Tag: christianity

KJV AND SHARP’S FIRST RULE

Granville Sharp was a Christian abolitionist and devout scholar of the Greek [N]ew [T]estament who wrote a monograph in 1798 on how the NT employs the Greek definite article (“the”) in respect to passages related to the Deity of Christ. He discovered six rules, the first of which has a direct bearing on how key texts in regards to Christ should be rendered in English.

Here’s an articulation of Sharp’s first rule: When two singular personal nouns/adjectives/participles that do not include proper names are connected by the conjunction kai (“and”), with the definite article appearing only before the first noun/adjective/participle, then both of the nouns/adjectives/participles refer to the same individual. Scholars subsequent to Sharp have carefully examined the Greek NT and have found no exceptions to this first rule.

Two such verses that fall under the purview of Sharp’s first rule, and which have spawned centuries of heated discussion and debate, are Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

Here’s how they read in the Authorized King James Version (AV). I also include the rendering of both the New King James Version (NKJV) and New International Reader’s Version (NIRV) for comparative purposes:

“looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon ‘Iesou Christou);” Titus 2:13 AV

“looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” NKJV

“13 That’s how we should live as we wait for the blessed hope God has given us. We are waiting for Jesus Christ to appear in his glory. He is our great God and Savior.” NIRV

“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (tou theou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou):” 2 Peter 1:1 AV

“Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:” NKJV

“I, Simon Peter, am writing this letter. I serve Jesus Christ. I am his apostle. I am sending this letter to you. You are those who have received a faith as valuable as ours. You received it because our God and Savior Jesus Christ does what is right.” NIRV

Suffice it to say, some have taken the AV’s translation of these key verses as a denial of the Deity of Christ. At the very least, these individuals argue that the AV is less than explicit and leaves room for doubt, which is not the case with other versions such as the NKJV or the NIRV.

It is this objection to the AV which I seek to address here in my post.

A DENIAL OF CHRIST’S DEITY?

A careful reading of the KJV shows that its rendering of the aforementioned texts isn’t meant to undermine or weaken the case for the Deity of Christ. This can be easily seen from the way the AV translates other verses which contain similar if not identical constructions:

“who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father (to theou kai patros hemon):” Galatians 1:4

“giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father (to theo kai patri) in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;” Ephesians 5:20

“Now unto God and our Father (to de theo kai patri hemon) be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” Philippians 4:20

“We give thanks to God and the Father (to theo patri – the God Father) of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,” Colossians 1:3

“And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father (to theo patri – the God Father) by him.” Colossians 3:17

“remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father (tou theou kai patros hemon);” 1 Thessalonians 1:3

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father (to theo kai patri – the God and Father) is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” James 1:27

“and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father (to theo kai patri autou); to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” Revelation 1:5-6

Would anyone conclude from the preceding texts that God isn’t the same Person as the Father?

Here’s a few more cases:

“that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father (ton theon kai patera) of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 15:6

“Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father (to theo kai patri); when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.” 1 Corinthians 15:24

“Blessed be God, even the Father (ho theos kai pater) of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;” 2 Corinthians 1:3

“Now God himself and our Father (ho theos kai pater hemon), and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you… to the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father (tou theou kai patros hemon), at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.” 1 Thessalonians 3:11, 13

“Therewith bless we God, even the Father (ton theon kai patera); and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” James 3:9

Again, who would assume that the foregoing examples are teaching that God isn’t the Father?

Neither should one conclude from the way in which the AV renders the specific verses in question, e.g., Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, that the scholars which produced the KJV were seeking to deny the fact of Jesus being described as the great God and Savior of all true believers. Rather, it is one of the ways that the translators rendered such constructions to an audience who would have no problem seeing that these specific passages are in fact explicit prooftexts for the Deity of Christ.

Besides, the AV’s rendering of Titus 2:13 is a literal translation of what the Greek actually says, i.e., tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon ‘Iesou Christou (“of the great God and Savior of us [e.g., our Savior], Jesus Christ”).

VARIANT READINGS

Another problem facing the critics of the AV, which is rarely mentioned, is the fact that there are a few variants in the extant manuscript copies and ancient versions in respect to 2 Peter 1:1. These variations directly affect how 2 Pet. 1:1 should be translated.

For instance, certain manuscripts (MSS) and ancient versions read kyriou (“of Lord”) instead of theou (“of God”):

tc A few witnesses (א Ψ 442 vg sy sa) read κυρίου (kuriou, “Lord”) for θεοῦ (theou, “God”) in v. 1, perhaps due to confusion of letters (since both words were nomina sacra), or perhaps because “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” is an unusual expression (though hardly because of theological objections to θεοῦ). (NET Bible https://netbible.org/bible/2+Peter+1; emphasis mine)

This is the reading found in the ancient Syriac version of 2 Peter 1:1, commonly known as the Peshitta:

“Shimeon Petraus, a Servant and an Apostle of Yeshua The Messiah to those who, equal in honor with us, were worthy for the faith by the righteousness of Our LORD and OUR Savior Yeshua The Messiah (dəMARAN wəpārūqan yešūᶜ məšīḥā).” Peshitta Holy Bible Translation (PHBT https://biblehub.com/hpbt/2_peter/1.htm)

“… of our LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ have been made equal with us in the precious faith;” George Lamsa Bible (LAMSA https://biblehub.com/lamsa/2_peter/1.htm)

“… of our Lord and our Redeemer Jeshu Meshiha.” Etheridge (i) Peschito Syriac NT

“… of Our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus the Messiah;” Murdock (i) Syriac Peshitta NT

What makes the Peshitta reading all the more interesting is that the Aramaic plural possessive pronoun, e.g. an (“our”), is suffixed to both “Lord” and “Savior,” i.e. demarAN waparuqAN.

Another issue affecting the meaning and rendering of this text is the fact that in certain MSS the definite article appears before both of the nouns, i.e., tou theou hemon kai tou soteros (“of the God of us and of the Savior”):

Our God and Savior Jesus Christ (RSV) is significantly different from the more familiar reading, God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (KJV; ASV, Goodspeed, Moffatt, and R. A. Knox, along with ERV, support the reading of RSV). In the one instance one person is mentioned, in the other, two. The problem of correct rendering is both textual and historical. The reading of the KJV is based on MSS that show the definite article before “God” AND “Saviour.” The critical texts of Nestle and of Westcott and Hort show the definite article only once, before “God.” In four other instances II Peter uses the definite article once with two nouns clearly referring to Jesus (vs. 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18). IF the text accepted as correct in the present instance shows the article only once, the author’s customary usage would require that it refer to Jesus as our God and Savior. In addition to strictly textual evidence, two arguments favor the RSV reading: (a) if two persons are meant, the reader is left uncertain whose righteousness accounts for the equal standing of the faith of all Christians: (b) the tendency to call Jesus Christ “God” became increasingly widespread from the end of the first century onward–e.g., convinced of the reality of the Resurrection, Thomas addresses Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28): Ignatius of Antioch (in the salutation to his letter to the Ephesians) uses the phrase “Jesus Christ our God,” and in the same letter refers to Mary as having conceived “our God, Jesus Christ” (18:2); the author of the Pastoral epistles thinks of Christians as awaiting their “blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:11-13; cf. I Clem. 1:1). The fact that “God” and “Jesus our Lord” are clearly distinguished in vs. 2 does not reduce the probability that the reading in vs. 1 which describes Jesus Christ as our God and Savior is original. Ignatius salutes “the church … at Ephesus in Asia” as “united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God.” (The Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes [Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN 1984], Volume 12. James, Peter, John, Jude, Revelation, General Articles, Indexes, pp. 169-170; emphasis mine)

The problem is further compounded by the fact that certain printed Greek editions of the Textus Receptus (“Received Text” [TR]) employed by the AV’s translators, namely, Beza’s 1598 edition (which is also picked up by the 1624 edition of Elzevir’s TR) include the pronoun hemon twice, right after theos and soteros:

σιμων πετρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσι πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Theodore Beza, Textus Receptus, Novum Testamentum, 5th major edition, Geneva, 1598 https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Beza/61/1)

συμεων πετρος δουλος και αποστολος ιησου χριστου τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσιν πιστιν εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου (Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir, Textus Receptus, 1624 https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Elzevir/61/1)

Here’s a transliteration of the relevant Greek portion: tou theou hemon kai soteros hemon ‘Iesou Christou (lit. “of the God of us and Savior of us Jesus Christ” [“of our God and our Savior Jesus Christ”]). As was already noted, this is the same kind of variant found in the Peshitta.

Interestingly, according to the renowned Evangelical NT scholar Murray J. Harris, this is precisely how 2 Peter 1:1 would have been written if the inspired writer intended to distinguish Jesus Christ from God:

Now it is true that (1) the article is not required with the second noun if the distinction between the two nouns is regarded as obvious or is assumed; (2) soteros is shown to be definite by the ‘Iesous Christos that follows, so that an article is not required; and (3) the single article may be accounted for by the writer’s conceptual association of two separate items. But against these three arguments one may urge the following corresponding rejoinders.

Although the clear distinction between theos and ‘Iesous in verse 2 might suggest that a similar distinction between theos and soteros is obvious or assumed in verse 1, the fact remains that elsewhere in 2 Peter whenever an anarthrous soteros is attached by kai to another noun in the same case (viz., in 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18) there is a single referent, Jesus Christ. If the author had wished to distinguish the two persons unambiguously, he could have written either tou theou hemon kai ‘Iesou Christou tou soteros hemon (cf. v. 2) or tou theou hemon kai tou soteros (hemon) ‘Iesou Christou. (Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, first paperback edition, 1992], p. 233; bold emphasis mine)

Since the particular version of the TR, which the translators of the AV consulted, namely Beza’s 1598 edition, contained an extra hemon after the noun soteros, and since there are certain MSS that have an additional article right before the second noun, e.g., tou soteros, then one can hardly blame the KJV’s ambiguity or lack of clarity at this point.

The scholars working on the AV seemed to be aware of the problems and impact that such variants had on the precise meaning and translation of 2 Pet. 1:1. As such, this may have led them to render the text in a less than clear fashion in order to avoid the charge of translation bias. And yet these renowned men of faith translated the verse in such a manner that those familiar with the way these scholars rendered similar constructions found elsewhere in the Greek NT, would still be able to see in this passage another reference to the essential Deity of Christ.

ADDENDUM

I post here the list of examples of Granville Sharp’s first rule, or something akin to it, which are all translated similarly to the manner in which the AV translators rendered Tit. 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1.

“looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon ‘Iesou Christou);” Titus 2:13

“that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father (ton theon kai patera) of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 15:6

“Blessed be God, even the Father (ho theos kai pater) of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;” 2 Corinthians 1:3

“who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father (to theou kai patros hemon):” Galatians 1:4

“giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father (to theo kai patri) in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;” Ephesians 5:20

“Now unto God and our Father (to de theo kai patri hemon) be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” Philippians 4:20

“We give thanks to God and the Father (to theo patri – the God Father) of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,” Colossians 1:3

“And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father (to theo patri – the God Father) by him.” Colossians 3:17

“remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father (tou theou kai patros hemon);” 1 Thessalonians 1:3

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father (to theo kai patri – the God and Father) is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” James 1:27

“Therewith bless we God, even the Father (ton theon kai patera); and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” James 3:9

FURTHER READING

TITUS 2:13 & KJV

2 PETER 1:1 & KJV

MURRAY J. HARRIS ON 2 PT. 1:1

MURRAY HARRIS ON TITUS 2:13

NT SCHOLARSHIP ON JOHN 1:1 AND TITUS 2:13 PT. 1, PT. 2

MURRAY J. HARRIS ON 2 PT. 1:1

In 2 Peter, the blessed Apostle begins and ends his inspired epistle with unambiguous affirmations of the absolute, essential Deity of our Lord Jesus.

For example, not only does Peter start off by describing Christ as both God and Savior,

He even goes as far as to conclude the letter with a doxology, an explicit ascription of everlasting praise to the risen Lord:

“Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou kyriou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou). Glory belongs to him both now and forever. Amen.” 2 Peter 3:18

What’s more, the holy Apostle employs this same exact Greek syntax used in the foregoing verses (known as a Granville Sharp construction) in three other places:

“You will receive a rich welcome into the kingdom that lasts forever. It is the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou kyriou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou).” 2 Peter 1:11

“They may have escaped the sin of the world. They may have come to know our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou kyriou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou). But what if they are once again caught up in sin? And what if it has become their master? Then they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.” 2 Peter 2:20

“I want you to remember the words the holy prophets spoke in the past. Remember the command our Lord and Savior (tou kyriou kai soteros) gave through your apostles.” 2 Peter 3:2

The renowned Evangelical NT scholar Murray J. Harris explains the significance of Peter’s employment of this particular Greek construction:

1. The Single Article (or, the Anarthrous soter)

As in the case of Titus 2:13, the most convincing explanation of the anarthrous soter in 2 Peter 1:1 is that two coordinate nouns referring to the same person are customarily linked by a single article (see the discussion above, chapter VII, §B.2).⁸

Now it is true that (1) the article is not required with the second noun if the distinction between the two nouns is regarded as obvious or is assumed; (2) soteros is shown to be definite by the ‘Iesous Christos that follows, so that an article is not required; and (3) the single article may be accounted for by the writer’s conceptual association of two separate items. But against these three arguments one may urge the following corresponding rejoinders.

Although the clear distinction between theos and ‘Iesous in verse 2 might suggest that a similar distinction between theos and soteros is obvious or assumed in verse 1, the fact remains that elsewhere in 2 Peter whenever an anarthrous soteros is attached by kai to another noun in the same case (viz., in 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18) there is a single referent, Jesus Christ. If the author had wished to distinguish the two persons unambiguously, he could have written either tou theou hemon kai ‘Iesou Christou tou soteros hemon (cf. v. 2) or tou theou hemon kai tou soteros (hemon) ‘Iesou Christou.

That soteros is definite is incontestable. It is definite not only because of the following proper name but also because it occurs in a monotheistic context in conjunction with theos and in the singular number. But its definiteness does not in itself account for its anarthrous state, for a definite noun more often than not is articular, while proper names or quasi-proper names as well as titles (however soter be regarded) are sometimes articular and sometimes anarthrous.

How is the exegete to determine whether ho theos hemon and soter ‘Iesous Christos are distinct yet joint sources or possessors of dikaiosyne, or whether there is a single source or possessor of “righteousness,” namely “our Savior God, Jesus Christ”? The latter alternative seems more probable for two reasons. First, as C. Bigg observes: “It is hardly open for anyone to translate in I Pet i.3 ho theos kai pater by ‘the God and Father,’⁹ and yet here [in 2 Pet 1:1] to decline to translate ho theos kai soter by ‘the God and Saviour’” (251). Second, in contemporary religious language the expression (ho) theoi (kai) soter always referred to one deity or ruler, not two. For example, when in 166 B.C. Prusias II of Bithynia addressed Roman senators as theoi soteres,¹⁰ he was not distinguishing certain senators who were theoi from others who were soteres; all of them were “savior-gods.” This point in fact becomes my second main argument that favors a reference to one person in 1:1.

2. The Stereotyped Formula theos kai soter

In his brief monograph on the Theos Soter formula as the explanation of the primitive Christian use of soter in reference to Jesus, C. H. Moehlmann demonstrates how widespread was the God-Savior idea in the Mediterranean world of the first century A.D.: “On the coins that passed from hand to hand, on statue in marketplace or along the roadside, in local cults, in mystery religion convocations, on altar and on temple the inhabitant of the Graeco-Roman world beheld soter. No living person could escape contact with some theos soter” (32).¹¹ In all these settings the theos soter formula never refers merely to a conceptual association of two separate deities, but invariably to a single god; the theos is none other than the soter.¹² In its alternative form, ho theos kai soter, the term soter is anarthrous because of the personal identity between the soter and the theos: “God who is (epexegetic kai) the Savior.”¹³

Peter may well be borrowing a conventional formula from pagan usage and applying it to the church’s Lord to whom it properly belongs. But one should not overlook the possibility¹⁴ that just as Paul interprets Isaiah 45:23 christologically in Philippians 2:10-11 so Peter may be relating to Christ the threefold description of Yahweh in Isaiah 45:21 (el saddiq umo’oshia, “a righteous God and a Savior”) when he writes en dikaiosyne tou theou hemon kai soters ‘Iesou Christou.

3. The Use of soter in 2 Peter

1:1 tou theou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou

1:11 tou kyriou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou

2:20 tou kyriou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou

3:2 tou kyriou kai soteros

3:18 tou kyriou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou

Several observations may be made about the use of soter in 2 Peter: (1) it is always anarthrous and refers to Jesus Christ;¹⁵ (2) it never stands alone but is always linked with a preceding articular noun, either kyriou (four times) or theou (once); and (3) the combination ho kyrios (hemon) kai soter always refers to a single person. The use of soter elsewhere in 2 Peter strongly suggests that the onus of proof rests with any who would deny that in 1:1 also there is a reference to only one person, Jesus Christ.

4. The Doxology to Christ in 2 Peter 3:18

New Testament doxologies are regularly addressed to God,¹⁶sometimes “through Jesus Christ” (Rom. 16:27; Jude 25; cf. 1 Pet. 4:11), but on at least four occasions (2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:5–6; 5:13) a doxology is addressed directly to Christ (cf. Rev. 5:12). In 2 Peter 3:18 there is no possible ambiguity as to the addressee (…. ‘Iesou Christou ktl.), such as there is in Romans 9:5, Romans 16:27, 1 Peter 4:11, or Hebrews 13:21. (See further Westcott, Hebrews 464-65). As an ascription of praise to a divine person, a doxology betrays a speaker’s or writer’s immeasurably high estimate of the addressee. An author who can address a doxology to Christ would have little difficulty in applying the term theos to him. There is no reason to deny that in 2 Peter 1:1 Jesus Christ is called “our God and Savior.” (Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, first paperback edition, 1992], pp. 233-235; emphasis mine)

There is additional evidence from Peter’s epistles to support the conclusion that 2 Peter 1:1 does indeed identify the risen Christ as the God and Savior of Christian believers.

For instance, Peter claims that it was the Holy Spirit of Christ who inspired the prophets to announce beforehand the sufferings and glorification of Jesus:

“The prophets searched very hard and with great care to find out about this salvation. They spoke about the grace that was going to come to you. They wanted to find out when and how this salvation would come. The Spirit of Christ in them was telling them about the sufferings of the Messiah. These were his sufferings that were going to come. The Spirit of Christ was also telling them about the glory that would follow. It was made known to the prophets that they were not serving themselves. Instead, they were serving you when they spoke about the things that you have now heard. Those who have preached the good news to you have told you these things. They have done it with the help of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.” 1 Peter 1:10-12 New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)

What makes this such a remarkable statement, seeing that it comes from a Jewish follower of Jesus, is that the Hebrew Bible explicitly teaches that it was the Spirit of YHWH who spoke in and through the prophets!

“The Spirit of Yahweh spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue. The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me, ‘He who rules over men as a righteous one, Who rules in the fear of God,’” 2 Samuel 23:2-3 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

“On the other hand I am filled with power— With the Spirit of Yahweh— And with justice and might To declare to Jacob his transgression, Even to Israel his sin.” Micah 3:8 LSB

“And they made their hearts diamond-hard so that they could not hear the law and the words which Yahweh of hosts had sent by His Spirit by the hand of the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from Yahweh of hosts.” Zechariah 7:12 LSB

Hence, for Peter to describe the Holy Spirit of YHWH as Christ’s Spirit means that the Apostle truly believed that Jesus is YHWH God Incarnate!

This is further confirmed by what he writes elsewhere:

“You can do this now that you have tasted how good the Lord is. Christ is the living Stone. People did not accept him, but God chose him. God places the highest value on him. You also are like living stones. As you come to Christ, you are being built into a house for worship. There you will be holy priests. You will offer spiritual sacrifices. God will accept them because of what Jesus Christ has done. In Scripture it says, ‘Look! I am placing a stone in Zion. It is a chosen and very valuable stone. It is the most important stone in the building. The one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’ (Isaiah 28:16) This stone is very valuable to you who believe. But to people who do not believe, ‘The stone the builders did not accept has become the most important stone of all.’ (Psalm 118:22) And, ‘It is a stone that causes people to trip. It is a rock that makes them fall.’ (Isaiah 8:14) They trip and fall because they do not obey the message. That is also what God planned for them.” 1 Peter 2:3-8 NIRV

“But suppose you do suffer for doing what is right. Even then you will be blessed. Scripture says, ‘Don’t fear what others say they will do to hurt you. Don’t be afraid.’ (Isaiah 8:12) But make sure that in your hearts you honor Christ as Lord. Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you about the hope you have. Be ready to give the reason for it. But do it gently and with respect.” 1 Peter 3:14-15 NIRV

The Apostle has attributed to the Lord Jesus the following OT texts, which invite persons to taste the goodness of YHWH and call on them to view him as holy, and which also describe YHWH as that very Stone who causes unbelievers to stumble:

“O taste and see that Yahweh is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!” Psalm 34:8 LSB

“You are not to say, ‘It is a conspiracy!’ In regard to all that this people call a conspiracy; And you are not to fear what they fear, and you shall not tremble. It is Yahweh of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, And He shall be your cause of trembling. Then He shall become a sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over, And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Isaiah 8:12-14 LSB

Again, the only way Peter could ascribe OT passages about YHWH to the Lord Jesus is if he had no doubt that Christ is YHWH God Almighty who became flesh for the salvation of the world.

In light of this, why should it be considered unthinkable for this same blessed Apostle to describe Christ as the God and Savior of all believers?

After all, one cannot be YHWH without also being the only just God and Savior of the world:

“Declare and draw near with your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has made this heard from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” Isaiah 45:21-23 LSB

Therefore, since Peter has clearly identified Jesus as YHWH Incarnate then he obviously would have no problem also confessing him as the God and Savior of the Church and, by extension, the whole earth.

FURTHER READING

MURRAY HARRIS ON TITUS 2:13

NT SCHOLARSHIP ON JOHN 1:1 AND TITUS 2:13 PT. 1, PT. 2

HEBREWS 2:9 & SYRIAC CHRISTOLOGY

According to the underlying Greek text of Hebrews 2:9, Jesus is described as tasting death for every man by the grace of God:

“But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels—Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God (chariti theou) He might taste death for everyone.” Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

The meaning here in the context is that God in his favor sent Jesus to become a flesh and blood human being for the express purpose of saving the children of God by making atonement for them in order crown them with glory:

“For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of One; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, ‘I will recount Your name to My brothers, In the midst of the assembly I will sing Your praise.’ And again, ‘I will put My trust in Him.’ And again, ‘Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.’ Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brothers in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to help those who are tempted.” Hebrews 2:10-18 LSB

There is, however, a minor variant attested by a few extant manuscripts and early Christians, which is drastically different:

“but we see Jesus, for a short time made lower than the angels, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that apart from God (choris theou) he might taste death on behalf of everyone.” Lexham English bible (LEB)

But yet, we are continuously seeing Jesus – having been made inferior for a brief time beside agents – having been encompassed with glory (or: crowned by a good reputation) and with honor (or: in value) on account of (or: through) the effect of the experience of death (or: Now in this certain short bit of time, we keep on observing Jesus – having been made less because of the result of the suffering from, and which was, death – now having been encircled with the Victor’s wreath in a manifestation which calls forth praise and with esteemed respect, at the side of the folks with the message), so that by the grace of and from God (or: for God’s grace; in the favor which is God; [note: MSS 0243 & 1739, plus a Vulgate MS and in the works of Origen, Ambrose and Jerome and quoted by various writers down to the 11th century, the reading is: APART FROM GOD]) He might taste of death over [the situation and condition of] all mankind (or: for and on behalf of everyone). Jonathan Mitchell New Testament (JMNT; capital and italicized emphasis mine)

In this reading Christ died apart from God, not because of God’s grace. Presumably, the meaning is that God permitted Jesus to undergo suffering and humiliation without any divine intervention, without God stepping in to prevent his beloved Son from undergoing severe torture and death.

Noted liberal NT textual critic Bart D. Ehrman discusses this variant reading at some length, and explains it’s significance:

HEBREWS AND A FORSAKEN JESUS

Luke’s portrayal of Jesus stands in contrast not only to that of Mark, but also to that of other New Testament authors, including the unknown author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who appears to presuppose knowledge of passion traditions in which Jesus was terrified in the face of death and died with no divine succor or support, as can be seen in the resolution of one of the most interesting textual problems of the New Testament.¹²

The problem occurs in a context that describes the eventual subjugation of all things to Jesus, the Son of Man. Again, I have placed in brackets the textual variants in question.

For when [God] subjects to him all things, he leaves nothing that is not subjected to him. But we do not yet see all things subjected to him. But we do see Jesus, who, having been made for a little while lower than the angels, was crowned with glory and honor on account of his suffering of death, so that [by the grace of God/apart from God] he might taste death for everyone. (Heb. 2:89)

Although almost all the surviving manuscripts state that Jesus died for all people “by the grace of God” (CHARITI THEOU), a couple of others state, instead, that he died “apart from God” (CHORIS THEOU). There are good reasons for thinking that the latter, however, was the original reading of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

I don’t need to go into the intricacies of the manuscript support for the reading “apart from God” except to say that even though it occurs in only two documents of the tenth century, one of these (Ms. 1739) is known to have been produced from a copy that was at least as ancient as our earliest manuscripts. Of yet greater interest, the earlythird century scholar Origen tells us that this was the reading of the majority of manuscripts of his own day. Other evidence also suggests its early popularity: it was found in manuscripts known to Ambrose and Jerome in the Latin West, and it is quoted by a range of church writers down to the eleventh century. And so, despite the fact that it is not widely attested among our surviving manuscripts, the reading was at one time supported by strong external evidence.

When one turns from external to internal evidence, there can be no doubt concerning the superiority of this poorly attested variant. We have already seen that scribes were far more likely to make a reading that was hard to understand easier, rather than make an easy reading harder. This variant provides a textbook case of the phenomenon. Christians in the early centuries commonly regarded Jesus’s death as the supreme manifestation of God’s grace. To say, though, that Jesus died “apart from God” could be taken to mean any number of things, most of them unpalatable. Since scribes must have created one of these readings out of the other, there is little question concerning which of the two is more likely the corruption.

But was the alteration deliberate? Advocates of the more commonly attested text (“grace of God”) have naturally had to claim that the change was not made on purpose (otherwise their favored text would almost certainly be the modification). By virtue of necessity, then, they have devised alternative scenarios to explain the accidental origin of the more difficult reading. Most commonly, it is simply supposed that because the words in question are similar in appearance (CHARITI/ CHORIS), a scribe inadvertently mistook the word grace for the preposition apart from.

This view, however, seems a shade unlikely. Is a negligent or absentminded scribe likely to have changed his text by writing a word used less frequently in the New Testament (“apart from”) or one used more frequently (“grace,” four times as common)? Is he likely to have created a phrase that occurs nowhere else in the New Testament (“apart from God”) or one that occurs more than twenty times (“by the grace of God”)? Is he likely to have produced a statement, even by accident, that is bizarre and troubling or one that is familiar and easy? Surely, it’s the latter: readers typically mistake unusual words for common ones and simplify what is complex, especially when their minds have partially strayed. Thus, even a theory of carelessness supports the lessattested reading (“apart from God”) as original.

The most popular theory among those who think that the phrase apart from God is not original is that the reading was created as a marginal note: a scribe read in Heb. 2:8 that “all things” are to be subjected to the lordship of Christ, and immediately thought of 1 Cor. 15:27:

“For all things will be subjected under his [Christ’s] feet.” But when it says that “all things will be subjected,” it is clear that it means all things except for the one who subjected them [i.e., God himself is not among the things subjected to Christ at the end].

According to this theory, the scribe copying Hebrews 2 wanted it to be clear here as well that when the text indicates that everything is to be subjected to Christ, this does not include God the Father. To protect the text from misconstrual, the scribe then inserted an explanatory note in the margin of Heb. 2:8 (as a kind of crossreference to 1 Cor. 15:27), pointing out that nothing is left unsubjected to Christ, “except for God.” This note was subsequently transferred by a later, inattentive, scribe into the text of the next verse, Heb. 2:9, where he thought it belonged.

Despite the popularity of the solution, it is probably too clever by half, and requires too many dubious steps to work. There is no manuscript that attests both readings in the text (i.e., the correction in the margin or text of verse 8, where it would belong, and the original text of verse 9). Moreover, if a scribe thought that the note was a marginal correction, why did he find it in the margin next to verse 8 rather than verse 9? Finally, if the scribe who created the note had done so in reference to 1 Corinthians, would he not have written “except for God” (EKTOS THEOU—the phrase that actually occurs in the 1 Corinthians passage) rather than “apart from God” (CHORIS THEOU—a phrase not found in 1 Corinthians)?

In sum, it is extremely difficult to account for the phrase apart from God if the phrase by the grace of God was the original reading of Heb. 2:9. At the same time, whereas a scribe could scarcely be expected to have said that Christ died “apart from God,” there is every reason to think that this is precisely what the author of Hebrews said. For this lessattested reading is also more consistent with the theology of Hebrews (“intrinsic probabilities”). Never in this entire Epistle does the word grace (CHARIS) refer to Jesus’s death or to the benefits of salvation that accrue as a result of it. Instead, it is consistently connected with the gift of salvation that is yet to be bestowed upon the believer by the goodness of God (see especially Heb. 4:16; also 10:29; 12:15; 13:25). To be sure, Christians historically have been more influenced by other New Testament authors, notably Paul, who saw Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross as the supreme manifestation of the grace of God. But Hebrews does not use the term in this way, even though scribes who thought that this author was Paul may not have realized that.

On the other hand, the statement that Jesus died “apart from God”—enigmatic when taken in isolation—makes compelling sense in its broader literary context in the book of Hebrews. Whereas this author never refers to Jesus’s death as a manifestation of divine “grace,” he repeatedly emphasizes that Jesus died a fully human, shameful death, totally removed from the realm whence he came, the realm of God; his sacrifice, as a result, was accepted as the perfect expiation for sin. Moreover, God did not intervene in Jesus’s passion and did nothing to minimize his pain. Thus, for example, Heb. 5:7 speaks of Jesus, in the face of death, beseeching God with loud cries and tears. In 12:2 he is said to endure the “shame” of his death, not because God sustained him, but because he hoped for vindication. Throughout this Epistle, Jesus is said to experience human pain and death, like other human beings “in every respect.” His was not an agony attenuated by special dispensation.

Yet more significant, this is a major theme of the immediate context of Heb. 2:9, which emphasizes that Christ lowered himself below the angels to share fully in blood and flesh, experience human sufferings, and die a human death. To be sure, his death is known to bring salvation, but the passage says not a word about God’s grace as manifest in Christ’s work of atonement. It focuses instead on Christology, on Christ’s condescension into the transitory realm of suffering and death. It is as a full human being that Jesus experiences his passion, apart from any succor that might have been his as an exalted being. The work he began at his condescension he completes in his death, a death that had to be “apart from God.”

How is it that the reading “apart from God,” which can scarcely be explained as a scribal alteration, conforms to the linguistic preferences, style, and theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, while the alternative reading “by the grace of God,” which would have caused scribes no difficulties at all, stands at odds both with what Hebrews says about the death of Christ and with the way it says it? Heb. 2:9 appears originally to have said that Jesus died “apart from God,” forsaken, much as he is portrayed in the Passion narrative of Mark’s Gospel.

CONCLUSION

In each of the three cases we have considered, there is an important textual variant that plays a significant role in how the passage in question is interpreted. It is obviously important to know whether Jesus was said to feel compassion or anger in Mark 1:41; whether he was calm and collected or in deep distress in Luke 22:4344; and whether he was said to die by God’s grace or “apart from God” in Heb. 2:9. We could easily look at other passages as well, to get the sense of how important it is to know the words of an author if we want to interpret his message. (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why [HarperSanFrancisco, 2005], 5. Originals That Matter, pp. 144-149; emphasis mine)

With this in the background I am ready to explore how these variants affected the Syriac versions of Hebrews 2:9, and the impact this made on Christ’s Deity: HEBREWS 2:9 & SYRIAC CHRISTOLOGY PT. 2.

TITUS 2:13 & KJV

This article is taken from the following post: Titus 2:13 – “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”.

Titus 2:13 – “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;”

Modern versions such as the NIV render this as, “While we wait for the blessed hope – the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” It is argued that the KJV incorrectly translated this passage and violated the Granville Sharpe Rule of Greek grammar.^[1]Basically this rule states that the two nouns (God and Savior) refer to the same Person, Jesus Christ. They are correct in their understanding of this grammatical rule. They are incorrect in stating the Authorized Version has violated it.

The problem is not with the KJV, but rather a lack of understanding English grammar. In English, when two nouns are separated by the phrase and our, the context determines if the nouns refer to two persons or to two aspects of the same person. Consider the following sentence, “He was a great hero and our first president, General George Washington.” This statement is not referring to two persons but two aspects of the same person. Washington was a great hero by anyone’s standards, but he was not everyone’s president. He was our president.

The same is true of the phrase in Titus 2:13. When Christ returns He is coming as King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16). He is returning as the great God (Titus 2:13; Revelation 19:17). Therefore, He will return as everyone’s King, everyone’s Lord, as the great God over all. But He is not everyone’s Savior. He is only the Savior of those who have placed faith in Him. When He returns He is coming as the great God but He is also returning as our Savior, two aspects of the same Person.

This is illustrated elsewhere in Scripture. Consider the following two passages in the New Testament. In both cases two nouns are separated by the phrase and our. However, it is also clear that the two nouns refer to the same Person: God, who is our Father. In Galatians 1:4 we read, “Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.” Likewise, in 1 Thessalonians 1:3 we read, “Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father.” In both passages we know that God and Father are the same Person. They are separated by and our to convey the truth that the Eternal God over all is also our Father, thereby personalizing our relationship with Him.

The King James translation of Titus 2:13 is also consistent. In the Book of Titus we find the Greek phrase sotepos emon (Savior of us) used six times (1:3,4; 2:10,13; 3:4,6). Each time the Authorized Version consistently translates it as our Saviour. In the final analysis, we see that the KJV is harmonious in its use of Greek as well as in its proclamation of the deity of Christ.

^[1]White, 267-270.

FURTHER READING

2 PETER 1:1 & KJV