In this post I will be excerpting sections from the late Dr. Robert A. Morey’s book, The Trinity: Evidence & Issues, published by Christian Scholar’s Press, Las Vegas, Nevada, Part IV: The New Testament Evidence, Chapter 17 God the Son, in relation to specific NT texts which address Jesus as God. The reason why I chose to take excerpts from Morey’s work is because he cited so many grammarians and theologians to support his explanation of these verses.
Here I will be quoting what Morey wrote in respect to Titus 2:13 and Hebrews 1:8.
Our Great God and Savior
Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus (Titus 2:13)
prosdechomenoi ten makarian elpida kai epiphanian tes doxes tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon ‘Iesou Christou
The issue whether Jesus is here called “our great God and Savior” has been approached in several ways. Since Arians begin with the a priori assumption that the New Testament never speaks of Jesus as God, they must ignore all the grammatical and syntactical evidence of such passages as Titus 2:13. But what else can they do? If they find just one passage which speaks of Christ as God, their entire theology falls to the ground. Their belief system is constantly in peril.
On the other hand, the Trinitarian is not faced with such a terrible dilemma. His belief system us not threatened in the least. He can follow the grammar wherever it leads him: Lenski explains:
As far as we are concerned, it makes no difference whether Jesus is here once more called God or not; deity is ascribed to Jesus in so many Scripture passages that the addition or the subtraction of this passage is immaterial. The grammar and the language decide. Here these are decisive and are supported by the context: it is the epiphany of the deity in Jesus Christ that constitutes our blessed hope.149
It is no surprise that grammarians emphatically state that the Greek text clearly indicates that only one person is in view in Titus 2:13: “Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”150 Middleton states, “It is impossible to understand theou and soteros, otherwise than of one person.”151 A.T. Robertson says, “This is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and soteros.”152… Hendriksen comments:
The article before the first noun is not repeated before the second, and therefore the expression must be rendered “of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” no valid reason has ever been found which would show that the (Granville Sharp rule) does not apply in the present case.153
Today, the vast majority of commentators and exegetes agree with the grammarians.154 Even Brown admits, “This is the most obvious meaning of the Greek.”155
A few commentators have followed Winer in his denial that Jesus is here called God.156 But Winer was honest in stating that although the grammar of the text was in favor of “our great God” as a reference to Christ, he was forced by his doctrinal commitment to Arianism not to accept it.157 Once again, it is the anti-Trinitarian who allows his theology to dictate the meaning of a text, instead of allowing the grammar and syntax of the text to determine his theology.
Even the few commentators who followed Winer, cannot get the facts straight. In an attempt to avoid Sharp’s rule, Dean Alford claims:
soter was one of those words which gradually dropped the article and became a quasi proper name.158
Timothy Dwight, past president of Yale, answers Alford:
This answer is not to be regarded as satisfactory, for though soter apparently came to be used as a proper name in this way, at a latter time, it cannot be affirmed that the apostolic authors so used it.150
Modern research has confirmed that the phrase “our great God and Savior” was understood by both the Greek and Latin Fathers as a reference to Jesus Christ.160 This is what Trinitarians would expect to find. Also, the words “God and Savior” were used in the first century by both Jews and pagans as a title of divinity. Murray Harris explains:
The expression theos kai soteros was a stereotyped formula common in first-century religious terminology (see Wendlad), was (apparently) used by both Diaspora and Palestinian Jews in reference to Yahweh, and invariably denoted one deity, not two. If the name ‘Iesou Christou did not follow the expression, undoubtedly it would be taken to refer to one person.161
Moulton points out that in Titus 2:13:
A curious echo is found in the Ptolemaic formula applied to the deified kings: thus GH 15 (ii/B.C.), tou megalou … kai soteros … The phrase here is, of course, applied to one person.162…
These reasons given above explain why most modern liberals no longer deny that “our great God and Savior” apply to Jesus in Titus 2:13. It also underscores the importance of not relying on the arguments advanced by nineteenth century liberals. Modern Arians such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have yet to learn this lesson: Jesus is “our great God and Savior.” (Morey, pp. 344-347)
Thy Throne, O God
But of the Son He says, “THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.” (Heb. 1:8)
pros de ton hyion ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiona tou aionas kai he rhabdos tes euthytetos rhabdos tes basileias sou
This text is the first passage set forth by Reymond [sic] Brown under section III, “Texts Where Jesus Is Clearly Called God.”165 Oscar Cullman states, “Hebrews unequivocally applies the title ‘God’ to Jesus.”166 Brown and Cullman are perfect examples of the difference between what Warfield calls the “Old Liberal School” and the “New Liberal School.”167
Eighteenth and nineteenth century liberals did their best to overturn Hebrews 1:8 as a proof text for the deity of Christ by giving it various novel translations. In his classic commentary on Hebrews, John Brown explains:
Those who deny our Lord’s divinity have been greatly perplexed by this passage and have attempted to get rid of the argument by rendering the words, “God is Thy throne for ever and ever.” But this is not only contrary to the usage of the language, but it would utterly destroy the force of the Apostle’s argument. 168
B.B. Warfield was perturbed by the attempts of liberals to wiggle out of Hebrews 1:8 by retranslating it in such a way to avoid the deity of Christ:
It undoubtedly does not make for edification to observe the expedients which have been resorted to by expositors to escape recognizing that these Psalms do ascribe a superhuman nature and superhuman powers to the Messiah. What they have done with Ps. xlv. 6–to take it as an example. Rather than take it as it stands, they would prefer it seems to translate vilely, “Thy throne is God,” “Thy throne of God,” Thy throne is of God,” or rewrite the text and make it say something else, “Thy throne [its throne is firmly fixed], God [established it],” “Thy throne [shall be] forever.”169
These novel translations were “violent avoidance’s” as well as ”vile,” according to Warfield. Such strong emotive utterances seem strange in today’s climate of relativism. But we must remember that the nineteenth century Unitarian debates were hot and heavy. The debate generated over five thousand books, pamphlets, and tracts as it raged in Europe as well as in North America.
The old liberals knew that if Hebrews 1:8 was translated in the vocative, i.e., Christ was being addressed by the Father as “God,” then their dogma that Jesus was never called theos in the New Testament would fall to the ground. In their desperation to avoid this, they went so far as to add words to the Hebrew text of Psalms 45:6, even though they did not have a single manuscript to back them up!
With the appearance of the Werde-Boussett thesis, modern liberalism changed its mind and now readily admits that Jesus was called theos in the New Testament. Thus, Hebrews 1:8 was just one more such place. Trinitarian scholars had won the day when it came to the grammar and syntax of these passages. But this did not mean that modern liberals are ready to convert to Christianity.
Modern liberals were now willing to admit that the Messiah was called “God” in such places as Psalms 45:6; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8, etc., but the word “God” did not mean true deity but only a “divine hero” like the ones found in pagan mythology. Having failed to get rid of the offending word “God,” they weakened its meaning into something less than God.
Today there are two different kinds of anti-Trinitarians. First, there are those like Jehovah’s Witnesses who still depend on the arguments of nineteenth century liberalism. They retranslate both Psalms 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8 to escape Christ being called “God.” Second, there are the modern liberals who admit that Jesus is called “God,” but then water down the word until it no longer means true deity.
We have already exegeted the Hebrew text of Psalms 45:6 and established that it should be translated in the vocative, “Thy throne, O God.” As we demonstrated in the section on early Jewish literature, the Septuagint, the Targums, and indeed, all the ancient versions translate it that way. The Midrash (Gen. Rabbah 99:8), the Pseudepigrapha (The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs [Judah 24:11]), and the Talmud (Shab. 63a) all see the Messiah as the One to whom Psalm 45:6 is addressed. Lenski comments:
Here we have a vocative even in the Hebrew as well as in the LXX and in Hebrews, and only the unwillingness of commentators to have the Son addressed so directly as ‘Elohim, ho theos (the article with the nominative is used as a vocative), “God,” causes the search for a different construction.171
Ho theos is found sixty-three times in the vocative in the Psalms. Why then deny it here? Nowhere in scripture is God ever said to be someone’s throne. The language “God is your throne” is rather odd and out of place in Psalm 45 and Hebrews 1. How does such a phrase prove that Jesus has a superior name and nature to the angels?
Please also notice that the word “God” has the definite article in Hebrews 1:8 (ho theos). A comparison of what anti-Trinitarians say on the significance of the presence or absence of the article before theos reveals an astounding contradiction. They assure us that the lack of the article before theos in John 1:1c “the Word was God” (theos een ho logos) signifies that the word theos refers to something less than true deity. Thus Jesus is only “a god” and not really “God.” If theos had the article, they tell us, it would mean true deity. While their understanding of the presence or absence of the article is erroneous, nevertheless, it is what they claim to believe.
Given their view, what should they say about such passages as John 20:28, Titus 2:13, and Hebrews 1:8, which all have the article before theos? Do they acknowledge that Jesus is true deity because theos has the article? No. They either ignore the presence of the article or state that its presence does not imply true deity!
They try the same contradictory approach with the Hebrew word elohim. Since it does have the article in Psalm 45:6, then it does not mean true deity. But the fact is that the lack of the article before elohim is quite normal in Hebrew poetry.172
From the analysis of five proposed translations of Psalm 45:7a, we reached the conclusion that that traditional rendering “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” is not simply readily defensible but remains the most satisfactory solution to the exegetical problems posed by the verse.173
The context of Hebrews 1:8 is the final proof. The point of the author is that Jesus has a “more excellent name” than the angels (v.4). What could that name be? It could not be “Jesus” because there was nothing special about that name. The “more excellent name” has to be so special that causes all the angels to worship him (v.5).
What name could be so wonderful that the angels would bow down and worship? The only name given to Jesus in the immediate context is “God” in verse 8. A.W. Pink explains:
This supplies us with one of the most emphatic and unequivocal proofs of the Deity of Christ to be found in the Scriptures. It is the Father Himself testifying to the Godhead of Him who was despised and rejected of men. And how fittingly is this quotation from Psalm 45 introduced at the point it is in Heb. 1. In v.6 we are told that the all the angels of God have received the command to “worship” the Mediator. Now we are shown the propriety of them so doing. He is “God!” They must render Divine honors to Him because of His very nature. Thus we admire, once more, the perfect order of Scripture.174
The modern attempt to lessen the impact of the vocative in Psalms 45:6 or Hebrews 1:8 by reducing the word “God” to “divine hero” is no longer possible. Since both old and new liberalism developed their respective interpretations of these passages without knowledge of the literature of early Judaism in general and the Dead Sea Scrolls in particular, their claim that we must look to pagan Greek mythology for the source of such language is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
It has now been established beyond all doubt that the background, themes, imagery, and vocabulary of the book of Hebrews is Semitic, and not Greek. For example, the references in the dead Sea Scrolls to Melchizedek may explain why so much attention is paid to him in Hebrews.175 (Ibid., pp. 347-350)
FURTHER READING
Answering Islam Blog 