THE CONFESSION 'JESUS IS GOD

THE CONFESSION 'JESUS IS GOD'IN THE NEW TESTAMENTby THE REV. A. W. WAINWRIGHT

IN a chapter of his book Glaube und Verstehen, recently translatedinto 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 ofChurches. The words of the Confession are: 'The WorldCouncil of Churches is composed of Churches which acknow-ledge Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.' Bultmann directs hisattention chiefly to the confession that Jesus is God.1 In theNew Testament he finds only one verse in which Jesus is un-"doubtedly called God. That is John 20.28, in which Thomasaddresses Jesus as 'My Lord and my God!' In contrast withthis single example, there is in Bultmann's opinion a greatamount of evidence that the writers of the New Testamentbelieved that Jesus was subordinate to His Father.

Bultmann also criticises the statement 'Jesus is God' for itsambiguity. He comes to the conclusion that the statement iscorrect 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 isunderstood as an entity which can be objectivised'.3

In the following pages the ambiguity of the formula will notbe discussed. Attention will be confined to the questionwhether the statement 'Jesus Christ is God' is in accordancewith the teaching of the New Testament. Those passages willbe examined in which it can be argued that Jesus is given thetitle deos. Bultmann thinks that there is only one sure instanceof the ascription of this title to Jesus (John 20.28), but severalother passages require discussion. An attempt will be made toprove that the confession Jesus Christ is God' is in accordancewith the teaching of the New Testament. If the confession isambiguous, it possesses an ambiguity which the Church of thefirst century, like the World Council of Churches in thetwentieth 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 beunrewarding to consider the various types of criticism whichhave been practised upon them. If these passages were inter-preted according to the natural linguistic usage, many of themwould certainly refer to Jesus as God. But critics have not beeninfluenced only by linguistic probability. Other arguments havebeen brought forward and allowed to outweigh the linguisticevidence. An assessment is required of the relative importanceof the different types of evidence which have been used.

One type of argument may be described as theological. ANew Testament passage is interpreted so as to conform to theorthodoxy of the creeds. If an interpretation does not conform,it is rejected. This type of argument is not often used by modernscholars, but may creep in by the back door. Indeed there is atrace of it in Hort's comments on Titus 2.13: npoahexoyavoiTTJV /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 ourGod and Saviour Jesus Christ'. Hort writes: 'It to say theleast suggests "division" of "substance", a separate Deity, theDeity of Tritheism, not the equally perfect Deity of a Person ofthe One Godhead. This is very unlike St. Paul and the NT.'1

Hort brings forward other arguments, and the main point ofthe paragraph quoted may be the inconsistency of the inter-pretation with the usual teaching of the New Testament. ButHort gives unusual weight to the inconsistency of the inter-pretation with the Athanasian Creed. This factor ought notto influence the intepretation of the verse.

Another commoner type of argument may be described aspsychological. This type of argument, unlike the former, isvalid for the interpretation of a New Testament passage. Ithas been used with great frequency. Scholars who argue in thisway claim that it is improbable or even impossible that a writercould identify Jesus with God because such an identification isinconsistent with the rest of his thought.

An example of this kind of reasoning is found in AndersonScott's Christianity according to St. Paul. According to AndersonScott Jewish monotheism was so deeply ingrained in the mindof 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 hisexperience and urged by his convictions up to the verge ofacknowledging that Christ is God, but finally precluded frommaking such acknowledgment by his hereditary monotheism'.1

On these grounds Anderson Scott refuses to accept the viewthat Rom. 9.5 includes an identification of Christ with God.

In his commentary on the same verse in the Epistle to theRomans, 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 withsuch profound questions. It is difficult to imagine that if hewere content to speak so frankly here he should not have doneso elsewhere in his epistles, where countless opportunities forsuch a course presented themselves.'2

Arguments of this kind occur not infrequently, especially inbooks about St. Paul.3 The claim is made that, since St. Paulwas a man of a particular character, brought up in a particularenvironment, he could not have made the statement that Christwas God. Or, if he had made the statement, he would havebeen constrained by his own nature to repeat it.

Although these arguments may rightly help to tilt the scalesof judgment, they are in themselves of light weight. We arenot in a position to say with an air of finality what was psycholo-gically impossible for St. Paul. We are certainly not in aposition to say that he was incapable of inconsistencies. Thesurviving works of St. Paul are small in bulk. If one or twothoughts, which they contain, do not seem to harmonise withthe rest, we ought not to imagine that we can only resolve theapparent discord by finding a different interpretation of theGreek. Perhaps we are not fully attuned to St. Paul's mode ofthought, which we have limited opportunities for studying,because of the small quantity of his writing which has beenpreserved. Beliefs which are mentioned only briefly in thesurviving epistles may have been expressed at greater lengthin works which have perished. Some thoughts, which had greatprominence in his private teaching and his devotional life,may have been deliberately veiled in the epistles. It is quitepossible, 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 notyet reconciled it in thought with his Jewish monotheism. Othermen have held beliefs, which they could not explain rationally.

Far too much weight has been given to this kind of argumentin New Testament criticism. The obvious linguistic interpre-tation of several important passages of scripture has beenneglected in the interests of psychological probability. In anumber of passages scattered through the New Testament, theconstruction of the Greek sentences favours the view that Christis called God. But many critics have chosen a less naturaltranslation of the Greek because they believe it was psycholo-gically impossible for the writer to have said that Christ wasGod. The correct procedure, however, is to choose the mostnatural interpretation of the Greek. When two interpretationsare more or less equally acceptable on linguistic grounds, it islegitimate to allow considerations of psychological probabilityto influence a judgment. But if the natural interpretation ofthe Greek seems to involve the author in an inconsistency, itshould none the less be accepted. The inconsistency must beadmitted. Indeed it is psychologically probable that a writerwill be guilty of inconsistencies.

Although linguistic arguments ought to be our chief guidein establishing the meaning of the language of the New Testa-ment, psychological arguments have a part to play. They canexplain the development of an author's thought. They canaccount for his inconsistencies. They can suggest why he wassilent about some doctrines and eloquent about others. Buttheir chief function begins when the meaning of the Greek hasbeen established. Linguistic arguments should be used todetermine 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 explainwhy a writer was prompted to think in a certain way and touse certain words as a vehicle for his thought. But they will notbe used to support an unnatural translation of the Greek.

The passages of the New Testament, in which it is possiblethat Jesus was openly described as God (Oeos), will now bereviewed. In the first group those examples will be discussed


which present no textual problems. In the second group theexamples 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. Othertranslations have been suggested in which Christ is not calledGod. If a full stop is placed after adpKa (flesh), the last part ofthe verse may be translated as a separate sentence. There arethree 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 isChrist as concerning the flesh, who is over all. God be (or 'is')blessed for ever.' This translation, like the three above, makesno connexion between God and Christ.

The Revised Version assumes a different punctuation. If acomma is placed after aapKa (flesh), and no further punctuationis inserted until the full stop after im ndvrtov (over all), Christmust be called God. This interpretation is accepted by a greatmajority of the Fathers. But the punctuation of the oldest uncialmanuscripts 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 Vaticanushas a colon, probably inserted by a later hand, after odpxa,and a space at the end of the verse. Codex Ephraemi has astop after adpKa. Since there would be no punctuation in theearliest papyrus copies of the scriptures, we could not attachgreat importance to the punctuation of these uncials, even if


it were clear. Because of its ambiguity, no weight can beattached to it.1

Attempts have been made, with little success, to emend thetext. If (Sv o were substituted for 6 a>v, the verse could betranslated: 'whose is Christ according to the flesh, whose isGod who is over all, blessed for ever.' There is no manuscriptevidence in support of this emendation.

The grammar of the verse favours the view that Christ iscalled God.

i. If the verse ended with a doxology to God the Father, weshould expect evXoyrjTos to come at the beginning of the sentence.That is nearly always the position of the doxology in biblicalGreek. The order would be changed only for some specialreason. There is, however, no need to stress the word 9e6s, asno contrast is drawn between God and Christ. In any case theorder of words would not place any appreciable stress on0eo? if the doxology were a separate sentence. If however thedoxology is addressed to Christ, evXoyqros cannot be placed atthe beginning of the clause, but naturally comes later.2

Moreover doxologies in the writings of St. Paul usually referto someone who has been mentioned beforehand. The name ofGod does not occur in Rom. 9 until the end of verse 5. Christis mentioned several times. If Rom. 9.5 follows the generaltendency of Pauline doxologies, it is ascribed to someone whois named in the preceding sentences. The only possible antece-dent is Christ.3

ii. The words 6 wv also present a problem. If the doxologyis a separate sentence, the word u>v is superfluous. It would besufficient to say 6 inl Trdvrcov deos, 'God over all'. Or alternativelyif 6 £7TJ Trdvrwv a>v 0e6s were read, it would mean, 'He who is overall is God.' The position of 6 a>v suggests that it is attached toan antecedent. But there are examples of similar relativaluses of the article and participle which do not refer to anantecedent.4 On the other hand, as Sanday and Headlam

1 Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 233-4 contains a full discussion of thepunctuation.

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 precedingto which the words would naturally refer, as there is no sign ofa change of subject, and as there is no finite verb in the sentencefollowing, an ordinary reader would consider that the wordso wv em •ndvru)v ©eos refer to what precedes unless theysuggest so great an antithesis to his mind that he could notrefer them to Christ.'1

iii. The words TO Kara. adpKa seem to expect an antithesis.Although the most probable antithesis would be TO /cardTTveviia, there are instances in which 6e6s is contrasted withodpi;.2 But the phrase TO Kara. adpKa does not require an anti-thesis. And, as Baur has shown, it can be argued that thephrase was introduced, not to make a contrast with 6e6s, butto avoid making a concession to the Judaising Christians.Christ belonged to the Jews, but only as far as the flesh wasconcerned.3 Nevertheless the passage would read morenaturally if there were some kind of antithesis.

The grammatical evidence favours the view that Christ wascalled God. St. Paul would not be likely to vary his idiom,unconsciously, unless he were saying something startling. Butthose 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, thewords can be used as material for understanding the com-plexities of the mind of St. Paul. The description of Christ asGod is unusual. Possibly this is the only occasion on whichSt. 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 havewritten these words. It is not necessary to show that his actionin writing these words is fully in accord with our presuppositionsabout his thought, his style, or his character. But if this inter-pretation of the passage is to be maintained, an attempt mustbe 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 ofhis epistles.

Sanday and Headlam argue that the words 'who is God overall' etc. fit into the progress of thought in Rom. 9: 'St. Paul isenumerating the privileges of Israel, and as the highest and lastprivilege he reminds his readers that it was from this Jewishstock after all that Christ in His human nature had come, andthen in order to emphasise this he dwells on the exalted charac-ter of Him who came according to the flesh as the JewishMessiah.'1

This explanation does not account for St. Paul's reluctanceto call Christ God in other parts of his writings. Sanday andHeadlam have shown how Rom. 9.5 can fit its context. Theyhave not shown how it fits in with the rest of the apostle'sthought. If St. Paul wished to introduce this clear proclamationof the divinity of Christ into his epistles, why did he not do somore 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 tothe Romans nothing else is said about the Person of Christ,nothing about His relationship to the Father, nothing aboutHis Lordship, nothing about His work in creation. WhileSt. Paul may have described Christ as God in other writingswhich have not been preserved, the assumption that there wereunknown epistles does not account for the abruptness withwhich St. Paul leaves this remarkable statement of the divinityof Christ undeveloped and unexplained.

The clue to the passage is to be found in the emotions of theapostle. When he reached the point of saying that 'Christaccording to the flesh' belonged to the Jews, he might haveproceeded to make a statement about 'Christ according to theSpirit'. Instead of following the expected train of thought, heburst into an ascription of glory to Christ. He allowed himselfto write down what he would have been prepared to say in theintensity of worship, but was in the habit of restraining himselffrom writing. He acknowledged that Christ was 6e6s andevXoyrjTos. His deep feelings, when he contemplated the re-jection of Christ by the Jewish people, led him to give Him thefull 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 aninterjection—an outburst of praise, which the apostle allowedto remain in the epistle, perhaps because, as he surveyed whathe had written, he realised that he had been writing underdivine inspiration.

2. 2 Thess. 1.12. . . . Kara TTJV X°-PIV T0^ ®zov r/ficov KalKvpiov '/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 JesusChrist.

The Revised Version chooses the second translation, whichhas been preferred by the great majority of translators andcommentators. The chief reason in its favour is that thephrase Kvpios 'Irjoovs Xpiaros was so commonly used in St. Paul'sepistles that it would be quite normal to introduce it, even inthis context, without the definite article. Indeed Kvpios 'I-qaovsXpioros seems to have been one of the earliest Christian creeds.1

This is the strongest linguistic argument in favour of the secondtranslation.

Two other factors are supposed to support this point of view.The position of the word 17/xwv which is attached to 0eov seemsto 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 (rodKvpiov rjfj.ojv Kal EcoTrjpos 'Irjaov Xpiarov), the words Kvpiov andZcDrrjpos 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 @eosna-rrip 7jfia>v is characteristic of the Thessalonian Epistles.3 Thiswould explain why St. Paul linked two titles, one of which hadthe article and the other of which lacked it. But the phrase@eo$ rjfj.wv without the article is also found in the ThessalonianEpistles. 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 2Thess. 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 coinedthe phrase ©eos Tla-rrip i^wv which with minor variations occursso frequently in his epistles, and that he wrote this more mis-leading formula in 2 Thess. 1.12. But there is no doubt that thefirst translation of 2 Thess. 1.12 in which Jesus Christ is called God,is the more natural. Nevertheless, because of the frequency ofthe phrase 6 ©eos rmojv in the Thessalonian Epistle and, aboveall, because Kvpios 'Iyo-ovs Xpiaros was a credal formula, thesecond translation is to be preferred.

B. The Pastoral Epistles

Ti tus 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 theglory of our great God and Saviour, which glory is Jesus Christ.

The first translation is unsatisfactory, rfjs 86^-qs is probablynot adjectival. 'The appearing of the glory' is better than 'theglorious appearing'. The crucial question, however, is themeaning of rod fieyaXov ©eov KO.1 Eu>rrjpos rifj-aJv. Should it beassumed that ©eov and ZcoTrjpos both refer to Jesus Christ? TheAuthorised Version believes that only Ucorfjpos refers to Christ.The difficulty of the Authorised Version's translation is thatthe Greek seems to favour a closer link between the words©eov and ZcuTrjpos. If rjiAcuv followed ©eov, it would be easier toseparate 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 supposingthat the author used a credal formula. There is no evidencethat Uwrrjp 'Irjaovs Xpiaros or Zcjrrjp r^Liov 'Irjaovs Xpiaros hadacquired 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 thatZuiri)p 'Irjoovs Xpioros was not a formula of the same popularityas Kvpios 'Iyoovs Xpioros, this phrase cannot be interpreted inthe 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 titleZwrr/p has already been applied to Christ in Titus 1.4. Theorder of words favours the view that Zcorrjp applies to Christand it would not be unexpected in this epistle. While Horthas brought forward much evidence that Jesus was regardedas the Shekinah or Glory of God—though there is only slightevidence that He was openly given this title—his translationinvolves an awkward interpretation of the order of the Greek.2

The best translation is the second, which is given in theRevised Version. As Christ is not called God in any other partof the Pastoral Epistles, how is the presence of this passage inthe epistle to be explained? First, a unique statement in such aslender collection as the Pastoral Epistles ought not to causeany surprise. Secondly, both God and Christ are calledSaviour independently in the epistles. A writer who couldapply the same title to both Father and Son would be able togive the title 'God' to Christ. Thirdly, the phrase fiiyas Qeosnot only occurs in the Septuagint3 but also seems to have beenwidely current in the Hellenistic world.4 It is possible thatHeyas &eds Kal Eu>rt)p, as Dibelius suggests, was a formula whichwas applied to God in the Judaism of the Diaspora, and wastransferred to Christ by the Christians.5 And fourthly, if theepistle was written in the reign of Trajan, as Harrison hasconvincingly claimed,6 it belongs to the same period as theletters of Ignatius, in which Christ is frequently called God.

1 See Parry, Pastoral Epistles, p. 81. Parry also gives as a reason for rejectingthis view the absence of any other reference to a double appearance. But thisreason 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 belikely to commit what he believes to be a travesty of true theology. This argumentis 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 'IrjaovXpiarov.

The reference to God has been omitted by some of theversions and by the uncial P. But the integrity of the text hasnot 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 JesusChrist.

The shape of this phrase is like that of 2 Thess. 1.12: KOTO. rr)vXapiv rov ©eov rj/iajv KCU Kvpiov 'Irjaov Xpiarov. But it cannot bediscussed in the same way. In 2 Thess. the presence of ij/icDvafter ©eov was regarded as evidence, not strong but of someweight, 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, itis unlikely to have had the same influence on the meaning ofthe phrase. At the end of the opening paragraph of the epistle(1.11), comes a similar phrase, TOV Kvpiov r)jiu)v KOX Swrrjpos'IrjaovXpiaTov, in which r)fiu>v is in the same position and the twonouns Kvpiov and EtoTrjpos obviously refer to the same person.1

Therefore it is unlikely that 17/xcDv in 1.1 implies that ©eov andZojTfjpos 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 accountedfor by supposing that Ecjrr)p 'Irjaovs Xpiaros was a credalformula.

The clear meaning of the text is 'our God and SaviourJesus Christ'. The occurrence of this description of Christ in anepistle which almost certainly belongs to the second centuryneeds 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 servantof the God and Lord Jesus Christ'.

1 According to several authorities 2 Pet. a.20 is a parallel to I . I I , but thisreading 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 bedefended from a linguistic point of view. The issue must bedecided in this case by other arguments. Since the author sayslittle about Christ in this epistle, and does not elsewhereidentify Christ with God, there is no reason to suppose that hecalls Christ God in the opening greeting. I t is possible thatChrist is described as the divine glory in Jas. 2.1, but this isnot equivalent to claiming that He is God. The first translationof Jas . 1.1 is to be preferred.

E. The Epistle to the Hebrewsxleb. 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 orThy 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 quotingthe Septuagint, these problems are not relevant to the inter-pretation of this passage.

The words 6 ©eos could be nominative or vocative, as thenominative of Beos usually does duty for the vocative. Thetranslation which Westcott prefers does not express the mostnatural sense of the Greek. The phrase els TOV alwva TOV alwvosis in an awkward position, if 6 ©eos is not vocative, o Bpovosaov els TOV alwva TOV alwvos 6 ©eos would be more suited toWestcott's translation.

Peake thinks that the most serious objection to the firsttranslation is that the use of ©eos and the definite article withreference to Christ is without parallel in the New Testament.1

There is, however, a good parallel in John 20.28, whereThomas addresses Jesus as 0 ®eos fiov. This is an example ofthe nominative used as a vocative.

1 Hebrews, p . 87.


Westcott suggests that a description of Christ as God wouldobscure the thought of the passage.1 The intention of thewriter is to stress the eternal nature of the dominion of Christin contrast to the mutability of the angels. Perhaps a referenceto the divinity of Christ would distract a reader from the mainissue. In fact the thought is not obscured. The implicationthat Christ is God only strengthens the emphasis on His eternalrule and increases the contrast with the angels.

How does the idea that the Son is God fit into the scheme ofthe 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 ofChrist. Why, then does the author make this isolated con-fession in Heb. 1.8?

A reasonable explanation is that Ps. 45.6 was applied toChrist in the worship of the Christian Church. The quotationis introduced as if it were familiar to the readers. They wouldbe most likely to gain familiarity with it by hearing it quotedin sermons, or by singing it themselves as a hymn. The writerpresupposes that Christ is regarded as a legitimate object ofworship. His readers would not be unduly surprised to findChrist addressed as God. Perhaps it was unusual to express thebelief in writing. But because they uttered these words in theirworship, there was no great surprise when they saw them inthe letter. The writer did not amplify the statement, becauseit was not his intention to discuss the difficult problem of theDeity of Christ. His point in this verse is the superiority ofChrist to the angels. The Deity of Christ, which is relevantbut not necessary to the argument, is only mentioned in passing.

F. The Gospel according to St. Matthew

Matt. I.23. . . . /ecu KaXeaovcnv TO ovofxa avrov 'EfifiavovqX, 6ecrnv 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 'elof Isa. 7.14. The order of words in the Greek suggests thatjxed' 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 aproper name, and cannot therefore be expected to make itclear whether 'immanu is adverbial or adjectival. St. Matthewwas more concerned to give a literal translation of the Hebrewthan to free the language from ambiguity. It is impossible tobe 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. Butthe identification is not absolute but limited by the words 'withus'. The second translation 'God is with us' means no morethan that God was present in Jesus. This does not imply thatJesus was God. Because of the uncertainty of the meaning thispassage cannot be used as evidence that Jesus was called God.

G. The Johannine Writings

1. John 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 withGod.

The translation 'the Word was God' implies that Jesus wasregarded as God. Since ©eos occurs here without the article,whereas it is preceded by the article in two other places in thesame verse, it has been argued that the word can be adjectivalwhen it appears without the article. But if an adjective hadbeen wanted, the word delos, which occurs twice in the NewTestament (Acts 17.29, 2 Pet. i-3f), could have been used.1

@eos is used with or without the article indiscriminately inthe New Testament. In the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel itnever 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 occursbetween two examples of ©eos with the article. There is noreason 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 Aoyoswould have meant 'God was the Word'. The Evangelistwanted ©eos to be stressed. Hence he placed it at the beginningof the clause. In order to show that it was predicative he hadto omit the article.1

Moreover, if he had written ©eos, he would have impliedthat only the Aoyos could rightly be described as God. Theclause should be translated 'the Word was God' rather than'the Word was divine'.2

2. J o h n 17-3- a^Trl Se iarw 17 alaivios £,u>rj, Iva yivwoKOjaiv aerov fiovov aXrjOtvov ©eov Kal OV aireareiXas 'Irjaovv Xpiorov.

And this is eternal life, that they should know thee, the onlytrue God, and him whom thou didst send, Jesus Christ.

Bousset suggests that this may be translated: And this iseternal 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 fxovovaXrjdivov 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 o h n 20.28. aireKplOr] ©oj/xas Kal etnev avrw 6 Kvpios /xovKal 6 ©eos /IOV.

Thomas answered, and said to him, My Lord and my God.The words of Thomas are addressed to Christ. They are almostcertainly an instance of the nominative used in a vocative sense.Theodore of Mopsuestia suggests that this is a thanksgivingwhich Thomas addresses to God the Father. The contextfavours the view that these words were spoken to Jesus.4

Thomas uses the two commonest names of God in the OldTestament, 'God' and 'Lord', and applies them to Christ.There is no need, like Bousset, to find an origin for this sayingin the Church's desire to oppose the emperor-worship of thesecond half of the first century.5 The saying is dependent onJewish usage. Thomas honours Jesus with the titles of God.

1 E. C. Colwell (J . B. L. Lii (1933), I2ff) formulates the rule that 'definitepredicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article'. His views arediscussed 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. JesusIs 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 thedemands of the emperors. Its present form may have takenshape under the influence of liturgical needs.1

Thomas may have actually uttered these words. But it isprobable that the title 6e6s was not given to Christ immediatelyafter the resurrection. Lordship and not Godhead seems tohave been the main confession of the Primitive Church.Nevertheless the possibility cannot be excluded that Thomasaccorded full divine honours to Jesus. The evangelist may havecorrectly recorded the scene in which Thomas grasped thetruth of Christ's divinity 'in the exaltation of his suddendeliverance from obstinate gloom to radiant faith'.2

The confession of Thomas has an important place in thestructure of the Fourth Gospel. The Prologue to the Gospel isan account of the Incarnation of the Word of God. Not onlywas this Word with God in the beginning. It was also itselfGod. The Gospel begins, therefore, with a declaration of thedivinity of Christ. Until chapter 20 there is no other opendeclaration of His divinity. Many things are said which implythat He is divine, but He is never called God. In the con-cluding narrative of chapter 20 He is called God for a secondtime. Since chapter 21 is probably an appendix to the originalgospel, the story of Thomas may have been the last story in thefirst version of the gospel. The evangelist began and ended hiswork 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 T U 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 weknow him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even inhis Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

There are several textual variants, all of which seem to beattempts 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 byarguing that Qeos cannot be anarthrous when it is vocative. Hoskyns comments(p. 549): 'It may, however, be doubted whether the Evangelist intends this nicegrammatical 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. Boussetaccepts this view and thinks that the author or the final redactoris alluding to John 17.3;1 Bousset's view is supported by thedescriptions of Jesus as 'the Life' which occur in the Johanninewritings (John 11.25; 14.6). On the other hand, Dodd believesthat the writer is summing up all that he has been saying aboutGod in the epistle. OSTOS refers not to the words which immedi-ately precede it but to the teaching about God throughout theepistle.2 There is, however, a more natural interpretation.OSTOS refers to 6 dXrjdivos of the previous sentence. ev ru> Ylco isnot in apposition to eV T<2 a\r)9wcp, but limits the whole of the Ivaclause. 'Being in His Son Jesus Christ' is the the condition uponwhich 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, thefaith 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 OldLatin Versions, support the reading TOV ©eov /cai Xpiarov insteadof TOV Ylov TOV XpiaTov. There are two possible translations ofthis 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 meetc.

The second translation says that Christ is God. Since, how-ever, XpioTos without the article was used frequently as a propername, the first translation is to be preferred, and the variantreading must be rejected as an attempt to give a more com-prehensive definition of the object of faith. In any case theexpression 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 thereading. It is, however, more likely that the reading TOV ©eovKO.1 Xpiarov was substituted for TOV Ylov TOV ©eov than that thelatter was substituted for the former. Hence, in spite of thestrong textual support for the variant reading, it must berejected.

2. I T i 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 notstrong.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 weightierauthorities (x, B, C*, L, e, W*, <9, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen).

(6) /jLovoyevrjs Ylos is found in the 'Received Text'. Its earliestsupport is Western. It is also found in the Old Syriac. ixovoyevqsalone occurs in some codices of the Vulgate and in the Diates-saron.

Lagrange and Bousset favour /xovoyev^s and argue that ©eosand Ylos are two different examples of a later amplification.2

Barrett claims that Ylos 'seems to be imperatively demandedby the following clause, and is conformity with Johannineusage'.3 Westcott and Hort accept the reading povoyevris ©eos.i

They argue that the substitution of the words fxovoyevr)s Ylos forthe unique fiovoyevris ©eos would be obvious, and that the con-verse substitution 'is inexplicable by any ordinary motive likelyto affect transcribers'.

The reading novoyevrjs ©eos is the most probable. Burney'sclaim that the original Aramaic may have meant 'only-begottenof God' is unconvincing, as it is unlikely that a translator couldhave made such a mistake.5

In the first of his Two Dissertations Hort has justified theoccurrence 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 thethought of the Prologue. The introduction of the phraseixovoyevfjs Ylos would have been abrupt, since the title Ylos hadnot been previously mentioned. But fiovoyev-qs has beenmentioned (v. 14) and also ©eos (v. 1). The words novoyevrjs©eos give the Prologue a roundness of form. 'Verse 1 declaresthe Word to have been "in the beginning" ©eos', verse ^sta testhat the Word, when He became flesh, was beheld to have aglory as of a fiovoyevrjs; verse 18 shews how His union of bothattributes enabled Him to bridge the chasm which kept theGodhead beyond the knowledge of men.'1

4. Acts 20.28. . . . 7roi(j.a£veiv TTJV eKKXrjalav TOV ©eov, rjv•n€pieTToirjo~aTo Sia TOV alfiaros TOV ISlov.

. . . to feed the church of God, which he purchased throughhis 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 obviouslyconflate. There are several other readings, 'I-qoov Xpio-Tov, Kvpiov'/rjCToC, and XpiaTov, which are poorly supported and do notalter 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 claimto be authentic. 'Church of God' is the usual expression. Butalthough 'church of the Lord' is not found elsewhere in theNew Testament it is not an unnatural expression. The sub-stitution of ©eov for Kvpiov makes the thought of the wholeclause extremely unusual. Although it is conceivable that ©eovwas substituted in the interests of Patripassianism, it is far morelikely that the converse process took place, in order to guardthe text against the suspicion of heresy. Moreover the manu-script evidence favours ©eov.

Hort has suggested that the original reading might have beenTOV ISlov Ylov. YIOY may have dropped out after TOYIAIOY.3

J. H. Moulton thinks that 6 ISios may have been a title forChrist, although he does not bring convincing evidence infavour 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. I l l , p. 196.


expected. What Ropes calls the 'Antiochian' text supports thereading rov I8iov al^iaros which is a stylistic improvement,setting the adjective in the usual position.1 The text is bestexplained by a theory such as Hort's or Moulton's. Thereforethis passage cannot be adduced as convincing evidence thatJesus was called God in New Testament times.

In this examination of the New Testament evidence it hasbeen argued that there are seven passages in which Jesus iscalled ®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 lessuniversally accepted as a genuine instance. The interpretationof 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 paidto the linguistic arguments, the instances of this kind of descrip-tion of Christ are numerous enough to ease the perplexity ofthose critics who are unable to accept an example when itappears to be unique in the New Testament. They will notwant to dismiss an example, which has six companions, aseasily as one which stands alone.

It is not possible to discuss in this article the varied ways inwhich divine honours were accorded to Christ but in the NewTestament the use of the word Qeos to describe Christ is notsurprising. He is regularly designated as Kvpios, the Septuaginttranslation 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 ofextra-canonical evidence that Jesus was called God. In theDidache 10.6 the words 'Qaawa ™ ®ea> Aaftib (Hosanna to theGod 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 Christas God' (carmen Christo quasi deo dicere). Ignatius frequently callsHim God.2 This form of address, this manner of description,did not suddenly spring into being at the beginning of thesecond 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 acause of surprise. It is only to be expected that Jesus was calledGod before the time of Pliny and Ignatius. Both these writersassume that this mode of speech is perfectly natural. It mighthave been expected that the predicate ©eos would have beenused of Jesus far more often in the pages of the New Testament.For that would account for its unquestioning acceptance byIgnatius.

An attempt will be made to explain why these referencesoccur in the New Testament, and why they are so few innumber. There is one important characteristic which some ofthem, perhaps all of them, have in common. They have aliturgical background. Rom. 9.5 is a short ascription of praiseto Christ. Its vocabulary is typical of a doxology (evXoyrjros,els cu'tovas, em TravroDv). The suggestion was made that St. Paulwrote these words under the influence of deep emotion. Theyare an expression of his innermost feelings rather than an in-tegral part of the argument. He may have written words whichhe was accustomed to use in his private prayers. Or he mayhave quoted a doxology which was used in public worship.

Heb. 1.8 is a quotation from a psalm. The author assumesthat the words are well known to his readers, and that theywill readily accept the reference to Christ. The psalm, or atany rate part of it, must have been used in the liturgy of thechurch to which the epistle was addressed. In their worshipthey sang: 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever.' The belief thatChrist is God is not the keystone of the Christology of theEpistle to the Hebrews. The author is chiefly concerned toexpound the conception of the High Priesthood of Christ andHis unique Sonship. The allusion to the Divinity of Christ in1.8 does not form an integral part of the theology of the epistle.It supplies valuable evidence, however, about the liturgicalbackground of early Christianity. Although the writer doesnot include the full Divinity of Christ within the scheme ofthought which he presents in the epistle, his use of this quota-tion from Ps. 45 shows that he himself, and the Church to whichhe was writing, were prepared to acknowledge in their worshipthat Jesus was God.

In the Epistles to the Romans and to the Hebrews theacknowledgment of Christ's Deity is not integral to the thought


but provides a clue to the liturgical background. On the otherhand the references to Jesus as God, which are found in theFourth Gospel, are essential to the writer's thought. Theprologue 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 withthe story of Thomas's confession that Jesus was His Lord andHis God. The evangelist implies that the Christian believer isable to discern that the risen Christ is God. The presence ofthese passages at the beginning and the end of the Gospel provesthat they are not merely passing allusions which have beenintroduced haphazardly. Their position in the Gospel isdeliberately planned.

Not only are these passages important for an understandingof 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 myGod!' is included (John 20.19-29) suggests that the passagemay have had a liturgical origin. C. K. Barrett claims thatthere is considerable evidence for this view: 'The disciplesassemble on the Lord's Day. The blessing is given: Elprjvqvfj.lv. The Holy Spirit descends upon the worshippers and theword of absolution (cf. v. 23) is pronounced. Christ Himselfis present (this may suggest the Eucharist and the spoken Wordof God) bearing the marks of His passion; He is confessed asLord and God.'2 Barrett's arguments can be supported by theevidence that Kvpcos KO.1 <9eds was a formula which was usedboth in the Greek Old Testament and in pagan literature andinscriptions. Since the formula was so well known, it couldeasily have been taken over into Christian worship.3

The references to Christ as God, which occur in Titus and2 Peter, may also have had their origin in liturgy. I t is quitelikely that at a time when Ignatius would frequently describeChrist as 9e6s, these forms of invocation and confession werein 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 itmust have been revised before inclusion in the Gospel. The parts of the prologuewhich 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 inNew Testament times. He may not have been addressed inthese terms in every church of Christendom, but He wasaccorded this honour at least in churches with which St. Paul,and the authors of the Fourth Gospel, Hebrews, the PastoralEpistles, and 2 Peter, were connected. The writers of the NewTestament seem to have been reluctant to commit to writingthe confession that Jesus is God. The reluctance of St. Pauland the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews may have beencaused by their inability to give an account of the relationshipof this belief to the Jewish monotheism to which they continuedto subscribe. Their faith outstripped their reason, and theywere able to give joyful utterance to a belief which they feltincapable of expounding. But each of these writers, on oneoccasion, allowed himself to give expression to this deep-seatedbelief, and to include in the text of an epistle language whichhe used more frequently in private and public worship.

The author of the Fourth Gospel interwove this belief intohis thought. The Word, which was incarnate in Jesus Christ,was God. After the resurrection the disciple of Jesus was ableto perceive this divinity as he looked at the risen Lord. St.John too was in contact with a liturgical tradition in whichJesus was hailed as Lord and God. Perhaps, by placing theconfession of Thomas at the very end of the Gospel, he wassuggesting that it was only in the moment of worship that menwere able to comprehend that Jesus was God. Only when, likeThomas, they bowed in reverence and faith before His risenmajesty, could they know who He was.

The language of St. Paul, the Fourth Gospel and the Epistleto the Hebrews, does not suggest that Jesus Christ was whollyidentical with God. He is only called 6 ©eos when the nomi-native is used in a vocative sense. And when this happens thearticle has not the usual definitive significance. On the otherhand, in the Pastorals and the Second Epistle of Peter, thedefinite article is used with Oeos to describe Christ. This is nota sign of incipient monarchianism. The writers did not realisethe complexity of the problem. In their language, like theircontemporary 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 thesupreme Godhead of the Father.1 This is certainly true of theHellenistic Christians amongst whom Ignatius and the writerof the Pastorals moved. It would not have been true of theChurch which St. Paul knew. By the end of the first century achange 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 mostcherished dogma of Judaism. They were able to use expressionswhich could have been used by Monarchians or Polytheists,although they themselves would have had no dealings witheither.

Bultmann criticises the confession, 'Jesus is God', because ofits ambiguity. He claims that it is impossible to know whetherthe 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. Theformulae 'Jesus is God' and 'Christ is God' do not actuallyoccur. But formulae with the same implications are found inseveral different types of writing. If St. Paul said 'Christ . . .who is God over all', and the author of Hebrews said, 'Thythrone, O God, is for ever and ever', the statement 'Jesus Christis God' is in accordance with the New Testament.

The word 'God' with a capital 'G' is often said to be differentin meaning from 'god' with a small 'g'. Since there were onlycapital letters in the original New Testament Greek, there wasno such distinction in the first century. Can it then be arguedthat the confession 'Jesus Christ is God' is not more ambiguousbut 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 abeing who is not believed to be a god at all. 'God' describes theone true God. But 'God' has been used for so long against abackground of Trinitarian thought, that it cannot be accountedmisleading to say 'Jesus Christ is God' when it is also under-stood that the Father is God as well. The absence of the articlein 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 notclaim that Jesus Christ was identical with the whole of what wasmeant 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'sformula is more or less the same ambiguity as that which isfound in the writings of St. Paul and St. John.

Date post:	28-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	zakka-labib
View:	223 times
Download:	1 times

THE CONFESSION 'JESUS IS GOD

Documents