Is Jesus addressed or described as “god” or “God” (Greek: theos) in the New Testament? Yes. But quite a bit less often than you might think. Theologian Murray Harris wrote a whole book about this, pictured here.
I don’t endorse this as a particularly good book – Harris, like many a theologian, mixes linguistic sophistication and wide theological erudition with philosophical unclarity, argumentative ineptitude, and party spirit. His main concern is to show that titles applied to Christ were meant to assert his “full deity”, contrary to what those dastardly liberal theologians have been out there saying. However, it is a good book. He has detailed discussions of all the main passages – how we ought to resolve textual problems in them, translate and interpret them. It is most definitely worth a read.
His conclusions:
- He’s “certain” that theos is applied to Jesus in two versesin the New Testament: John 1:1, and John 20:28.
- It is “very probable” that this usage occurs in: Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1.
- Jesus is “probably” called theos in John 1:18. He doesn’t insist on this last one, as he realizes that scholars are quite split on whether the original text there said “only-begotten god” or “only begotten son” (to take the two most popular variants.
- “possible but not likely”: Acts 20:28, Hebrews 1:9, 1 John 5:20
- “not at all likely”: Matt 1:23, John 17:3, Gal 2:20, Eph 5:5, Col 2:2, 2 Thess 1:12, 1 Tim 3:16.
To me, the most certain of these is Hebrews 1:8. You may note that fully orthodox, traditionalist translators, whether Catholic or Protestant, almost always either (1) translate the other “very probable” ones in a way inconsistent with Murray’s reading, or (2) provide an alternate, allowable (but in their judgment less probable) translation in a footnote which is inconsistent with Murray’s reading. It’s not well known outside the realm of academic text-oriented theologians, but it is disputed whether the Word (Greek: logos) in John 1:1 is supposed to refer to the pre-incarnate Jesus, or to a divine attribute. If the latter, Murray is mistaken about the verse. (See pp. 58-9 for Murray’s over-quick rebuttal of some of these scholars.) I’ve recently discovered that these guys are rehashing an interesting 17th-18th debate over this. But that’s a subject for another series.
In his view, we ought to read the NT as calling Jesus “god” 7, maybe 8 times. In these cases, “god”/”God” is applied to Jesus as “a descriptive title” (p. 274), whereas applied to the Father (indisputably, hundreds of times), the word is a quasi-name, referring to one and the same thing as the term “the Father”. (pp. 282-3)
What does this have to do with evaluating the argument which we started this series, and refined in part 2? Here’s are two refined versions from part 2:
1. Jesus is a god.
2. There is only one god.
3. Therefore, Jesus is the one god.
1. Jesus is a divine being.
2. There is only one divine being.
3. Therefore Jesus is the one divine being.
Jesus, we’ve seen is (infrequently) called “god”. Does this support either first premise? What does it mean to (not-sarcastically) describe something as a god? One is saying that it is a provident being which ought to be honored. Jesus is certainly presented as that in the NT as a whole. Jesus is the head of the Church, and the God-appointed future ruler of the earth. He is honored in various hymns scattered through the epistles, and is one of two objects of worship in a heavenly vision in Revelation 5. His frequent title “Lord” signifies his right to rule, and the dawning reality of his rule.
So yes, in my view, the fact that Jesus is sometimes called theos – by address or description – is evidence in favor of either premise one. Moreover, there is plenty of other evidence in the NT that Jesus was regarded as a god or divine being – that is, as a provident being which must be honored (by Christians, and ultimately, by all of humanity).
But what about premise 2?
Next time: Revisiting the Shema.
Here is yet one more presentation on Hebrews 1 From the same site as the previous two. Some points may be repeated in these three links, but I think the time taken to hear all three is a good investment in light of the value of a correct understanding of this chapter.
http://youtu.be/s8hmILz1hPg
Here is the link to the Hebrews 1:8 link mentioned in the previous post: http://youtu.be/oAOR2k-golw
Here is a video presentation demonstrating a pervasive translation error, or bias, which seriously calls into question the use of Hebrews 1:7 ff as evidence for Jesus’ Deity. In the same YouTube site there is also a further video along the same line dealing with Hebrews 1:8. Hebrews 1 is often claimed as a clear reference to Jesus as God and also as YHWH. I think these careful and patient presentations show otherwise. http://youtu.be/ytgWiK0HVro
Pingback: trinities - Jesus and “god” - part 11 - Review and Conclusion (Dale)
Dale,
For the record, I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I appreciate your replies thus far and look forward to your upcoming submissions to this blog.
Thanks,
Edgar
Hi Edgar,
I’m familiar with the Witnesses and their NWT, as well as the spat over the “was a god” translation. I think that spat over Greek grammar is overblown. All serious interpreters seem to agree that John 1:1c is predicating divinity of the Logos. Hence, some mainstream Christian translations say “was divine” or “was what God was”, and when they stick with the traditional “is God” the expound it not as identifying the Logos as God, but rather, as attributing the status of divinity to the Logos. Mainstream theologians, I think, dislike the NWT translation not because it is strictly incorrect, but rather, because it seems to suggest polytheism – even though it merely says the logos was “a god” which is wholly consistent with their being one god. Of course, as subordinationists, JWs think there is more than one god, in one sense of the word “god”, and many understand “monotheism” to rule out more than one god in any sense of the term. Stay tuned on this.
Hi Dale,
Thanks for helping me to understand what the proposition “Jesus is a god” means in this context of utterance. My question stemmed from the fact that the New World Translation (a Bible translation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses) renders John 1:1c: “and the Word was a God.” Non-Witness readers of this verse in the NWT have often seized upon this text as some type of proof that Witnesses are polytheists. But all the passage seems to be saying to me is that the Word (Jesus or the Son) is divine in the secondary sense that you have alluded to elsewhere. That is, the Son has the property of divinity attributed to him in the sense that he is a mighty, powerful or supernatural being (i.e. “godlike”). However, some Trinitarians like Daniel B. Wallace have understood the proposition “The Word was God” to signify “The Word was divine” (in the primary sense of the term).
Best wishes,
Edgar Foster
Hi Edgar,
To say “Jesus is a god” means the same thing as saying “Jesus is divine” – it attributes a certain status to him. If you believe in properties, it is attributing this property to him: divinity, or godhood. Does that help?
Dale
Allow me to make a minor correction. T.V. Morris actually says, “The Son is God,” not “Jesus is God.”
Dale,
I’m curious about both versions of premise 1 using the wording “a god” rather than T.V. Morris’ (The Logic of God Incarnate) wording of the proposition, namely, “Jesus is God.” Of course, Morris discusses the how this proposition might be construed in the light of absolute or relative identity theory. But my primary question is whether there is any significance to calling Jesus “a god.”
Comments are closed.