The Forgotten Trinity (11 page)

The arguments in favor of seeing this passage as a reference to the
deity of Christ are many. I will summarize them here:'

(1) It is the natural reading of the text to see the entire verse as referring to Christ. Breaking the sentence up into two parts leads to
difficulties in translation and interpretation. Some words become
superfluous,9 and the balance of the sentence is thrown off.'°

(2) The phrase "who is" is used by Paul elsewhere to modify a word
in the preceding context (as in 2 Corinthians 11:31, a very close
parallel), and would naturally do so here as well.

(3) The form of the doxology simply will not allow for it to be separated from the preceding context. Paul's consistent usage connects
the doxology to the discussion of Christ. In his other doxologies"
he follows this pattern.

(4) In the Greek New Testament, and in the Greek translation of the
Old Testament (the Septuagint), the word "blessed" always12
comes before the word "God," but here in Romans 9:5 it follows,
which would indicate that the "blessing" is tied to what came before (i.e., the discussion of Christ). So strong is this last point that
Metzger said it is "altogether incredible that Paul, whose ear must
have been perfectly familiar with this constantly recurring formula
of praise, should in this solitary instance have departed from established usage.""

Add to these weighty considerations the testimony of many of the early Fathers as well,'" and the conclusion is inescapable: Paul breaks into
praise at the majesty of the person of the Messiah who has come into
the world through the Jewish race. The very God who is over all has
entered into flesh, and for this, Paul gives glory and honor.

THE ANGELS WORSHIP HIM

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He
says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM." And of the
angels He says, "WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE." But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, 0
GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE
SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM" (Hebrews 1:6-8).

We will have occasion to enter into the first chapter of Hebrews searching for golden nuggets on the deity of Christ a total of three times.''
But first we look at the use of the term "God" of the Lord Jesus in this
passage, specifically in verse 8.

There is debate over the translation of the passage, for on a strictly
grammatical basis, one could render it "God is Your throne" rather
than "Your throne, 0 God," and, of course, this is exactly the argument
presented by all who deny the deity of Christ. But again the context
indicates otherwise. Without going into a lot of detail, 16 the writer to
the Hebrews is demonstrating the superiority of Jesus Christ to the
angels. He says that all the angels of God worship the Firstborn.' This
is true religious worship, as the context demands." Such worship is
only given to God. He contrasts this worship by the angels of the Son19
with the description God uses of angels as mere "winds" and "flames
of fire." But, in opposition to this, the description God uses of the Son
is striking. Quoting from Psalm 45:6-7, God (the Father) makes reference to God (the Son), saying, "Your throne, 0 God, is forever and
ever.

It should be noted that the passage the writer quotes, Psalm 45, was
a "wedding" psalm written in reference to the king of Israel.20 As with
so many other passages in the Old Testament, it takes on a much
greater meaning when applied to the King of kings, Jesus Christ. While the Israelite king's reign was temporary, the reign of Christ will truly
be forever and ever. In summarizing the teaching of this passage, Murray Harris said:

The appellation o O6;; that was figurative and hyperbolic when
applied to a mortal king was applied to the immortal Son in a
literal and true sense. Jesus is not merely superior to the angels.
Equally with the Father he shares in the divine nature (6 9c6;, v.
8) while remaining distinct from him (6 6e6s (yov, v. 9). The author places Jesus far above any angel with respect to nature and
function, and on a par with God with regard to nature but subordinate to God with regard to function. There is an "essential"
unity but a functional subordination."

That Dr. Harris is correct is seen by noting how the context supports
his conclusions. Not only is Jesus the object of divine worship in verse
6, but we will see that in verses 10 through 12 He is identified as Yah-
weh.22 Since Christ is shown receiving worship immediately before this
passage, and identified with Yahweh immediately thereafter, there can
be nothing strange about the Father referring to the Son as "God" in
verse 8.

Finally, in another place where Christ is identified as God, Isaiah
9:6 (which will be examined below), the same truth that Christ's kingdom is an everlasting kingdom is found. The only One whose throne
will truly be forever and ever is God himself.

OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR

Paul describes Christians as faithful people who are looking for a
blessed event: the coming of Jesus Christ. Here are his words:

... looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory
of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for
us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself
a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. (Titus
2:13-14)

The appearing of Christ is described as our "blessed hope," and indeed it is. The key phrase is obviously the description of Jesus as "our great
God and Savior." Do both terms refer to Jesus? That is the issue. But
before we demonstrate that indeed both words are being used of
Christ, we dare not rush past the context itself. Could it be that Christians have a blessed hope that is anchored in looking for the appearance of a mere creature, say, Michael the Archangel?

Paul says that the Lord Jesus "gave Himself for us to redeem us
from every lawless deed." This is in reference to the atoning sacrifice
of Jesus Christ upon the cross of Calvary. Since it is plainly the coming
of the Lord Jesus that we are expectantly awaiting, and since it is the
Lord Jesus who gave himself for us on the Cross, what reason is there,
contextually, for introducing another person into the passage? Simply
put, there is none. The only reason some attempt to do so is to avoid
the clear identification of Jesus Christ as "God and Savior."

Another contextual clue confirms the assertion of the deity of
Christ by Paul. Verse 14 says that Christ intends to "purify for Himself
a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." To the person whose ear is attuned to the words of the Old Testament, this is a
phrase that would bring to mind none other than Yahweh himself:

O Israel, hope in the LORD;
For with the LORD there is lovingkindness,
And with Him is abundant redemption.
And He will redeem Israel from all his iniquities. (Psalm 130:7-8)

What is not immediately apparent by simply looking at the English
text is that this passage from the psalms uses the same terms23 found
in Titus 2:14. Specifically, "to redeem" in the psalm is the same term
used by Paul of the redeeming work of Christ, and the term "iniquities" in the psalm is the term translated "lawless deed" in Titus. While
it is Yahweh who redeems His people in the Old Testament, here it is
Christ. But there is more:

"They will no longer defile themselves with their idols, or with
their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I
will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they will be My people, and I
will be their God" (Ezekiel 37:23).

Here Yahweh again speaks of His redemption of His people, and again
Paul uses the same terms to describe the work of Christ. Specifically,
the word "cleanse" is the same in both passages, as is the word "people." Just coincidence? Not at all, for there is more:

"Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples,
for all the earth is Mine" (Exodus 19:5).

The phrase "My own possession" is the same in Exodus, where Yahweh
speaks of His special people, and in Titus, where Christ has a people
for His own possession. Deuteronomy 7:6 and 14:2 make the same
statement. Anyone familiar with a "redeemed people" in the Old Testament would recognize that Paul is applying the same terms used of
Yahweh there to the Lord Jesus here. The context, then, is one that
would find no problem at all in calling Jesus "God and Savior," since
it has freely applied to Him words that had been used by God's people
for centuries to describe Yahweh, their Savior.

The focus of attention in Titus 2:13 has always been on whether
we should understand Paul to be applying both terms "God" and "Savior" to Christ. We have seen that before addressing the grammatical
concerns, the context gives us no reason whatsoever to think that two
persons are in view here. Only Christ is under discussion. One must
wonder, then, why anyone would wish to find a second person, since
the context does not push us in that direction.

As with every other such passage, large numbers of papers and articles have been written regarding the proper translation of Titus 2:13.
In fact, an entire grammatical rule finds its primary application in this
passage. The rule has been dubbed Granville Sharp's Rule '21 after Granville Sharp who first formulated it. In reality, Sharp's Rule is more of
a set of rules, all relating to the use of nouns and the Greek connective
i ai, "and." Without going into great detail, Sharp's study of the text
of the New Testament led him to recognize that when the writer used a particular construction of "article (the word "the")-substantive
(noun)-xat'-substantive," and when the personal nouns involved
were singular and not proper names, they always referred to the same
person.2 -' The significance to Titus 2:13 is found in the fact that the
phrase "our great God and Savior" fits this pattern exactly:

tou µF_yo Xou 8Eou xat 6wti>pos rluthv 'Ii)aoi Xptuiob

The word "God" has the definite article ("the") before it. It is connected by the word K( xi the word "Savior." There is only one person in the context to which both terms, then, can be applied: Jesus
Christ. He is our God and Savior.

Various attempts have been made to short-circuit this rule of Greek
grammar, all prompted by an unwillingness to believe what the text
itself says. Dr. Daniel Wallace's work on the subject in recent years has
only further strengthened the validity of Sharp's Rule, and its application at Titus 2:13.''

But we only see half the evidence when we look only at Titus 2:13.
There is another very important passage that adds further evidence to
the validity of this understanding of the text of the New Testament:

Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to
those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the
righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:1)

We can immediately see the Granville Sharp construction: "our God
and Savior, Jesus Christ." But this passage does not contain the surrounding context of Titus 2:13, so is it less certain? Not at all, for here
we find that the use of other Granville Sharp constructions in 2 Peter
provides us with the same kind of external support that Paul provided
with his allusions to the Old Testament. There are a total of four27 such
constructions in this small epistle (1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:18), the second
being found in 2 Peter 1:11:

... for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.
(2 Peter 1:11)

Here the construction is "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." By
comparing the actual texts the similarity in these passages is clearly
seen:

1:1: 'rob 0Eov it u v xat 6wtilPoS 'Irlyov Xptciov

1:11: tov xupiou rl t6ilv xoit a(I)ti pos 'I116ov Xptutoi

1:1: tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou

1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou

1:1: our God and Savior Jesus Christ

1:11: our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

The phrases are identical outside of the fact that in 1:1 the term is
"God," and in 1:11 it is "Lord." No one hesitates to translate 2 Peter
1:11 as "Lord and Savior," so why do so at 2 Peter 1:1? The repetition
of this construction in 2:20 and 3:18 only strengthens the argument.
As Wallace concludes, "This being the case, there is no good reason
for rejecting 2 Peter 1:1 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of
Christ ."21 And I add that there is simply no reason, outside of theological reasons (which should not drive our translation in the first place),
to avoid the proper rendering of either Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1. Both
testify to the deity of Jesus Christ.

Someone might point out that some older translations, such as the
King James Version of the Bible, do not translate these passages well.
The main reason29 the KJV does not clearly render the passages has to
do with the fact that Sharp did his work long after the KJV was translated. The Latin usage had a great influence on the KJV translators,
and being unaware of the proper relationship discovered by Sharp's
inquiry, they could not be expected to provide the best rendering. But
why do some other older versions incorrectly translate these passages?
The great American Greek scholar A. T. Robertson maintained that it
is mainly due to the influence of George B. Winer and his grammatical
work. For three generations Winer's work was supreme, and many
scholars did not feel inclined to disagree with him and insist on the
correct translation of these passages. However, Winer himself, an antitrinitarian, admitted that it was not grammatical grounds that led him to reject the correct rendering of Titus 2:13, but theological ones. In
the Winer-Moulton Grammar (as cited by Robertson), page 162,
Winer said, "Considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine
lead me to believe that aonf>poS is not a second predicate, coordinate
with Aeov, Christ being first called µeyaS OeoS, and then acoitjp."
However, Robertson put it well when he said, "Sharp stands vindicated
after all the dust has settled. We must let these passages mean what
they want to mean regardless of our theories about the theology of the
writers."30