In Part 1 of this series I considered biblical verses that seem to imply that the title of “God” was not used for Jesus. Most of the material for that post came from Fr. Raymond E. Brown’s book Jesus God and Man: Modern Biblical Reflections. I also relied on some other sources to respond to the implication that in these verses the title of “God” is not used for Jesus.

In Part 2, I will discuss biblical verses that Fr. Brown describes as “dubious” in regards to using the title of “God” for Jesus. Now, in the dictionary in my brain, “dubious” means “doubtful,” or “most likely not true.” Apparently, however, Fr. Brown recognizes that, in the case of some of these verses, it “most likely is true” that the title of “God” was being used for Jesus. Fr. Brown argues in favor of some and against others. So, let’s get to it.

2. Texts Where the Use of the Title “God” for Jesus is Dubious.

Fr. Brown identifies two problems with these texts: some of them have textual variants (in other words, they can be translated differently and, thus, interpreted differently), while others have problems of syntax (so, whether or not they call Jesus “God” depends on how you read them).

A. Passages with textual variants

Galatians 2:20:  “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Fr. Brown says there are two ways this verse can be translated. First: “faith in God and in Christ who loved me and gave himself for me.” Second: “faith in the God and Christ, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Only in the second variant is Jesus called God. Because of this ambiguity, Fr. Brown says this verse cannot be pointed to as one that refers to Jesus as “God.”

Acts 20:28: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood.” The two variants of this verse debate the title for Jesus. One reading references the “church of God,” while a second variant reads, “the church of the Lord.” Fr. Brown himself favors, “the church of God,” but since the variant is there (and we see that the translators for the RSV Catholic Edition that I’m using disagree with Fr. Brown), we can’t be certain.

John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” Besides the variant here, another possible wording of this verse is: “No one has ever seen God; it is God the only Son, ever at the Father’s side, who has revealed Him.” Finally, a third possible wording is: “No one has ever seen God; the Son, the only one, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” Obviously, the first and third variants do not address Jesus as God, while the second variant does. Fr. Brown says that the second variant, which does address Jesus as God, has the strongest support in the best Greek manuscripts, and by Ephraim, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and papyri discovered in the 1960’s that are dated to c. 200. Nevertheless, the other variants have their support, as well, so the verse cannot be said unequivocally to call Jesus “God.” It is Fr. Brown’s position that it does.

B. Passages where obscurity arises from syntax

Colossians 2:2: “… that their hearts may be encouraged as they are knit together in love, to have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” As with John 1:18, according to Fr. Brown, there are three possible ways to interpret this verse. First: “… the knowledge of the mystery of the God Christ.” In this case, Jesus is clearly called “God.” Fr. Brown does point out that this would be the only example in the NT of the phrase “the God Christ.” Second: “… the knowledge of the mystery of the God of Christ.” This is legitimate way to translate the Greek. Jesus is not called “God,” but God is referred to as Jesus’ God. Third: “… the knowledge of the mystery of God which is Christ.” Again, Jesus is not called “God.” Rather, Jesus is the mystery of God. Fr. Brown writes that a stronger case can be made for the second and third translations rather than the first, so he does not include this verse from Colossians as one that uses the title of “God” for Jesus.

2 Thessalonians 1:12: “… so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Fr. Brown points out two possible interpretations. First: “… the grace of our God-and-Lord Jesus Christ.” Second: “… the grace of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” The first translation gives Jesus the title of “God.” The second translation does not. Fr. Brown writes that the second translation has the stronger case because the phrase “our God” is used four times in 1 & 2 Thessalonians to refer to God the Father, as distinguished from “(the) Lord Jesus Christ.” So, Fr. Brown rejects this text as one where Jesus is called “God.”

Titus 2:13: ” … awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Fr. Brown writes that three interpretations are possible for the Greek. First: “… the glory of our great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ.” Fr. Brown says that this translation is not favored by the original Greek. If so, it would imply a two-fold appearance, one of God the Father and another of Jesus Christ. This would be unique for the NT, so unlikely. Second: “… the glory of our great God-and-Savior, which (glory) is Jesus Christ.” In this interpretation, God the Father is called “God-and-Savior” and Jesus is His glory. It’s a legitimate interpretation because there are other verses that speak of the Father as “Savior” and speak of Jesus as the “glory” of the Father. Still, it’s not the most likely translation in Fr. Brown’s opinion. Third: “… the glory of our great God-and-Savior Jesus Christ.” Here, “God-and-Savior” refers to Jesus, and Fr. Brown says this is the most obvious translation and the one he prefers, though he concedes that there is no agreed upon consensus among scholars. That was in 1967 when Fr. Brown wrote his book. In my own research on the matter, I’ve found that the matter is still debated, and still along the lines that Fr. Brown describes in Jesus God and Man. It is also, true, however, that most contemporary translations of the Bible agree with Fr. Brown and translate Titus 2:13 to apply both titles “God” and “Savior” to Jesus Christ. Trent Horn, a Catholic apologist, agrees. Horn holds that Titus is very similar in syntax to 2 Peter 1:1, and that both verses apply the titles “God” and “Savior” to Jesus. So, while the debate continues, a consensus seems to be growing in favor of the translation “… of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

1 John 5:20: “And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” In this verse there is reference to “him who is true,” and to “his Son Jesus Christ.” Obviously, the first is a reference to God the Father, and the second a reference to Jesus Christ. The question is: to whom does “This is the true God and eternal life” refer? Both the Father and the Son are called “life” in the Johannine biblical tradition. However, “eternal life” probably references Jesus, since He is the one who came to give us “eternal life” and since, in 1 Jn 5:12, the Letter says, “He who has the Son has life.” Fr. Brown much prefers the claim that “This is the true God and eternal life,” refers to Jesus because grammar favors it, “his Son Jesus Christ” being the nearest subject to the phrase, and because refering to God the Father as “true God” would be saying the same thing twice using different words. Everyone knows that the Father is God. The author of 1 John is trying to make the point that Jesus Christ is “the true God and eternal life.”

Romans 9:5: “… to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.” There are three possible interpretations. First: “He who is God over all be [is] blessed forever”; or “He who is over all is God blessed forever.” In either case, Paul is giving a doxology to God the Father, and not referring to Jesus as God. But Romans 9:1-5 are about Jesus. Why would Paul inexplicably insert a doxology about the Father in a text about Jesus? We would more expect a statement of praise of Jesus. Fr. Brown does not like this interpretation for that reason, and also because the word order in the Greek does not work (for reasons he gives in his book that I don’t comprehend because I’m not an English major!). Second: “… the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all. God be [is] blessed forever.” While Fr. Brown thinks this interpretation works better than the first, it still has some of the same word order problems as the first and still has the problem of Paul introducing a doxology to God the Father in a text about Jesus. Third: “… the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever.” (the translation from the RSV Catholic Edition I provided above is a variant of this). Fr. Brown favors this translation. The Greek favors it, Fr. Brown thought, as does the context, for Paul opened by speaking of Jesus’ descent according to the flesh, then of Jesus as God. The only problem is, since Fr. Brown rejected the other verses from Paul’s corpus as calling Jesus God, this would remain as the only example of Paul’s doing so in all of his letters. Even if it’s agreed that Titus 2:13 calls Jesus God, it’s not at all agreed among scholars that Paul wrote the Letter to Titus. Most scholars regard Titus as pseudo-Pauline. Even still, it seems that we have in Romans 9:5 an example of the NT giving the title “God” to Jesus.

2 Peter 1:1: “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Fr. Brown points out that the problem with grammar is the same as with 2 Th 1:12 where he favored the interpretation that gives the title “God” to the Father and “Lord” to Jesus, thus distinguishing between the two and not giving the title “God” to Jesus. But Fr. Brown thinks 2 Peter 1:1 to be different. In 2 Pt 1:11, the author speaks of “the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” In that verse, it’s obvious and clear that both “Lord” and “Savior” refer to Jesus Christ. Just so, parallelism would recommend that in 2 Pt 1:1 “God” and “Savior” both refer to Jesus Christ. Indeed, Fr. Brown thinks this particular verse could almost be added to the list of passages where Jesus is clearly called “God.” Others agree with him, and I think Fr. Brown should have added this passage to that list.

So, to conclude: we have nine passages where the use of “God” for Jesus is questionable, either because of textual variants or because of syntax. Of those verses where the use is questionable for reasons of textual variants, Fr. Brown regarded Gal 2:20 and Acts 20:28 as too uncertain, but regarded John 1:18 as a text that probably does call Jesus “God.” For those texts where the question is rooted in syntax, Fr. Brown rejected Col 2:2 and 2 Th 1:12, but thought it likely that Tit 2:13, 1 Jn 5:20, Rm 9:5, and 2 Pt 1:1 do call Jesus “God,” almost putting 2 Pt 1:1 in with those texts that clearly call Jesus God.

In the next part of this series, I will consider those texts that, according to Fr. Brown and others, clearly call Jesus “God.”

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.