The confession of Thomas, coming as it does at the climax of John’s Gospel, is perhaps the clearest affirmation of Christ’s deity in the Bible. It is clear, despite various theories to the contrary (see “Other views Considered,” below), that Thomas was speaking directly to Jesus. The phrase rendered “answered and said to him” is a rather common construction in the New Testament, and always precedes a direct address to the person referred to (“him,” in this case, who can only be Jesus). This verse occurs in the middle of a conversation between Thomas and Jesus, and suggestions that Thomas was addressing the Father, or crying out in surprise are not credible.
For a devout Jew in the first Century to address someone as “my God” could only mean one thing: The “God” being addressed occupied a unique position in the speaker’s devotion. For a Jew, this could only be YHWH. The phrase “my God” occurs over 135 times in the Bible, and when spoken by a Jew, always refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Thomas was disposed to believe in Jesus by his personal attachment to him, as he demonstrated previously by his resolute adherence in impending danger (11:16). Jesus may have felt that the faith of all the disciples was fragile, for he told them explicitly that the raising of Lazarus was designed to give them a solid basis for a continuing faith (11:15). Now, having been challenged to make a personal test of Jesus’ reality, Thomas expressed fullest faith in him. For a Jew to call another human associate “my Lord and my God” would be almost incredible. The Jewish law was strictly monotheistic; so the deification of any man would be regarded as blasphemy (10:33). Thomas, in the light of the Resurrection, applied to Jesus the titles of Lord (kyrios) and God (theos), both of which were titles of deity (EBC).
GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS
apekriqh QwmaV kai eipen autw,`O kurioV mou kai`o qeoV mou
APEKRITHÊ THÔMAS KAI EIPEN AUTWi, hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO THEOS MOU
Answered Thomas and said to him, the Lord of me and the God of me
The way in which I will respond to Mr. Stafford and Mr. Furuli is built on the foundation of M. J. Harris’ forth chapter in his book Jesus as God. (You can order a copy of Harris’ book here). You need to have this chapter in order to make sense of the answers to Mr. Stafford and Mr. Furuli. This paper also assumes the reader has read the appropriate sections in Mr. Stafford’s and Mr. Furuli’s books. You need to know the context of the quotes. I will list by number Mr. Stafford’s and Mr. Furuli’s arguments from their books. I will then respond by a reference to M. J. Harris’ chapter that answers that argument or will respond myself if the argument is not addressed by Prof. Harris.
Furuli’s Arguments
1. Page 220, “In this passage it is not possible to claim that the article has semantic importance, and that Jesus is therefore identical with ho theos in John 1:1, because the article is grammatically required…Because the phrase has a possessive pronoun (“my”), the word theos must be definite, and in Greek it cannot stand without the article.”
Page 220, note 42, “If the words of John 20:28 were directed only to Jesus, is rather strange that the nominative form kurios and not the vocative form kurie was used.”
Page 221, “We cannot know exactly what Thomas meant with his exclamation.”
Page 221, “Those believing in the trinity can hardly argue that Thomas meant that Jesus was the same as ho theos, with whom the Word is said to be in John 1:1, because this would be tantamount to Sabellianism.”
Page 221, “Thus, Thomas’ words do not add anything to our understanding of the word theos when used of Jesus in John 1:1c, 18.”
Stafford’s Arguments
Page 350, “The Logos as “a god”
Page 351, “…it may be that Thomas never intended to call Jesus “God” at all, but merely directed his exclamation of praise to both Jesus and the Father, the latter being directly responsible for the resurrection of the Lord (compare Ga 1:2; 2Co 4:14; Heb 13:20), which is what Thomas doubted.”
Page 351, note 116, “Unless, as we argue, they were doing so against the backdrop of the OT, which made it quite acceptable to refer to other inferior divine beings who served Jehovah. Again, see the discussion of biblical monotheism in Chapter 2.”
Page 351, “…and Thomas’ reply was spoken to him …But was it directed to him?”
Page 352, Quote by Margaret Davies “But it is perfectly appropriate for Thomas to respond to Jesus’ resurrection with a confession of faith both in Jesus as his Lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus…If we understand Thomas’ confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20.31 becomes an anti-climax.”
Page 352, Thomas’ words are not recorded with “Lord” in its typical vocative (direct address) form (KURIE, kyrie); rather, the nominative form (KURIOS, kyrios) is used.”
Page 353, In commenting on Psalm 35:23, he states, “But here “God” precedes “Lord.” This is the opposite of John 20:28…”
Page 354, “This can be done in a manner patterned after the numerous references to angels as “God”…”
Page 354, “Such a confession, as in the case of Thomas, is qualified not only by the context (Joh 20:17), but also by the whole of Scripture.”
Page 355, “Here Jesus, in the same state Thomas addresses him, says that the Father is his God, again differentiating between the two in terms of theos, as well as acknowledging the Father’s superiority over him, as his God…Thomas had no concept of a consubstantial Trinity.”
Answers to Furuli
See Harris pages 110-111, 3. Vocatival, Addressed to Jesus “In response Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and My God!’” And pages 121-122, 2. The Meaning and Theological Significance of Thomas’s Cry.
First Mr. Furuli says, “…it is not possible to claim that the article has semantic importance…” Then he says, “There is of course a possibility that it has semantic importance…” So, is it ‘possible’ or ‘not possible?’ So what, if the article is grammatically required, John wrote this phrase on purpose this way. Like Mr. Furuli states in the next sentence, “Because the phrase has a possessive pronoun (“my”) the word theos must be definite…” So you would still say ‘the Lord and the God’ whether there is an article or not. The Straw Man that Mr. Furuli builds is when he states that Trinitarians try to make Jesus identical with ho theos of John 1:1. Which creed in the Church made that statement? What Trinitarian was he referring to? I don’t know of any official sources that teach that.
2. See Harris pages 107-108, b. Referring to Jesus: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord is also my God.’” As can be seen, it is not so strange.
3. This verse is not very hard to understand. The Aid to Bible Understanding on page 885 quotes the Imperial Bible Dictionary approvingly, “He (the Hebrew) says again and again my God…; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, He means Jehovah.” See also Rudolf Bultman’s (who does not believe Jesus is Deity) commentary on the Gospel of John, Westminster Press, 1971 pages 694-695 and footnotes, “Thomas is so overpowered that the confession springs to his lips, “My Lord and My God!” (v.28). That confession is wholly appropriate to him who has risen; going far beyond the earlier confession, “My Master” (v.16), it sees in Jesus God himself. “He who has seen me Has seen the Father,” Jesus had said in 14.9 (cp. 12.45) Thomas has now seen Jesus in the way that Jesus wills to be seen and ought to be seen. By means of these words HO THEOS MOU, the last confession spoken in the gospel makes it clear that Jesus, to whom it refers, is the Logos who has now returned to the place where he was before the Incarnation, and who is glorified with the glory that he had with the Father before the world was (17.5); he is now recognized as the THEOS that he was from the beginning (1:1).” If the man who thinks a supernatural Jesus is a myth can see this, why can’t Mr. Furuli? It is obvious that what is being done by Thomas in John 20:28, is the same thing being done in Rev. 4:11 by the twenty-four elders, “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power,…” This passage is pretty straight forward. Here is a list of scriptures: Psalms 34:23, 43:5, 63:1; Jer. 38:18; Zech. 13:9; Matt. 4:7, 10, 22:37, 27:46; Mk. 5:34,12:29; Lk. 1:78, 4:8, 12; Jn. 8:54, 20:17, 20:28; Acts 2:39; Ro. 1:8; 1Cor. 1:4, 6:11; 2Cor. 12:21; Php. 1:3; 1Thess. 2:2, 3:9; 2Thess. 1:11; Phm. 1:4; Heb. 1:9; Rev. 3:12, 4:11, 5:10, 7:3, 12:10, 19:1, 19:5, 21:3. Take a look at these scriptures and notice similar phrases such as- my God, your God, our God, and their God. Notice the continuity in meaning. The word God is used in various contexts- worship, affirmation, confession, and teaching. There are no quantitative levels of deity in any of these passages. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that THEOS in Jn 20:28 means god but in a lesser sense. This is an equivocation on the word god based on the presupposition that god when applied to the Father means God and when applied to the son means god. There is no lexical evidence or contextual markers for this change. When he says we “…can’t know exactly…,” is he being philosophical as in we are finite? Or is he being historical such as we would have to talk to John to know for sure? And since we, “…can’t know exactly…,” why is it that the Trinitarian interpretation is ruled out? Why not the Arian? Could it be because he is Arian?
4. Again, Mr. Furuli builds a straw man. Does he quote a creed or an official Trinitarian? NO! The key point is that while John 1:1 would be Sabellianism had THEOS been articular (it being an equative phrase), Jn 20:28 emphatically is not. There is no equative verb here. Thomas is calling Jesus HIS God!
5. Mr. Furuli is begging the question here. Thomas’ words do add to our understanding of the word THEOS when used of Jesus in Jn 1:1 and 18. If one is a monotheist, this is an incredible confession. This would identify Jesus the One God. If you are a polytheist, it’s no big deal. Jesus is just one of the gods just like in Greek mythology.
Answers to Stafford
This is a poor title for this section. There is no ‘a god’ in this passage. Regarding the ‘a god’ supposition, I’d be sure to mention that there are 135 occurrences of ‘my God’ in the Bible. When spoken by a Jew, it always refers to Yahweh (unless Jn 20:28 is an exception). Further, calling ‘a god’ MY God would break the first commandment (Ex 20:3). For how could a good 2nd temple Jew call another being His God, without placing that god before Yahweh? MOU is possessive – thus, Thomas is making a very personal statement – “my OWN God!” It simply is not credible that he could say this of any God but Yahwah.
2. It’s only a possibility if you are a deconstructionist. See Harris pages 106 –111. The scriptures that Mr. Stafford references are only a smoke screen. There is no comparison at all. None of those verses has Paul speaking to the Father or Jesus and directing it to the other.
3. I must refer to Sam Shamoun’s article on the Trinity Defended web-site called ‘Biblical Monotheism.’ It is a refutation of Mr. Stafford’s chapter ‘Understanding Biblical Monotheism.’ He demonstrates that Mr. Stafford’s ‘Biblical Monotheism’= Henotheism which is a sub-category of polytheism.
4. Again, I refer to Harris pages 106-111. Is there one example from Biblical or extra-Biblical of someone directing worship to Jehovah by speaking to another. Does Mr. Stafford speak worship to his brother/sister and directed it to Jehovah? APEDRITHE…EIPEN AUTW(i) is a common idiom in the New Testament. This idiom always precedes a statement directed to the referent of the dative AUTOS. There is no lexical support in any of the standard references (BAGD, M&M, and Louw & Nida) for a ‘relative address” with any of the words in question. There is no grammatical support in any of the standard grammars for a ‘relative address’ (spoken to another).
5. See Harris c. The Meaning of THEOS pages 124-127
6. See Harris pages 107-108 b. Referring to Jesus: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord is also my God.’”
7. See Harris pages 120-121 e. Experimental. At this point, I want to give a quote by A.T. Robertson in his grammar page 466 that responds to Abbott in this context, “In Rev. 4:11 we have also the vocative case in HO KURIOS KAI HO THEOS. In Jo. 20:28 Thomas addresses Jesus as HO KURIOS MOU KAI HO THEOS MOU, the vocative like those above. Yet, strange to say, Winer calls this exclamation rather than address, apparently to avoid the conclusion that Thomas was satisfied as to the deity of Jesus by his appearance to him after the resurrection. Dr. E.A. Abbott follows suit also in an extended argument to show that KURIE HO THEOS is the LXX way of addressing God, not HO KURIOS KAI HO THEOS. But after he had written he appends a note to p. 95 to the effect that “this is not quite satisfactory. For xiii 13, PHONEITE ME HO DIDASKALOS KAI HO KURIOS, and Rev. 4:11 AXIOS EI HO KURIOS KAI HO THEOS HEMON, ought to have been mentioned above.” This is a manly retraction, and he adds: “John may have used it here exceptionally.” Leave out “exceptionally” and the conclusion is just. If Thomas used Aramaic he certainly used the article. It is no more exceptional in Jo. 20:28 than in Rev. 4:11.”
8. Again I reference Sam Shamoun’s article.
9. John 20:17 is a great passage demonstrating that “My God” is this passage means the same semantic meaning as Jn 20:28. See Answers to Furuli note 3. If Jesus note God in Jn 20:28, then neither is the Father in 20:17!
10. A. Harnack (History of Dogma, 4:41-42) has an interesting evaluation of Arius that somewhat applies here: “A son who is no son, a Logos who is no logos, a monotheism which nevertheless does not exclude polytheism, two or three ousias which are to be revered, while yet only one of them is really distinct from the creatures, and indefinable being who first becomes God by becoming man and who is yet neither God nor man, and so on. In every single point we have apparent clearness while all is hollow and formal, a boyish enthusiasm for playing with husks and shells, and a childish self-satisfaction in the working out of empty syllogisms.” Whether Thomas had a concept of the Trinity or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Thomas (a true monotheistic Hebrew not a biblical monotheistic polytheist) worshiped Jesus as his God.
In verses 1-5 of this chapter of Romans, Paul focuses on the tension between God’s promises to Israel and Israel’s plight. The people to whom God has promised so much have, apparently, rejected God’s most profound revelation – His Son. In this verse, Paul presents the last of several privileges enjoyed by the Jews: Descent from the ‘fathers’ – the patriarchs – to whom God made promises which were still valid for those descended from them; and the Messiah who is ‘from’ them.
As Paul defined his own relationship to the Jews as “according to the flesh,” so he defines the Messiah’s relationship to them as well. Paul is not the spiritual kin of the Jews, but rather is their kin in terms of “this world.” So, to, the Messiah is ‘from’ the Jews in the strictly human sense. There is an implicit contrast between shared physical kinship and spiritual disunity.
Does Paul complete this thought by explicitly denoting a further aspect of the Messiah – that He is Deity? Or does he leave the contrast as implied, and offer a doxology to God the Father, praising Him for the fulfilled Messianic promise in Jesus?
These questions have been much debated, with scholars, grammarians, and translators failing to reach complete consensus. The questions turn on punctuation. Does the phrase “who is over all, God blessed forever” go with the previous clause – in which case Paul calls Jesus “God;” or does it stand alone as its own sentence – a doxology to the Father? Since early manuscripts of the NT lack all but rudimentary punctuation marks, these questions can only be decided by secondary evidence and interpretation.
Despite the varied opinions of scholars, there is substantial evidence that Paul is attributing “God” to the Messiah in this verse. This evidence is cumulative in nature. That is, I do not regard any one piece as being decisive, but when put together, the pieces strengthen one another and provide a strong inductive case for our conclusion. We may summarize this evidence as follows:
1. The phrase “the one who is over all” is most naturally taken as a relative clause modifying “the Messiah.” The Greek phrase ho ôn (“the one who is”) almost always modifies the preceding head noun, not one that follows1.
2. As Douglas Moo points out, Paul’s doxologies are never independent, but always are closely linked with the preceding context (Moo, Romans, p. 567). This context stresses the tragedy of the Jews rejecting their Messiah by enumerating the blessings God has promised the Jews, and which they could claim, if they would but believe. Paul laments that the Jews have not received the fulfillment of God’s promises, the most profound of which is the coming of the Messiah. The true irony of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus is that not only is He “from” them according to the flesh, He is – in fact – God over all. Their rejection is thus the greatest of all tragedies – a rejection of God Himself. If Paul is here breaking off his lament to praise God for sending the Messiah, this would tend to undercut the person of Christ: “I grieve that you have rejected Christ, who is from you according to natural descent, but praise be God who is over all for sending Jesus anyway!” Indeed, Paul’s continued grief is presupposed at the start of the next verse:
But it is not as though (ouch hoion de hoti). Supply estin after ouch: “But it is not such as that,” an old idiom, here alone in N.T. (RWP).
The transition between verses 5 and 6 is smoother if the doxology refers to Christ – as a statement of just how profound is the Jews’ rejection of Jesus. It is not impossible that Paul praises God in this moment – as the One who keeps His promises, even when His people reject Him. But if so, his doxology breaks not only Paul’s thought but his mood as well.
3. Doxologies to God in the Bible which contain the word “blessed” (Greek: eulogêtos; Hebrew: bârak) always place this word in the first position2. As Bruce Metzger notes, it is “altogether incredible that Paul, whose ear must have been perfectly familiar with this constantly recurring formula of praise, should in the solitary instance have departed from established usage” (Metzger, Punctuation, p. 107).
4. The qualifying phase “according to the flesh” implies a contrast, and Paul usually supplies this contrast in the immediate context. It is true that this is not always the case; Paul implies but does not delineate the contrast in verse 3. Nevertheless, in most cases he does (e.g., Romans 1:3-4), and when we find a phrase that provides this contrast as we do here, it would seem probable that this is Paul’s intention. As Metzger notes:
“If Christ did not have some other relation, or stand in some other position besides the one connected with the Jews, and different from it, there would seem to be no occasion for mentioning any such limitation. In other words, Paul’s language here, having called attention to the human ancestry of Christ as a Jew (‘according to the flesh’), naturally implies that he was more than a Jew” (Metzger, Punctuation, pp. 103-104).
5. While a slight majority of later Greek manuscripts favor a doxology to the Father, these are not conclusive. No Greek manuscript prior to the 5th Century has been found with a full stop after “flesh.” Other ancient translations, however, almost all take “God” as attributed to Christ, even those prior to the 5th Century..
6. The majority of early Church Fathers understood Paul to be calling Christ “God” in this verse. Only two Greek fathers held the opposite view. Some have suggested that the later fathers of the church argued in favor of Christ being called “God” in response to Arius and his followers. While this is certainly true, as Moo rightly points out, the evidence is too early and too widespread to ignore (Moo, Romans, p. 566 n. 64). Further, at least one of the dissenting fathers apparently taught that the incarnation was nothing more than a supreme instance of inspiration and grace; if some of the fathers allowed their theology to guide their interpretation contra Arius, we must allow that this one may have done so for his own theological ends. The other wrote in the 9th century, far too late to be of much use in this discussion.
The primary objection to seeing Paul as calling Christ “God” in this verse is based on Paul’s usage of “God” elsewhere. It is argued by some that because Paul does not use “God” of Jesus elsewhere, that he cannot be doing so here – particularly in what appears to be such a casual way. However, Paul almost certainly calls Jesus “God” in one other verse (Titus 2:13), attributes to Christ all the fullness Deity (Col 2:9), quotes OT passages referring to YHWH and directs them at Jesus (e.g., Isaiah 45:23; Philippians 2:10), and speaks of Christ in the highest possible terms (Col 2:3). For one as devoted to Christ as Paul was, it is not surprising that he attributes full divine status to the Messiah. And the casual manner in which he does so merely demonstrates that for Paul, such an attribution was not such a rare occurrence – either in his writing or his preaching.
Thus, it seems on balance, the evidence favors the view that Paul is here attributing to Christ a title he normally reserves for the Father alone. The One rejected by the Jews is supreme over all as God blessed forever!
To get rid of the bright testimony here borne to the supreme divinity of Christ, various expedients have been adopted:
(1) To place a period, either after the words “concerning the flesh Christ came,” rendering the next clause as a doxology to the Father–“God who is over all be blessed for ever”; or after the word “all”–thus, “Christ came, who is over all: God be blessed.”, &c. [ERASMUS, LOCKE, FRITZSCHE, MEYER, JOWETT, &c.]. But it is fatal to this view, as even Socinus admits, that in other Scripture doxologies the word “Blessed” precedes the name of God on whom the blessing is invoked (thus: “Blessed be God,” Psa 78:35; “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel,” Psa 72:18). Besides, any such doxology here would be “unmeaning and frigid in the extreme”; the sad subject on which he was entering suggesting anything but a doxology, even in connection with Christ’s Incarnation [ALFORD].
(2) To transpose the words rendered “who is”; in which case the rendering would be, “whose (that is, the fathers’) is Christ according to the flesh” [CRELLIUS, WHISTON, TAYLOR, WHITBY]. But this is a desperate expedient, in the face of all manuscript authority; as is also the conjecture of GROTIUS and others, that the word “God” should be omitted from the text. It remains then, that we have here no doxology at all, but a naked statement of fact, that while Christ is “of” the Israelitish nation “as concerning the flesh,” He is, in another respect, “God over all, blessed for ever.” (In 2 Cor 11:31 the very Greek phrase which is here rendered “who is,” is used in the same sense; and compare Rom 1:25 Greek). In this view of the passage, as a testimony to the supreme divinity of Christ, besides all the orthodox fathers, some of the ablest modern critics concur [BENGEL, THOLUCK, STUART, OLSHAUSEN, PHILIPPI, ALFORD, &c.] (JFB).
GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS
ων οι πατερες και εξ ων ο χριστος το κατα σαρκα ο ων επι παντων θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας αμην
ÔN hOI PATERES KAI EX ÔN hO CHRISTOS TO KATA SARKA hO ÔN EPI PANTÔN THEOS EULOGÊTOS EIS TOUS AIÔNAS AMÊN
Whose [are] the fathers and from whom [is] the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all God blessed to the ages. Amen.
As far as physical descent is concerned (Moule, Idiom; c.f., BAGD 744a).
Used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship, born of natural generation (Thayer).
As concerning the flesh (to kata sarka). Accusative of general reference, “as to the according to the flesh.” Paul limits the descent of Jesus from the Jews to his human side as he did in Rom 1:3. (RWP).
OTHER VIEWS CONSIDERED
Jehovah’s Witnesses
The New Word Translation renders the latter half of this verse: “from whom Christ sprang according to the flesh: God who is over all be blest forever. Amen.” (NWT, 1950). The Watchtower provides a brief defense of this translation in the Appendix of several editions of their Bible (e.g., 1950, 1984). Greg Stafford has written a more extensive defense (Stafford, pp. 143 – 152). Both will be examined, below.
objection: The Watchtower cites several scholars who state that grammar alone cannot decide the most accurate rendering of this verse, It quotes AT Robertson at length:
As is well known, the difficulty here is a matter of exegesis and the punctuation of the editor will be made according to his theology. But it may be said in brief that the natural way to take ò wn and qeos is in apposition to ò CristoV. – Grammar, page 1108. (NWT, 1950, Appendix – Romans 9:5).
The Watchtower immediately follows this quote by saying: “We take this passage as a reference to God.” It states that the grammar “admits” this rendering, and cites several translations that agree with theirs, including Moffatt, the RSV, and the Riverside New Testament.
Response: It must be frankly said that this is not so much a defense as it is an admission that the NWTTC rendered this verse on the basis of theology. While Robertson supports doing so to some degree, he also points out that the “natural” way to understand this verse is to link “who is God” with “the Christ.” Of the four other translations listed as agreeing with the NWT translation, one – the RSV – was revised in 1989 so that, in the main text, the doxology is now attributed to Christ (a footnote reflects the older rendering). Similar revisions occur in UBS3 (1975) and NA26 (1979). While exegesis must decide the proper punctuation of this verse, the Watchtower offers no exegetical reasons for its translation whatsoever.
objection: Greg Stafford’s detailed defense of the NWT punctuation of Romans 9:5 is divided into five sections: “Evidence from early translations;” “Punctuation in early Greek manuscripts;” “The view of early church fathers;” “Grammatical analysis;” and “Contextual considerations.” These generally parallel corresponding sections in Bruce Metzger’s “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5.”
Mr. Stafford concludes the first section, “Evidence from early translations,” as follows:
The above [summary of Metzger’s review of early translations] constitutes evidence in favor of the rendering found in the NIV and other, similar translations. But this early evidence is countered by other early evidence relating directly to the transmission of the Greek text itself” (Stafford, p. 144).
Response: Mr. Stafford concedes that the evidence from early translations of the Greek text favor a rendering which ascribes the doxology to Christ. However, he says that this evidence is “countered” by other evidence from early Greek manuscripts. Thus, if the manuscript evidence can be shown to be questionable, then – according to Mr. Stafford’s own argument – it would no longer “counter” the evidence from early translations. Even if this is not the case, most of the early translations Metzger reviews are dependent upon Greek exemplars, and hence provide indirect evidence of early Greek manuscripts that support a doxology to Christ. Also in this regard, we should consider the patristic evidence from Greek-reading fathers; if they support Christ being called “God,” this would strengthen Metzger’s contention and weaken Mr. Stafford’s.
objection: In the second section of his defense, “Punctuation in early Greek manuscripts,” Mr. Stafford offers evidence ‘countering’ that provided by early translations. Mr. Stafford notes the specific Greek punctuation marks that concern us: “A middle point is usually taken to indicate a pause such as we might indicate by use of a colon or comma, while a high point is generally used to indicate a full stop” (Stafford, p. 144 n39). He summarizes Metzger, indicating that some manuscripts – notably Codex A – have a middle point after “flesh,” while others “such as B, L, 0142, and 0151 have a high point after ‘flesh,’ also indicating a pause or break of some kind” (Ibid.). Mr. Stafford notes that Metzger identifies Codex B as a middle point, but argues that “it is quite possible” that B is actually a high point (Ibid, n39). Mr. Stafford agrees with Metzger that the use of punctuation in these manuscripts is “oddly placed,” but argues that Codex A is an exception, “and yet uses a mid- or highpoint and what appears to be a small space between sarka and the article ho” (Ibid, p. 145). Mr. Stafford concludes this section with another agreement with Metzger:
Metzger is probably right in saying that “the most that can be inferred from the presence of a point in the middle position after sarka [sarka, ‘flesh’] in the majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture of the sentence” (Metzger, p. 99 in Stafford, p. 145).
Response: Mr. Stafford’s burden, as he has set it forth, is to provide sufficient evidence from the punctuation of early Greek manuscripts to “counter” the significant evidence from early translations. We may first note that none of the Greek manuscripts is earlier than 4th Century; in fact some of the translations Metzger discusses are actually earlier than the Greek manuscripts Mr. Stafford cites:
MS
Date (AD)
Punctuation
Codex Vaticanus (B)
4th Century
Mid-point (Stafford: High-point)
Gothic
4th Century
Comma
Codex Alexandrinus (A)
5th Century
Mid-point
Peshitta (Syriac)
5th – 6th
Comma
Harklean (Syriac)
5th
Comma
Coptic (Beatty MS)
6th
Comma
Codex Regius (L)
8th Century
High-point
0151
9th Century
High-point
0142
10th Century
High-point
Armenian
12th Century
Comma
Ethiopic
14th Century
Comma
Figure 1 (Greek MSS in brown)
Any information we may glean about the punctuation of Romans 9:5 from these manuscripts is secondary evidence, at best. With that caveat in mind, the evidence itself does not appear to be particularly decisive in Mr. Stafford’s favor. While Mr. Stafford notes that the high-point indicates a “full-stop,” he defines the mid-point as being equivalent to “a colon or a comma.” I take Mr. Stafford to mean that either a mid-point or a high-point supports the kind of “pause” indicated by the NWT’s colon after “flesh.” However, I don’t believe the mid-point can be so construed. It is true that Metzger refers to a “mid-point colon,” but the sources I’ve found that discuss the mid-point indicate that it is equivalent to our comma:
Two kinds of stop may be seen in texts of the late ii. B.C. and of i. B.C.: one is placed high in the line [Greek Ano Stigme], the other in a middle position [Greek Mese Stigme]… Normally the high stop marks period end. The stop in the middle position serves as a subdivision inside the period, with the effect of a modern comma (Turner & Parsons, p. 9).
The point at the top of the line (·) (stigmh teleia, ‘high point’) was a full stop; that on the line (.) (upostigmh) was equal to our semicolon, while a middle point (stigmh mesh) was equivalent to our comma. But gradually changes came over these stops till the top point was equal to our colon, the bottom point became a full stop, and the middle point vanished, and about the ninth century A.D. the comma (,) took its place (Robertson, Grammar, p. 242).
Thus, the manuscripts that contain a mid-point cannot be considered evidence in favor of the NWT punctuation. It will be observed (see figure 1) that the manuscripts with the high-point date from the 8th Century or later, which can hardly be decisive in determining how Paul or his amanuensis would have punctuated this verse. With regard to Codex B and Mr. Stafford’s disagreement with Metzger, it is not at all clear to me that the placement of the point after sarka differs markedly from other mid-points in the surrounding context. Though I have studied textual criticism at the graduate level, I am not an expert in Biblical texts. My opinion, therefore, is not to be valued above Mr. Stafford’s. But the same is not true of Dr. Metzger’s opinion. He is one of the most well-known and widely-respected scholars in the field of NT textual criticism. He has worked with primary texts throughout his long career, taught NT textual criticism at Princeton, served on the Editorial Committee of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (UBS GNT), and on the Translation Committee for the NRSV. On balance, it would seem Dr. Metzger is in a better position to correctly identify the point in question than is Mr. Stafford.
Mr. Stafford’s agreement with Metzger’s conclusion that the presence of the mid-point indicates “some kind of pause” is not an argument in favor of taking “God” in reference to the Father. Metzger says the evidence is inconclusive. Therefore, it does not appear that Mr. Stafford has met his burden and demonstrated evidence that counters that of the early translations which attribute “God” to Christ.
objection: The next ‘leg’ of Mr. Stafford’s argument is “The view of the early church Fathers.” Mr. Stafford first seeks to cast doubt on the earliest father who quotes Romans 9:5. Metzger cites Irenaeus’s 2nd Century Against Heresies (3.16.3) as very early evidence that “God” was taken as a reference to Christ. In response, Mr. Stafford quotes Abbot, who notes that Irenaeus “does not quote it to prove Christ is qeoV [theos, G-god]” (Abbot, quoted in Stafford, p. 145). Stafford also cites Abbot’s observation that Irenaeus’ text is preserved only in Old Latin, “which, of course, cannot determine the construction which Irenaeus put upon the Greek” (Ibid.). Finally, Mr. Stafford repeats Abbot’s argument that the title “the God over all” is elsewhere always used by Irenaeus of the Father, and if Irenaeus intended to call Christ by that title, “the question naturally arises, how the Father can be ‘the God over all,’ unless the term ‘God’ as applied to Christ is used in a lower sense” (Ibid., p. 146, n47).
Mr. Stafford goes on to attempt to undermine the evidence of Hippolytus by pointing out that for Hippolytus, while “God over all” refers to Christ in this verse, elsewhere, Hippolytus makes it clear that the Father is the “Lord” of Christ, and thus the title “God over all” must be seen in a qualified sense. Mr. Stafford argues that even though Hippolytus refers to Christ in this verse “in a somewhat Trinitarian sense,” he does so because he interprets the relationship of God to Christ as “light from light, or water from fountain, or as a ray from the sun” (Against Noetus, 11). Such analogies, says Mr. Stafford, are not used in the Bible.
Mr. Stafford notes that while almost all of the fathers cited by Metzger attribute “God” to Christ, there are two Greek fathers who do not: “Tarsus [sic] and Photius” (Stafford, p. 146). Mr. Stafford concludes this section with a long quote from Metzger, which culminates as follows:
The prevailing patristic interpretation of the passage [which supports the attribution of “God” to Christ] is altogether counterbalanced by what we have seen came to be the prevailing scribal tradition of punctuation in the later manuscripts … each tradition neutralizing, so to speak, the force of the other (Metzger in Stafford, p. 147).
Response: In his examination of Irenaeus, Mr. Stafford stands upon the broad shoulders of Ezra Abbot, the noted 19th Century Unitarian scholar. In most cases, this would be a sound strategy, but I do not believe that it is, this time. Abbot attempts to demonstrate that it is “doubtful” that Irenaeus attributed “God” to Christ in Romans 9:5 (Abbot, Romans 9:5, p. 136), but his arguments are uncharacteristically strained and unconvincing. He points out that Irenaeus’ text is preserved only in Old Latin, and thus cannot prove how Irenaeus understood the Greek. But this is an ad hoc argument. Abbot has not demonstrated that the Old Latin is inaccurate at this point in the text, and Abbot himself accepts its accuracy in his subsequent arguments. Abbot says that Irenaeus is not using this verse to prove Jesus is God, but to demonstrate the unity of the Christ with the man, Jesus. This is beside the point. Irenaeus quotes the entire verse and attributes the latter half to Christ. Finally, Abbot argues that the title, “the God over all” is used throughout Against Heresies and very often elsewhere, as an exclusive designation of the Father. But Abbot is being arbitrary with the evidence. Abbot says that the “absolutely decisive” evidence that Paul did not call Jesus “God” is that he does not do so elsewhere (he rejects Titus 2:13). Thus, by Abbot’s own methodology, if a writer frequently calls Jesus “God,” there would be no “absolutely decisive” evidence against him doing so in Romans 9:5. Irenaeus, of course, regularly calls Jesus “God,” and even speaks of Him in terms equivalent to being such “over all” (e.g., Against Heresies, 2.13.8; 3.6.1, 3.8.3). There is every reason to accept the testimony of Irenaeus. This father of the early church, long before the Arian controversy, understood Romans 9:5 to call Christ “God over all.”
Mr. Stafford’s comments about the third Century father, Hippolytus, are also largely derived from Ezra Abbot. Mr. Stafford and Abbot both note that Hippolytus’ first reference to Romans 9:5 in his work Against Noetus is in the context of answering the Noetians’ modalistic interpretation of this verse – that is, that “God over all” was attributed to Christ and hence made Him the Father. Both Abbot and Mr. Stafford, however, miss two important points:
1. The Noetians not only understood the latter half of Romans 9:5 as referring to Christ, they apparently were publicly promoting this interpretation in support of their theology. It would seem far easier for such a misinterpretation to grow if it were planted in the soil of widespread understanding that Romans 9:5 called Christ “God.” If the early church understood that this verse actually concluded with a doxology to the Father, Noetian eisegesis would certainly have been countered with arguments making this very point. But this is not what the record shows.
2. Hippolytus answers the Noetians by agreeing that this verse attributes “God over all” to Christ, but explains that this fact does not mean that Jesus is the Father. Again, if the general understanding of the church was that Romans 9:5 contained a doxology to the Father, this argument would have suited Hippolytus’ apologetic much better than the one he actually offers – and, indeed, such a view would have been more in accord with the theology of Christ’s subordination that Mr. Stafford claims Hippolytus believed and taught.
On this last point, Mr. Stafford says that Hippolytus understood Paul to be calling Christ “God over all” in a “somewhat Trinitarian sense,” but Hippolytus understood “over all” to be qualified “in such a way that allowed the Father to be Lord over Christ” (Stafford, p. 146). One wonders which Trinitarian creed Mr. Stafford has in mind that denies the Father’s headship over Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3)? Hippolytus teaches that Christ is “God over all,” but is not the Father, and in fact is actually subordinate to the Father. This teaching is not Trinitarian “in a sense,” but Trinitarian in every sense.
Mr. Stafford also says that the Bible does not use the same language Hippolytus does to describe the relationship of the Father to Christ. This is a red herring. Hippolytus’ explanation of how Christ can be “God over all” does not obviate the fact that he understands Romans 9:5 to attribute this phrase to Christ, not the Father. Hippolytus, writing in the third Century – well before the Arian controversy – answers a modalistic interpretation of Romans 9:5 in part by agreeing that this phrase describes the Son. This is very strong evidence that in the earliest records available to us, Romans 9:5 was consistently viewed as calling the Christ “God over all,” regardless of how individual writers may have understood that title.
Mr. Stafford mentions that Metzger lists Tertullian and “several other early writers” who support the view that “God” in this verse refers to Christ. Abbot is more forceful in admitting that the Latin fathers almost to a man attribute “God” to Christ:
“I know of no trace of the reference of the last part of the verse to God among the Latin writers, except what may be implied in the language of the Pseudo-Ambrosius” (Abbot, Romans 9:5, p. 139).3
But Mr. Stafford notes that Metzger also lists two Greek fathers who refer to “God over all” as a doxology to the Father: “”Tarsus [sic] and Photius” (Stafford, p. 146). The first, Diodore of Tarsus (d. 390 AD), “emphasized the humanity of Christ tending to make the incarnation nothing more than a supreme instance of inspiration and grace” (The Ecole Glossary). Abbot argues that we should disregard the testimony of the great majority of the fathers (who, of course, support the opposite view), because all it proves is that they interpreted an ambiguous grammatical construction to suit their theology (Abbot, Romans 9:5, p. 133). But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; the same may also be said of Diodore. In any event, Diodore’s view was certainly not pervasive in the fourth Century, as the evidence presented above demonstrates. Indeed, not even his own star students, John Chrysostom and Theodoret, followed their teacher in his view of Romans 9:5.4The second Greek father mentioned by Metzger, Photius (d. 897 AD), really is far too late a witness to have much, if any, bearing on the correct punctuation of this verse.
Mr. Stafford, by way of his concluding quotation of Metzger, suggests that the patristic evidence is completely balanced by the textual evidence of later Greek manuscripts. However, while I have great respect for Dr. Metzger, I think he is giving ground far too easily, here. First, as Metzger notes, there is no evidence of any punctuation (mid- or high-point) after sarka in Greek manuscripts prior to the fourth Century. The fourth Century Vaticanus and fifth Century Alexandrinus contain mid-points, which are not conclusive evidence of a full stop. They may, in fact, indicate that a comma was intended – as reflected in early translations of the same period. The testimonies of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Novatian all date from the same period, and cannot be ignored simply on the basis of anti-Arian bias (given that all predate Arius and the controversy that bears his name). While some scholars have overstated the importance of the patristic evidence, others such as Moo (quoted above), Sanday and Headlam (Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of the Romans, p. 234), Cranfield (Romans, 469-70), and Faccio (De divinitate Christi justa S. Paulum, Rom 9, 5) present a balanced view in which the patristic evidence is placed in its proper perspective. Dwight presents the case cogently:
The value of patristic interpretation may be questioned, indeed, and in the case of some of the fathers it is possible that reasons may be suggested which influenced their minds, apart from the mere language which is used by the Apostle. But whatever may be said in this way, and however we may estimate these writers, their substantial or complete unanimity is a circumstance which should not be disregarded (Dwight, p. 42).
On balance, it is fair to say that as early as the 2nd Century, Christians were quoting Romans 9:5 in such a way that Christ was called “God,” and placing those quotes in settings rich with other acclamations of Christ’s Deity. This fact is hardly matched by ambiguous evidence of haphazard punctuation marks from later Greek manuscripts5.
objection: In his “Grammatical Analysis” section, Mr. Stafford argues that taking “God who is over all” in reference to Christ must be understood as “an appositive for ‘Christ according to the flesh,’ which would then create a conflict with Trinitarian thinking in terms of a deification of Christ’s human nature” (Stafford, p. 147). He notes that Murray J. Harris and others “attempt to find an antithesis in this verse between Christ’s human and divine natures” (Ibid., p. 148). Stafford argues that there is no antithesis to “according to the flesh,” but that Paul uses it in the same way he does in verse 3. Mr. Stafford accuses Harris of redefining theos as “a category of being” which is not articulated in the Bible, and thus importing a post-Biblical theology into the text.
Mr. Stafford repeats a common objection to “blessed forever” being attributed to Christ on the basis that eulogêtos is never used of Christ in the Greek New Testament. He points to the overwhelming number of times Paul uses theos of the Father.
Mr. Stafford interacts with the arguments raised by Harris and others regarding the placement of eulogêtos, and notes what he sees as a double-standard in their methodologies, when they argue on the basis of regular usage of eulogêtos but disregard Paul’s regular usage of theos. Mr. Stafford accuses Harris of not “fully appreciating” Abbot’s point about the position of eulogêtos in Romans 9:5: “Paul wishes to stress … the overruling providence of God as ‘the Ruler over All'” (Abbot in Stafford, p. 150).
Mr. Stafford concludes this section of his defense of the NWT rendering as follows: “The grammatical arguments given in support of the translation which makes theos predicate for Christ are relevant, but they are certainly not incontrovertible” (Ibid., p. 151).
Response: Mr. Stafford’s asserts that if “God who is over all” refers to Christ, it is appositional to “Christ according to the flesh,” which results in deifying Christ’s humanity. This assertion does not rest on any solid grammatical ground. Apposition merely requires that two substantives in close proximity refer to the same person or thing (Wallace, p. 48). An appositive need not modify intervening relative clauses (e.g., 2 Corinthians 11:31). As for Mr. Stafford’s contention that “according to the flesh” need not imply an antithesis, most scholars – even those advocating Romans 9:5b as a doxology to the Father – disagree. Abbot, for example, says, “the phrase kata sarka undoubtedly implies an antithesis” (Abbot, Romans 9:5, p. 101). The question turns not on whether an antithesis is implied, but whether it must be explicitly stated. Most scholars agree that it need not be explicitly stated, as verse 3 indicates.6 Nevertheless, in many cases, the antithesis expressly follows (e.g., Romans 1:3-4) and since “God who is over all, etc.” provides such an antithesis, the burden of proof lies with Mr. Stafford and those who agree with him that such is not the case here.
In response to Mr. Stafford’s assertion that Harris redefines theos as an unbiblical “category of being,” I would point out that the Bible does, on several occasions, use theos in this very sense and uses other words that mean the same thing. First, many experts in Greek grammar have noted that anarthrous nouns in general often signify the qualities, essence, or nature of the noun.7 If this principle is true of other nouns, we may wonder why it cannot be true of theos?8Second, in Galatians 4:8, Paul speaks in negative terms of those who are “not gods by nature” (mê phusis ousin theois).9 Paul’s statement presupposes that there is at least One who is “God by nature,” and thus the concept of Deity (“that which makes God, God”) is a Biblical concept. This concept is echoed in Acts 17:29 (where theios means “divine nature”), Col 2:9 (where theotes signifies “Deity”), and 2 Peter 1:4 (theios, again, signifying “the divine nature”). We may debate what each specific reference to “divine nature / Deity” may mean in its context, but it cannot be denied that the idea that God has a unique nature which sets Him apart from all creation is a Biblical teaching. The question is, then, is theos ever used to signify the essence, nature, or qualities of “God?” The Watchtower itself argues that theos in John 1:1c is used in this manner: “Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction point to a quality about someone” (NWT 1950, p. 774). Mr. Stafford agrees that this semantic sense is present in theos in this same verse:
The inspired apostle shows that the Word has the same kind of nature and qualities that “the God” (not simply the “person”) he existed with has (Stafford, p. 349).
The Watchtower and Mr. Stafford, of course, do not regard the qualitative aspect as the only semantic force present in theos in John 1:1c,10 but they acknowledge its existence, and therefore concede that theos is used in the Bible to signify the nature of God.Other verses that use theos in a qualitative sense include (LXX): Deuteronomy 4:35, Joshua 24:17, 3 Kings 18:24, 27; (GNT): John 1:1; Romans 9:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
Mr. Stafford’s objection that eulogêtos (“blessed”) is nowhere used of Christ in the NT is certainly true, but we must place it in perspective. Apart from this verse, there are only seven other instances of its use (four others by Paul). This would seem an insufficient sample from which to draw firm conclusions. It is used both of men and God in the LXX, as is it’s close cousin, eulogeô, which is used of Christ six times in the NT. There is thus scarce evidence that Paul would have refrained from using eulogêtos of Christ on this occasion.
The argument Mr. Stafford raises about Paul’s “regular” use of theos is, I believe, the most reasonable objection to “God” being attributed to Christ in this verse. It is an argument raised by virtually every proponent of the ‘doxology to the Father’ view, though some treat it as proving their view, which it cannot do.11 In response, most scholars who advocate the view argued here have answered in two general ways:
1. Paul calls Jesus theos in Titus 2:13.
2. Paul refers to Jesus in the highest possible terms elsewhere, effectively calling Him “God” by using other terms. Therefore, it is not surprising to find Him called “God” here.
While I agree with both points, and have utilized them in the Commentary (above), I believe there is another pertinent point to raise. Paul uses theos about 490 times in his writings. If he has called Jesus “God” here and in Titus 2:13, that represents about .4%. The NT as a whole contains “God” about 1315 times, and most Trinitarians would – at most – accept seven verses as calling Jesus “God.” This is a ratio of .5%. If Paul is here referring “God” to Jesus, he is not doing so outside the ‘norm’ of the NT. John, who attributes theos to Jesus more than any other writer, only does so three times out of just over 200 uses – about 1%. We are dealing with a sample of data in which there is very rare use of theos in reference to Jesus (though, of course, the data also show that Jesus is exalted to the highest degree using other terms). It therefore cannot be special pleading to say that Paul is doing so, here.
If it is not special pleading to claim that Paul could have called Jesus “God” in this verse, the question then turns on whether one believes that Paul knew and approved of Thomas’ confession, as recorded in John 20:28 (that is, that other Apostles were comfortable with this affirmation, albeit on rare occasions); On whether Paul ascribes Deity to Jesus in Col 2:9; On whether he exalts Jesus with the name of YHWH and says of Him that every knee will bow in worship (the clear sense of in the OT setting) in Phillipians 2:10 (c.f., Isaiah 45:23). If Paul can say of Christ that He is the Lord of Glory; the Lord from Heaven; the Lord of the living and dead; that in Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; and that He is raised above all principalities and powers and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world and the next; If Paul can say all this, he can surely call Christ “God above all” and not exceed the bounds of reason or usage.
Mr. Stafford’s objection that Metzger and Harris are applying a double-standard with regard to the placement of eulogêtos (in comparison to Paul’s usage of theos) is ultimately a tu quoque (“you too”) argument. Even if Paul is using theos counter to his normal usage, this does not relieve Mr. Stafford (and other scholars who argue as he does) from accounting for the unprecedented placement of eulogêtos in this verse. Mr. Stafford undertakes this burden by, once again, relying heavily on Ezra Abbot. Mr. Stafford cites Psalm 67:19 as an example of eulogêtos occurring after theos, but most scholars – including Abbot – recognize that because of its chiastic structure, this verse is not a valid counterexample (see Note 2, below). Abbot’s argument about the placement of eulogêtos, which Mr. Stafford says that Harris is not fully appreciating, is essentially that Greek syntax is flexible enough to allow Paul to place eulogêtos after theos, in order to emphasize God’s role in sending the Messiah. It is difficult to understand how Harris could fail to appreciate Abbot’s argument when he spends almost a page dealing with it (Harris, pp. 162-163). Harris’ response – which I believe Mr. Stafford ‘fails to appreciate’ (or at least interact with) – is two-pronged:
1. A doxology is a fixed formulaic phrase, not merely single word like theos. When a phrase has been fixed, particularly one of such devotional meaning, it is proper to take the established norm into account when determining the meaning of an isolated variation.12
2. “It is hard to imagine that nowhere else in the Greek Bible does the subject in a doxology bear an emphasis comparable to that in Romans 9:5 so that the customary word order is reversed” (Harris, p. 163).13
This final point seems to me to be decisive. If Abbot and Mr. Stafford contend that the word order of a fixed doxology can be varied to place emphasis in certain contexts, they must do so in the absence of any evidence supporting them.
Mr. Stafford concludes that while the grammatical arguments in favor of “God” being ascribed to Christ are “relevant,” they are not “incontrovertible.” The same can certainly be said of the arguments attributing the doxology to the Father. I would suggest, based on the evidence presented here, the probabilities strongly favor the former view.
objection: In his concluding section, “Contextual considerations,” Mr. Stafford notes that Metzger and Harris have both argued that the preceding context of Romans 9:5 supports the view that “God over all” is attributed to Christ, while there appears to be no real support for a doxology to the Father. Mr. Stafford replies that both Metzger and Harris have “failed to appreciate” how Paul’s preceding sadness turns to joy in Romans 9:5 and “is expressed in praise to God for sending Christ ‘according to the flesh'” (Stafford, p. 152). Mr. Stafford complains that both Metzger and Harris fail to interact with Abbot’s detailed argument in support of this view. Finally, Mr. Stafford concludes with a quote from Dwight who, while arguing in favor of “God over all” being ascribed to Christ, nevertheless acknowledges that a doxology to the Father would not be wholly out of place in this context.
Response: In arguing for Paul’s sorrow turning to joy, Mr. Stafford says that Paul breaks out in praise to the Father for sending Christ “according to the flesh.” But we have noted earlier that Mr. Stafford has “failed to appreciate” the implied contrast in this phrase that every scholar Mr. Stafford mentions (and many that he has not) – including his exemplar, Ezra Abbot – recognize as being there. Paul is not here speaking about Christ “coming as a man,” but rather of his descent from the Patriarchs. In the catalog of blessings the Father has bestowed upon His people, the Messiah is the greatest, and last. Paul feels such kinship for his ‘brother’ Jews, and so longs for their salvation, that he wishes himself “accursed” and “separated from Christ” if by such a profound sacrifice the Jews could be saved. This is no garden-variety sorrow; indeed, such a willingness to consign oneself to eternal separation from Christ is found nowhere else in Scripture. It speaks both of Paul’s great love for his people, and his even greater love for Christ, that he would so example Christ’s sacrificial love towards those who – in many cases – beat and stoned him, and wished him dead.
While I don’t regard it impossible that Paul breaks out of his grief to praise God (not for sending Messiah “in the flesh,” but for being a faithful God who keeps His promises, despite the unfaithfulness of a stubborn people), nevertheless such a mood-swing seems most unlikely. The next verse begins with “But it is not as though the word of God has failed.” The presupposition here is that the reader may be thinking that the word of God had failed, because of the Jews rejection of Jesus. But this does not fit if Paul has just broken his mood and praised God for sending the Messiah. Had Paul just concluded a doxology to the Father, one would expect Paul to begin the next verse with “Because” or “For” (Greek gar). We would expect him to continue with the thought that God keeps his promises (by sending Messiah) and because of this, His word has not failed, for others have come to saving faith outside of Israel. On the other hand, if Paul has just proven how very grave the Jews rejection of Jesus was, because not only have they rejected the promised Messiah, but also God Himself, then it makes perfect sense that Paul would begin his next sentence as he does: “But not that…” (Greek: ouch hoion de…).
Whether Metzger or Harris should have interacted more with Abbot’s arguments depends largely on how compelling one finds Abbot’s arguments. Metzger apparently gave them little weight as Mr. Stafford is correct – he does not specifically interact with his arguments. But the same cannot be said of Harris. Metzger and Harris actually spend a great deal of time developing their contextual arguments (Metzger, Punctuation, pp. 103 – 112; Harris, pp. 154 – 165). Both offer detailed exegesis, substantial support for their views from relevant literature, and respond to the major objections. In the case of Harris, these include Abbot’s (e.g., Harris, p. 158, 162, 163, 165).
Mr. Stafford’s concluding quote from Dwight establishes the point that he did not regard a doxology to the Father being impossible in this context. Such is my view as well. However, immediately after Mr. Stafford’s quote, Dwight goes on to say:
But, while we admit this, we must observe that the progress of the author’s thought is towards the sixth verse and what follows it, and that the balance of probability cannot be determined without considering the five verses in connection with the sixth and the rest of the chapter. As we look at the matter from this point of view, we find that the thought moves on in an easy and natural way, if we make the reference of these words, which are under discussion, to be Christ (Dwight, p. 41).
And this, too, echoes my thoughts. We have here a verse with an ambiguous construction in the Greek. Neither view is impossible from the standpoint of grammar alone – but one is more likely when all other considerations are taken into account. I believe that view is clearly the one I have advocated. However, ultimately, it is God who reveals the truth of who His Son is, not carefully crafted arguments and endless scholarly quotations. If you are inclined to Mr. Stafford’s view, but find the arguments here presented troubling, perhaps God is working in your heart, even now, as you read these words. I invite you to pray that God will show you who His Son truly is, and to seek Him in the pages of God’s Holy Word.
In conclusion, I will follow Mr. Stafford and quote the words of Timothy Dwight:
It is not vital to the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ to find the declaration that he is God in this verse. The Apostle Paul may have believed that his Lord and Savior was Divine, and may teach this in his Epistles; and yet may have chosen to limit himself in the use of the name God, so far as to apply it to the Father only…. If, however, this verse does contain the apostolic testimony that Christ is God, it is a direct affirmation of what the opposite doctrine would deny, and excludes that doctrine altogether (Dwight, pp. 53-54).
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert Hommel
Woodland Hills, 2003
NOTES
1. Of the 13 examples of ho ôn in the GNT and LXX, only two (John 3:31; 8:47) begin a new phrase. In each case, John has constructed his sentences in such a way that it is impossible to construe ho ôn asmodifying a preceding head noun. It has been argued that when ho ôn is used to introduce a relative clause, the noun it modifies immediately precedes. In Romans 9:5, of course, the phrase to kata sarka is between the head noun Christos and ho ôn. However, in two cases (John 6:46; 2 Corinthians 11:31), this ‘rule’ does not pertain. While this is an admittedly small sample of data, and it is impossible to draw absolute conclusions, we may nevertheless say that the Biblical authors were aware that ho ôn could be construed as a qualifying phrase, or introducing a phrase in apposition to a preceding head noun, and so appear to have taken care when using it to start a new sentence that it could not be so understood.
2. The lone exception is Psalm 67:19. But as Dwight argues at length, this verse is really not a proper parallel to Romans 9:5 in that it differs from ordinary doxologies by doubling eulogêtos (Dwight, pp 32-33). Ezra Abbot, one of the most articulate proponents of “God over all” being a doxology to the Father, agrees: “I do not urge it as a parallel to Rom. ix. 5” (Abbot, Romans 9:5, p. 107).
3. Ambrosias actually seems quite clear that he understands “God” to be attributed to Christ: “As there is no mention of the Father’s name in this verse and Paul is talking about Christ, it cannot be disputed that he is called God here…If someone does not think that it is said about Christ that he is God, then let him name the person about whom he thinks it is said, for there is no mention of God the Father in this verse (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, in ACC: Romans, p. 247).
4. Abbot says Chrysostom and Theodoret are to be distinguished from the other fathers, “for sobriety and good sense in interpretation” (Abbot, Romans 9:5, p. 140). Nevertheless, he notes that they both, “adopted that excessively unnatural if not impossible construction of 2 Cor iv. 4” (Ibid.). But Abbot has made a hasty generalization. Simply because they may have adopted an allegedly “impossible” construction of one verse does not prove that they have done so in Romans 9:5.
5. Metzger himself characterizes the punctuation in early Greek manuscripts as “quite erratic” and provides a number of examples from the very manuscripts under consideration (Metzger, Punctuation, p. 99). Abbot puts it succinctly: “The truth is, that this whole matter of punctuation in the ancient MSS. is of exceedingly small importance” (Abbot, Romans 9:5, p. 152).
6. Mr. Stafford’s assertion that kata sarka does not imply an antithesis in Romans 9:3 overlooks the fact that out of almost 130 uses of “brother” (adelphos) in Paul’s writings, in every case except Romans 9:3, it means either a spiritual brother (i.e., a fellow Christian) or a literal brother (“James, the brother of the Lord”). But Paul does not consider the Jews his spiritual brothers; rather he qualifies the term to mean: “kinsmen according to the flesh.” Thus, the implied antithesis is between Paul’s “brothers” in the Lord and Paul’s “brothers” as Jews. This contrast is so apparent that it is a virtual commonplace among commentators and other scholars writing about this verse (e.g., Gill (Commentary), Robertson (Word Pictures), Barnes (Notes), Moo (Romans), Godet (Romans), Moule (Romans), Hodge (Romans), Stauffer (TDNT 3:105), Phillipi (Romans), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, and Harris (Jesus, p. 156). In verse 5, Paul is not speaking about physical versus spiritual brotherhood, but physical versus spiritual descent (ex ôn).
8. One answer to this question often offered by Jehovah’s Witness apologists, including Mr. Stafford himself (Stafford, p. 339), is that theos is a count noun and count nouns (because “countable”) can only be definite or indefinite – not qualitative. The definition of a “count noun” preferred by these apologists is a contextual one – that is, if a noun is “countable” in a given context, it is a count noun. If it is not countable, it is a mass noun. Based on this definition, it is begging the question to suggest that theos in Romans 9:5 cannot be a qualitative noun because it is a count noun. The Witnesses must first establish that theos is a count noun in this context. If theos is here an appositional predication of Deity to Christ, it is not countable.Thus, any arguments based on a contextual definition of mass/count terms are of little value in determining the semantic force of theos in a specific context.
9. See also Deuteronmy 32: 17 – 21, in which YHWH calls the “demons” (LXX: daimoniois) “not-God” (JPS). The meaning here is not merely that the demons were not YHWH (the person), but that they were not theos – not God by nature.
10. It is not my intention to here engage Mr. Stafford’s argument on this point in detail, but I will say that the idea that a word may contain more than one semantic force (i.e., “meaning”) in a given context (unless the author intends ambiguity) is a lexical principle that requires proof beyond assertion. It seems counter to the way lexical semantics actually works (that is, that we use words to mean only one of their possible denotations in any given context), and is actually an example of what D.A. Carson has called the exegetical fallacy of “unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field” (Fallacies, p. 60-61). After noting that a word outside of a context actually “does not have a meaning” but rather various potential meanings, Louw says:
“When used in a context, the situation and the syntactic environment contribute to the choice between the several possibilities of meaning. The word has a specific meaning in that context” (Louw, Semantics, p. 40).
Cotterell and Turner concur: “The context of the utterance usually singles out (and perhaps modulates) the one sense, which is intended, from amongst the various senses which the word is potentially capable” (Cotterell, p. 175, emphasis in original). Silva quotes Vendryes: “Among the divers meanings a word possesses, the only one that will emerge into consciousness is the one determined by context (Vendryes, in Silva, p. 139) and says this principle is “one of the few universally accepted hermeneutical guidelines” (Ibid., p. 138).
11. Arguments based on statistics can only prove probabilities, not actualities. They do not allow for exceptional cases. For example, the fact that no other human beings have raised themselves from the dead does not disprove that Jesus did so.
12. Harris quotes Phillipi as follows: “In the interpretation of a formula that has become fixed, empiricism is altogether in its right place, and still more where, for the established usage, a sufficient ratio can be alleged” (Phillipi in Harris, p. 162).
13. Harris’ footnote to this point is as follows: “Dwight (Romans, p. 36-37) cites several LXX passages where an inversion might be expected on this principle, but is not found (e.g., eulogêtos in 1 Sam. 25:33 and 2 Macc. 15:34)” (Ibid., p. 163 n61).
In this very short post, I will cite a few early church fathers and writers who all affirm the uncreated, eternal nature of the Son.
Chapter 6. Preserve harmony
Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF TIME, and in the end was revealed. Do all then, imitating the same divine conduct, pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.(Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, AD 107-112; bold and capital emphasis mine)
Chapter 7. Beware of false teachers
For some are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom you must flee as you would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom you must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made AND NOT MADE; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible — even Jesus Christ our Lord. (Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians; bold and capital emphasis mine)
Chapter 3. Exhortations
Let not those who seem worthy of credit, but teach strange doctrines, 1 Timothy 1:3, 1 Timothy 6:3 fill you with apprehension. Stand firm, as does an anvil which is beaten. It is the part of a noble athlete to be wounded, and yet to conquer. And especially, we ought to bear all things for the sake of God, that He also may bear with us. Be ever becoming more zealous than what you are. Weigh carefully the times. Look for Him who is ABOVE ALL TIME, ETERNAL and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes. (Ignatius, Epistle to Polycarp; bold and capital emphasis mine)
This next quotation refers to the Holy Spirit being uncreated and eternal as well:
There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image: perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of the Only, God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal. And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever. (St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (“The Wonderworker”), A Declaration of Faith, AD 265; bold emphasis mine)
Chapter 29. Of the Christian Religion, and of the Union of Jesus with the Father.
Some one may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son: which assertion has driven many into the greatest error. For when the things which we say seem to them probable, they consider that we fail in this one point alone, that we confess that there is another God, and that He is mortal. We have already spoken of His mortality: now let us teach concerning His unity. When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each: because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father, since the name of Father cannot be given without the Son, nor can the Son be begotten without the Father. Since, therefore, the Father makes the Son, and the Son the Father, they both have one mind, one spirit, one substance; but the former is as it were an overflowing fountain, the latter as a stream flowing forth from it: the former as the sun, the latter as it were a ray extended from the sun. And since He is both faithful to the Most High Father, and beloved by Him, He is not separated from Him; just as the stream is not separated from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun: for the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the light of the sun is in the ray: just as the voice cannot be separated from the mouth, nor the strength or hand from the body. When, therefore, He is also spoken of by the prophets as the hand, and strength, and word of God, there is plainly no separation; for the tongue, which is the minister of speech, and the hand, in which the strength is situated, are inseparable portions of the body.
We may use an example more closely connected with us. When any one has a son whom he especially loves, who is still in the house, and in the power of his father, although he concede to him the name and power of a master, yet by the civil law the house is one, and one person is called master. So this world is the one house of God; and the Son and the Father, who unanimously inhabit the world, are one God, for the one is as two, and the two are as one. Nor is that wonderful, since the Son is in the Father, for the Father loves the Son, and the Father is in the Son; for He faithfully obeys the will of the Father, nor does He ever do nor has done anything except what the Father either willed or commanded. Lastly, that the Father and the Son are but one God, Isaiah showed in that passage which we have brought forward before, when he said: Isaiah 45:14 They shall fall down unto You, and make supplication unto You, since God is in You, and there is no other God besides You. And he also speaks to the same purport in another place: Isaiah 44:6 Thus says God the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, the everlasting God; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. When he had set forth two persons, one of God the King, that is, Christ, and the other of God the Father, who after His passion raised Him from the dead, as we have said that the prophet Hosea showed, Hosea 13:14 who said, I will redeem Him from the power of the grave: nevertheless, with reference to each person, he introduced the words, and beside me there is no God, when he might have said beside us; but it was not right that a separation of so close a relationship should be made by the use of the plural number. For there is one God alone, free, most high, without any origin; for He Himself is the origin of all things, and in Him at once both the Son and all things are contained. Wherefore, since the mind and will of the one is in the other, or rather, since there is one in both, both are justly called one God; for whatever is in the Father flows on to the Son, and whatever is in the Son descends from the Father. Therefore that highest and matchless God cannot be worshipped except through the Son. He who thinks that he worships the Father only, as he does not worship the Son, so he does not worship even the Father. But he who receives the Son, and bears His name, he truly together with the Son worships the Father also, since the Son is the ambassador, and messenger, and priest of the Most High Father. He is the door of the greatest temple, He the way of light, He the guide to salvation, He the gate of life. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book IV Of true wisdom and religion, AD 307; bold emphasis mine)
7. Believe also in the Son of God, One and Only, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who was begotten God of God, begotten Life of Life, begotten Light of Light , Who is in all things like to Him that begot, Who received not His being in time, but was before all ages eternally and incomprehensibly begotten of the Father: The Wisdom and the Power of God, and His Righteousness personally subsisting: Who sits on the right hand of the Father before all ages.
For the throne at God’s right hand He received not, as some have thought, because of His patient endurance, being crowned as it were by God after His Passion; but throughout His being — a being by eternal generation — He holds His royal dignity, and shares the Father’s seat, being God and Wisdom and Power, as has been said; reigning together with the Father, and creating all things for the Father, yet lacking nothing in the dignity of Godhead, and knowing Him that has begotten Him, even as He is known of Him that has begotten; and to speak briefly, remember thou what is written in the Gospels, that none knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any the Father save the Son.
8. Further, do thou neither separate the Son from the Father, nor by making a confusion believe in a Son-Fatherhood ; but believe that of One God there is One Only-begotten Son, who is before all ages God the Word; not the uttered word diffused into the air, nor to be likened to impersonal words ; but the Word the Son, Maker of all who partake of reason, the Word who hears the Father, and Himself speaks. And on these points, should God permit, we will speak more at large in due season; for we do not forget our present purpose to give a summary introduction to the Faith. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4, AD 350; bold emphasis mine)
In this post, I will cite the Babylonian Talmud to show how post-Christian rabbis applied some of the very same Old Testament passages to the Messiah, which the inspired New Testament writings and Christians in general have typically interpreted in respect to Jesus. The quotations will further demonstrate how the rabbis even believed in the Messiah’s personal preexistence, e.g. Messiah is already alive and waiting to manifest himself at the appointed time.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The son of David will come only in a generation that is entirely innocent, in which case they will be deserving of redemption, or in a generation that is entirely guilty, in which case there will be no alternative to redemption. He may come in a generation that is entirely innocent, as it is written: “And your people also shall be all righteous; they shall inherit the land forever” (Isaiah 60:21). He may come in a generation that is entirely guilty, as it is written: “And He saw that there was no man, and was astonished that there was no intercessor; therefore His arm brought salvation to Him, and His righteousness, it sustained Him” (Isaiah 59:16). And it is written: “For My own sake, for My own sake will I do it; for how should it be profaned? And My glory I will not give it to another” (Isaiah 48:11)…
§ Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction in a verse addressing God’s commitment to redeem the Jewish people. In the verse: “I the Lord in its time I will hasten it” (Isaiah 60:22), it is written: “In its time,” indicating that there is a designated time for the redemption, and it is written: “I will hasten it,” indicating that there is no set time for the redemption. Rabbi Alexandri explains: If they merit redemption through repentance and good deeds I will hasten the coming of the Messiah. If they do not merit redemption, the coming of the Messiah will be in its designated time…
Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction between two depictions of the coming of the Messiah. It is written: “There came with the clouds of heaven, one like unto a son of man…and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom…his dominion is an everlasting dominion” (Daniel 7:13–14). And it is written: “Behold, your king will come to you; he is just and victorious; lowly and riding upon a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). Rabbi Alexandri explains: If the Jewish people merit redemption, the Messiah will come in a miraculous manner with the clouds of heaven. If they do not merit redemption, the Messiah will come lowly and riding upon a donkey…
King Shapur of Persia said to Shmuel mockingly: You say that the Messiah will come on a donkey; I will send him the riding [barka] horse that I have.Shmuelsaid to him: Do you have a horse with one thousand colors [bar ḥivar gavanei] like the donkey of the Messiah? Certainly his donkey will be miraculous…
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to Elijah: When will the Messiah come? Elijah said to him: Go ask him. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked: And where is he sitting? Elijah said to him: At the entrance of the city of Rome. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked him: And what is his identifying sign by means of which I can recognize him? Elijah answered: He sits among the poor who suffer from illnesses. And all of them untie their bandages and tie them all at once, but the Messiah unties one bandage and ties one at a time. He says: Perhaps I will be needed to serve to bring about the redemption. Therefore, I will never tie more than one bandage, so that I will not be delayed…
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi went to the Messiah. He said to the Messiah: Greetings to you, my rabbi and my teacher. The Messiah said to him: Greetings to you, bar Leva’i. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: When will the Master come? The Messiah said to him: Today. Sometime later, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi came to Elijah. Elijah said to him: What did the Messiah say to you? He said to Elijah that the Messiah said: Greetings [shalom] to you, bar Leva’i. Elijah said to him: He thereby guaranteed that you and your father will enter the World-to-Come, as he greeted you with shalom. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to Elijah: The Messiah lied to me, as he said to me: I am coming today, and he did not come. Elijah said to him that this is what he said to you: He said that he will come “today, if you will listen to his voice” (Psalms 95:7)…
§ Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma’s students asked him: When will the son of David come? Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said: I am hesitant to answer you, lest you request from me a sign to corroborate my statement. They said to him: We are not asking you for a sign…
Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to them: You will see when this existing gate of Rome falls and will be rebuilt, and will fall a second time and will be rebuilt, and will fall a third time. And they will not manage to rebuild it until the son of David comes. The students said to him: Our rabbi, give us a sign. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to them: But didn’t you say to me that you are not asking me for a sign?…
Rav says: The son of David will not come until the evil Roman kingdom will disperse throughout Eretz Yisrael for nine months, as it is stated: “Therefore will He give them up, until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the remnant of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel” (Micah 5:2). Once a period equivalent to a term of pregnancy passes, the redemption will come…
Ulla says: Let the Messiah come, but after my death, so that I will not see him, as I fear the suffering that will precede his coming. Likewise, Rabba says: Let the Messiah come, but after my death, so that I will not see him. Rav Yosef says: Let the Messiah come, and I will be privileged to sit in the shadow of his donkey’s excrement. I am willing to undergo all the pain and disgrace associated with his arrival…
Abaye said to Rabba: What is the reason that you are so concerned? If we say it is due to the pains preceding and accompanying the coming of the Messiah, but isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar’s students asked Rabbi Elazar: What shall a person do to be spared from the pains preceding the coming of the Messiah? Rabbi Elazar said to them: They shall engage in Torah study and acts of kindness. Abaye continued: And as far as the Master is concerned, isn’t there the Torah and aren’t there the acts of kindness that you performed?…
§ Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The Jewish people are destined to eat from the bounty of, i.e., enjoy, the years of the Messiah. Rav Yosef says: Isn’t this obvious? And rather, who else will eat from them? Will Ḥillak and Billak, two shiftless characters, eat from them? The Gemara explains that Rav Giddel’s statement serves to exclude the statement of Rabbi Hillel, who says: There is no Messiah coming for the Jewish people, as they already ate from him, as all the prophecies relating to the Messiah were already fulfilled during the days of Hezekiah…
Rav says: The world was created only for the sake of David, by virtue of his merit. And Shmuel says: It was created by virtue of the merit of Moses. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It was created by virtue of the merit of the Messiah…
Apropos the Messiah, the Gemara asks: What is his name? The school of Rabbi Sheila says: Shiloh is his name, as it is stated: “Until when Shiloh shall come” (Genesis 49:10). The school of Rabbi Yannai says: Yinnon is his name, as it is stated: “May his name endure forever; may his name continue [yinnon] as long as the sun; and may men bless themselves by him” (Psalms 72:17). The school of Rabbi Ḥanina says: Ḥanina is his name, as it is stated: “For I will show you no favor [ḥanina]” (Jeremiah 16:13). And some say that Menaḥem ben Ḥizkiyya is his name, as it is stated: “Because the comforter [menaḥem] that should relieve my soul is far from me” (Lamentations 1:16). And the Rabbis say: The leper of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is his name, as it is stated: “Indeed our illnesses he did bear and our pains he endured; yet we did esteem him injured, stricken by God, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4)…
Rav Naḥman says: If the Messiah is among the living in this generation, he is a person such as me, who already has dominion over the Jewish people, as it is stated: “And their prince shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from their midst” (Jeremiah 30:21), indicating that the redeemer is already in power. Rav says: If the Messiah is among the living in this generation, he is a person such as our saintly Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was renowned for his sanctity, piety, and Torah knowledge. If the Messiah is among the dead he is a person such as Daniel, the beloved man…
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, is destined to establish another David for the Jewish people as the Messiah, as it is stated: “And they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will establish for them” (Jeremiah 30:9). It is not stated: I established, but “I will establish,” indicating that the name of the future king will be David. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But isn’t it written: “And my servant David shall be their prince forever” (Ezekiel 37:25), indicating that King David himself will rule over the Jewish people? Abaye said: They will rule in tandem like an emperor and a viceroy; the Messiah will be king and David will be second-in-command…
§ Rabbi Simlai taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord. Why would you have this day of the Lord? It is darkness, and not light” (Amos 5:18)? It is comparable to a rooster and a bat who were looking forward to the light of day. The rooster said to the bat: I look forward to light, as light is an indication of my time to be active. But as for you, why do you need light? Nighttime for you is like daytime for me…
And that is the background for the following exchange, as a certain heretic said to Rabbi Abbahu: When will the Messiah come? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: He will come when the darkness will enshroud these people, i.e., you. The heretic said to him: Are you cursing me for no reason? Rabbi Abbahu said to him, I am merely relating to you a verse that is written: “For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and fog the peoples; but the Lord shall shine upon you, and His glory shall be seen upon you” (Isaiah 60:2)…
§ It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The messianic era will be forty years long, as it is stated: “Forty years will I strive with the generation” (Psalms 95:10). The forty years of strife with the gentiles will be followed by the glory days of the Messiah. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The messianic era will last seventy years, as it is stated: “And it shall come to pass on that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king” (Isaiah 23:15). In this context, one [eḥad], means unique [meyuḥad]. Which is the unique king? You must say that this is a reference to the Messiah…
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The messianic era will last three generations, as it is stated: “May they fear You as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout the generations [dor dorim]” (Psalms 72:5). Dor is singular and dorim is plural, for a total of three generations. Rabbi Hillel says: There is no Messiah coming for the Jewish people, as they already ate from him, as all the prophecies relating to the Messiah were already fulfilled, during the days of Hezekiah…
Rav Yosef says: May the Master forgive Rabbi Hillel for stating matters with no basis. With regard to Hezekiah, when was his reign? It was during the First Temple period. Whereas Zechariah ben Berechiah, the prophet, prophesied during the Second Temple period and said: “Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; shout, daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your king will come to you; he is just and victorious; lowly and riding upon a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). In the generations after Hezekiah, there are prophecies about both redemption and the coming of the Messiah…
It is taught in anotherbaraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The messianic era will be forty years long. It is written here with regard to the forty-year sojourn of the children of Israel in the wilderness: “And He afflicted you, and suffered you to hunger and fed you with manna” (Deuteronomy 8:3); and it is written there: “Make us glad according to the days that You afflicted us, the years that we saw evil” (Psalms 90:15)…
Rabbi Dosa says: The messianic era will last four hundred years. It is written here with regard to the Covenant of the Pieces: “And they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13); and it is written there: “Make us glad according to the days that You afflicted us.”…
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The messianic era will last 365 years, corresponding to the number of days of the solar year, as it is stated: “For the day of vengeance is in My heart, and the year of My redeemed is come” (Isaiah 63:4)…
Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: The messianic era for the Jewish people will last seven thousand years, as it is stated: “And as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you” (Isaiah 62:5). The bridegroom rejoices over the bride for seven days, and the day of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is one thousand years…
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The duration of the messianic era is like the duration of the period that runs from the day the world was created until now, i.e., the day when the Messiah will come, as it is stated: “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth” (Deuteronomy 11:21)…
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The duration of the messianic era is like the duration of the period that runs from the days of Noah until now, i.e., the day when the Messiah will come, as it is stated with regard to redemption: “For this is as the seas of [ki mei] Noah to me; as I have sworn that the seas of Noah shall no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I will not be angry with you nor rebuke you” (Isaiah 54:9). The words ki mei can be understood as one word, kimei, meaning: Like the days of…
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In their prophecies with regard to redemption and the end of days, all the prophets prophesied only about the messianic era, but with regard to the World-to-Come the reward is not quantifiable, as it states: “No eye has seen it, God, aside from You, Who will do for those who await Him” (Isaiah 64:3). The Gemara notes: And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: The difference between this world and the messianic era is only with regard to servitude to foreign kingdoms alone, as they will leave Eretz Yisrael. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98a-b-99a https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.98a.13?lang=bi)
THE MESSIANIC PROOFTEXTS
I will now quote some of the main OT texts which the Talmud ascribes to the Messiah, with some additional context for further clarification.
“Judah, you are he whom your brothers shall praise; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father’s children shall bow down before you. Judah is a lion’s whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He bows down, he lies down as a lion; And as a lion, who shall rouse him? The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people. Binding his donkey to the vine, And his donkey’s colt to the choice vine, He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes. His eyes are darker than wine, And his teeth whiter than milk.” Genesis 49:8-12
“Give the king Your judgments, O God, And Your righteousness to the king’s Son… They shall fear You As long as the sun and moon endure, Throughout all generations… He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth. Those who dwell in the wilderness will bow before Him, And His enemies will lick the dust. The kings of Tarshish and of the isles Will bring presents; The kings of Sheba and Seba Will offer gifts. Yes, all kings shall fall down before Him; All nations shall serve Him… His name shall endure forever; His name shall continue as long as the sun. And men shall be blessed in Him; All nations shall call Him blessed. Read full chapter Psalm 72:1, 5, 8-11, 17
“Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. And they made His grave with the wicked— But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors.” Isaiah 53:1-2
“He saw that there was no man, And wondered that there was no intercessor; Therefore His own arm brought salvation for Him; And His own righteousness, it sustained Him. Read full chapter Isaiah 59:16
“Arise, shine; For your light has come! And the glory of the LORD is risen upon you. For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, And deep darkness the people; But the LORD will arise over you, And His glory will be seen upon you… The glory of Lebanon shall come to you, The cypress, the pine, and the box tree together, To beautify the place of My sanctuary; And I will make the place of My feet glorious… You shall drink the milk of the Gentiles, And milk the breast of kings; You shall know that I, the LORD, am your Savior And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob… The sun shall no longer be your light by day, Nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you; But the LORD will be to you an everlasting light, And your God your glory. Your sun shall no longer go down, Nor shall your moon withdraw itself; For the LORD will be your everlasting light, And the days of your mourning shall be ended. Also your people shall all be righteous; They shall inherit the land forever, The branch of My planting, The work of My hands, That I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, And a small one a strong nation. I, the LORD, will hasten it in its time.” Isaiah 60:1-2, 13, 16, 19-22
“For the day of vengeance is in My heart, And the year of My redeemed has come. I looked, but there was no one to help, And I wondered That there was no one to uphold; Therefore My own arm brought salvation for Me; And My own fury, it sustained Me.” Isaiah 63:4-5
“‘For it shall come to pass in that day,’ Says the LORD of hosts, ‘That I will break his yoke from your neck, And will burst your bonds; Foreigners shall no more enslave them. But they shall serve the LORD their God, And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them… Their nobles shall be from among them, And their governor shall come from their midst; Then I will cause him to draw near, And he shall approach Me; For who is this who pledged his heart to approach Me?’ says the LORD.’” Jeremiah 30:9, 21
“I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:13-14
“‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.’ Therefore He shall give them up, Until the time that she who is in labor has given birth; Then the remnant of His brethren Shall return to the children of Israel.” Micah 5:2-3
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey. I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim And the horse from Jerusalem; The battle bow shall be cut off. He shall speak peace to the nations; His dominion shall be ‘from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth.’” Zechariah 9:9-10
What makes the rabbinic interpretation rather interesting is that cite verses which speak of Yahweh coming to redeem, or using his own Arm to save and justify, or manifesting his glory and shining forth his light upon his own people etc., and apply them all to the Messiah!
Hence, whether this was intentional or not the rabbis have invariably equated the Messiah with God through their application of Yahweh texts to the coming anointed Davidic ruler.
All biblical references taken from the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Holy Bible.
Answering Islam Blog 