The God-breathed Scriptures exhort believers to pray and intercede for the salvation of all mankind since they have one mediator who has offered himself as a ransom to procure the redemption of the entire human race:

“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,  who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” 1 Timothy 2:1-7

Jesus’ mediation ensures that God will accept and hear the prayers of his people to save others since it is God’s express desire that none perish but for all to be saved through faith in Jesus Christ.

In this post I will quote examples where Jesus either healed, saved or blessed individuals due to the intercession/mediation of others.

These cases will illustrate how specific persons sought and beseeched the risen Lord to grant mercy, healing and/or forgiveness to those particular individuals which they interceded for, and which Christ in his mercy granted.

This will show that it is God’s express will that believers mediate before the One Mediator, and intercede with him for the sake of others so that the risen Lord may bestow his mercies and spiritual blessings upon those for whom intercession is made.

FIRST EXAMPLE

“At evening, when the sun had set, they brought to Him all who were sick and those who were demon-possessed. And the whole city was gathered together at the door.Then He healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He did not allow the demons to speak, because they knew Him.” Mark 1:32-34

“When they had crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret and anchored there. And when they came out of the boat, immediately the people recognized Him, ran through that whole surrounding region, and began to carry about on beds those who were sick to wherever they heard He was. Wherever He entered, into villages, cities, or the country, they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and begged Him that they might just touch the hem of His garment. And as many as touched Him were made well.” Mark 6:53-56

“Again, departing from the region of Tyre and Sidon, He came through the midst of the region of Decapolis to the Sea of Galilee. Then they brought to Him one who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech, and they begged Him to put His hand on him. And He took him aside from the multitude, and put His fingers in his ears, and He spat and touched his tongue. Then, looking up to heaven, He sighed, and said to him, ‘Ephphatha,’ that is, ‘Be opened. Immediately his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke plainly. Then He commanded them that they should tell no one; but the more He commanded them, the more widely they proclaimed it. And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, ‘He has done all things well. He makes both the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.’” Mark 7:31-37

“Then He came to Bethsaida; and they brought a blind man to Him, and begged Him to touch him. So He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the town. And when He had spit on his eyes and put His hands on him, He asked him if he saw anything. And he looked up and said, ‘I see men like trees, walking.’ Then He put His hands on his eyes again and made him look up. And he was restored and saw everyone clearly. Then He sent him away to his house, saying, ‘Neither go into the town, nor tell anyone in the town.’” Mark 8:22-26

“Jesus departed from there, skirted the Sea of Galilee, and went up on the mountain and sat down there. Then great multitudes came to Him, having with them the lame, blind, mute, maimed, and many others; and they laid them down at Jesus’ feet, and He healed them. So the multitude marveled when they saw the mute speaking, themaimed made whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel.” Matthew 15:29-31

SECOND EXAMPLE

“And again He entered Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that He was in the house. Immediately many gathered together, so that there was no longer room to receive them, not even near the door. And He preached the word to them. Then they came to Him, bringing a paralytic who was carried by four men. And when they could not come near Him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where He was. So when they had broken through, they let down the bed on which the paralytic was lying. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven you.’” Mark 2:1-5

THIRD EXAMPLE

“Now when Jesus had crossed over again by boat to the other side, a great multitude gathered to Him; and He was by the sea. And behold, one of the rulers of the synagogue came, Jairus by name. And when he saw Him, he fell at His feetand begged Him earnestly, saying, ‘My little daughter lies at the point of death. Come and lay Your hands on her, that she may be healed, and she will live.’So Jesus went with him, and a great multitude followed Him and thronged Him… While He was still speaking, some came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house who said, ‘Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?’ As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, He said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not be afraid; only believe.’And He permitted no one to follow Him except Peter, James, and John the brother of James.Then He came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and saw a tumult and those who wept and wailed loudly. When He came in, He said to them, ‘Why make this commotion and weep? The child is not dead, but sleeping.’ And they ridiculed Him. But when He had put them all outside, He took the father and the mother of the child, and those who were with Him, and entered where the child was lying.Then He took the child by the hand, and said to her, ‘Talitha, cumi,’ which is translated, ‘Little girl, I say to you, arise.’Immediately the girl arose and walked, for she was twelve years of age. And they were overcome with great amazement.But He commanded them strictly that no one should know it, and said that something should be given her to eat. Mark 5:21-24, 35-43

FOURTH EXAMPLE

“From there He arose and went to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And He entered a house and wanted no one to know it, but He could not be hidden. For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, ‘Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.’ And she answered and said to Him, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.’ Then He said to her, ‘For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.’ And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed.” Mark 7:24-30

FIFTH EXAMPLE

“And when He came to the disciples, He saw a great multitude around them, and scribes disputing with them.Immediately, when they saw Him, all the people were greatly amazed, and running to Him, greeted Him. And He asked the scribes, ‘What are you discussing with them?’ Then one of the crowd answered and said, ‘Teacher, I brought You my son, who has a mute spirit.And wherever it seizes him, it throws him down; he foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth, and becomes rigid. So I spoke to Your disciples, that they should cast it out, but they could not.’ He answered him and said, ‘O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him to Me.’ Then they brought him to Him. And when he saw Him, immediately the spirit convulsed him, and he fell on the ground and wallowed, foaming at the mouth. So He asked his father, ‘How long has this been happening to him?’ And he said, ‘From childhood. And often he has thrown him both into the fire and into the water to destroy him. But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.’ Jesus said to him, ‘If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.’ Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, ‘Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!’ When Jesus saw that the people came running together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, ‘Deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and enter him no more!’ Then the spirit cried out, convulsed him greatly, and came out of him. And he became as one dead, so that many said, ‘He is dead.’But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose.” Mark 9:14-27

SIXTH EXAMPLE

“Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them.But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.’ And He took them up in His arms, laid His hands on them, and blessed them.” Mark 10:13-16

“Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.’” Luke 18:15-17

SEVENTH EXAMPLE

“Now when He concluded all His sayings in the hearing of the people, He entered Capernaum. And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear to him, was sick and ready to die. So when he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, pleading with Him to come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they begged Him earnestly, saying that the one for whom He should do this was deserving, for he loves our nation, and has built us a synagogue.’ Then Jesus went with them. And when He was already not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to Him, saying to Him, ‘Lord, do not trouble Yourself, for I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof. Therefore I did not even think myself worthy to come to You. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man placed under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to one, “Go,” and he goes; and to another, “Come,” and he comes; and to my servant, “Do this,” and he does it.’ When Jesus heard these things, He marveled at him, and turned around and said to the crowd that followed Him, ‘I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!’ And those who were sent, returning to the house, found the servant well who had been sick.” Luke 7:1-10

EIGHTH EXAMPLE

“On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, ‘They have no wine.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.’ His mother said to the servants, ‘Whatever He says to you, do it.’ Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece.Jesus said to them, ‘Fill the waterpots with water.’ And they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, ‘Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast.” And they took it.When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. And he said to him, ‘Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!’ This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him. After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.” John 2:1-12

NINTH EXAMPLE

“The woman then left her waterpot, went her way into the city, and said to the men, ‘Come, see a Man who told me all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ?’ Then they went out of the city and came to Him… And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, ‘He told me all that I ever did.’ So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. And many more believed because of His own word. Then they said to the woman, ‘Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.” John 4:28-30, 39-42

TENTH EXAMPLE

“Now after the two days He departed from there and went to Galilee. For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country. So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things He did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they also had gone to the feast. So Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee where He had made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and implored Him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death. Then Jesus said to him, ‘Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe.’ The nobleman said to Him, ‘Sir, come down before my child dies!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go your way; your son lives.’ So the man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him, and he went his way. And as he was now going down, his servants met him and told him, saying, ‘Your son lives!’ Then he inquired of them the hour when he got better. And they said to him, ‘Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.’ So the father knew that it was at the same hour in which Jesus said to him, ‘Your son lives.’ And he himself believed, and his whole household. This again is the second sign Jesus did when He had come out of Judea into Galilee.” John 4:43-54

ELEVENTH EXAMPLE

“Then, when Mary came where Jesus was, and saw Him, she fell down at His feet, saying to Him, ‘Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.’ Therefore, when Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, He groaned in the spirit and was troubled.And He said, ‘Where have you laid him?’ They said to Him, ‘Lord, come and see.’ Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, ‘See how He loved him!’ And some of them said, ‘Could not this Man, who opened the eyes of the blind, also have kept this man from dying?’ Then Jesus, again groaning in Himself, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it.Jesus said, ‘Take away the stone.’ Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to Him, ‘Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?’ Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. And Jesus lifted up His eyes and said, ‘Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may believe that You sent Me.’ Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come forth!’ And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, ‘Loose him, and let him go.’ Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him.” John 11:32-45 

“Now a great many of the Jews knew that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead. But the chief priests plotted to put Lazarus to death also, because on account of him many of the Jews went away and believed in Jesus.” John 12:9-11

TWELFTH EXAMPLE

This next example is rather amazing since it is clear from the context that Jesus saved Paul due to the intercession of Stephen:

“‘You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers,who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.’ When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, ‘Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!’ Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not charge them with this sin.’ And when he had said this, he fell asleep. Now Saul was consenting to his death. At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.” Acts 7:51-60; 8:1-3

Now compare:

“Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven.Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ And he said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ Then the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ So he, trembling and astonished, said, ‘Lord, what do You want me to do?’ Then the Lord said to him, ‘Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.’ And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

“Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and to him the Lord said in a vision, ‘Ananias.’ And he said, ‘Here I am, Lord.’ So the Lord said to him, ‘Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus, for behold, he is praying. And in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight.’ Then Ananias answered, ‘Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.’ But the Lord said to him, ‘Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.’

^“And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus. Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.Then all who heard were amazed, and said, ‘Is this not he who destroyed those who called on this name in Jerusalem, and has come here for that purpose, so that he might bring them bound to the chief priests?’ But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus is the Christ.” Acts 9:1-22

All scriptural citations taken from the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Holy Bible.

FURTHER READING

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BELIEF AND WATER BAPTISM

One Mediator and One God Pt. 1

One Mediator and One God Pt. 2

Is Jesus only a Man who mediates before the One God? Pt. 1

The following was recovered from the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20210908003657/https://islamqa.info/en/answers/146882/is-there-a-set-age-for-marriage-in-islam.

Source: Islam Q&A 146882

Is there a set age for marriage in Islam?

Question

I would like to know whether there is a set age for marriage in Islam for men and women? I hope you can explain with reference to the Qur’aan and saheeh hadeeths.

Answer

Praise be to Allah.

Firstly: 

Islam does not give a specific age for marriage, either for the husband or for the wife. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months, along with those who have it not”

[al-Talaaq 65:4]. 

Al-Sa‘di (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “along with those who have it [menses] not” means minors, those who have not yet started to menstruate. Adult women who have never menstruated at all are like those who “despair of menstruation” (i.e., have passed menopause); their ‘iddah is three months. End quote. 

Tafseer al-Sa‘di, p. 870 

The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) married ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) when she was six years old and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old. Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4840) and Muslim (1422). 

Ibn Qudaamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Sharh al-Kabeer, 7/386: 

With regard to females, the father may give his minor, virgin daughter who has not yet reached the age of nine in marriage, and there is no difference of opinion concerning that, if he gives her in marriage to someone who is compatible. Ibn al-Mundhir said: All of those scholars from whom we acquired knowledge unanimously agreed that it is permissible for a father to give his minor daughter in marriage if he arranges her to someone who is compatible, and it is permissible for him to do that even if she is reluctant. End quote. 

Secondly: 

No one may give a minor daughter in marriage except her father according to the view of Maalik and Ahmad. This was also the view of al-Shaafa‘i, but he regarded the grandfather as being like the father in that regard. Abu Haneefah said – and it was also narrated from Ahmad – that it is permissible for a guardian other than the father to give (the minor girl) in marriage, but the more correct view is the former one.

See: al-Mughni, 7/33 

Thirdly: 

The father should not give a minor daughter in marriage except in a case where he thinks it is in her best interests. Just as he may only dispose of her wealth in that which is in her best interests, the same applies with regard to arranging her marriage. Islam only permits that to the Muslim father who is pious and pays proper attention to the best interests of his children, and who understands very well that he is a shepherd and that he is responsible for his flock. 

Ibn Wahb narrated that Maalik said, with regard to a man arranging a marriage for an orphan girl under his care: If he thinks that (the husband) is a man of virtue, righteousness and wisdom, it is permissible for him to do that. 

Ahkaam al-Qur’aan by al-Jassaas, 2/342 

Fourthly: 

A man should not consummate marriage with his young bride until she is physically able to bear intercourse. This varies from one time, place and environment to another. 

For more information please see the answers to questions no. 22442 and 127176. 

What young men and guardians of girls should do is hasten to arrange marriages, so as to guard chastity and protect honour, and so as to attain the great purposes for which Allah ordained marriage. 

And Allah knows best.

I proceed from where I previously left off: NT SCHOLARSHIP ON JOHN 1:1 AND TITUS 2:13 PT. 1.

In this segment I will focus on what NT authorities have written in respect to Titus 2:13. I will also quote 2 Peter 1:1 and 11 since these verses are directly related to the text from Titus.

THE GREAT GOD THAT SAVES

“as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (tou megalou Theou kai soteros hemon ‘Iesou Christou).He gave himself for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his, who are eager to do good.” Titus 2:13-14 NET

“From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ (tou Theou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou), have been granted a faith just as precious as ours… For thus an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (tou Kyriou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou), will be richly provided for you.” 2 Peter 1:1, 11 NET

Here are the comments of some of the many scholars who agree that the grammar and language employed in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 conclusively point to Christ as the Almighty God who saves:

tn The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, theos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, sōtēr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4. (NET Bible https://netbible.org/bible/Titus+2)

tn The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, theos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, sōtēr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4. (Ibid., https://netbible.org/bible/2+Peter+1)

“The expression theos kai soter was a stereotyped formula common in first-century religious terminology (see Wendland), was (apparently) used by both Diaspora and Palestinian Jews in reference to Yahweh,¹⁷ and invariably denoted one deity, not two.¹⁸ If the name ‘Iesous Christos did not follow the expression, undoubtedly it would be taken to refer to one person; yet ‘Iesous Christos is simply added in epexegesis… it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, whatever the date of Titus, one impulse behind this particular verse was the desire to combat the extravagant titular endowment that had been accorded to human rulers such as Antiochus Epiphanes (theos epiphanes), Ptolemy I (soter kai theos), or Julius Caesar (theos kai soter), or to claim exclusively for the Christians’ Lord the divine honors freely granted to goddesses such as Aphrodite and Artemis or to gods such as Asclepius and Zeus.²²

“Consequently, if one reason for the use of the phrase theos kai soter was polemical, it is unlikely that two elements of the phrase should be divorced, with theos denoting God the Father and soter Jesus Christ.“

17. Dibellus and Conzelmann 100-102 (in an excursus on “Savior” in the Pastoral Epistles).

18. Theos and soter are two separate titles of one and the same deity. This is why the kai in the formula is not epexegetic (which would produce the sense “the appearing of the glory of the great God, our Savior Jesus Christ”). (Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, pp. 178-179)

Elsewhere he writes:

“Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 may be considered together, since both use a stereotyped formula, ‘God and Savior,’ in reference to Jesus. This was a common formula in first-century religious terminology, used by both Palestinian and Diaspora Jews in reference to Yahweh, the one true God, and by Gentiles when they spoke of an individual god or a deified ruler. In all of these uses the expression God and Savior invariably denotes one deity, not two, so that when Paul and Peter employ this formula and follow it with the name Jesus Christ, their readers would always understand it as referring to a single person, Jesus Christ. It would simply not occur to them that ‘God’ might mean the Father, with Jesus Christ as the ‘Savior.’”  (Harris, 3 Crucial Questions About Jesus [Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI, 1994], 3. Is Jesus God?, III. The Divine Title “God” Used of Jesus, pp. 96-97)

Harris concludes:

“In the light of the foregoing evidence, it seems highly probable that in Titus 2:13 Jesus Christ is called ‘our great God and Savior,’ a verdict shared, with varying degrees of assurance, by almost all grammarians and lexicographers, many commentators, and many writers on NT theology or Christology, although there are some dissenting voices.” (Jesus as God, p. 185)

There’s more:

The arguments for Paul’s identification of tou megalou theou … hemon, “our great God,” and ‘Iesou, “Jesus,” ARE IMPRESSIVE…

(1) theou, “God,” and soteros, “savior,” are both governed by the same article, and according to Granville Sharp’s rule they therefore refer to the same person (Robertson, Grammar, 785-89; Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 59-60; Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 267-69; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 270-90). For example, 2 Cor 1:2 speaks of ho theos kai pater, “the God and Father,” both terms referring to the same person. As Wallace clarifies Sharp’s own qualifiers, the rule applies “only with personal, singular, and non-proper nouns” (Greek Grammar, 272) and indicates some degree of unity between the two words, possibly equality or identity (270). When understood as Sharp intended, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS IN THE NT TO THE RULE (although on theological grounds, NOT GRAMMATICAL, the rule has been questioned here and in 2 Pet 1:1; cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 273 n. 50, and further bibliography at 273 n. 50 and 276 n. 55). If soteros referred to a second person, it would have been preceded by the article. However, this is not to make the mistake of modalism, which sees only one God appearing in different modes (cf. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 242). God the Father and God the Son are not identical in orthodox theology; the Son is God, but he is not the Father. Wallace and Robertson (Exp 21 [1921] 185-87) both describe the force of G. B. Winer’s refusal (A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament [Andover, MA: Draper, 1869] 130) to accept Sharp’s rule FOR THEOLOGICAL AND NOT GRAMMATICAL REASONS. Speaking of the same construction in 2 Pet 1:1, 11, Robertson is direct in his critique: “The simple truth is that Winer’s anti-Trinitarian prejudice overruled his grammatical rectitude in his remarks about 2 Peter i. 1” (Exp 21 [1921] 185); and the influence that Winer exerted as a grammarian has influenced other grammarians and several generations of scholars.  

The grammatical counterargument is that soter, “savior,” like other technical terms and proper names, tends to be anarthrous; but “God” (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 272, n. 42), and soter (Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 268) are not proper names. theos is not a personal proper name because it can be made plural (theoi, “gods”; cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 272, n. 42). Proper nouns are usually anarthrous since they are inherently definite, but theos is almost always articular unless other grammatical rules require the article to be dropped in specific contexts. theos occurs frequently in the TSKS (article-substantive-kai-substantive) construction to which Sharp’s rule applies (Luke 20:37; John 20:27; Rom 15:6; 1 Cor 15:24; 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Gal 1:4; Eph 1:3; Phil 4:20; 1 Thess 1:3; 3:11, 13; Jas 1:27; 1 Pet 1:3; Rev 1:6), always in reference to one person (cf. Wallace, “Sharp Redivivus?” 46-47). In the PE soter occurs in eight other passages, seven of which are articular (1 Tim 2:3; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:3, 4; 2:10; 3:4, 6). The only other anarthrous use of soter in the PE is in 1 Tim 1:1, where it is anarthrous in accordance with Apollonius’s Canon (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 250). In other words, in the PE the articular construction is the rule, suggesting that there is a specific reason for its anarthrous state here. If the question is the grammatical meaning of this text, Sharp’s rule is decisive. If Paul was speaking of two persons, it would have been easy to say so unambiguously (e.g., tou megalou theou kai ‘Iesou Christou tou soteros hemon, “the great God and Jesus Christ our savior,” or tou megalou theou hemon kai tou soteros ‘Iesou Christou, “our great God and the savior Jesus Christ” [Harris, 269]). Instead he chose a form that most naturally reads as one person, ‘Iesou Christou, “Jesus Christ,” which is in apposition to tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon, “our great God and savior.” To say it another way, if Paul did not believe that Jesus was God, it seems highly unlikely that he would have been so sloppy in making such a significant theological statement. If Paul did believe that Jesus was God, it is not a surprise to read this. 

(2) The flow of the discussion argues that theou kai soteros, “God and savior,” refers to one person and that the one person is Jesus Christ. (a) Paul begins by saying, “for the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation,” associating God with salvation. Two verses later, without a change of subject, he speaks of theou kai soteros hemon, “our God and savior.” The most natural reading is to continue the association between theou, “God,” and soteros, “savior.” However, since ‘Iesou Christou “Jesus Christ,” most likely stands in apposition to soteros, “savior,” because of their close proximity, Jesus is the God and Savior. (b) Since elpis, “hope,” is personified in the PE as Jesus (see above), Paul begins the verse speaking of Jesus not God the Father (“waiting for the blessed hope, which is the appearing of God, who is Jesus Christ”). (c) The following verse speaks of Jesus’ saving activity. This does not mean that v 13 must be speaking of one person; Paul often changes subjects by adding a relative clause (e.g. Eph 1:7). However, since v 14 does discuss salvation, it strongly suggests that Paul is thinking of Jesus as savior. (This argues against Hort’s position [below] that ‘Iesou Christou, “Jesus Christ,” refers back to tes doxes tou … theou, “the glory of God.”) If God and savior refer to one person (below), and if savior refers to Jesus Christ, then so must God. Lock (145) also points out that the idea of hina lytrosetai, “in order that he might redeem,” which occurs in v 14, is used in the OT of God but here of Christ, implying an equation between the two.    

(3) The phrase theos kai soter, “God and savior,” was a set phrase in Hellenistic language… AND ALWAYS REFERRED TO ONE PERSON, such as Ptolemy I (tou megalou theou euergetou kai soteros [epiphanous] eucharistou, “the great god, benefactor, and savior [manifest one,] beneficent one”…; soter kai theos, “savior and god”…), Antiochus Epiphanes (theos epiphanes, “god manifest”…), and Julius Caesar (theos kai soter, “god and savior”…). Moulton comments, “Familiarity with the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts itself in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times, lends strong support to Wendland’s contention that Christians, from the latter part of i/A.D. onward, deliberately annexed for their Divine Master the phraseology that was impiously arrogated to themselves by some of the worst men” (Grammar 1:84). It was also used by Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism in reference to God (Dibelius-Conzelmann, 143-46). Since in Hellenism it was a set phrase referring to one Person and Paul is using language that places his gospel in direct confrontation with emperor worship and Ephesian religion…, the phrase most likely refers to one person in this context, not two. This is how it would have been understood in Cretan society. Wallace points out how rare this expression is in the LXX (Esth 5:1; Ps 61:1, 5, without the article; cf. 2 Macc 6:32; Philo Leg. All. 2.56; Praem. 163.5); the MT rarely has an analogous construction (singular-article-noun-waw-noun), and when it does, the LXX uses a different construction in translation (“Sharp Redivivus?” 43). He cites O. Cullmann (The Christology of the New Testament, rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963] 241) in concluding that “Hellenism accounts for the form, Judaism for the context of the expression” (“Sharp Redivivus?” 44).

(4) When Paul speaks of the “appearing of the glory of our great God,” he ties “appearing” and “God” together. Yet epiphaneia, “appearing,” in Paul always refers to Jesus’ second coming and never to God. The appearance of God is therefore the appearance of Jesus (2 Thess 2:8; 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 1:9-10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13). In fact 1 Tim 6:14 and 2 Tim 1:10 have much the same meaning as our passage and confirm this argument. Although God the Father is involved in the Son’s return, he is not as involved as this would indicate if it refers to two people (Lock 145; Fee, 196). There are two related arguments. (a) If kai, “and,” is epexegtical, epiphaneian, “appearing,” is a restatement of elpida, “hope,” and hope is a personification of Jesus, showing that the appearance is the appearance of Jesus. (b) epiphaneian, “appearing” (v 13), parallels epephane, “appearance,” in v 11, and since in v 11 Paul is speaking of Jesus’ appearance, it is most likely here that he is speaking of Jesus’ second appearance. The counterargument is that the cognate epiphaneian, “to appear,” occurs in Titus 2:11 and 3:4 as part of the description of God the Father; however, these verses speak of God sending Jesus the first time.

(5) Marshall (SNTU-A 13 [1988] 174-75) adds the following arguments: (a) Jesus, as Lord, is the judge, which is the sole prerogative of God (2 Tim 4:8); (b) Jesus and God are placed side by side (1 Tim 1:1-2; 5:21; 6:13; 2 Tim 4:1; Titus 1:1; 2:13); (c) both are given the title “savior” (1 Tim 1:15; 2 Tim 1:9; 4:18); (d) spiritual blessings come from both (2 Tim 1:3, 6, 18; 1 Tim 1:12, 14); and (e) both are “objects of the writer’s service” (God: 2 Tim 1:3; 2:15; Titus 1:7; Jesus: 2 Tim 2:3, 24). If Jesus has the position and function of God, then he can “probably” be called God.

There are other arguments that are of questionable validity. (1) The early Greek church fathers are nearly unanimous in seeing “God and savior” as referring to Jesus, and it can be assumed that they would know the Greek idiom (not Justin Martyr [1 Apol. 61] and Ambrosiaster; cf. Lock, 145; Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 271). The counterargument is that the early versions are nearly unanimous in seeing two persons in this passage (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Armenian, but not Ethiopic) and that the Greek church fathers tended to be controlled more by their theology than by the text itself. Bernard asserts, “The Fathers were far better theologians than critics. Their judgement on a point of doctrine may be trusted with much readier confidence than the arguments by which they support their judgement” (172). Moulton (Grammar 1:84) points out that this appears to be the interpretation of the seventh-century Christians as evidenced by the papyri (cf. en onomati tou kyriou kai despotou ‘Iesou Christou tou theou kai soteros hemon…, “in the name of the Lord and master, Jesus Christ, our God and savior etc.” [BGU 2:366, 367, 368, 371, 395]), but this is quite late. (2) The NT nowhere describes God as megas, “great,” and it is argued that it would be tautological to call God great (Ellicott, 188; Guthrie, 200). But the use of megas, “great,” distinguishes God from the pagan deities, and great is no more than a summary of what Paul says about him in 1 Tim 6:15-16. Harris lists other arguments that he feels are debatable (“Titus 2:13,” 270-71)…

Fortunately the doctrine of Christ’s divinity does not rest on this verse. But the question of what Paul is saying here is still important, and it seems that he is making a christological pronouncement on the divinity of Christ. This is the most natural reading of the text, is required by the grammar, concurs with Paul’s use of epiphaneia, “appearing,” accounts for the singular use of the phrase “God and savior” in secular thought, and fits the context well. (William D. Mounce, Word Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles [Zondervan Academic, Grand Rapid, MI 2016], Volume 46, pp. 426-429, 431)

Finally:

Our God and Savior (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1)

Two of the shortest books of the New Testament contain similar—and very strong—affirmations of Jesus Christ as God. In his epistle to Titus, the apostle Paul⁴⁴ states that Christians “wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). The equally short epistle of 2 Peter opens by describing its readers as “those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:1). Both of these texts describe Jesus using the two titles God and Savior.

Not everyone agrees that these verses call Jesus “God.” Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, translate Titus 2:13 “of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus” and 2 Peter 1:1 “of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ” (NWT, brackets in the original). The bracketed insertions of the word the make a significant difference. Read these verses without the bracketed insertions—especially 2 Peter 1:1—and they sound like they are referring to Jesus as both God and Savior.⁴⁵

Several factors, taken together, prove beyond reasonable doubt that both of these verses call Jesus “God.” One of these factors is the way the sentences use the article the in the construction or word arrangement that both sentences share.

tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon ‘iesou Christou

the great God and Savior our Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13)

tou theou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou

the God our and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1)

Both of these texts use a construction that fits the following pattern:

Article + Noun + kai + Noun

the God and Savior

The most natural way of understanding this particular construction is that both nouns refer to the same person. (In this construction, it does not matter whether the phrase includes a pronoun or where the pronoun appears.) When this construction occurs in ancient Greek using singular personal nouns that are not proper names (that is, nouns like father, Lord, king, not Jesus, Peter, or Paul), the two nouns normally refer to the same person. The first writer to analyze this construction in a formal way did so in the late eighteenth century. He was an English Christian abolitionist named Granville Sharp; for that reason, the analysis of this construction is commonly known as Sharp’s rule.⁴⁶

The New Testament contains plenty of examples supporting Sharp’s rule. The epistles of Paul, for example, refer to “our God and Father” (e.g., Gal. 1:4; Phil. 4:20; 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:11, 13) and “the God and Father” (Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24), which certainly refer to one person by both titles God and Father. There are numerous additional examples, many of little or no theological concern (see table on Sharp’s rule).

EXAMPLES OF SHARP’S RULE⁴⁷

Mark 6:3 “the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James”

Luke 20:37 “the Lord the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob”

John 20:17 “my Father and your Father and my God and your God”

Acts 3:14 “the Holy and Righteous One”

Eph. 6:21 “Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord”

Col. 4:7 “Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful servant and fellowslave in the Lord”

1 Thess. 3:2 “Timothy, our brother and God’s servant”

1 Tim. 6:15 “the King of kings and Lord of lords”

Philemon 1:1 “our dear friend and coworker”

Heb. 3:1 “the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus”

Heb. 12:2 “the author and finisher of faith”

James 3:9 “the Lord and Father”

1 Peter 2:25 “the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls”

1 Peter 5:1 “as the fellow-elder and witness of Christ’s sufferings”

Rev. 1:6 “our [sic] God and Father”

Rev. 1:9 “John, your brother and fellow-partaker”

Gal. 1:4; Phil. 4:20; 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:11, 13 “our God and Father”

Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:3a “the God and Father” (also Eph. 1:3; 5:20; James 1:27; 1 Peter 1:3)

2 Cor. 1:3b “the Father of mercies and God of all comfort”

2 Peter 1:11; 2:20; 3:18 “our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ”

2 Peter 3:2 “the Lord and Savior”

Jude 4 “our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ”

The evidence that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 call Jesus God goes beyond Sharp’s rule.⁴⁸ In Titus, the expression “our Savior” (soteros hemon) occurs six times. In five of those six occurrences, the article “the” (tou) immediately precedes “our Savior” (1:3, 4; 2:10; 3:4, 6); the one exception is Titus 2:13. The obvious and only good explanation for this variation is that “our Savior” is governed by the same article that governs “great God.”

Another piece of evidence in the context of Titus 2:13 is Paul’s use of the word epiphaneia (“manifestation” [NRSV], “appearing” [NASB]), from which we derive the word epiphany. In the Bible this word occurs only in Paul’s writings, mostly in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13), and always referring to the manifestation or appearing of Jesus Christ, unless Titus 2:13 is the sole exception. The close parallel between Titus 2:13 and 2 Timothy 1:10 (“the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus”) effectively rules out the possibility that Titus 2:13 is an exception. So when Paul says that Christians are awaiting “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13 NASB), we can be sure that the one who will be “appearing” will indeed be Jesus Christ.

An alternative understanding of Titus 2:13, recently defended by evangelical Pauline scholar Gordon Fee, merits some attention. Fee agrees that Sharp’s rule applies to Titus 2:13, so that “our great God and Savior” refers to one divine person. He argues, however, that the person called “our great God and Savior” is the Father, not Christ. His view is that Jesus Christ is called “the glory of our great God and Savior.” In other words, he understands Paul to be saying that Christians are “awaiting the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, [which glory is] Jesus Christ.”⁴⁹

If Fee is correct, what Paul says about Jesus Christ still implies his deity, since he would be affirming that the climactic, ultimate revelation of God’s glory will be the appearing of Jesus Christ at his second coming. There are, however, some strong reasons to dispute Fee’s interpretation. All of his arguments in support of that view boil down to the claim that it would be out of keeping with Paul’s way of speaking for him to call Jesus “God.” Yet it is clear that Paul departs from his usual terminology for Jesus in the epistle to Titus, since in this epistle alone he never refers to Jesus as “Lord” (kurios) and refers to Jesus at least twice as “Savior” (soter, Titus 1:4; 3:6), a term he rarely uses for Jesus.⁵⁰ Murray Harris rightly warns against “an ever-present danger in literary research in making a writer’s ‘habitual usage’ so normative that he is disallowed the privilege of creating the exception that proves the rule.”⁵¹

At least eight factors cumulatively offer strong support for understanding “Jesus Christ” to be identifying “our great God and Savior,” not “the glory,” in Titus 2:13.

1. “Our great God and Savior” is immediately adjacent to “Jesus Christ.”⁵²

2. It would be odd to speak of the manifestation of God’s glory and not mean that the one who is manifest is God.

3. Paul never refers to Jesus as God’s “glory” (although 2 Cor. 4:4, 6 comes close).

4. All other things being equal, a personal designation like “our great God and Savior” is more likely to be identified as a person (“Jesus Christ”) than is an abstraction (“the glory”).

5. Elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), whenever Paul uses the word epiphaneia (“manifestation” or “appearing”), it refers to the manifestation of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8), not of an abstract quality related to God or Christ.⁵³

6. In as many as twelve out of eighteen times in his epistles that Paul uses the term “the glory” in the genitive case (tes doxes), it likely functions as a descriptive modifier of the preceding noun (Rom. 8:21; 9:23; 1 Cor. 2:8; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 1:17, 18; 3:16; Phil. 3:21; Col. 1:11, 27; 1 Tim. 1:11; Titus 2:13). English translations often express this usage by the rendering “glorious” (see especially the NET and NIV).⁵⁴ Thus, Titus 2:13 may be better translated “the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (see, e.g., NKJV, NIV, NET).

7. Paul immediately follows his reference to Jesus Christ by speaking of his accomplishments for our salvation (Titus 2:14), confirming that in this context Jesus Christ is “our Savior.”

8. The pattern of Paul’s references to “our Savior” in Titus—three references to “God our Savior” each followed closely by a reference to Jesus Christ as “our Savior” (1:3, 4; 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6)—is disrupted if 2:13 does not refer to Jesus Christ as Savior.

A similar text—and one for which the exegetical issues are far simpler—is 2 Peter 1:1, which speaks of “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Some people argue that this text cannot call Jesus “God” because “God” is clearly distinguished from “Jesus our Lord” in the very next verse (v. 2). This objection, though, assumes that the New Testament cannot affirm both that Jesus is God and that he is distinct from God. To the contrary, in at least four other New Testament texts we find such allegedly “contradictory” statements side by side (John 1:1, 18; 20:17, 28, 31; Heb. 1:8–9). Rather than mistranslate the texts to make them seem unproblematic to our minds, we should consider the possibility that these texts are revealing a paradoxical truth about the very nature of God.

As we read along in 2 Peter, we find several more references to Jesus Christ that closely parallel the wording of the first verse (see table below).

Virtually everyone acknowledges that the “Lord” in these texts is the same person as the “Savior,” namely, Jesus Christ; we need offer no argument or defense of that understanding. Yet in at least two, and possibly three, of these texts the only difference between these descriptions of Christ and that in 2 Peter 1:1 is the use of kuriou (“Lord”) instead of theou (“God”). Since both Lord and God were common titles of deity in both biblical usage and in the broader culture, it is difficult to see any cogent reason to deny that Jesus is called God in 2 Peter 1:1. As Richard Bauckham points out in his commentary on 2 Peter, “There is no reason why variations on the stereotyped formula should not be used.”⁵⁵

“OUR GOD/LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST” IN 2 PETER

2 Peter

1:1

1:11

2:20

3:18

Greek Text

tou theou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou

the God our and Savior Jesus Christ

tou kuriou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou

the Lord our and Savior Jesus Christ

tou kuriou [hemon] kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou

the Lord [our]⁵⁶ and Savior Jesus Christ

tou kuriou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou

the Lord our and Savior Jesus Christ

English Translation

our God and Savior Jesus Christ

our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

[our] Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

The epistle of 2 Peter, then, opens by affirming that Jesus Christ is “our God and Savior.” It closes, appropriately, with a doxology of praise to Jesus Christ: “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen” (2 Peter 3:18). The verbal parallels in those opening and closing verses between “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” and “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” as well as the concluding doxology directing eternal glory to Jesus Christ, are stunningly clear affirmations that Jesus Christ is indeed our Lord and our God. Recognizing this is not merely an academic exercise; it is a summons to grow in our relationship with Jesus Christ and to begin living in such a way as to glorify him forever. (Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ [Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI 2007], Part 3: Name Above All Names: Jesus Shares the Names of God, 12. Immanuel: God with Us, pp. 150-156)

44. On the Pauline origin of Titus and the epistles to Timothy, see Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Cambridge; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 9–88. The question has some indirect bearing on our subject, since one commonly given reason for denying that Romans 9:5 calls Jesus “God” is that it would be the only such instance in Paul’s writings. There are, in fact, potentially three statements by Paul that explicitly call Jesus “God”: Romans 9:5 (in a letter that everyone agrees came from Paul); Titus 2:13; and Acts 20:28 (in a speech of Paul as reported by Luke). Even those scholars who dispute that Paul wrote Titus or that Luke records what Paul actually said generally agree that Titus and Acts both represent a broadly “Pauline” understanding of Christ.

45. To see that only one person is actually meant in Titus 2:13, one should omit not only the bracketed the but also the word of that precedes it in the NWT; thus, “of the great God and Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” There is no separate Greek word translated “of”; rather, Greek inflects (spells differently) all of the nouns, adjectives, and articles that stand in the same grammatical position or relation in the sentence. Translators may, of course, use of where appropriate (as at the beginning of the phrase in question) but should not do so where it misleadingly implies a separate person. It would be incorrect, for example, to translate 2 Peter 1:11 (which is grammatically parallel to Titus 2:13) “the eternal kingdom of our Lord and of the Savior Jesus Christ.”

46. The explanation of the rule given here is not a formal, technical definition and does not delve into all of the details necessary to establish the validity of the rule. We also should point out that, like all “rules” in grammar or language, Sharp’s rule is a descriptive observation of what is normal or customary in ancient Greek, not a prescriptive rule that Greek writers consciously accepted or to which they invariably adhered. As a valid general observation, though, Sharp’s rule, along with other contextual factors, should be taken into consideration when interpreting the text. On Granville Sharp, see Daniel B. Wallace, “Granville Sharp: A Model of Evangelical Scholarship and Social Activism,” JETS 41 (1998): 591–613. For a defense of Sharp’s rule, see Robert M. Bowman Jr., “Sharp’s Rules and Antitrinitarian Theologies: A Defense of Granville Sharp’s Argument for the Deity of Christ,” at http://www.biblicalapologetics.net/NTStudies/ Sharps_Rule.pdf. See also Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 270–90; and idem, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance (New York: Peter Lang, 2007).

47. We have translated these phrases literally; the two nouns connected by kai are shown in italics.

48. We can touch on only some of the evidence here. See Bowman, “Sharp’s Rules and Antitrinitarian Theologies,” 27–41; Harris, Jesus as God, 173–85, 229–38; and I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, in collaboration with Philip H. Towner, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 272–82.

49. Fee, Pauline Christology, 440–48.

50. No other epistle of Paul, not even the very short Philemon, uses kurios for Jesus less than five times. Paul uses soter for Jesus outside Titus only twice (Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:10).

51. Harris, Jesus as God, 177.

52. Fee acknowledges this to be an “obvious difficulty” for his view, but claims, mistakenly, that it “is the only difficulty” (Fee, Pauline Christology, 444n. 86).

53. When Paul speaks of God’s “grace” or his “goodness and love” appearing, he uses the related verb epephane (Titus 2:11; 3:4), not the noun epiphaneia.

54. Fee asserts that such a usage of “the glory” adjectivally to mean “glorious” is “out of sync with Paul’s usage elsewhere” (Fee, Pauline Christology, 443). In light of the dozen examples of this usage in Paul, Fee’s statement would seem to be mistaken.

55. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 168.

56. There is some uncertainty about whether “our” (hemon) appears in 2 Peter 2:20, and if so, where. This textual variant does not affect the argument. (Ibid., pp. 332-334)

FURTHER READING

The Truth of John 1:1

Biblical Monotheism Part 5

BIBLICAL TEXTS CALLING JESUS “GOD”

GRANVILLE SHARP AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST

MURRAY HARRIS ON TITUS 2:13

JESUS CHRIST: THE GOD-MAN WHO REDEEMS

Ephesians 5:5: Another Example of Granville Sharp’s First Rule?

2 Thessalonians 1:12 and Christ’s Deity: Sharp’s Rule Triumphs Again!

In this post I will be quoting the immediate contexts of John 1:1 and Titus 2:13 and then cite the exegesis of a few scholars of the [N]ew [T]estament, be they commentators, grammarians and/or theologians to see what they say concerning these texts as they relate to the Deity of Christ. I am primarily doing this because their views represent how the consensus, in fact the majority, of NT scholars interpret these passages.

This will help the readers appreciate the claims of mainstream biblical scholarship regarding the impact these passages have in appreciating what the NT teaches in respect to Christ’s divinity. All emphasis will be mine.    

GOD THE WORD

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning.All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind… The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him… Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father… No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.” John 1:1-4, 9-10, 14, 18 New English Translation (NET)

I now quote a swath of scholarship, ranging from very conservative to outright atheist/agnostics!

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father. (NET Bible https://netbible.org/bible/John+1)

Notes

i 1. In the beginning. In the Hebrew Bible the first book (Genesis) is named by its opening words, “In the beginning”; therefore, the parallel between the Prologue and Genesis would be easily seen. The parallel continues into the next verses, where the themes of creation and light and darkness are recalled from Genesis. John’s translation of the opening phrase of Gen i 1, which is the same as that of LXX, reflects an understanding of that verse evidently current in NT times; it does not necessarily give us the original meaning intended by the author of Genesis. E. A. Speiser (The Anchor Bible, vol. 1) translates: “When God set about to create heaven and earth…”

beginning. This is not, as in Genesis, the beginning of creation, for creation comes in vs. 3. Rather the “beginning” refers to the period before creation and is a designation, more qualitative than temporal, of the sphere of God. Note how the Gospel of Mark opens: ’The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ [the Son of God] . . .”

was the Word. Since Chrysostom’s time, commentators have recognized that each of the three uses of “was” in vs. 1 has a different connotation: existence, relationship, and predication respectively. “The Word was” is akin to the “I am” statements of Jesus in the Gospel proper (see App. IV). There can be no speculation about how the Word came to be, for the Word simply was.

in God’s presence. We attempt here and in vs. 2 a rendering that will capture the ambiguity of the Gr. pros, ton theon. Two basic translations have been proposed: (a) “with God”= accompaniment. BDF, § 239 1, points out that although pros with the accusative usually implies motion, it is sometimes used in the sense of accompaniment, according to the general weakening in Hellenistic Greek of the distinction between prepositions of motion and of localization, e.g., between eis and en. The idea of pre-creation accompaniment appears in John xvii 5: “that glory which I had with you [para] before the world existed.”…

was God. Vs. 1c has been the subject of prolonged discussion, for it is a crucial text pertaining to Jesus’ divinity. There is no article before theos as there was in 1b. Some explain this with the simple grammatical rule that predicate nouns are generally anarthrous (BDF, § 273). However, while theos is most probably the predicate, such a rule does not necessarily hold for a statement of identity as, for instance, in the “I am . . formulae (John xi 25, xiv 6—with the article). To preserve in English the different nuance of theos with and without the article, some (Moffatt) would translate, “The Word was divine.” But this seems too weak; and, after all, there is in Greek an adjective for “divine” (theios) which the author did not choose to use. Haenchen, p. 313 s8, objects to this latter point because he thinks that such an adjective smacks of literary Greek not in the Johannine vocabulary. The NEB paraphrases the line: “What God was, the Word was”; and this is certainly better than “divine.” Yet for a modem Christian reader whose trinitarian background has accustomed him to thinking of “God” as a larger concept than “God the Father,” the translation “The Word was God” is quite correct. This reading is reinforced when one remembers that in the Gospel as it now stands, the affirmation of i 1 is almost certainly meant

to form an inclusion with xx 28, where at the end of the Gospel Thomas confesses Jesus as “My God” (ho theos mou). These statements represent the Johannine affirmative answer to the charge made against Jesus in the Gospel that he was wrongly making himself God (x 33, v 18). Nevertheless, we should recognize that between the Prologue’s “The Word was God” and the later Church’s confession that Jesus Christ was “true God of true God” (Nicaea), there was marked development in terms of philosophical thought and a different problematic. See Comment. (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (Anchor Bible Series, Vol. 29) [Anchor Bible, 1966], pp. 5-6)

… In itself John 1:1a speaks only of the pretemporality or supratemporality of the Logos, but in his conjunction of en arche and een (not egeneto) John implies the eternal preexistence of the Word. He who existed ‘in the beginning’ before creation was himself without a beginning and therefore uncreated. There was no time when he did not exist. John is hinting that all speculation about the origin of the Logos is pointless. The imperfect tense een (= Latin erat), which here denotes continuous existence is to be carefully distinguished from esti (‘he is’), which would have stressed his timelessness at the expense of any emphasis on his manifestation historically (cf. 1:14), and from egeneto, which would have implied either that he was a created being (‘he came into existence’) or that by the time of writing he had ceased to exist (= Latin fuit).” (Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1992], p. 54)

And:

“… In the first proposition of verse 1 John affirms that the Logos existed before time and creation and therefore implicitly denies that the Logos was a created being. In the second, he declares that the Logos always was in active communion with the Father and thereby implies that the Logos cannot be personally identified with the Father. In the third, he states that the Logos always was a partaker of deity and so implicitly denies that the Logos was ever elevated to divine status. The thought of the verse moves from eternal preexistence to personal communion to intrinsic deity… only because the Logos participated inherently in the divine nature could he be said to be already in existence when time began or creation occurred and to be in unbroken and eternal fellowship with the Father. This would justify regarding theos as emphatic, standing as it does at the head of its clause. (Harris, Jesus as God, p. 71)

Another scholar of the Greek NT concurs:

“The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like ‘is’ (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case–the predicate nominative. In the sentence, ‘John is a man,’ ‘John’ is the subject and ‘man’ is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to determine subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.

“As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, ‘and the Word was God.’ But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

kai theos en ho logos


and God was the Word.

“We know that ‘the Word’ is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: ‘and the Word was God.’ Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was theos thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: ‘What God was, the Word was’ is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of ‘God’ (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of the article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

kai ho logos en ho theos 

‘and the Word was the God’ (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)

kai ho logos en theos 

‘and the Word was a god’ (Arianism)

kai theos en ho logos 

‘and the Word was God’ (Orthodoxy).

“Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in kai theos en ho logos.” (William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1993], Chapter 6. Nominative and Accusative Definite Article (First and Second Declension), pp. 28-29)

I conclude this section with the views of agnostic/atheist NT scholar Bart D. Ehrman:

Elevated Teachings About Jesus in John

One of the most striking features of John’s Gospel is its elevated claims about Jesus. Here, Jesus is decidedly God and is in fact equal with God the Father—before coming into the world, while in the world, and after he leaves the world. Consider the following passages, which are found only in John among the four Gospels:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have beheld his glory, glory as of the unique one before the Father, full of grace and truth. (1:1, 14; later this Word made flesh is named as “Jesus Christ,” v.17)

But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working still, and I also am working.” This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God. (5:17–18)

[Jesus said:] “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” (8:58)

[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.” (10:30)

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” (14:8–9)

[Jesus prayed to God:] “I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.” (17:4–5)

[Jesus prayed:] “Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” (17:24).

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (20:28)

I need to be clear: Jesus is not God the Father in this Gospel. He spends all of chapter 17 praying to his Father, and, as I pointed out earlier, he is not talking to himself. But he has been given glory equal to that of God the Father. And he had that glory before he came into the world. When he leaves this world, he returns to the glory that was his before. To be sure, Jesus comes to be “exalted” here he several times talks about his crucifixion as being “lifted up”—a play on words in reference to being “lifted onto the cross” and being “exalted” up to heaven as a result. But the exaltation is not to a higher state than the one he previously possessed, as in Paul. For John, he was already both “God” and “with God” in his preincarnate state as a divine being. Nowhere can this view be seen more clearly than in the first eighteen verses of the Gospel, frequently called the Prologue of John.

The Prologue of John

In the Prologue we find the clearest expression in the New Testament of Christ as a preexistent divine being—the Word—who has become a human. We have already seen in Chapter 2 that God’s Word or Logos in Greek—was sometimes understood to be a divine hypostasis, an aspect of God that came to be thought of as its own distinct being. Since it was the Word of God, it was an entity that could be imagined as being separate and distinct from God (just as the words that I am typing come from inside my head but then take on their own existence). At the same time, since this Word was the Word of “God,” it perfectly manifested the divine being of the Father and for that reason was itself rightly called “God.” The idea of the divine Logos could be found not only in Jewish literature, but also in Greek philosophical circles connected with both Stoicism and Middle Platonism. All of these may have affected the most poetic and powerful expression of the Word to come down to us from early Christian literature—the first eighteen verses of John.

The Prologue as a Preliterary Poem

It is widely held among scholars that the Prologue is a preexisting poem that the author of John has incorporated into his work—possibly in a second edition.¹⁵ This is because it has the earmarks of a preliterary tradition as a self-contained, poetic piece and because its key term—the Word, or Logos occurs nowhere else in reference to Christ in the entire Gospel. If it is a preexisting piece, then the author of the Gospel—or its later editor—found its Christological views highly compatible with his own, even if the terms used in expressing those views were different from the ones he customarily used. And so he began his Gospel narrative with it.¹⁶

The poetic character of the passage can be seen in its use, in places, of what is called staircase parallelism, in which the final word of one line is also the beginning word of the next line. And so, for example, we have the following (key words are in italics):

In the beginning was the Word

And the Word was with God.

And God was the Word. (John 1:1)

In him was life, And the life was the light of humans.

And the light shines in the darkness.

And the darkness did not overcome it. (1:4–5)

Inserted into the poetic passage of vv.1–18 are two prose additions, which do not seem to fit with the flow of the poem, which is otherwise all about the Logos; both additions deal not with Christ, but with John the Baptist as his forerunner (vv.6–8 and v.15). If you remove these verses, the poem actually flows better. Probably, the author (or the editor) who added the poem in the first place made these additions himself.

The Teaching of the Prologue

Without the addition of the comments on John the Baptist, the poem is all about the Logos of God that existed with God in the beginning and that became a human in Jesus Christ. Christ is not named until near the end, in v.17. But there is no doubt that the poem is about him, as is clear once you read it through from start to finish. Still, it is important to be precise in how one understands this poem and its presentation of Christ. The poem is decidedly not saying that Jesus preexisted his birth—and there is nothing about him being born of a virgin here. What preexisted was the Logos of God through whom God made the universe. It was only when the Logos became a human being that Jesus Christ came into existence. So Jesus Christ is the Logos that has become a human; but Jesus did not exist before that incarnation happened. It was the Logos that existed before.

Quite elevated things are said of this Logos, the Word. The very beginning of the poem quickly calls to mind the beginning of the Bible, Genesis 1:1. Here in John we are told, “In the beginning was the Word,” and that it was through this Word that “all things were made,” including “life” and “light.” How could a Jewish reader not immediately think of the creation story in Genesis? Genesis also starts with the words: “In the beginning”—the same Greek words later used in John. This opening of Genesis is all about creation. And how does God create the world and all that is in it? By speaking a word: “And God said, ‘Let there be light. And there was light.” It is God who creates light, and eventually, life, and he does so with his word. Now in the Prologue to John we have a reflection on that Word as a kind of hypostasis of God.

As in other Jewish texts, the Word is a being separate from God, and yet since it is God’s word, his own outward expression of himself, it fully represents who he is, and does nothing else, and in this sense it is itself God. So John tells us that the Word was both “with God” and “was God.” This Word was that which brought all life into existence and brought light out of darkness—just as in Genesis.

A careful reader at this point will be reminded of what some Jewish texts say about Wisdom, as the divine agent through whom God created the world, as in Proverbs 8. This comparison is indeed apt. As Thomas Tobin, a scholar of ancient Judaism, has summarized the matter, the following things are said both about Wisdom in various non-Christian Jewish texts and about the Logos in the Prologue to John:¹⁷

Both were at the beginning (John 1:1; Prov.8:22–23).

Both were with God (John 1:1; Prov.8:27–30; Wis. 9:9).

Both were the agent through whom all things were made (John 1:3; Wis. 7:22).

Both provide “life” (John 1:3–4; Prov.8:35; Wis. 8:13).

Both provide “light” (John 1:4; Wis. 6:12; 8:26).

Both are superior to darkness (John 1:5; Wis. 7:29–30).

Both are not to be recognized by those in the world (John 1:10; Bar. 3:31).

Both have dwelled among people in the world (John 1:11; Sir. 24:10; Bar. 3:37–4:1).

Both have been rejected by the people of God (John 1:11; Bar. 3:12).

Both have tabernacled (i.e., dwelt in a tent) among people (John 1:14; Sir. 24:8; Bar. 3:38).

The Logos in the Christ poem of the Prologue of John, then, is being understood very much like Wisdom in other Jewish texts. As Tobin points out, the things said of the Logos here in John are also very similar to the portrait of the Logos found in the writings of Philo. In both cases, the Logos is reminiscent of Wisdom. In both, the Logos existed with God before the creation, “in the beginning”; and in both, it is called “God.” For both, it is the instrument of creation and the means by which people become children of God.

No one should think that Philo, or the Jewish writings about Wisdom, are the actual literary source for the Prologue’s poetic celebration of the Logos. My point instead is that what is said about the Logos here at the beginning of John is very similar to what Jewish authors were saying about both Logos and Wisdom. There is a crucial difference, however. In John’s Gospel—and only there, among the texts I have been considering—the Logos becomes a specific human being. Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the Logos.

As I intimated before, the Prologue is not saying that Jesus preexisted, that he created the universe, that he became flesh. Instead, it is saying that the Logos did all these things. Before all else existed, it was with God, and since it was God’s own Logos, in that sense it actually was God. It was through the Logos that the universe and all that was in it was created and given life. And this Logos then became a human being: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” That in-fleshment, or incarnation, of the Logos is who Jesus Christ was. When the Logos became a human and dwelt among his own people, his own people rejected him (John 1:11). But those who received him were the ones who were made “the children of God” (1:12). These were people who were not merely born into this physical world; they were born from God (1:13). That is because this Logos-made-flesh is the unique Son of God; he is superior even to the great lawgiver Moses since he is the only one who has ever dwelled with God—in his very bosom. And he is therefore the only one who has made the Father known (1:17–18).

In considering the far-reaching implications of this magnificent incarnation Christology, there is a clear downside that you may have detected just from my preceding remarks. If the Logos-made flesh is the only one who truly knew God and made him known—far more so than Moses the lawgiver of the Jews—and if this one who revealed God has been rejected by his own people, what does that say about the Jews? According to this view, they have obviously rejected not only Jesus, but the Word of God who was God himself. And by rejecting “God” the Logos, have they not also, by implication, rejected God? The far-reaching, and rather horrific, implications of this view will be the subject of a later discussion in the epilogue. Some Christians came to argue that by refusing to recognize Jesus’s true identity, the Jews rejected their own God.

One other point needs to be reemphasized at this stage however. If one uses the term high Christology to talk about this kind of incarnational view, the Prologue of John would be presenting a very high Christology indeed—higher than that even in the Philippians poem. For the author of that poem, as for Paul himself, Christ was some kind of angelic being before becoming a human probably the “chief angel” or the “Angel of the Lord.” And as a result of his obedience to God unto death, he was given an even more exalted state of being as one who was equal to God in honor and status as the Lord of all. This in itself is a remarkably exalted view of Jesus, the rural preacher from Galilee who proclaimed the coming kingdom of God and who, having ended up on the wrong side of the law, was crucified. But the Prologue of John has an even more elevated view of Christ. Here, Christ is not an angel of God, who was later “hyperexalted” or given a higher place than he had before he appeared on earth. Quite the contrary, even before he appeared, he was the Logos of God himself, a being who was God, the one through whom the entire universe was created. Even though this view of Christ as the Logos made flesh is not found anywhere else in the Gospel of John, its views are obviously closely aligned with the Christology of the Gospel otherwise. That is why Christ can make himself “equal with God” (John 5:18); can say that he and the Father “are one” (10:30); can talk about the “glory” he had with the Father before coming into the world (17:4); can say that anyone who has seen him has “seen the Father” (14:9); and can indicate that “before Abraham was, I am” (8:58). This last verse is especially intriguing. As we have seen, in the Hebrew Bible when Moses encounters God at the burning bush in Exodus 3, he asks God what his name is. God tells him that his name is “I am.” In John, Jesus appears to take the name upon himself. Here he does not receive “the name that is above every name” at his exaltation after his resurrection, as in the Philippians poem (Phil. 2:9). He already has “the name” while on earth. Throughout the Gospel of John, the unbelieving Jews understand full well what Jesus is saying about himself when he makes such claims. They regularly take up stones to execute him for committing blasphemy, for claiming in fact to be God. (Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee [HarperOne, 2014], 7. Jesus as God on Earth: Early Incarnation Christologies, pp. 269-279)

“… As we saw, the Prologue of John stressed that Jesus was the incarnation of the preexistent Word of God who was both with God and was himself God. This incarnation Christology is one of the ‘highest’ views of Christ to be found in the New Testament…” (Ibid., 8. After the New Testament: Christological Dead Ends of the Second and Third Centuries, pp. 297-298)

More to come in the next part: NT SCHOLARSHIP ON JOHN 1:1 AND TITUS 2:13 PT. 2.