9. Specifically, there is no reason to include o wv in the final phrase if there is no
direct connection to what has gone before.
10. Paul has spoken of the fleshly nature of the Messiah, and now speaks of the Messiah's spiritual nature as God. Breaking up the sentence leaves Paul speaking only
of the Messiah "according to the flesh."
11. Romans 1:25; 11:36; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Galatians 1:5; 2 Timothy 4:18.
12. There is one possible exception at Psalm 67:19, though the text seems questionable
at that point.
13. B. M. Metzger, "The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5" in Christ and Spirit in the New
Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, ed. B. Lindars and S. Smalley
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973), 107.
14. Metzger mentions Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Athanasius, Epi-
phanius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, Jerome,
and Cyril of Alexandria, among others, as reading the passage in support of the
deity of Christ.
15. Specifically, in verses 2-3, 6-8, and 10-12.
16. Harris's treatment is quite adequate, Jesus as God, 205-227.
17. See chapter 7 on the meaning of this term.
18. Some, including Jehovah's Witnesses, attempt to downplay the use of the verb
"worship" here, insisting that it doesn't always mean "worship" in the full sense.
While that is quite true, it is also true that the context will determine the meaning
of the word, and if there is any place where true and religious worship is in sight,
it is here in the very heavenly realms itself. No mere "relative worship" or "obeisance" will meet the meaning of this term.
19. Indicating, of course, that the Son is not an angel.
20. A "marriage-ode" or an "epithalamium."
21. Harris, Jesus as God, 227.
22. Another way the context dictates the understanding of this passage is seen in the
parallel between the vocative (i.e., direct address) use of "Lord" in verse 10 and
that of "God" in verse 8. Both passages are spoken to the Son, and in verse 10 the
speaker uses the vocative. Hence, the parallel would indicate that the vocative is
being used in verse 8 as well.
23. As found in the LXX translation of the Psalm.
24. Granville Sharp (1735-1813) was an English abolitionist with a keen interest in
theological subjects. His strong belief in the deity of Christ led him to study various
grammatical forms in the New Testament relevant to the topic. For the most indepth treatment of the subject, see Daniel Wallace, "The Article With Multiple
Substantives Connected by Kai in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance" (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995). For those not inclined toward the reading of dissertations, Dr. Wallace's tremendous Greek gram mar, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 270-290, provides a most useful summary.
25. Granville Sharp's rule, according to Granville Sharp, is:
When the copulative xai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns
(either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities,
good or ill, if the article o, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns
or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter
always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun
or participle: i.e., it denotes a further description of the first named person.
Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of
the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, From
Passages Which Are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version (Philadelphia: B. B. Hopkins and Co., 1807), 3.
26. Wallace comments in his Greek Grammar (p. 276) on Titus 2:13:
It has frequently been alleged that OcoS is a proper name and, hence, that
Sharp's rule cannot apply to constructions in which it is employed. We have
already argued that Oeo; is not a proper name in Greek. We simply wish to point
out here that in the TSKS construction OeoS is used over a dozen times in the
NT (e.g., Luke 20:37; John 20:27; Rom 15:6; 2 Cor 1:3; Gal 1:4; Jas 1:27) and
always (if we exclude the christologically significant texts) in reference to one
person. This phenomenon is not true of any other proper name in said construction (every instance involving true proper names always points to two individuals). Since that argument carries no weight, there is no good reason to
reject Titus 2:13 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.
27. Five, if you include 2 Peter 3:2, which differs in some respects from the other examples.
28. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 277.
29. There is the possibility that the Greek text used by the KJV translators added a
word at 2 Peter 1:1, resulting in their less-than-clear translation, but no such reason
exists at Titus 2:13.
30. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1977), 66. Further scholarly corroboration of this interpretation of these
passages can be found in A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932), vol. 6, 147-148; in Nicoll's Expositor's Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), vol. 5, 123; and in B.
B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968) 68-71. Grundmann, in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), vol. 4, 540, says, "Hence we have to
take Jesus Christ as the megas theos. This is demanded by the position of the article,
by the term epiphaneia ... , and by the stereotyped nature of the expression....
Hence the best rendering is: `We wait for the blessed hope and manifestation of
the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."'
31. This passage is at times misused in the attempt to make Jesus the Father. See the
discussion of this error in chapter 11. Suffice it to say that the phrase "Eternal Father" cannot be read in New Testament terms, as the revelation of Father, Son,
and Spirit had not yet been made. What is more, the Hebrew phrase so translated,
avi-ad, can be rendered "Father (or Creator) of eternity" as well. I believe
this refers to Christ's role as Creator. Paul said that all things were not only made
through Him but also for Him, so the description would be quite appropriate.
32. F. Delitzsch, Isaiah in Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 252-253.
33. For a summary, see Harris, Jesus as God, 131-141.
34. For a discussion of textual variations and the process used to determine the original
text of the New Testament, see James White, The King James Only Controversy
(Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), or J. Harold Greenlee,
Scribes, Scrolls, and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985).
35. xuptou is read by P74 A C* D E `P and others. OEou is read by x B and others.
The Majority text conflates the two earlier readings into xuptou xat AEou. In the
ancient script of the New Testament, the difference between the two words would
be minor: KY vs. OY. Most scholars feel that the phrase "His own blood" would
have caused a scribe to alter "God" to "Lord" rather than the other way around.
36. Should someone object that Jesus is a highly exalted creature, not "merely" a creature, we respond by pointing out that no matter how highly exalted a creature
might be, it is still a creature, dependent and finite. There is a vast, uncrossable
chasm between the infinite and eternal and the finite and temporal.
37. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 2nd ed., ed. Gingrich and Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1979), 358.
38. Joseph Henry Thayer, The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
(Lafayette, Ind.: Book Publisher's Press, 1981), 288.
39. Hence the Jehovah's Witnesses' mistranslation of the passage in the New World
Translation as "divine quality" completely misses the mark. Stafford, in Jehovah's
Witnesses Defended, fails to deal with the meaning of the passage, but instead shifts
the focus from Colossians 2:9 to Colossians 1:19, confusing the undefined "fullness" that dwells in the Son by the decree of the Father with the fullness of deity
that is said to dwell in the Son in Colossians 2:9. It is again beyond defense to say
that the fullness of "that which makes God God" dwells in Michael the Archangel,
so it is understandable why this passage causes those who would defend Arianism
much trouble. Likewise, Stafford then confuses the undefined "fullness" that dwells
in believers (Colossians 2:10) with the fullness of deity found in verse 9. Obviously,
however, Paul was not saying that the fullness of deity dwells in believers.
40. Richard Trench, Synonyms in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953),
7-8.
41. B. B. Warfield, "The Person of Christ" in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield,
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), II: 184.
42. Greek: 6 npwtos xat 6 e6xatos
43. Greek: fl tzpxr) icon to tEXos. It is important to note that the term apXtj does not
have to mean "first created thing," but can be a title of deity.
44. The Watchtower insists we must do this, but the reasons given are shallow at best.
The only real reason they do so is theological: they refuse to accept the Word's
testimony to the deity of Christ. It should be noted that men such as Stafford, in
attempting to defend the Watchtower's position in denying that Jesus is the Alpha
and Omega (the WT has flipped back and forth on this topic many times) are
forced to do mental gymnastics to get around the clear teaching of Revelation on
this subject, yet they will insist that "wisdom" in Proverbs 8 must be Jesus Christ.
The basis of the connection between Christ and wisdom in Proverbs 8 rests upon
a fraction of the biblical data that can be mustered for seeing Jesus as the Alpha
and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. The role played
by an authoritarian group (in this case, the Watchtower Society) in the "exegesis"
of those who deny the deity of Christ is clear. We are not here dealing with an
exegesis of the text-the meaning of the text has already been determined by the
ultimate authority of the religious group.
45. Stafford points to Isaiah 40:10, "Behold, the Lord GOD will come with might, with
His arm ruling for Him. Behold, His reward is with Him and His recompense
before Him." Yet the argument is not only circular, but actually proves the opposite
of what the author intends. Isaiah 40 is often cited of the Lord Jesus, and the fact
that it is the Lord who comes and His reward is with Him to render to every man
(Revelation 22:12) only proves that Jesus is again being identified as Yahweh, just
as He is in John 12 and Hebrews 1.
46. Specifically, the Jews use the phrase {aov, which is the masculine singular accusative form; Paul uses iaa, the neuter form. What is the difference? Lightfoot, in
his commentary on Philippians (St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians [Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1978], 112), put it this way: "Between the two expressions ... no other
distinction can be drawn, except that the former refers to the person, the latter to
the attributes." The biblical teaching is not that the Son is'iaov the Father (leading
to modalism) but He is'iace the Father (equal in attributes and deity, but a different
divine Person).
47. Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity. This article
is found in three sources: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1939 edition, 3012-3022, in Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 22-59, and in The Works of Benjamin
B. Warfield, 11:133-172. References in this work are from the latter source, 158159.
CHAPTER SIX
1. The specific phrase ego eimi occurs twenty-four times in the gospel of John. Thirteen of these times it is followed by a clear predicate (John 6:35; 6:41; 6:51; 8:12;
8:18; 10:7; 10:9; 10:11; 10:14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1; 15:5). Some of these instances would
be John 6:35, "I am the living bread" or John 10:11, "I am the good shepherd"
(ego eimi ho poimen ho kalos). Three times the usage does not fall into a clear category-these would be 4:26, 6:20, and 9:9. In 4:26 Jesus says to the woman at the
well, "I am, the one speaking to you" which is strangely reminiscent of the LXX rendering of Isaiah 52:6. In 6:20 it seems to be a rather straightforward self-identification to the frightened disciples in the boat. And in 9:9 we find the man who
had been healed of his blindness insisting that he was indeed the man of whom
they spoke. This last instance is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them, in that
the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicate.
Given the above, we are left with seven uses that have been described as "absolute." These would be John 8:24; 8:28; 8:58; 13:19; 18:5; 18:6; and 18:8. It is very
significant that in each of these instances, the phrase comes at the end of the clause.
We will note why it is important when we look at the usage of the phrase in the
Septuagint.
2. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 879-880, describes the "progressive
present":
This is a poor name in lieu of a better one for the present of past action still
in progress. Usually an adverb of time (or adjunct) accompanies the verb....
Often it has to be translated into English by a sort of "progressive perfect" ('have
been'), though, of course, that is the fault of English.... "The durative present
in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phrase" (Moulton, Prol.,
119).... It is a common idiom in the N.T.... In Jo. 8:58 eiui is really absolute.
3. See A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1932), 5:158-159.