Customer Reviews

Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Murray Harris has produced a classic, scholarly, objective treatment of this topic. He provides a wealth of information, but primarily focuses on the 16 verses which could seriously be considered to refer to Jesus as God; with a thorough examination of the 9 main verses, examining each in terms of the 1) context, 2) syntax, 3) punctuation, and 4) possible variant reading(s).

Three excellent features, among so many others, include: 1) In many cases, he cites numerous authors of various alternative positions, and offers their arguments and their resulting "translations" of the passage. 2) The book is full of statistical studies (e.g., how many times the articular and anartharus use of theos is used by various biblical authors). 3) He frequently reveals the "characteristic manner" in which a particular biblical author refers to Jesus and God.

Though Harris is extremely fair and objective, I did find his treatment deficient in two basic respects: 1) He concludes that the use of theos to refer to Jesus proves his deity, since it is a term that is primarily ontological in character, and, therefore, is an explicit and unequivocal affirmation that he is God. Yet, Harris has already shown that theos was used, even by the Jews and/or biblical writers themselves, to refer to other humans, angels, exalted patriarchs, etc.! Since the term, when used of these others, never meant they were God, the equivocation of Jesus with God needs demonstration. 2) At one point, Harris frankly acknowledges several texts that seem to drive an ontological wedge between Jesus and God (e.g., those which distinguish Jesus from the one who is God and Father). It should be pointed out, however, that Harris is generally far more careful in his arguments, and the conclusions he draws, than many scholars. This book is a gold mine, and will be a definite classic in its field.

Murray Harris took his Ph.D. from the University of Manchester and was professor emeritus of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. His book Jesus as God was possibly one of the most comprehensive, in-depth and scholarly treatment of the New Testament passages attributing deity to Jesus in print.

There are a total of sixteen passages in the New Testament have been interpreted at one time or other to attribute deity to Jesus Christ. Harris examined each one in detail. Textual, linguistic, grammatical, contextual, historical, and theological issues were all taken into consideration. Various translations and conjectural emendations were discussed. Even the Hebrew text and Greek Septuagint were analyzed for those passages which alluded to or quoted from the Old Testament. Pro's and con's were listed for each view and Harris? conclusions were given in degrees of probability.

Harris' conclusions were that it is certain that John 1:1 and John 20:28 applied the title God to Jesus Christ. Harris believed that it was very probable that Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8 and 2 Peter 1:1 applied the title God to Jesus and that it was probable that that John 1:18 did as well. Harris believed that it was possible, but not likely that that Acts 20:28, Hebrews 1:9 and 1 John 5:20 called Jesus God. Harris concluded that it was not at all likely that Matthew 1:23, John 17:3, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 1:12 and 1 Timothy 3:16 applied the title God to Jesus (Harris, 1992 171)

Jesus as God scholarly, well written, and very through in its analysis.

This is a book aimed at scholars--don't expect any translations of the Greek.

Harris points out that "To those Jews..of the first century AD who became the first converts to Christianity" there could have been few more connotative words than that for God.

The Synoptics rarely refer to Jesus as God (although "The Preexistent Son" recently argues strongly for many references, and Larry Hurtado's many books on the subject of Paul argue for Paul's speaking of Christ as God), with such obvious exceptions as Matthew's baptism reference. Harris cites Paul in Corinthians 13:13 as "the classic instance" (p 45).

Harris consistently gives all the arguments around the issues, and presents the evidence with great clarity.

I bought this book many years ago, and eagerly read it. It is very thorough in its approach, and highly readable in its style. It also presents a great deal of detail and the points for and against any given position.

While Dr. Harris approaches this from a Trinitarian theological viewpoint, I don't find this to have significantly impacted his decisions about which verses to include in his conclusions, nor, for that matter, in his conclusions about what it meant that Jesus was "theos" in Biblical passages. His explanations make it clear that divinity was the nature which Jesus Christ had, but that he was not seen by the writers as The God. Thus John 1:1 is explained to mean: ""the Word was identical with God the Father in nature," most accurately represents the evangelist's intended meaning." Jesus' divinity is to be seen as corporate identity, as in he belongs to the class of divine beings, not actual identity, as in Jesus was The God.

It must be remembered too that verses such as Titus 2:13 and John 1:1 involve grammatical "rules" (Sharp or Colwell's) which are relatively recent in their "discovery", which are not "proven" beyond all doubt, and which are frequently misapplied to various texts within the Bible, including potentially to the two I mention. While I think Colwell's rule is really more of a suggestion, and therefore lacks force concerning John 1:1, I find Sharp's construction more compelling because it follows predictable mechanics, whereas Colwell's rule relies upon theological opinion. Sharp, on the other hand, may have likewise over-applied his rule due to the absence of providing for context. In any case, I agree with Sharp's application in Titus 2:13, and disagree with using Colwell to justify a definite oneness in John 1:1. I make this conclusion as a reader of scholars' arguments on the subjects, and not as a scholar myself.

Dr. Harris' work is a wonderful addition to any serious study of the Christological passages involving Theos in the New Testament.

Simply put, this is one of the best works ever written on the issues involving Jesus' deity from an all-text-focused stance. Harris' protocol is extreme detail, and once again his work bears this out.

I can first say that Mr. Harris' book is one of the more fair and honest evaluations of this subject. My experience in reading other books of this nature is that the authors usually take every opportunity they can to drum-up support for another verse that calls Jesus God (Theos). Mr. Harris, confident in his theology, feels no need to grasp at verses when it is obvious to him that they do not call Jesus theos. His book addresses the sixteen verses in the NT that persons think call Jesus theos and his final conclusion is, "The application to Christ of the title (theos) is exceedingly rare - only seven certain, very probable, or probable instances out of a total of 1,315 NT uses of (theos)." (page 274)

However, Mr. Harris has failed to convince me that all seven verses that he lists as referring to Jesus as theos actually do refer to Jesus as theos. I doubt that he would condemn me too much for that statement since even he admits that some are "very probable" while others are only "probable." While Mr. Harris puts up a decent argument for his stance, this coming from his obviously being qualified to discuss this subject, other scholars, also equally qualified to discuss this subject, put up a good argument refuting Mr. Harris' argument. In the end, we have a number of scholars, all making good arguments for their position. What Mr. Harris deems as a more important facet to his argument, another scholar thinks is over rated. What another scholar states is a valid point for his argument, Mr. Harris says is over rated. In the end it really boils down to the personal preference and opinion of the scholar, which subsequently determines what level of value he places on a certain argument. To Mr. Harris' credit, he lists the scholars and arguments that do not agree with his conclusion. And I would like to recommend that Greg Stafford's book, "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended" be considered because he points out several issues he feels are incorrect in Mr. Harris' arguments.

There are a few areas in this book that I do think Mr. Harris should be more responsible in backing up. For instance, on page 47 he states that the NT writers wrote their letters in light of their trinitarian understanding. I would challenge that statement. How can Mr. Harris justify that Jesus' apostles believed that God was three separate but equal and eternal persons in one God? What did Jesus say that would have given them that idea? How could Thomas have meant that at John 20:28? Since the official doctrine wasn't formulated until 325 CE, this seems to be a huge assumption on Harris' part.

He also states that Rom. 9:5 and Titus 2:13 are the only places that Paul calls Jesus theos. He then confirms, "No one doubts that Paul generally- in fact, almost always- reserves the term (theos) for God the Father. But dominant usage is not exclusive usage." (pg 169) His argument is that 'yes, even though Paul always refers to the Father as theos (barring the two verses in question), this should not be allowed to determine the meaning of the two verse in question.' Mr. Harris has a point, but I believe he has under estimated and limited the authority and forcefulness of the 'habitual use and meaning of the term theos as Paul used it.' Paul's constant use of theos should have had more bearing on Mr. Harris' decision process regarding the two verses. Especially when a number of scholars and Bibles do translate in a way to show that Jesus is not God. When the decision comes down to theology, how the Bible and it's writers used theos must be an important aspect.

Mr. Harris argues against several verses and their translation or supposed meaning since it appears to state the idea in an unnatural or unusual way. But Mr. Harris then admits on page 184, "one may observe that what is "natural" for a writer to say is not always what he does say." Indeed, it is a difficult thing to try and guess what someone 2000 years ago meant, especially when he wrote it in a now dead language. Today, misunderstandings occur among us and we speak the same language! Thus, Mr. Harris may do well to consider more seriously the 'habitual use' of the word theos.

For a review of the hundreds of scriptures in the Greek text showing Jesus is not the one people thought was God, see the book"Jesus-God or the Son of God?", available here at Amazon.com