Last time we considered Jesus’ identity as God’s messiah.  Today, we’ll look at a number of texts that are sometimes misunderstood to teach that Jesus is God. We’ll go through three classifications of verses: (1) those with manuscript issues, (2) those with translation issues, and (3) those with interpretation issues.  Here is the breakdown.

Manuscript Issues: 1 Timothy 3.16, 1 John 5.7-8

Translation Issues: Acts 20.28, Romans 9.5, Titus 2.13, 2 Thessalonians 1.12, 2 Peter 1.1

Interpretation Issues: John 5.18, John 10.30, 1 John 5.20, Colossians 2.9

See below for links to the various handouts mentioned in this episode.

—— Notes ——

Jesus is God’s human messiah—a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst (Acts 2.22).

Ex 8.10; 19.16-20; 20.1-6; Deut 4.35-39; 5.1-7; 6.4-5; 7.9-10; 10.17-21; 32.12, 39; 1 Sam 2.2; 2 Sam 7.22-24;  1 Kings 8.60; 2 Kings 19.15, 19; 1 Chron 17.20; Neh. 9.6; Ps. 83.18; 86.9-10; 135.5; Is 37.16, 20; 41.4; 42.5-8; 43.10-13; 44.6-8, 24; 45.5-7, 12, 18, 21-22; 46.9; Jer 10.7-10; Joel 2.27; Zech 14.9; Mat. 19.17; Mk 10.17-18; 12.28-33; Jn 5.44; 8.41; 17.3; 1 Cor 8.4-6; Gal 3.20; Eph 4.6; 1 Tim 2.5; Jam 2.19; Jud 25

Before examining these texts, we should note how even Trinitarians have sometimes observed what a shaky foundation their belief in the deity of Christ rests:

Christopher Kaiser:

“Belief in the deity of Christ has traditionally been the keystone of the doctrine of the Trinity, yet explicit references to Jesus as ‘God” in the New Testament are very few, and even those few are generally plagued with uncertainties of either text or interpretation.”[1]

William Barclay:

“But we shall find that on almost every occasion in the New Testament on which Jesus seems to be called God there is a problem either of textual criticism or of translation.  In almost every case we have to discuss which of two readings is to be accepted or which of two possible translations is to be accepted.”[2]

1 Timothy 3.16 [NKJ]

1 Timothy 3.16  [ESV]

ὅς {A}

The reading which, on the basis of external evidence and transcriptional probability, best explains the rise of the others is ὅς. It is supported by the earliest and best uncials (א* A*vid C* Ggr) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 syrhmg, pal goth ethpp Origenlat Epiphanius Jerome Theodore Eutheriusacc. to Theodoret Cyril Cyrilacc. to Ps-Oecumenius Liberatus. Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun ὅ must have arisen as a scribal correction of ὅς (to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον), the witnesses that read ὅ (D* itd, g, 61. 86 vg Ambrosiaster Marius Victorinus Hilary Pelagius Augustine) also indirectly presuppose ὅς as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus reads θεός, with אe (this corrector is of the twelfth century) A2 C2 Dc K L P Ψ 81 330 614 1739 Byz Lect Gregory-Nyssa Didymus Chrysostom Theodoret Euthalius and later Fathers. Thus, no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ and no patristic writer prior to t