The Confession 'Jesus Is God

THE CONFESSION 'JESUS IS GOD'
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

by THE REV. A. W. WAINWRIGHT
I
N a chapter of his book Glaube und Verstehen, recently translated
into English under the title Essays Philosophical and Theological,
Professor Rudolf Bultmann has discussed, by no means favour-
ably, the Christological Confession of the World Council of
Churches. The words of the Confession are: 'The World
Council of Churches is composed of Churches which acknow-
ledge Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.' Bultmann directs his
attention chiefly to the confession that Jesus is God.
1
In the
New Testament he finds only one verse in which Jesus is un-"
doubtedly called God. That is John 20.28, in which Thomas
addresses Jesus as 'My Lord and my God!' In contrast with
this single example, there is in Bultmann's opinion a great
amount of evidence that the writers of the New Testament
believed that Jesus was subordinate to His Father.
Bultmann also criticises the statement 'Jesus is God' for its
ambiguity. He comes to the conclusion that the statement is
correct in the sense that Christ is 'the event of God's acting'.
2
But he argues that it is false 'in every sense in which God is
understood as an entity which can be objectivised'.
3
In the following pages the ambiguity of the formula will not
be discussed. Attention will be confined to the question
whether the statement 'Jesus Christ is God' is in accordance
with the teaching of the New Testament. Those passages will
be examined in which it can be argued that Jesus is given the
title deos. Bultmann thinks that there is only one sure instance
of the ascription of this title to Jesus (John 20.28), but several
other passages require discussion. An attempt will be made to
prove that the confession Jesus Christ is God' is in accordance
with the teaching of the New Testament. If the confession is
ambiguous, it possesses an ambiguity which the Church of the
first century, like the World Council of Churches in the
twentieth century, was prepared to tolerate.
1
p. 273. * p. 276.
s
,p. 287.
274
THE CONFESSION 'JESUS IS GOD' IN NT 275
Before the passages are examined separately, it will not be
unrewarding to consider the various types of criticism which
have been practised upon them. If these passages were inter-
preted according to the natural linguistic usage, many of them
would certainly refer to Jesus as God. But critics have not been
influenced only by linguistic probability. Other arguments have
been brought forward and allowed to outweigh the linguistic
evidence. An assessment is required of the relative importance
of the different types of evidence which have been used.
One type of argument may be described as theological. A
New Testament passage is interpreted so as to conform to the
orthodoxy of the creeds. If an interpretation does not conform,
it is rejected. This type of argument is not often used by modern
scholars, but may creep in by the back door. Indeed there is a
trace of it in Hort's comments on Titus 2.13: npoahexoyavoi
TTJV /xaKaplav eAm'Sa /ecu imcfxiveiav rrjs So^rjs TOV fieyaXov eov
/ecu ZojTrjpos ij/ituv 'ITJOOC XpLOTov. According to one inter-
pretation this verse refers to 'the appearing of the glory of our
God and Saviour Jesus Christ'. Hort writes: ' It to say the
least suggests "division" of "substance", a separate Deity, the
Deity of Tritheism, not the equally perfect Deity of a Person of
the One Godhead. This is very unlike St. Paul and the NT.'
1
Hort brings forward other arguments, and the main point of
the paragraph quoted may be the inconsistency of the inter-
pretation with the usual teaching of the New Testament. But
Hort gives unusual weight to the inconsistency of the inter-
pretation with the Athanasian Creed. This factor ought not
to influence the intepretation of the verse.
Another commoner type of argument may be described as
psychological. This type of argument, unlike the former, is
valid for the interpretation of a New Testament passage. It
has been used with great frequency. Scholars who argue in this
way claim that it is improbable or even impossible that a writer
could identify Jesus with God because such an identification is
inconsistent with the rest of his thought.
An example of this kind of reasoning is found in Anderson
Scott's Christianity according to St. Paul. According to Anderson
Scott Jewish monotheism was so deeply ingrained in the mind
of St. Paul that he could not have identified Jesus with God.
1
The Epistle of James, Additional Note, p. 103.
276 SCOTTISH JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
'What we do seem to see is the Apostle being pressed by his
experience and urged by his convictions up to the verge of
acknowledging that Christ is God, but finally precluded from
making such acknowledgment by his hereditary monotheism'.
1
On these grounds Anderson Scott refuses to accept the view
that Rom. 9.5 includes an identification of Christ with God.
In his commentary on the same verse in the Epistle to the
Romans, Kirk rejects the identification for a similar reason:
'So understood it is a curiously crude statement of a great truth,
and singularly unlike St. Paul's general manner of dealing with
such profound questions. It is difficult to imagine that if he
were content to speak so frankly here he should not have done
so elsewhere in his epistles, where countless opportunities for
such a course presented themselves.'
2
Arguments of this kind occur not infrequently, especially in
books about St. Paul.
3
The claim is made that, since St. Paul
was a man of a particular character, brought up in a particular
environment, he could not have made the statement that Christ
was God. Or, if he had made the statement, he would have
been constrained by his own nature to repeat it.
Although these arguments may rightly help to tilt the scales
of judgment, they are in themselves of light weight. We are
not in a position to say with an air of finality what was psycholo-
gically impossible for St. Paul. We are certainly not in a
position to say that he was incapable of inconsistencies. The
surviving works of St. Paul are small in bulk. If one or two
thoughts, which they contain, do not seem to harmonise with
the rest, we ought not to imagine that we can only resolve the
apparent discord by finding a different interpretation of the
Greek. Perhaps we are not fully attuned to St. Paul's mode of
thought, which we have limited opportunities for studying,
because of the small quantity of his writing which has been
preserved. Beliefs which are mentioned only briefly in the
surviving epistles may have been expressed at greater length
in works which have perished. Some thoughts, which had great
prominence in his private teaching and his devotional life,
may have been deliberately veiled in the epistles. It is quite
possible, for example, that St. Paul believed that Christ was
1
Christianity According to St. Paul, p. 274.
2
Romans, pp. 103-4.
8
Cf. Baur, Paulus, p. 624; Dodd, Romans, p. 152.
God, and communicated this belief privately to his followers,
but was reluctant to include it in his letters because he had not
yet reconciled it in thought with his Jewish monotheism. Other
men have held beliefs, which they could not explain rationally.
Far too much weight has been given to this kind of argument
in New Testament criticism. The obvious linguistic interpre-
tation of several important passages of scripture has been
neglected in the interests of psychological probability. In a
number of passages scattered through the New Testament, the
construction of the Greek sentences favours the view that Christ
is called God. But many critics have chosen a less natural
translation of the Greek because they believe it was psycholo-
gically impossible for the writer to have said that Christ was
God. The correct procedure, however, is to choose the most
natural interpretation of the Greek. When two interpretations
are more or less equally acceptable on linguistic grounds, it is
legitimate to allow considerations of psychological probability
to influence a judgment. But if the natural interpretation of
the Greek seems to involve the author in an inconsistency, it
should none the less be accepted. The inconsistency must be
admitted. Indeed it is psychologically probable that a writer
will be guilty of inconsistencies.
Although linguistic arguments ought to be our chief guide
in establishing the meaning of the language of the New Testa-
ment, psychological arguments have a part to play. They can
explain the development of an author's thought. They can
account for his inconsistencies. They can suggest why he was
silent about some doctrines and eloquent about others. But
their chief function begins when the meaning of the Greek has
been established. Linguistic arguments should be used to
determine the meaning of the language; psychological argu-
ments to explain the development and shape of the thought.
For this second task arguments based on the historical back-
ground of the times will also be valuable. These will explain
why a writer was prompted to think in a certain way and to
use certain words as a vehicle for his thought. But they will not
be used to support an unnatural translation of the Greek.
The passages of the New Testament, in which it is possible
that Jesus was openly described as God (Oeos), will now be
reviewed. In the first group those examples will be discussed
which present no textual problems. In the second group the
examples in which the text is uncertain will be examined.
First Group: passages in which the Greek text is certain
A. The Pauline Epistles
I. Rom. 9.5. . . . e <3v o Xpioros TO Kara, odpica, 6 wv em
ndvrcov Qeos evXoyrjros els roiis alcovas, d/x^v.
The Revised Version translates: 'of whom is Christ as con-
cerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.'
According to this translation Christ is called God. Other
translations have been suggested in which Christ is not called
God. If a full stop is placed after adpKa (flesh), the last part of
the verse may be translated as a separate sentence. There are
three possible versions:
i. He who is God over all be blessed for ever,
ii. He who is God over all is blessed for ever,
iii. He who is over all is God blessed for ever.
None of these versions suggests that Christ is God.
If a comma is placed after odpica (flesh), and a full stop after
em TTavTwv (over all), the translation will be: '. . . of whom is
Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all. God be (or 'is')
blessed for ever.' This translation, like the three above, makes
no connexion between God and Christ.
The Revised Version assumes a different punctuation. If a
comma is placed after aapKa (flesh), and no further punctuation
is inserted until the full stop after im ndvrtov (over all), Christ
must be called God. This interpretation is accepted by a great
majority of the Fathers. But the punctuation of the oldest uncial
manuscripts offers slight evidence in favour of the other interpre-
tation. Codex Sinaiticus has no punctuation, and the punctu-
ation of Codex Alexandrinus is uncertain. Codex Vaticanus
has a colon, probably inserted by a later hand, after odpxa,
and a space at the end of the verse. Codex Ephraemi has a
stop after adpKa. Since there would be no punctuation in the
earliest papyrus copies of the scriptures, we could not attach
great importance to the punctuation of these uncials, even if
it were clear. Because of its ambiguity, no weight can be
attached to it.
1
Attempts have been made, with little success, to emend the
text. If (Sv o were substituted for 6 a>v, the verse could be
translated: 'whose is Christ according to the flesh, whose is
God who is over all, blessed for ever.' There is no manuscript
evidence in support of this emendation.
The grammar of the verse favours the view that Christ is
called God.
i. If the verse ended with a doxology to God the Father, we
should expect evXoyrjTos to come at the beginning of the sentence.
That is nearly always the position of the doxology in biblical
Greek. The order would be changed only for some special
reason. There is, however, no need to stress the word 9e6s, as
no contrast is drawn between God and Christ. In any case the
order of words would not place any appreciable stress on
0eo? if the doxology were a separate sentence. If however the
doxology is addressed to Christ, evXoyqros cannot be placed at
the beginning of the clause, but naturally comes later.
2
Moreover doxologies in the writings of St. Paul usually refer
to someone who has been mentioned beforehand. The name of
God does not occur in Rom. 9 until the end of verse 5. Christ
is mentioned several times. If Rom. 9.5 follows the general
tendency of Pauline doxologies, it is ascribed to someone who
is named in the preceding sentences. The only possible antece-
dent is Christ.
3
ii. The words 6 wv also present a problem. If the doxology
is a separate sentence, the word u>v is superfluous. It would be
sufficient to say 6 inl Trdvrcov deos, 'God over all'. Or alternatively
if 6 7TJ Trdvrwv a>v 0e6s were read, it would mean, 'He who is over
all is God.' The position of 6 a>v suggests that it is attached to
an antecedent. But there are examples of similar relatival
uses of the article and participle which do not refer to an
antecedent.
4
On the other hand, as Sanday and Headlam
1
Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 233-4 contains a full discussion of the
punctuation.
1
2 Cor. 11.31 . . . 0 cuv euAoyT/Toy els TOVS alwvas . . . is an example of evXoy-
ijToy in a similar position. For a discussion of the position of cvkoyrrros see Lagrange,
Epitrc awe Romains, p. 227, Sanday and Headlam, op. cit., p. 236, and Lietzmann,
Romerbrief, p. 90.
Other examples of doxologies which refer to antecedents are Rom. 1.25,
Gal. 1.5. See also Langrange, op. cit, p. 227. John 3.31, Rom. 8.5, 8.
remark, ' In this case, as there is a noun immediately preceding
to which the words would naturally refer, as there is no sign of
a change of subject, and as there is no finite verb in the sentence
following, an ordinary reader would consider that the words
o wv em ndvru)v eos refer to what precedes unless they
suggest so great an antithesis to his mind that he could not
refer them to Christ.'
1
iii. The words TO Kara. adpKa seem to expect an antithesis.
Although the most probable antithesis would be TO /card
TTveviia, there are instances in which 6e6s is contrasted with
odpi;.
2
But the phrase TO Kara. adpKa does not require an anti-
thesis. And, as Baur has shown, it can be argued that the
phrase was introduced, not to make a contrast with 6e6s, but
to avoid making a concession to the Judaising Christians.
Christ belonged to the Jews, but only as far as the flesh was
concerned.
3
Nevertheless the passage would read more
naturally if there were some kind of antithesis.
The grammatical evidence favours the view that Christ was
called God. St. Paul would not be likely to vary his idiom,
unconsciously, unless he were saying something startling. But
those who wish to give an unusual interpretation of the lan-
guage, do not claim that St. Paul has said anything startling.
The other arguments which have been adduced are psycholo-
gical, and are out of place at this stage of the discussion.
When the meaning of the Greek has been determined, the
words can be used as material for understanding the com-
plexities of the mind of St. Paul. The description of Christ as
God is unusual. Possibly this is the only occasion on which
St. Paul writes in this strain, although 2 Thess. 1.12 and Gal.
2.20 are doubtful examples of the same mode of address.
Because of its uniqueness the passage requires explanation.
There is need to show that St. Paul could conceivably have
written these words. It is not necessary to show that his action
in writing these words is fully in accord with our presuppositions
about his thought, his style, or his character. But if this inter-
pretation of the passage is to be maintained, an attempt must
be made to demonstrate that a situation could have arisen in
1
Op. dt., pp. 235-6.
Luke 3.6, 1 Cor. 1.29, Col. 3.22, Philem. 16, 2 Chron. 32.8, Ps. 55 (56). 5,
Jer. 5, Dan. 2. n. See Sanday and Headlam, p. 235.
8
F. C. Baur, Paulus, p. 624.
which St. Paul included a doxology to Christ as God in one of
his epistles.
Sanday and Headlam argue that the words 'who is God over
all' etc. fit into the progress of thought in Rom. 9: 'St. Paul is
enumerating the privileges of Israel, and as the highest and last
privilege he reminds his readers that it was from this Jewish
stock after all that Christ in His human nature had come, and
then in order to emphasise this he dwells on the exalted charac-
ter of Him who came according to the flesh as the Jewish
Messiah.'
1
This explanation does not account for St. Paul's reluctance
to call Christ God in other parts of his writings. Sanday and
Headlam have shown how Rom. 9.5 can fit its context. They
have not shown how it fits in with the rest of the apostle's
thought. If St. Paul wished to introduce this clear proclamation
of the divinity of Christ into his epistles, why did he not do so
more often? Why did he not expand and explain the idea,
instead of thrusting it forward abruptly and passing immedi-
ately to another theme? In the ninth chapter of the Epistle to
the Romans nothing else is said about the Person of Christ,
nothing about His relationship to the Father, nothing about
His Lordship, nothing about His work in creation. While
St. Paul may have described Christ as God in other writings
which have not been preserved, the assumption that there were
unknown epistles does not account for the abruptness with
which St. Paul leaves this remarkable statement of the divinity
of Christ undeveloped and unexplained.
The clue to the passage is to be found in the emotions of the
apostle. When he reached the point of saying that 'Christ
according to the flesh' belonged to the Jews, he might have
proceeded to make a statement about 'Christ according to the
Spirit'. Instead of following the expected train of thought, he
burst into an ascription of glory to Christ. He allowed himself
to write down what he would have been prepared to say in the
intensity of worship, but was in the habit of restraining himself
from writing. He acknowledged that Christ was 6e6s and
evXoyrjTos. His deep feelings, when he contemplated the re-
jection of Christ by the Jewish people, led him to give Him the
full honours of Deity. The clause at the end of Rom. 9.5 is not
1
op. cit., p. 236.
part of the sequence of thought in the paragraph. It is an
interjectionan outburst of praise, which the apostle allowed
to remain in the epistle, perhaps because, as he surveyed what
he had written, he realised that he had been writing under
divine inspiration.
2. 2 Thess. 1.12. . . . Kara TTJV X-P
IV T0
^ zov r/ficov Kal
Kvpiov '/JJCTOU Xpiorov.
There are two possible translations.
i. . . . according to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ,
ii. . . . according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus
Christ.
The Revised Version chooses the second translation, which
has been preferred by the great majority of translators and
commentators. The chief reason in its favour is that the
phrase Kvpios 'Irjoovs Xpiaros was so commonly used in St. Paul's
epistles that it would be quite normal to introduce it, even in
this context, without the definite article. Indeed Kvpios 'I-qaovs
Xpioros seems to have been one of the earliest Christian creeds.
1
This is the strongest linguistic argument in favour of the second
translation.
Two other factors are supposed to support this point of view.
The position of the word 17/xwv which is attached to 0eov seems
to imply that eov and Kvpiov do not refer to the same person.
2
This is not an overwhelming argument as in 2 Pet. 3.18 (rod
Kvpiov rjfj.ojv Kal EcoTrjpos 'Irjaov Xpiarov), the words Kvpiov and
ZcDrrjpos both refer to Jesus Christ in spite of the presence of
fjiiwv after Kvpiov.
Frame says that the phrase 6 @eos 17/itDv rather than @eos
na-rrip 7jfia>v is characteristic of the Thessalonian Epistles.
3
This
would explain why St. Paul linked two titles, one of which had
the article and the other of which lacked it. But the phrase
@eo$ rjfj.wv without the article is also found in the Thessalonian
Epistles. The simple 6 eos ij/xwv occurs in 1 Thess. 2.2, 3.9,
2 Thess. 1.11, and 1.12. 6 @eos Kal IlaTrjp IJJUWV occurs in 1 Thess.
1.3, 3.11, 3.13, and 6 0e6s 6 Ila-i-rip rm&v in 2 Thess. 2.16. In 2
Thess. 1.1 there is the phrase eV 6eu> Tlarpl rjiJLcJv. The examples
1
Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, p. 41.
* This point is emphasised by Stauffer in T.W.z.NT. I l l , art. p. 106, n. 265,
Thessalonians, p. 242.
which have the article easily outnumber this solitary reference.
But throughout the Epistles eos and 6 eos are used interchange-
ably. It is, however, possible that St. Paul had not yet coined
the phrase eos Tla-rrip i^wv which with minor variations occurs
so frequently in his epistles, and that he wrote this more mis-
leading formula in 2 Thess. 1.12. But there is no doubt that the
first translation of 2 Thess. 1.12 in which Jesus Christ is called God,
is the more natural. Nevertheless, because of the frequency of
the phrase 6 eos rmojv in the Thessalonian Epistle and, above
all, because Kvpios 'Iyo-ovs Xpiaros was a credal formula, the
second translation is to be preferred.
B. The Pastoral Epistles
Ti t us 2. 13. . . . vpoaSexo/jievoi rrjv fiaKaplav eXniSa /cat eiruf>aveiav
rfjs 861;T)S TOV fieydXov eov KOU Zcurfjpos ijjitaJv 'ITJOOV Xpiarov.
The following translations are possible:
i. . . . looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appear-
ing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Author-
ised Version).
ii. . . . looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing
of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. (Revised Version),
iii. . . . looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the
glory of our great God and Saviour, which glory is Jesus Christ.
The first translation is unsatisfactory, rfjs 86^-qs is probably
not adjectival. 'The appearing of the glory' is better than 'the
glorious appearing'. The crucial question, however, is the
meaning of rod fieyaXov eov KO.1 Eu>rrjpos rifj-aJv. Should it be
assumed that eov and ZcoTrjpos both refer to Jesus Christ? The
Authorised Version believes that only Ucorfjpos refers to Christ.
The difficulty of the Authorised Version's translation is that
the Greek seems to favour a closer link between the words
eov and ZcuTrjpos. If rjiAcuv followed eov, it would be easier to
separate the titles. The position of rjfiujv links them together,
requiring the translation 'our great God and Saviour'.
The absence of the article cannot be explained by supposing
that the author used a credal formula. There is no evidence
that Uwrrjp 'Irjaovs Xpiaros or Zcjrrjp r^Liov 'Irjaovs Xpiaros had
acquired the status of a credal formula like Kvpios '/ijcrofe Xpiaros.
If the author had wished to make it clear that there was a
difference between two persons, the great God and our Saviour,
he would have introduced a second article.
1
For these two reasons, the position of r)fjLCJv and the fact that
Zuiri)p 'Irjoovs Xpioros was not a formula of the same popularity
as Kvpios 'Iyoovs Xpioros, this phrase cannot be interpreted in
the same manner as 2 Thess. 1.12.
Hort favours the third translation. He argues that 'ITJOOV
XpioroC is best taken in apposition to TTJ? 86-qs. But the title
Zwrr/p has already been applied to Christ in Titus 1.4. The
order of words favours the view that Zcorrjp applies to Christ
and it would not be unexpected in this epistle. While Hort
has brought forward much evidence that Jesus was regarded
as the Shekinah or Glory of Godthough there is only slight
evidence that He was openly given this titlehis translation
involves an awkward interpretation of the order of the Greek.
2
The best translation is the second, which is given in the
Revised Version. As Christ is not called God in any other part
of the Pastoral Epistles, how is the presence of this passage in
the epistle to be explained? First, a unique statement in such a
slender collection as the Pastoral Epistles ought not to cause
any surprise. Secondly, both God and Christ are called
Saviour independently in the epistles. A writer who could
apply the same title to both Father and Son would be able to
give the title 'God' to Christ. Thirdly, the phrase fiiyas Qeos
not only occurs in the Septuagint
3
but also seems to have been
widely current in the Hellenistic world.
4
It is possible that
Heyas &eds Kal Eu>rt)p, as Dibelius suggests, was a formula which
was applied to God in the Judaism of the Diaspora, and was
transferred to Christ by the Christians.
5
And fourthly, if the
epistle was written in the reign of Trajan, as Harrison has
convincingly claimed,
6
it belongs to the same period as the
letters of Ignatius, in which Christ is frequently called God.
1
See Parry, Pastoral Epistles, p. 81. Parry also gives as a reason for rejecting
this view the absence of any other reference to a double appearance. But this
reason is not linguistic and should not influence the argument at this stage.
8
Epistle of James, p. 103. He also says that St. Paul and the NT would not be
likely to commit what he believes to be a travesty of true theology. This argument
is not relevant.
3
E.g. Deut. 10. 19, Ps. 85. 10, Isa. 26.4, Jer. 39. 19, Dan. 2.45.
4
See Grundmann in T.W.z.NT., IV, art. iieyas, p. 546, and Deissmann, Light
from the Ancient East, p. 269, n.3.
Pastoralbriefe, p. 92.
The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles.
C. The Second Epistle of Peter
2 Pet. I. I. . . . ev 8u<aioovvr) rov 0eov rjfiaiv /cat UcuTrjpos 'Irjaov
Xpiarov.
The reference to God has been omitted by some of the
versions and by the uncial P. But the integrity of the text has
not been seriously questioned.
There are two possible translations of the phrase:
i. . . . in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ,
ii. . . . in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus
Christ.
The shape of this phrase is like that of 2 Thess. 1.12: KOTO. rr)v
Xapiv rov eov rj/iajv KCU Kvpiov 'Irjaov Xpiarov. But it cannot be
discussed in the same way. In 2 Thess. the presence of ij/icDv
after eov was regarded as evidence, not strong but of some
weight, that eov and Kvpiov did not refer to the same person.
In 2 Pet. 1.1, although r)(iu>v is in exactly the same position, it
is unlikely to have had the same influence on the meaning of
the phrase. At the end of the opening paragraph of the epistle
(1.11), comes a similar phrase, TOV Kvpiov r)jiu)v KOX Swrrjpos'Irjaov
XpiaTov, in which r)fiu>v is in the same position and the two
nouns Kvpiov and EtoTrjpos obviously refer to the same person.
1
Therefore it is unlikely that 17/xcDv in 1.1 implies that eov and
ZojTfjpos describe different persons.
Moreover, as we have seen in the discussion of Titus 2.13,
the absence of an article in front ofZaoTrjpos cannot be accounted
for by supposing that Ecjrr)p 'Irjaovs Xpiaros was a credal
formula.
The clear meaning of the text is 'our God and Saviour
Jesus Christ'. The occurrence of this description of Christ in an
epistle which almost certainly belongs to the second century
needs no explanation.
D. The Epistle of James
Jas. I. I. '/a/oojSoj eov Kal Kvpiov ''Irjaov Xpiarov SovXos . . .
The opening words may be translated either 'James, a
servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ' or 'James, a servant
of the God and Lord Jesus Christ'.
1
Accordi ng to several authorities 2 Pet. a.20 is a parallel to I . I I , but this
reading is probably due to assimilation.
As there is no definite article in front of eov, the first trans-
lation is quite natural. Indeed either translation could be
defended from a linguistic point of view. The issue must be
decided in this case by other arguments. Since the author says
little about Christ in this epistle, and does not elsewhere
identify Christ with God, there is no reason to suppose that he
calls Christ God in the opening greeting. It is possible that
Christ is described as the divine glory in Jas. 2.1, but this is
not equivalent to claiming that He is God. The first translation
of Jas. 1.1 is to be preferred.
E. The Epistle to the Hebrews
xleb. 1.0. npos oe TOV viov,
6 Bpovos oov 6 eos els TOV alwva TOV alwvos.
This is a quotation from the Septuagint version of Ps. 45.6.
There are two possible translations:
i. . . . but of the Son he saith,
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. (Revised Version).
ii. . . . but of the Son he saith,
God is thy throne for ever and ever or
Thy throne is God for ever and ever. (Westcott's suggestions).
The meaning and the text of the Hebrew has been disputed,
but since the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was quoting
the Septuagint, these problems are not relevant to the inter-
pretation of this passage.
The words 6 eos could be nominative or vocative, as the
nominative of Beos usually does duty for the vocative. The
translation which Westcott prefers does not express the most
natural sense of the Greek. The phrase els TOV alwva TOV alwvos
is in an awkward position, if 6 eos is not vocative, o Bpovos
aov els TOV alwva TOV alwvos 6 eos would be more suited to
Westcott's translation.
Peake thinks that the most serious objection to the first
translation is that the use of eos and the definite article with
reference to Christ is without parallel in the New Testament.
1
There is, however, a good parallel in John 20.28, where
Thomas addresses Jesus as 0 eos fiov. This is an example of
the nominative used as a vocative.
1
Hebrews, p. 87.
Westcott suggests that a description of Christ as God would
obscure the thought of the passage.
1
The intention of the
writer is to stress the eternal nature of the dominion of Christ
in contrast to the mutability of the angels. Perhaps a reference
to the divinity of Christ would distract a reader from the main
issue. In fact the thought is not obscured. The implication
that Christ is God only strengthens the emphasis on His eternal
rule and increases the contrast with the angels.
How does the idea that the Son is God fit into the scheme of
the writer's thought? The idea receives no further develop-
ment. There are indications that the Son is worshipped (1.6,
and possibly 13.21). But although Christ is described as Son,
High Priest, and the pre-existent Agent of creation, no sus-
tained attempt is made to give an account of the Deity of
Christ. Why, then does the author make this isolated con-
fession in Heb. 1.8?
A reasonable explanation is that Ps. 45.6 was applied to
Christ in the worship of the Christian Church. The quotation
is introduced as if it were familiar to the readers. They would
be most likely to gain familiarity with it by hearing it quoted
in sermons, or by singing it themselves as a hymn. The writer
presupposes that Christ is regarded as a legitimate object of
worship. His readers would not be unduly surprised to find
Christ addressed as God. Perhaps it was unusual to express the
belief in writing. But because they uttered these words in their
worship, there was no great surprise when they saw them in
the letter. The writer did not amplify the statement, because
it was not his intention to discuss the difficult problem of the
Deity of Christ. His point in this verse is the superiority of
Christ to the angels. The Deity of Christ, which is relevant
but not necessary to the argument, is only mentioned in passing.
F. The Gospel according to St. Matthew
Mat t . I.23. . . . /ecu KaXeaovcnv TO ovofxa avrov 'EfifiavovqX, 6
ecrnv nedepfirjvevofjievov Med' rj/jLuiv 6 @eos
The translation is: And they shall call his name Immanuel;
which is, being interpreted, God with us.
An alternative translation of the last part of the quotation is
'God is with us'.
1
Hebrews, p. 26.
The Greek is a literal translation of the Hebrew imtnanu 'el
of Isa. 7.14. The order of words in the Greek suggests that
jxed' r)ii.a>v is adverbial rather than adjectival. 'God with us'
would be more likely to be expressed in Greek by 6 eos 6 ped'
fjiiajv or d /xe0' 17/xcov eos. But the Hebrew is regarded as a
proper name, and cannot therefore be expected to make it
clear whether 'immanu is adverbial or adjectival. St. Matthew
was more concerned to give a literal translation of the Hebrew
than to free the language from ambiguity. It is impossible to
be certain whether St. Matthew meant 'God is with us' or
'God with us'. Probably he was not sure himself.
The translation 'God with us' implies that Jesus is God. But
the identification is not absolute but limited by the words 'with
us'. The second translation 'God is with us' means no more
than that God was present in Jesus. This does not imply that
Jesus was God. Because of the uncertainty of the meaning this
passage cannot be used as evidence that Jesus was called God.
G. The Johannine Writings
1. J ohn I. I. 'Ev OLpxfj fy 6 Aoyos, KO.1 6 Aoyos fy npos TOV eov,
Kal eos fjv 6 Aoyos
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with
God.
The translation 'the Word was God' implies that Jesus was
regarded as God. Since eos occurs here without the article,
whereas it is preceded by the article in two other places in the
same verse, it has been argued that the word can be adjectival
when it appears without the article. But if an adjective had
been wanted, the word delos, which occurs twice in the New
Testament (Acts 17.29, 2 Pet. i-3f), could have been used.
1
@eos is used with or without the article indiscriminately in
the New Testament. In the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel it
never has the article except in the first verse. In verses 6, 12,
13 and 18 it appears without the article. The first verse, how-
ever, presents a problem because eos without an article occurs
between two examples of eos with the article. There is no
reason to suppose that a deliberate contrast is intended. The
1
Origen was the first to suggest that 8cos was adjectival. See Comm. in Joan.,
n, 3-
article is absent because eos is predicative, 6 eos rjv 6 Aoyos
would have meant 'God was the Word'. The Evangelist
wanted eos to be stressed. Hence he placed it at the beginning
of the clause. In order to show that it was predicative he had
to omit the article.
1
Moreover, if he had written eos, he would have implied
that only the Aoyos could rightly be described as God. The
clause should be translated 'the Word was God' rather than
'the Word was divine'.
2
2. J ohn 17-3-
a
^
Tr
l Se iarw 17 alaivios ,u>rj, Iva yivwoKOjaiv ae
rov fiovov aXrjOtvov eov Kal OV aireareiXas 'Irjaovv Xpiorov.
And this is eternal life, that they should know thee, the only
true God, and him whom thou didst send, Jesus Christ.
Bousset suggests that this may be translated: And this is
eternal life, that they should know thee as the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom thou didst send, as the only true God.
3
To make this translation plausible the phrase rov fxovov
aXrjdivov Qeov would have to be moved to the end of the sentence.
There is no real implication in this verse that Jesus is God.
3. J ohn 20.28. aireKplOr] oj/xas Kal etnev avrw 6 Kvpios /xov
Kal 6 eos /IOV.
Thomas answered, and said to him, My Lord and my God.
The words of Thomas are addressed to Christ. They are almost
certainly an instance of the nominative used in a vocative sense.
Theodore of Mopsuestia suggests that this is a thanksgiving
which Thomas addresses to God the Father. The context
favours the view that these words were spoken to Jesus.
4
Thomas uses the two commonest names of God in the Old
Testament, 'God' and 'Lord', and applies them to Christ.
There is no need, like Bousset, to find an origin for this saying
in the Church's desire to oppose the emperor-worship of the
second half of the first century.
5
The saying is dependent on
Jewish usage. Thomas honours Jesus with the titles of God.
1
E. C. Colwell ( J. B. L. Lii (1933), I2ff) formulates the rule that 'definite
predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article'. His views are
discussed by C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, pp. 115ff.
a
This verse expresses a paradox which runs through the Fourth Gospel. Jesus
Is one with the Father and yet He is subordinate to the Father. The Word is God,
and yet the Word is with God. Cf. Bultmann, Das Ev. des Johannes, pp. 17-19.
3
Kyrios Christos, 1st ed., p. 301.
4
See Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, p. 548.
6
See Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 1st ed., p. 301, and Bultmann, Eu.Joh. p. 538, also
Hoskyns, ibid. The words 'dominus et deus noster', used of Domitian (Suet.,
Domii., 13), may have heightened the significance of this passage.
But it is probable that the story was later used to oppose the
demands of the emperors. Its present form may have taken
shape under the influence of liturgical needs.
1
Thomas may have actually uttered these words. But it is
probable that the title 6e6s was not given to Christ immediately
after the resurrection. Lordship and not Godhead seems to
have been the main confession of the Primitive Church.
Nevertheless the possibility cannot be excluded that Thomas
accorded full divine honours to Jesus. The evangelist may have
correctly recorded the scene in which Thomas grasped the
truth of Christ's divinity 'in the exaltation of his sudden
deliverance from obstinate gloom to radiant faith'.
2
The confession of Thomas has an important place in the
structure of the Fourth Gospel. The Prologue to the Gospel is
an account of the Incarnation of the Word of God. Not only
was this Word with God in the beginning. It was also itself
God. The Gospel begins, therefore, with a declaration of the
divinity of Christ. Until chapter 20 there is no other open
declaration of His divinity. Many things are said which imply
that He is divine, but He is never called God. In the con-
cluding narrative of chapter 20 He is called God for a second
time. Since chapter 21 is probably an appendix to the original
gospel, the story of Thomas may have been the last story in the
first version of the gospel. The evangelist began and ended his
work with a confession that Christ was God.
3
4. I J o h n 5.20. olSafxev 8e on 6 Yios rov eov rJKet,, KCLI SeScoKev
rjixlv Sid.vot.av Iva yivwoKOfiev rov a\r]8t,v6v K<U iofiev iv aXrjdivco,
iv TU Yia> avTOv 'ITJGOV Xpt,OTa>, OSTOS eanv 6 aXr)dt.v6s &eos /ecu
alcbvios.
The Revised Version translates: And we know that the Son
of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we
know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in
his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
There are several textual variants, all of which seem to be
attempts to make the verse easier to interpret.
1
Barrett John, p. 477.
a
Temple, Readings, p. 391.
3
This saying presents a difficulty to those commentators who claim that Seo'r
is never applied to Christ when it has an article. They defend their position by
arguing that Qeos cannot be anarthrous when it is vocative. Hoskyns comments
(p. 549): 'It may, however, be doubted whether the Evangelist intends this nice
grammatical and theological distinction.' On the other hand, as in 1.1, the evange-
list does not imply God and Christ are wholly identical. See Barrett, op. cit., p. 477.
If OSTOS refers to 'I-qoovXpiorw, then Jesus is called God. Bousset
accepts this view and thinks that the author or the final redactor
is alluding to John 17.3;
1
Bousset's view is supported by the
descriptions of Jesus as 'the Life' which occur in the Johannine
writings (John 11.25; 14.6). On the other hand, Dodd believes
that the writer is summing up all that he has been saying about
God in the epistle. OSTOS refers not to the words which immedi-
ately precede it but to the teaching about God throughout the
epistle.
2
There is, however, a more natural interpretation.
OSTOS refers to 6 dXrjdivos of the previous sentence. ev ru> Ylco is
not in apposition to eV T<2 a\r)9wcp, but limits the whole of the Iva
clause. 'Being in His Son Jesus Christ' is the the condition upon
which we are able to know and to be in the true one, who is God.
In this verse, therefore, Jesus is not called God.
II
Second Group: passages in which the text is uncertain
I. Gal. 2.20. o Se vvv tu ev oapi<t, ev irlorei co 777 TOV Yiovrov
eov TOV aycLTrrjaavTOS pe KCLI TrapaSovros eavrov vnep ifiov.
And that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the
faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave him-
self up for me.
Several authorities, including the Chester-Beatty Papyrus,
Codex Vaticanus, Codex Claromontanus,
3
and most of the Old
Latin Versions, support the reading TOV eov /cai Xpiarov instead
of TOV Ylov TOV XpiaTov. There are two possible translations of
this variant reading:
i. . . . the faith which is in God and Christ who loved me etc.
ii. . . . the faith which is in the God and Christ who loved me
etc.
The second translation says that Christ is God. Since, how-
ever, XpioTos without the article was used frequently as a proper
name, the first translation is to be preferred, and the variant
reading must be rejected as an attempt to give a more com-
prehensive definition of the object of faith. In any case the
expression TOV @eov KO.1 Xpiarov is without parallel in St. Paul,
1
Kyrios Christos, 1st ed., pp. 301-2.
a
The Johannine Epistles, p. 140.
3
One corrector of D follows the other reading.
but that in itself would not be sufficient reason for rejecting the
reading. It is, however, more likely that the reading TOV eov
KO.1 Xpiarov was substituted for TOV Ylov TOV eov than that the
latter was substituted for the former. Hence, in spite of the
strong textual support for the variant reading, it must be
rejected.
2. I Ti m. 3-16. os i(j>avepojdr] ev aapKi,
He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit . . .
Some authorities read eos instead of os. But eos is almost
certainly a later reading. The manuscript support is not
strong.
1
3. John 1.18. fj.ovoyevr)s eos 6 eov els TOV KOKTTOV TOV TIaTpos,
The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father,
he has declared him.
This reading (6) ixovoyevfjs eos is supported by the weightier
authorities (x, B, C*, L, e, W*, <9, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen).
(6) /jLovoyevrjs Ylos is found in the 'Received Text'. Its earliest
support is Western. It is also found in the Old Syriac. ixovoyevqs
alone occurs in some codices of the Vulgate and in the Diates-
saron.
Lagrange and Bousset favour /xovoyev^s and argue that eos
and Ylos are two different examples of a later amplification.
2
Barrett claims that Ylos 'seems to be imperatively demanded
by the following clause, and is conformity with Johannine
usage'.
3
Westcott and Hort accept the reading povoyevris eos.
i
They argue that the substitution of the words fxovoyevr)s Ylos for
the unique fiovoyevris eos would be obvious, and that the con-
verse substitution 'is inexplicable by any ordinary motive likely
to affect transcribers'.
The reading novoyevrjs eos is the most probable. Burney's
claim that the original Aramaic may have meant 'only-begotten
of God' is unconvincing, as it is unlikely that a translator could
have made such a mistake.
5
In the first of his Two Dissertations Hort has justified the
occurrence of this unusual title in the Prologue of the Fourth
1
See Wescott and Hort, NT Vol. II, pp. 132-4.
2
Lagrange, St. Jean, ad. loc. Bousset, KyriosChristos, 1st ed. p. 302.
3
St. John, p. 141.
4
NT Vol. II, p. 74.
6
See M. Black, Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 2nd ed., p. 10.
Gospel. He argues that there is a careful progress in the
thought of the Prologue. The introduction of the phrase
ixovoyevfjs Ylos would have been abrupt, since the title Ylos had
not been previously mentioned. But fiovoyev-qs has been
mentioned (v. 14) and also eos (v. 1). The words novoyevrjs
eos give the Prologue a roundness of form. 'Verse 1 declares
the Word to have been "in the beginning" eos', verse ^st at es
that the Word, when He became flesh, was beheld to have a
glory as of a fiovoyevrjs; verse 18 shews how His union of both
attributes enabled Him to bridge the chasm which kept the
Godhead beyond the knowledge of men.'
1
4. Act s 20. 28. . . . 7roi(j.aveiv TTJV eKKXrjalav TOV eov, rjv
npieTToirjo~aTo Sia TOV alfiaros TOV ISlov.
. . . to feed the church of God, which he purchased through
his own blood (or 'the blood of his own').
There is good Western support for Kvpiov instead of eov.
But eov has very strong manuscript support including Vati-
canus and Sinaiticus. The reading Kvpiov KCU eov is obviously
conflate. There are several other readings, 'I-qoov Xpio-Tov, Kvpiov
'/rjCToC, and XpiaTov, which are poorly supported and do not
alter the main issue at stake.
2
In favour of Kvpiov it has been argued that the expression
'church of the Lord' is unusual and therefore has a strong claim
to be authentic. 'Church of God' is the usual expression. But
although 'church of the Lord' is not found elsewhere in the
New Testament it is not an unnatural expression. The sub-
stitution of eov for Kvpiov makes the thought of the whole
clause extremely unusual. Although it is conceivable that eov
was substituted in the interests of Patripassianism, it is far more
likely that the converse process took place, in order to guard
the text against the suspicion of heresy. Moreover the manu-
script evidence favours eov.
Hort has suggested that the original reading might have been
TOV ISlov Ylov. YIOY may have dropped out after TOYIAIOY.
3
J. H. Moulton thinks that 6 ISios may have been a title for
Christ, although he does not bring convincing evidence in
favour of his theory.
4
But the position of the adjective is un-
1
Two Dissertations, p. 15.
8
For a full account of the textual evidence see Ropes, Beginnings of Christianity,
Vol. Ill, pp. 197-9. Cf. Westcott and Hort, Vol. II, pp. 98-100 (Note by Hort).
Westcott and Hort, II, pp. 99-100.
4
Beginnings, Vol. Il l , p. 196.
expected. What Ropes calls the 'Antiochian' text supports the
reading rov I8iov al^iaros which is a stylistic improvement,
setting the adjective in the usual position.
1
The text is best
explained by a theory such as Hort's or Moulton's. Therefore
this passage cannot be adduced as convincing evidence that
Jesus was called God in New Testament times.
In this examination of the New Testament evidence it has
been argued that there are seven passages in which Jesus is
called eos. They are Rom. 9.5, Titus 2.13, 2 Pet. 1.1, Heb.
1.8, John I . I , 1.18 and 20.28. Only the last is more or less
universally accepted as a genuine instance. The interpretation
of the other passages is seriously disputed. The linguistic argu-
ments, however, although they are by no means one-sided,
support the view that Jesus is called God. If attention is paid
to the linguistic arguments, the instances of this kind of descrip-
tion of Christ are numerous enough to ease the perplexity of
those critics who are unable to accept an example when it
appears to be unique in the New Testament. They will not
want to dismiss an example, which has six companions, as
easily as one which stands alone.
It is not possible to discuss in this article the varied ways in
which divine honours were accorded to Christ but in the New
Testament the use of the word Qeos to describe Christ is not
surprising. He is regularly designated as Kvpios, the Septuagint
translation of 'Yahweh'. The divine functions of creation,
judgment, and salvation are ascribed to Him. Quotations,
which in their Old Testament setting were applied to Yahweh,
are used in the New Testament about Christ.
At the beginning of the second century there is a variety of
extra-canonical evidence that Jesus was called God. In the
Didache 10.6 the words 'Qaawa ea> Aaftib (Hosanna to the
God of David) refer to Christ. Pliny writes in one of his letters
(Ep. X. 96.7) that the Christians used to 'sing a hymn to Christ
as God' (carmen Christo quasi deo dicere). Ignatius frequently calls
Him God.
2
This form of address, this manner of description,
did not suddenly spring into being at the beginning of the
second century. That there should be previous examples of the
1
Prolegomena, pp. goff.
2
E.g. Eph. i. 1, xv. 3, xviii. 2, xix. 3, Sm. i. 1, x. 1, Tr. vii. 1.
usage is not surprising. Their scarcity, not their existence, is a
cause of surprise. It is only to be expected that Jesus was called
God before the time of Pliny and Ignatius. Both these writers
assume that this mode of speech is perfectly natural. It might
have been expected that the predicate eos would have been
used of Jesus far more often in the pages of the New Testament.
For that would account for its unquestioning acceptance by
Ignatius.
An attempt will be made to explain why these references
occur in the New Testament, and why they are so few in
number. There is one important characteristic which some of
them, perhaps all of them, have in common. They have a
liturgical background. Rom. 9.5 is a short ascription of praise
to Christ. Its vocabulary is typical of a doxology (evXoyrjros,
els cu'tovas, em TravroDv). The suggestion was made that St. Paul
wrote these words under the influence of deep emotion. They
are an expression of his innermost feelings rather than an in-
tegral part of the argument. He may have written words which
he was accustomed to use in his private prayers. Or he may
have quoted a doxology which was used in public worship.
Heb. 1.8 is a quotation from a psalm. The author assumes
that the words are well known to his readers, and that they
will readily accept the reference to Christ. The psalm, or at
any rate part of it, must have been used in the liturgy of the
church to which the epistle was addressed. In their worship
they sang: 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever.' The belief that
Christ is God is not the keystone of the Christology of the
Epistle to the Hebrews. The author is chiefly concerned to
expound the conception of the High Priesthood of Christ and
His unique Sonship. The allusion to the Divinity of Christ in
1.8 does not form an integral part of the theology of the epistle.
It supplies valuable evidence, however, about the liturgical
background of early Christianity. Although the writer does
not include the full Divinity of Christ within the scheme of
thought which he presents in the epistle, his use of this quota-
tion from Ps. 45 shows that he himself, and the Church to which
he was writing, were prepared to acknowledge in their worship
that Jesus was God.
In the Epistles to the Romans and to the Hebrews the
acknowledgment of Christ's Deity is not integral to the thought
but provides a clue to the liturgical background. On the other
hand the references to Jesus as God, which are found in the
Fourth Gospel, are essential to the writer' s thought. The
prologue begins with the statement that the Word was God,
and ends with the description of the Incarnate Word as 'only-
begotten God' . The earliest edition of the Gospel ended with
the story of Thomas' s confession that Jesus was His Lord and
His God. The evangelist implies that the Christian believer is
able to discern that the risen Christ is God. The presence of
these passages at the beginning and the end of the Gospel proves
that they are not merely passing allusions which have been
introduced haphazardly. Their position in the Gospel is
deliberately planned.
Not only are these passages important for an understanding
of the theology of the Fourth Gospel. At least one of them
(John 20.28) seems to have been used liturgically.
1
The struc-
ture of the pericope in which the confession ' My Lord and my
God!' is included (John 20.19-29) suggests that the passage
may have had a liturgical origin. C. K. Barrett claims that
there is considerable evidence for this view: ' The disciples
assemble on the Lord' s Day. The blessing is given: Elprjvq
vfj.lv. The Holy Spirit descends upon the worshippers and the
word of absolution (cf. v. 23) is pronounced. Christ Himself
is present (this may suggest the Eucharist and the spoken Word
of God) bearing the marks of His passion; He is confessed as
Lord and God.'
2
Barrett' s arguments can be supported by the
evidence t hat Kvpcos KO.1 <9eds was a formula which was used
both in the Greek Old Testament and in pagan literature and
inscriptions. Since the formula was so well known, it could
easily have been taken over into Christian worship.
3
The references to Christ as God, which occur in Titus and
2 Peter, may also have had their origin in liturgy. It is quite
likely t hat at a time when Ignatius would frequently describe
Christ as 9e6s, these forms of invocation and confession were
in common use in some of the churches.
4
The evidence which has been collected favours the view that
1
The prologue too, it has been argued, was couched in poetic form. But it
must have been revised before inclusion in the Gospel. The parts of the prologue
which describe Christ as God are theological rather than liturgical.
1
The Gospel according to St. John, p. 477.
8
Cf. Ps. 34. 23. Suet., p. 538. n. 8. * Cf. Dibelius, Pastoralbriefe, p. 92.
THE CONFESSION 'JESUS IS GOD" IN NT 297
Jesus Christ was called God in the worship of the Church in
New Testament times. He may not have been addressed in
these terms in every church of Christendom, but He was
accorded this honour at least in churches with which St. Paul,
and the authors of the Fourth Gospel, Hebrews, the Pastoral
Epistles, and 2 Peter, were connected. The writers of the New
Testament seem to have been reluctant to commit to writing
the confession that Jesus is God. The reluctance of St. Paul
and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews may have been
caused by their inability to give an account of the relationship
of this belief to the Jewish monotheism to which they continued
to subscribe. Their faith outstripped their reason, and they
were able to give joyful utterance to a belief which they felt
incapable of expounding. But each of these writers, on one
occasion, allowed himself to give expression to this deep-seated
belief, and to include in the text of an epistle language which
he used more frequently in private and public worship.
The author of the Fourth Gospel interwove this belief into
his thought. The Word, which was incarnate in Jesus Christ,
was God. After the resurrection the disciple of Jesus was able
to perceive this divinity as he looked at the risen Lord. St.
John too was in contact with a liturgical tradition in which
Jesus was hailed as Lord and God. Perhaps, by placing the
confession of Thomas at the very end of the Gospel, he was
suggesting that it was only in the moment of worship that men
were able to comprehend that Jesus was God. Only when, like
Thomas, they bowed in reverence and faith before His risen
majesty, could they know who He was.
The language of St. Paul, the Fourth Gospel and the Epistle
to the Hebrews, does not suggest that Jesus Christ was wholly
identical with God. He is only called 6 eos when the nomi-
native is used in a vocative sense. And when this happens the
article has not the usual definitive significance. On the other
hand, in the Pastorals and the Second Epistle of Peter, the
definite article is used with Oeos to describe Christ. This is not
a sign of incipient monarchianism. The writers did not realise
the complexity of the problem. In their language, like their
contemporary Ignatius, they failed to exercise the subtle re-
straint which was shown by their predecessors.
B, S, Easton claims that Hellenistic Christians could speak
of Jesus Christ as 'our great God' without derogation to the
supreme Godhead of the Father.
1
This is certainly true of the
Hellenistic Christians amongst whom Ignatius and the writer
of the Pastorals moved. It would not have been true of the
Church which St. Paul knew. By the end of the first century a
change had taken place. The claims of strict Jewish mono-
theism did not figure so largely in the thought of Christians.
They acknowledged the monotheism, and never questioned it.
But it was not engrained in them so deeply as in St. Paul,
whose thought and language was always fenced by this most
cherished dogma of Judaism. They were able to use expressions
which could have been used by Monarchians or Polytheists,
although they themselves would have had no dealings with
either.
Bultmann criticises the confession, 'Jesus is God', because of
its ambiguity. He claims that it is impossible to know whether
the confession is in accordance with the New Testament or not,
until it has been more precisely defined.
2
It has been shown,
however, that Jesus is called God in the New Testament. The
formulae 'Jesus is God' and 'Christ is God' do not actually
occur. But formulae with the same implications are found in
several different types of writing. If St. Paul said 'Christ . . .
who is God over all', and the author of Hebrews said, 'Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever', the statement 'Jesus Christ
is God' is in accordance with the New Testament.
The word 'God' with a capital ' G' is often said to be different
in meaning from 'god' with a small 'g'. Since there were only
capital letters in the original New Testament Greek, there was
no such distinction in the first century. Can it then be argued
that the confession 'Jesus Christ is God' is not more ambiguous
but less ambiguous than similar confessions in the New Testa-
ment? This criticism, somewhat different from Bultmann's,
cannot stand. For 'god' in English is generally applied to a
being who is not believed to be a god at all. 'God' describes the
one true God. But 'God' has been used for so long against a
background of Trinitarian thought, that it cannot be accounted
misleading to say 'Jesus Christ is God' when it is also under-
stood that the Father is God as well. The absence of the article
in Rom. 9.5, John 1.1, and John 1.18 is in accordance with the
1
The Pastoral Epistles, p. 95.
a
Essays, p. 273.
use of the word 'God' in the confession 'Jesus Christ is God.'
St. Paul and St. John believed in one God. But they did not
claim that Jesus Christ was identical with the whole of what was
meant by God. The World Council Confession agrees with St.
Paul and St. John in refraining from making such an identi-
fication. The formula is not 'Jesus Christ is the only God', but
'Jesus Christ is God'. The ambiguity of the World Council's
formula is more or less the same ambiguity as that which is
found in the writings of St. Paul and St. John.

The Confession 'Jesus Is God

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Confession 'Jesus Is God

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THE CONFESSION 'JESUS IS GOD'

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

S-ar putea să vă placă și