view, "the God of Abraham." Thus, the God of Isaac and Jacob was not a different God from the God of Abraham. Clearly Sharp's rule is needed to interpret this text.
For this reason, most Greek grammarians have stated that Jesus is called both God and Lord in 2 Thess. 1:12. We, thus, arrive at an interesting situation where the grammarians disagree with the majority of commentators who mainly for theological reasons do not want to follow a strict grammatical interpretation of the Greek text.
As A.T. Robertson points out, Winer "bases his objection on doctrinal grounds, a matter that does not per se concern the grammarian." Examples of modern commentators allowing their theology to control the meaning of a text instead of the context or grammar are not hard to find.
It should be the other way around. If we do not allow the grammar of the text to dictate our theology, we will end up arguing in a circle. Princeton's B.B. Warfield explains:
It will probably be allowed that in strictness of grammatical rule, rigidly applied, this should mean "according to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ," or if we choose so to phrase it, "according to the grace of our God, even the Lord Jesus Christ." All sorts of reasons are advanced, however, why the strict grammatical rule should not be rigidly applied here. Most of them are ineffective enough and testify only to the reluctance of expositors to acknowledge that Paul can speak of Christ as God.... This "exegetical uncertainty" is in each case imposed upon the passage by reluctance to take it in the sense which it most naturally bears, and which is exegetically immediately given... The reason is distinctly circular which denies to each of these passages in turn its natural meaning on the ground of lack of supporting usage, when this lack of supporting usage is created by a similar denial on the same ground of its natural meaning to each of the other passages. The ground of the denial in each case is merely the denial in the other cases. Meanwhile the usage is there, and is not thus to be denied away. If it may be, any usage whatever may be destroyed in the same manner. In these circumstances there seems no reason why the ordinary laws of grammar should not determine our understanding of 2 Thess 1:12.
Warfield is not the only scholar who believes that 2 Thess 1:12 calls Jesus both God and Lord. Note the following comments:
A.T. Robertson: Here strict syntax requires, since there is only one article with θεοῦ and κυρίου that one person be meant, Jesus Christ, as is certainly true in Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1.
Schmiedel: grammar demands that one person be meant.
Lenski: Those who think that two persons are referred to, God and Jesus Christ, are sometimes governed by dogmatical interests, namely by their claim that Christ is never called God, at least not in such a direct way. For us no dogmatical interest is involved; it makes no difference whether Christ is here called God or not, elsewhere he is called God and is shown to be God. We thus have only a linguistic interest, and this is strongly in favor of one person, for one article τοῦ unites both nouns.
Lange: Since the article stands before θεοῦ and not before κυρίου, it is altogether most natural with Hofmann, to refer θεοῦ also to Christ without this being, as Hilgenfeld supposes, a mark of spuriousness; for not merely Tit 2:13, but also Rom 9:5 speaks to our Christ in loftier terms than are agreeable to our modern critics (Compare John 20:28; 2Pe 1:1,11). The distinction between God and Christ is not to be sustained by an appeal to texts like vv. 1 and 2, since there the article is wanting also before θεῶ and θεοῦ.
Even the liberal theologian Bultmann had to bow before the grammar of the text and admit that it calls Christ God! Dr. Kenneth Wuest, one of the best Greek scholars of the twentieth century, renders the phrase in his Expanded Translation as: "our God, even the Lord Jesus Christ."
If this text, like Romans 9:5, were found in a non-biblical manuscript with someone else being called "God and Lord," there would be no controversy. This passage is clearly a New Testament witness to the deity of Christ.
Titus 2:13 (NASB) looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.
προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
The issue whether Jesus is here called "our great God and Savior" has been approached in several ways. Since Arians begin with the a priori assumption that the New Testament never speaks of Jesus as God, they must ignore all the grammatical and syntactical evidence of such passages as Titus 2:13. But what else can they do? If they find just one passage which speaks of Christ as god, their entire theology falls to the ground. Their belief system is constantly in peril.
On the other hand, the Trinitarian is not faced with such a terrible dilemma. His belief system is not threatened in the least. He can follow the grammar wherever it leads him. Lenski explains:
As far as we are concerned, it makes no difference whether Jesus is here once more called God or not; deity is ascribed to Jesus in so many Scripture passages that the addition or subtraction of this passage is immaterial. The grammar and the language decide. Here these are decisive and are supported by the context: it is the epiphany of the deity in Jesus Christ that constitutes our blessed hope.
It is no surprise that grammarians emphatically state that the Greek text clearly indicates that only one person is in view in Titus 2:3: "Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." Middleton states, "It is impossible to understand θεὸν and σωτῆρος otherwise than of one person." A.T. Robertson says, "This is the necessary meaning of the one article with θεοῦ and σωτῆρος."
The Granville Sharp rule states that when two nouns are separated by καὶ with the first noun having the article and the second noun without the article, they both refer to one person. Hendriksen comments:
The article before the first noun is not repeated before the second, and therefore the expression must be rendered: "of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus." No valid reason has ever been found hich would show that the (Granville Sharp rule) does not apply in the present case.
Today, the vast majority of commentators and exegetes agree with the grammarians. Even Brown admits, "This is the most obvious meaning of the Greek."
A few commentators have followed Winer in his denial that Jesus is here called God. But Winer was honest in stating that although the grammar of the text was in favor of "our great God" as a reference to Christ, he was forced by his doctrinal commitment to Arianism not to accept it. Once again, it is the anti-Trinitarian who allows his theology to dictate the meaning of a text, instead of allowing the grammar and syntax of the text to determine his theology.
Even the few commentators who followed Winer, cannot get the facts straight. In an attempt to avoid Sharp's rule, Dean Alford claims:
σωτῆρ was one of those words which gradually dropped the article and became a quasi proper name.
Timothy Dwight, past president of Yale, answers Alford:
This answer is not to be regarded as satisfactory, for though σωτῆρ apparently came to be used as a proper name in this way, at a latter time, it cannot be affirmed that the apostolic authors so used it.
Modern research has confirmed that the phrase "our great God and Savior" was understood by both the Greek and Latin Fathers as a reference to Jesus Christ. This is what Trinitarians would expect to find. Also, the words "God and Savior" were used in the first century by both Jews and pagans as a title of divinity. Murray Harris explains:
The expression θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ("God and Savior") was a stereotyped formula common in first-century religious terminology (see Wendlad), was (apparently) used by both Diaspora and Palestinian Jews in reference to Yahweh, and invariably denoted one deity, not two. If the name "Jesus Christ" did not follow the expression, undoubtedly it would be taken to refer to one person.
Moulton points out that in Titus 2:13:
A curious echo is found in the Ptolemaic formula applied to the deified kings; thus GH 15 (ii/B.C.), τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ... The phrase here is, of course applied to one person.
We must also point out that nowhere in the New Testament are we told that the Father is going to "appear." As a matter of
fact, the word ἐπιφάνειαν (appearing) is always used of Jesus and no one else. The word μεγάλου (great) is likewise never used of the Father.
These reasons given above explain why most modern liberal no longer deny that "our great God and Savior" apply to Jesus in Titus 2:13. It also underscores the importance of not relying on the arguments advanced by nineteenth century liberals. Modern Arians such as the Jehovah's Witnesses have yet to learn this lesson: Jesus is "our great God and Savior."
Hebrews 1:8 (NASB) But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
This text is the first passage set forth by Raymond Brown under section III, "Texts Where Jesus Is Clearly Called God." Oscar Cullmann states, "Hebrews unequivocally applies the title 'God' to Jesus." Brown and Cullmann are perfect examples of the difference between what Warfield calls the "Old Liberal School" and the "New Liberal School."
Eighteenth and nineteenth century liberals did their best to overturn Hebrews 1:8 as a proof text for the deity of Christ by giving it various novel translations. In his classic commentary on Hebrews, John Brown explains:
Those who deny our Lord's divinity have been greatly perplexed by this passage, and have attempted to get rid of the argument by rendering the words, "God is Thy throne for ever and ever." But this is not only contrary to the usage of the language, but it woud utterly destroy the force of the Apostle's argument.
B.B. Warfield was perturbed by the attempts of liberals to wiggle out of Hebrews 1:8 by retranslating it in such a way to avoid the deity of Christ:
It undoubtedly does not make for edification to observe the expedients which have been resorted to by expositors to escape recognizing that these Psalms do ascribe a superhuman nature and superhuman powers to the Messiah. What they have done with Psa 45:6—to take it as an example. Rather than take it as it stands, they would prefer it seems to translate vilely, "Thy throne is God," "Thy throne of God,""Thy throne is of God,"or to rewrite the text and make it say something else, "Thy throne [its throne is firmly fixed], God [established it], or "Thy throne [shall be] forever."
These novel translations were "violent avoidances" as well as "vile," according to Warfield. Such strong emotive utterances seem strange in today's climate of relativism. But we must remember that the nineteenth century Unitarian debates were hot and heavy. The debate generated over five thousand books, pamphlets, and tracts as it raged in Europe as well as in North America.
The old liberals knew that if Hebrews 1:8 was translated in the vocative, i.e., Christ was being addressed by the Father as "God" then their dogma that Jesus was never called θεὸς in the New Testament would fall to the ground. In their desperation to avoid this, they went so far as to add words to the Hebrew text of Psalms 45:6, even though they did not have single manuscript to back them up!
With the appearance of the Wrede-Boussett thesis, modern liberalism changed its mind and now readily admits that Jesus was called θεὸς in the New Testament. Thus, Hebrews 1:8 was just one more such place. Trinitarian scholars had won the day when it came to the grammar and syntax of these passages. But this did not mean that modern liberals are ready to convert to Christianity.
Modern liberals were now willing to admit that the Messiah was called "God" in such places as Psalms 45:6; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8, etc., but the word "God" did not mean true deity but only a "divine hero" like the ones found in pagan mythology. Having failed to get rid of the offending word "God," they weakened its meaning into something less than God.
Today there are two different kinds of anti-Trinitarians. First, there are those like the Jehovah's Witnesses who still depend on the arguments of nineteenth century liberalism. They retranslate both Psalms 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8 to escape Christ being called "God." Second, there are the modern liberals who admit that Jesus is called "God," but then water down the word until it no longer means true deity.
We have already exegeted the Hebrew text of Psalms 45:6 and established that it should be translated in the vocative, "Thy throne, O God." As we demonstrated in the section on early Jewish literature, the Septuagint, the Targums, and, indeed, all the ancient versions translate it that way. The Midrash (Gen. Rabbah 99:6), the Pseudepigrapha (The Testaments of The Twelve Patriarchs [Judah 24:1]), and the Talmud (Shab. 63a) all see the Messiah has the One to whom Psalms 45:6 is addressed. Lenksi comments:
Here we have a vocative even in the Hebrew as well as in the LXX and in Hebrews, and onlry the unwillingness of the commentators to have the Son addressed so directly as "Elohim, ὀ θεὸς (the article with the nominative is used as a vocative), "God," causes the search for a different construction.
ὀ θεὸς is found sixty-three times in the vocative in the Psalms. Why then deny it here? Nowhere in scripture is God ever said to be someone's throne. The language "God is your throne" is rather odd and out of place in Psalms 45 and Hebrews 1. How does such a phrase prove that Jesus has a superior name and nature to the angels? [See here for more on God being a throne.]
Please also note that the word "God" has the definite article in Hebrews 1:8 (ὀ θεὸς). A comparison of what anti-Trinarians say on the significance of the presence or absence of the article before θεὸς reveals an astounding contradiction. They assure us that the lack of the article before θεὸς in John 1:1c "and the Word was God" (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) signifies that the word θεὸς refers to something less than true deity. Thus, Jesus is only "a god" and not really "God." If θεὸς had the article, they tell us, it would mean true deity. While their understanding of the presence or absence of the article is erroneous, nevertheless, it is what they claim to believe.
Given their view, what should they say about such passages as John 20:28, Titus 2:13, and Hebrews 1:8, which all have the article before θεὸς? Do they acknowledge that Jesus is true deity because θεὸς has the article. No. They either ignore the presence of the article or state that its presence does not imply true deity!
They try the same contradictory approach with the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים (Elohim). Since it does not have the article in Psalms 45:6, then it does not mean true deity. But the fact is that the lack of the article before the word אֱלֹהִים is quite normal in Hebrew poetry.
After all the grammatical evidence is examined, nearly all grammarians and commentators reach the same conclusion as Murray Harris:
From the analysis of five proposed translations of Psalm 45:7a, we reached the conclusion that the traditional rendering, "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever," is not simply readily defensible but remains the most satisfactory solution to the exegetical problems posed by the verse.
The context of Hebrews 1:8 is the final proof. The point of the author is that Jesus has a "more excellent name" than the angels (v. 4). What could that name be? It could not be "Jesus" because there was nothing special about that name. The "more excellent name" has to be so special that causes all the angels to worship him (v. 5).
What name could be so wonderful that the angels would bow down and worship? The only name given to Jesus in the immediate context is "God" in verse 8. A.W. Pink explains:
This supplies us with one of the most emphatic and unequivocal proofs of the Deity of Christ to be found in the Scriptures. It is the Father Himself testifying to the Godhead of Him who was despised and rejected of men. And how fittingly is this quotation from Psalm 45 introduced at the point it is in Heb. 1. In v. 6 we are told that all the angels of God have received command to "worship" the Mediator. Now we are shown the propriety of them so doing. He is "God!" They must render Divine honors to Him because of His very nature. Thus we admire, once more, the perfect order of Scripture.
The modern attempt to lessen the impact of the vocative in Psalms 45:6 or Hebrews 1:8 by reducing the word "God" to "divine hero" is no longer possible. Since both old and new liberalism developed their respective interpretations of these passages without knowledge of the literature of early Judaism in general and the Dead Sea Scrolls in particular, their claim that we must look to pagan Greek mythology for the source of such language is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
It has now been established beyond all doubt that the background, themes, imagery, and vocabulary of the book of Hebrews is Semitic, and not Greek. For example, the references in the Dead Sea Scrolls to Melchizedek may explain why so much attention is paid to him in Hebrews.
2 Peter 1:1 (NASB) Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
As with Titus 2:13, the Granville Sharp rule once again requires that only one person is being called "our God and Savior" (τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος), and this one person is "Jesus Christ" (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Virtually all modern translations render the text this way. All the grammarians are united on this even Winer. The vast majority of modern commentators are in agreement as well.
Lenski: The use of the one article would say that but one is referred to, namely "Jesus Christ, our God and Savior," in v. 2 he is regarded as "our God and Lord"; so also in 2Pe 2:20, 3:2,18; 2Th 1:12; Titus 2:13; Jude 1:4 (accusative). The effort to find a reference to two persons, God and Christ, is nullified linguistically by the use of but one article in the Greek. There is nothing more to say. The deity of Christ stands forth here as a mountain that no false faith can plunge into the sea... When in the face of all this in language and in history anyone asserts that Jesus Christ is here not called God, v. 9 states what is wrong with him: he suffers from a dogmatism that, like the old Jewish Sanhedrin, is determined to deny the deity of Christ at every price.
Robertson: So the one article (tou) with theou and soteros requires precisely as with tou kuriou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou (of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2Pe 1:11 as in 2Pe 2:20; 3:2,18. So in 1Pe 1:3 we have ho theos kai pater (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 786), as Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, p. 158) admits, "Grammar demands that one person be meant." Moulton (Prol., p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of theos for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in Titus 2:13.
Wuest: We find in 2 Peter 1:1 the expression, "God and or Savior Jesus Christ," where the same construction occurs, and the same rule of grammars applies. Solid ground for correct translation and interpretation is found in a careful application of the rules of Greek grammar.... The apostles uniformly testify that Jesus Christ is God, and this is just another example of their statements challenging the Imperial Cult of the Caesar. The translation should read, "through the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ." The Roman emperor was recognized by his subjects as their god and their saviour. Peter tells us that Jesus Christ is the God and Saviour of Christians.
Warfield: In this respect the two phrases, 'our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ' (2 Peter 1:11; 3:18) and 'our God and saviour Jesus Christ' are perfectly similar and must stand or fall together. Not only, however is the deity of our Lord openly asserted in the direct naming of Him here 'our God and saviour.' It is almost equally clearly asserted in the parallel phrase, 'our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.' And implied in the conjunction of 'God' and 'Jesus our Lord' in 2Pe 1:2 as co-objects of saving knowledge (cf. 2Pe 1:8; 2:20; 3:18), and in the ascription to 'our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ' of an eternal kingdom.
Middleton: This passage is plainly and unequivocally to be understood as an assumption that Jesus Christ is our God and Saviour.
Clark: The text is unmistakable. It says quite plainly 'faith in righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.'
Bigg: It is hardly open for anyone to translate in 1 Peter 1:3 ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ by 'the God and Father,' and yet here to decline to translate τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος by 'the God and Saviour.'
Reymond: We conclude then that 2 Peter 1:1 takes its place alongside John 20:28; Romans 9:5; and Titus 2:13 as a fourth verse in which Jesus is described by the christological title θεὸς as God.
Brown: Second Peter offers a parallel construction which enables us to decide that the author very probably intended both titles, "God" and "Savior," to be applied to Jesus Christ. In 2 Peter 1:11 we hear of "the eternal kingdom of our Lord-and-Savior Jesus Christ" constituted a compound title for Jesus, and it seems logical to interpret 2 Peter 1:1 on the analogy of 2 Peter 1:11.
Harris: The conclusion seems inescapable that in 2 Peter 1:1 the title ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος is applied to Jesus Christ.
The reasons which caused all the above scholars to come to the conclusion that Jesus is called ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος are quite simple and straightforward:
The chart below reveals the truth of the above propositions:
| Text | Syntax | # of persons | Translation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Pe 1:3 | ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ | one | the God and Father |
| 2Pe 1:11 | ὁ κυρίος καὶ σωτῆρος | one | the Lord and Savior |
| 2Pe 1:1 | ὁ θεὸς καὶ σωτῆρος | one | our God and Savior |
If the first person of the Trinity is both "God" and "Father" in 1 Peter 1:3 and Jesus is both "Lord" and "Savior" in 2 Peter 1:11, then Jesus is also both "God" and "Savior" in 2 Peter 1:1. If the Granville Sharp rule does not apply to 2 Peter 1:1, then the interpretation of 1 Peter 1:3 and 2 Peter 1:11 becomes impossible.
Some old school liberals argued that the position of the pronoun "our" (ἡμῶν) in the text indicates that two persons are in view. But this is not true in Greek grammar. In similar constructions in the New Testament, the pronoun ἡμῶν can appear before (2 Peter 1:10) or after (1 Thess 3:7) the first noun. The position of the pronoun does not determine whether one or more persons are in view. Rather, it is the presence or absence of the article before the second noun.
Given such evidence, why would anyone choose to believe otherwise? Brown points out that circular reasoning is the hidden principle at work. Such passages as 2 Peter 1:1 are:
rejected by scholars, despite the grammatical arguments in their favor, on the grounds that the use of "God" for Jesus is rare in the New Testament and therefore always to be considered improbable. However, is not the rarity of the usage to some extent dependent on the rejections of these examples.—Raymond Brown, Jesus, God and Man (Milwaukee, Bruce, 1967), p. 23
Second Peter 1:1 is exactly the kind of passage which the Trinitarian expects to find in the New Testament. He is not surprised by such language. It is not odd or mysterious to him. But the anti-Trinitarian must admit that he would have never written John 1:1,18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1 Thessalonians 1:12; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; or 2 Peter 1:1.
If Peter wanted to indicate that two person were in view in 2 Peter 1:1, all he had to do was to add the article before the second noun. But he did not do this. Instead, he wrote a sentence in the Greek language of his day which would clearly indicate to this readers that Jesus Christ was both God and Savior.
1 John 5:20 (NIV) We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know Him who is true. And we are in Him who is true—even in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
The editors of the New International Version were so certain that John was calling Jesus Christ ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος "the true God and eternal life" that they used "He is" instead of "This is" so the English reader could not miss the point. This translation could be made in the latter half of the twentieth century because most scholars, liberal as well as conservative, were now in agreement that the name "Jesus Christ" was grammatically the antecedent for the pronoun οὗτος.
This passage, more than any other, illustrates the importance of following the normal rules of Greek grammar. The word οὗτος is a pronoun. No one can disagree with this. As a pronoun, οὗτος would naturally refer back to the person just mentioned. No one can disagree with this either. Robertson states the rule:
οὗτος does, as a rule, refer to what is near or last mentioned and ἐκεῖνος to what is remote.
But what about the few exceptions where οὗτος acts like ἐκεῖνος and refers not to the person immediately in view, but to someone before him? Anyone who is at all familiar with ancient literature knows that such "exceptions" do appear from time to time. For example, a writer can mix genders or numbers. But such "exceptions" do not disprove the general rule that genders and numbers should agree.
That there may be a few rare exceptions to a general rule does not mean that one should approach a text of Scripture with the a priori assumption that it will be an exception to the normal rules of grammar. Instead, we should approach a text with the a priori assumption that the normal rules of grammar and syntax will apply unless there are clear grammatical reasons to depart from those rules.
Please notice that we said "grammatical”—not "theological”—reasons. Just because the grammar of a text leads to an idea which contradicts what you believe, this does not give you the right to throw grammar to the wind. Theology cannot overthrow or ignore the grammar of the sacred text. It can only bow before it.
Many people today ignore the grammar of the original text and instead interpret the Bible from their "feelings." Besides being a form of exegetical suicide in which one slits his own throat with the rusty blade of relativism, Christ and the apostles used grammar and not their "feelings" as the rule of interpretation.
In Matthew 22:23 Jesus used the distinction between the past tense "was" and the present tense "is" as proof that there is a conscious afterlife. The apostle Paul in Galatians 3:16 based his argument that Christ was preach to Abraham on the distinction between the singular and plural forms of the word "seed." They used the rules of grammar as the proof of their theology.
The Greek text of 1 John 5:20 is simple and straightforward. John used οὗτος fifty-five times in his writings. Thus, we are nat talking about a rare usage of a word. There are plenty of places in John's writings where οὗτος was used in the same kind of construction as found in 1 John 5:20 and no one has any problem with οὗτος referring back to the antecedent.
Does anyone question whether οὗτος refers to "Judas" in John 6:71? No, Does anyone object to οὗτος in John 1:41 referring back to the "Andrew" in v. 29? No. Or that οὗτος in John 1:30 refers back to "Jesus" is ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ? Has anyone ever denied that in 2 John 1:9 οὗτος refers back to ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ? No.
Why then all the hysteria over whether οὗτος refers to Jesus in 1 John 5:20? Obviously, it is not the grammar or syntax of the Greek that causes people to question whether οὗτος refers to Jesus Christ per se. It is that it refers to Him as God. That is the real issue.
If the text read, Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτος ἐστιν ζωὴ αἰώνιος ("Jesus Christ. This is Eternal Life"), there would be no controversy whatsoever. οὗτος would be seen as referring to Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. But once you add ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς to the phrase, then the controversy begins.
The evidence for Jesus being called "the true God" and "Eternal Life" is quite strong:
Brown: Grammar favors a reference to the nearest antecedent, and this would be "Jesus Christ." In this case Jesus Christ is called true God.
Candlish: The Lord Jesus Christ is the person here meant. Such seems to be the fair inference from the use of the pronoun "this" of in the context; and therefore, in this instance, not "him that is true," but "his Son Jesus Christ." That inference indeed is so clear, in a merely grammatical and exegetical point of view, that there would not probably have been any doubt about it, were it not for its implying an assertion of our Lord's supreme divinity; an assertion which no sophistry or special pleading can evade or explain away.
Morgan and Cox: There can be no doubt they refer to Jesus Christ. We are shut up to this conclusion by the construction of the passage. Christ is the near and natural antecedent to the assertion of the apostle.
Marshall: The NIV rightly adopts the view that οὗτος refers back to Jesus.
For the last time John hammers home the point. He—Jesus—is the true God and eternal life. Here, as in the Gospel (Jhn
1:1; 20:28; cf. 1:18 marg.), John declares that Jesus is the true God.
| Verse | Title |
|---|---|
| John 1:9 | the true Light |
| John 6:32 | the true Bread |
| John 15:1 | the true Vine |
| Rev 3:7 | the true One |
| Rev 3:14 | the true Witness |
| Rev 6:10 | true Sovereign & Lord |
We have completed our investigation to see whether the authors of the New Testament believed that Jesus Christ was divine. All we needed was one solid passage in which He is called θεὸς ("God") in the sense of true deity. And we have found many such passages.
In all of these places, θεὸς is an ontological term denoting what Christ is by nature. The modern liberal attempt to reduce the deity of Christ to a functional concept is neither biblical or logical. Harris comments:
The presumption of functional Christology is ontological Christology. Christ performs divine functions because he is divine. His ability to act "divinely" rests on his being divine. Behind Christ pro noblis is Christ in se. Temporally, being precedes doing. Logically, doing presupposes being.
We now proceed to other divine names and titles which the New Testament ascribes to Christ.