Jesus Is God: “Titles”

I originally titled this “Jesus Christ as God: Expounding the Inherent Theology of the New Testament”. But, it turned out I was really just expounding on my previous pieces on Jesus is God via biblical evidence, which are linked below. So, that’s what this is, a continuation of those pieces. In this line of thought here, however, we delve into titles like “God and Lord” and related titles, as that is a fascinating contribution to Christology and trinitology.*

I. Introduction

The Christian faith, as we understand it today, stands firmly on the bedrock of specific foundational doctrines – paramount among them, the concept of the Trinity and the divine nature of Jesus Christ. While the doctrine of the Trinity necessitates an examination of its own, the focus of the current discussion primarily focuses on the representation of Jesus Christ as God in the New Testament. This examination is a continuation of previous endeavours that can be found here: (https://robertdryer.com/jesus-is-god-as-a-new-testament-study/) and here: (https://robertdryer.com/jesus-is-god-an-argument/). These prior explorations, while delving into the textual support and arguments for Jesus’ divinity, serve as a prequel to the analysis intended in this study.

The belief in Jesus Christ as God lies at the very heart of Christianity, shaping not only its theological understanding but also its spiritual practice (the Eucharist comes to mind here). In continuing our systematic analysis, I aim to continue through textual references and linguistic constructs within the New Testament that affirm and enhance the understanding of Jesus Christ’s divinity. And as always I’ll use my theological framework to bring clarity too, via the FITT.

This exploration is devoted particularly to giving attention to the recurring themes and narratives within the New Testament where Jesus is portrayed as God, Savior, Master, or Lord. These multifaceted representations of Christ are not mere isolated epithets but form an intricate part of the theological fabric woven into the New Testament. As we delve deeper into these affirmations and their specific contexts, we seek to unravel the richness and complexity of Christ’s divine persona as captured within these sacred texts.

This investigation prioritizes the Pauline epistles, considering Paul’s unique perspective and significant contributions to the New Testament. By analyzing Paul’s representations of Jesus, we aim to further comprehend the divine persona of Jesus Christ as depicted in the New Testament. 

The objectives of this study align on two main axes: firstly, to conduct a brief analysis of linguistic and narrative features that emphasize Jesus Christ’s divinity within the New Testament (thus building on my previous work), and secondly, to unravel the theological implications arising from these findings. This study, therefore, aspires to contribute to the discourse where ever it may be going on around these subjects,  and to contribute to those looking for further clarity about the profound tenets of their faith. 

II. Pauline Testimony: Jesus as God, Savior, and Lord

The study anchors its exploration in an examination of Paul’s letters, given his substantial contribution to the New Testament and the insights his writings provide into early Christian perspectives on Jesus’s divine identity. 

Titus 2:13 serves as a compelling example, where Paul refers to Jesus as our “great God and Savior”. The particularity of this phrase is significant, transcending mere titular honor. It is a theological assertion that echoes powerfully within the early Christian community, impacting its faith, doctrine, and practices and eventually influencing the development of the Trinitarian doctrine as we know it today.

A basic linguistic and grammatical examination of Titus 2:13 provides insights into the nuanced interplay of the terms ‘God’, ‘Savior’, and ‘Jesus Christ’. Paul uses the Greek terms ‘θεός’ (God) and ‘σωτήρ’ (Savior), in an affirmation of Jesus Christ’s dual roles. In the immediate context of the epistle, this statement firmly anchors Jesus’ divine persona, bestowing upon Him roles traditionally ascribed to Yahweh in the Old Testament.

Beyond Titus 2:13, a comparative analysis with similar Pauline passages such as Romans 9:5 and Philippians 2:6 could offer a more comprehensive view of Paul’s representation of Jesus’ divinity. Such a comparison should illuminates the consistency in Paul’s theological views, providing a deeper understanding of Jesus Christ as God, Savior, and Lord within the Pauline corpus. Unfortunately, we won’t spend much time here on such an enterprise. 

This brief investigation into the Pauline corpus serves as a gateway to broader explorations of Jesus Christ’s divinity within the New Testament. It provides a platform to delve into the heart of one of Christianity’s most profound mysteries – the divine identity of Jesus Christ.

[please note: this section (3) can be skipped and is included because it’s an interesting contribution from the AI] 

When I was writing this piece, I was using ChatGTP to edit. However, it suggested a section on the Granville Sharp’s Rule that I found interesting. This following section is completely the AI so take it or leave it. My own understanding is the rule has fallen out of style. But the section was well written and a fascinating contribution I thought some would find interesting so I’m including it here…

III. Semantic and Syntax Clarity in Greek: The Unification of God and Savior

The exploration of Christ’s divinity in the New Testament brings us to the doorstep of ancient Greek semantics and syntax, and more specifically, to the intersection of language and theology. For centuries, scholars have been seeking to dissect and comprehend the Greek texts of the New Testament to bring clarity to the underlying theological implications. One such significant endeavor in this process is understanding Granville Sharp’s Rule, which is critical to our present examination of the portrayal of Jesus as God and Savior. 

Granville Sharp (1735–1813), a British philanthropist, linguist, and theologian, propounded an interpretive rule of Greek grammar known today as Granville Sharp’s Rule. This rule concerns the interpretation of the Greek New Testament when two nouns of the same case are connected by the conjunction ‘kai’ (and), where the first noun has an article, but the second does not. Sharp’s rule states that when this construction is encountered, both nouns refer to the same person or thing.

Sharp’s rule came into prominence primarily in relation to the Trinitarian controversy. Sharp, a fervent trinitarian, posited this rule to argue for the biblical basis of Jesus’ divinity, particularly in passages like Titus 2:13, where it reads: “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ”. In accordance with Sharp’s rule, this passage is suggesting that the God (θεός) and the Savior (σωτήρ) are one entity—Jesus Christ. 

However, as with any rule applied to languages, complexities and controversies abound. Sharp’s Rule is no exception. The rule’s counterarguments are multifaceted, often originating from alternative interpretations, translational challenges, and variances in Greek textual traditions.

One counterargument stems from the interpretation that the presence of ‘kai’ can denote a distinction between the two subjects. Critics of the rule propose that in Titus 2:13, ‘kai’ implies two distinct subjects: ‘God’ and ‘Savior’. This reading, however, significantly contrasts with the unified divine representation Sharp’s rule suggests.

Another counterpoint comes from the differences in Greek and English language syntax and semantics. The Greek language, unlike English, often omits the article (‘the’) before the noun in a sequence of nouns, which could potentially create ambiguity when translating these texts. Critics of Sharp’s rule argue that this aspect of Greek grammar could lead to an overly generalized application of the rule and a possible distortion of the intended meaning.

Moreover, considering the historical and linguistic contexts, it is crucial to note the inherent difficulties in translating and interpreting ancient texts. As an interpretive rule based on a specific linguistic structure, Sharp’s Rule might not always capture the nuanced complexities of the context in which these texts were written and received.

Despite these counterarguments, the value of Granville Sharp’s Rule in biblical studies cannot be denied. When applied judiciously, it provides an important linguistic tool to unearth the depths of New Testament theology. This tool, when used alongside the broader exegetical methods, can illuminate our understanding of Jesus as God and Savior.

Crucially, the debate around the application of Sharp’s Rule to Titus 2:13 brings to the fore the intricate and deeply intertwined relationship between language and theology. The discussion is not merely a quest for linguistic precision but an exploration of the mysteries of divine revelation as presented in the New Testament.

In conclusion, examining the role of Greek semantics and syntax in the interpretation of Jesus’ divinity broadens our theological perspective. As we venture into the complex terrains of biblical Greek, we encounter nuanced views of Jesus Christ as God, Savior, and Lord. This in-depth exploration illuminates the dynamic interplay between language and faith, inviting us to grapple with the profound theological implications beneath the surface of the biblical text. Regardless of our final stance on Granville Sharp’s Rule, the journey through this interpretive landscape helps enrich our understanding of one of Christianity’s most profound doctrines – the divinity of Christ.

IV. The Role of Trinitarian Terminology in Understanding Christ’s Divinity

The intricate nature of New Testament language and its implications on Christ’s divinity are further illustrated through the utilization of Trinitarian terminology. Central to Christian theology is the Trinitarian concept, affirming one God in three hypostases, or persons: Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Our current exploration focuses on this Trinitarian terminology, particularly the term **“hypostasis”, and its role in consolidating the understanding of Jesus as God.

Historically, “hypostasis” has been employed to navigate the paradox of the Trinity, signifying one God existing in three distinct yet coequal and coeternal persons. This term, with its philosophical and theological nuances, finds its roots in Greek philosophy but was recontextualized by Christian theologians to express their interpretation of God’s nature.

Initially in the philosophical context, “hypostasis” referred to ‘reality’ or ‘substance’. However, early Christian theologians, notably during the Councils of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.), employed “hypostasis” to distinguish the Godhead’s persons while upholding their unity. Within this Christian theological context, “hypostasis” signifies the individual identity or personhood within the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—with the Greek term “ousia” referring to the shared divine essence or being.

Appreciating “hypostasis” affords us valuable insights into Christ’s divinity. Recognizing Jesus Christ as one hypostasis of the Trinity asserts His full participation in the divine essence, helping us grasp New Testament declarations of Jesus’s divinity within the Trinitarian theology framework.

Trinitarian terminology in the New Testament seldom employs terms like “hypostasis” or “ousia”. These terms emerged as later theological developments aiming to articulate the New Testament authors’ intuitive understanding of God’s triune nature. However, the roots of Trinitarian thought can be discerned in the New Testament’s narratives and affirmations about Jesus.

For example, the Gospel of John commences with the affirmation that the Word (Logos) was both with God and was God (John 1:1). The Logos takes on flesh in the form of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), a transparent declaration of Christ’s divinity. Likewise, Pauline epistles often begin with a benediction invoking God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ together, suggesting a unity of divine action and existence (1 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2). Further, in Matthew 28:19, the Great Commission presents a triadic formula, as Jesus commands His disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, validating the co-equality and co-eternity of the three persons.

The New Testament authors’ usage of Trinitarian language, though not as elaborated as later creedal formulas, is pivotal in affirming Jesus’s divinity. Their claims, prayers, and formulas outline God’s triune nature and Jesus’s fundamental role within the Trinity.

In summary, understanding “hypostasis” and the use of Trinitarian language in the New Testament is crucial for comprehending Jesus’s divinity. They offer a necessary framework that enhances our understanding of the New Testament’s depiction of Jesus as God. Despite the linguistic complexity of the New Testament and early Christian theology, it invites us into a deep exploration of the divine mystery, offering enriching insights into God’s nature as expressed through Jesus Christ. 

In the Pauline letters, the notion of Jesus’ divine personhood is presented in a way that resonates strongly with the Trinitarian understanding of God. It’s important to note that the Pauline depiction of Jesus as ‘God’, ‘Savior’, and ‘Lord’ does not exist in isolation but is part of the broader theological landscape deeply rooted in the Trinitarian concept.

For instance, in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he offers a fundamental Trinitarian formulation: “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (1 Corinthians 8:6). Here, Paul uses what would later become vital Trinitarian language, differentiating yet connecting the roles of God the Father and Jesus Christ. The unity and distinction that Paul establishes mirror the same unity and distinction inherent in the Trinitarian understanding of God.

Moreover, Paul’s affirmation of Jesus as ‘God’ and ‘Savior’ in Titus 2:13 not only asserts Jesus’ divine identity but also underscores the Trinitarian understanding of Jesus as one ‘hypostasis’ of the Godhead, sharing in the divine essence. The harmony between Paul’s presentation and Trinitarian theology, despite the latter’s later development, enhances our understanding of Jesus’s divinity within the New Testament and sheds light on the early emergence of Trinitarian thought within the burgeoning Christian community.

This Trinitarian understanding not only permeates the Pauline letters but is also implicit in the Gospel accounts and other New Testament writings. Expressions of Jesus’s authority, His role in creation, and His involvement in divine functions, like forgiveness of sins, further corroborate this understanding. For instance, Colossians 1:16-17 declares, “For by him [Jesus] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” This statement, while not directly invoking Trinitarian terminology, demonstrates an understanding of Jesus’s divine personhood and essence, resonating with the Trinitarian affirmation of the Son’s participation in the Godhead.

Interestingly, it’s crucial to note that this nascent Trinitarian understanding did not eliminate the distinctiveness of each hypostasis. The New Testament writings maintain a clear delineation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, emphasizing the relational dynamics within the Trinity. The Father sends the Son, the Son accomplishes the Father’s will, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, acting in the world.

A crucial aspect of this is the ‘economic’ concept of the Trinity, where each hypostasis is understood in terms of their role in the ‘economy’ of salvation. The Father creates and sends, the Son redeems, and the Spirit sanctifies. Even within this economic framework, however, the three hypostases are understood as co-equal and co-eternal, each fully participating in the divine essence.

Ultimately, Trinitarian terminology and theology provide a robust framework for understanding the New Testament affirmations of Christ’s divinity. Despite the evolution and refinement of these concepts over time, their roots in the biblical texts offer a critical foundation. Through this lens, the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as God emerges more clearly, illuminating the rich theological fabric of early Christianity and our understanding of God as Trinity.

V. The Full Interval Trinity Theory (FITT)

The Full Interval Trinity Theory (FITT), proposed by yours truly, offers a unique and innovative perspective on the understanding of the Trinity and, by extension, the divinity of Jesus Christ. At least by my estimation, naturally. FITT is a theological model that seeks to articulate the dynamic relationship within the Godhead, emphasizing the fullness of divinity inherent in each Person of the Trinity: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.

FITT is grounded in two primary concepts: Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP) and Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO). Think of it as like the glue that puts all the trinitarian language together. DivAP posits that all qualities and capacities inherent to the divine essence are fully actualized in each Person of the Trinity fully. This means that each Person – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – embodies the fullness of divinity, not as separate entities but as distinct expressions of the same divine essence. This concept aligns with the traditional Christian understanding of God as Actus Purus, a state of full actualization without potentiality. In God, all that transcends is actual and all actuality transcends.

On the other hand, DivIO symbolizes the boundless potential of the divine essence, eternally open to actualization by each Trinitarian Person. This reflects the concept of God as Immanentia Omnis, a state of infinite openness and immanence particularly to the perfection God is. DivIO suggests that while each Person of the Trinity fully actualizes the divine essence, there remains an infinite openness for further actualization, reflecting the dynamic and ever-unfolding nature of the divine. The state in which, the person’s presence is perfectly proximate to the other and all proximity pervades. 

The FITT model, therefore, presents the Trinity as a dynamic, relational model within the divine nature spectrum. It emphasizes the distinct operational identities of each Person while affirming their shared divine essence. This captures the unity in diversity within the Godhead, underscoring the ongoing and dynamic relationship between God and creation.

In the context of understanding Jesus’s divinity, FITT provides a robust framework. It affirms that Jesus, as the Son, fully embodies the divine essence, actualizing all qualities and capacities inherent to divinity. This aligns with the New Testament affirmations of Jesus’s divinity, where He is portrayed as God, Savior, and Lord. For instance, in John 1:1, the Word (Logos), which became flesh in Jesus (John 1:14), is declared to be God. This affirmation of Jesus’s divinity is consistent with FITT’s understanding of Jesus as fully actualizing the divine essence.

Moreover, FITT’s emphasis on the dynamic and relational nature of the Trinity resonates with the New Testament portrayal of Jesus’s role in the divine economy of salvation. Jesus, as the Son, is sent by the Father (John 3:16) and accomplishes the Father’s will (John 6:38). He is involved in creation (John 1:3), redemption (Ephesians 1:7), and will return to judge the living and the dead (2 Timothy 4:1). These roles, while distinct, do not detract from Jesus’s divinity but rather affirm His full participation in the divine essence and work.

Furthermore, FITT’s concept of Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO) illuminates the New Testament portrayal of Jesus’s ongoing work and presence in the world through the Holy Spirit. In John 14:16-17, Jesus promises to send another Advocate, the Spirit of truth, who will dwell in believers. This suggests an ongoing actualization of the divine in the world, consistent with DivIO’s understanding of the infinite potential of the divine essence.

The Full Interval Trinity Theory offers a lens through which to understand the divinity of Jesus Christ. By emphasizing the full actualization and infinite potential of the divine essence in each Person of the Trinity, FITT affirms the New Testament portrayal of Jesus as fully divine. It provides a dynamic and relational model of the Trinity that resonates with the biblical narrative, enhancing our understanding of one of Christianity’s most profound mysteries – the divine identity of Jesus Christ.

VI. Conclusion

The exploration of Jesus Christ’s divinity, as presented in the New Testament, is a journey through the intricate tapestry of Christian faith and doctrine. This journey, while rooted in the textual and linguistic analysis of the New Testament, transcends the boundaries of academia, inviting us into a deeper understanding of the profound mysteries of Christian faith.

The Pauline testimony, with its nuanced portrayal of Jesus as God, Savior, and Lord, provides a robust foundation for understanding Jesus’s divinity. Paul’s letters, with their rich theological insights and linguistic constructs, serve as a testament to the early Christian understanding of Jesus’s divine identity. The analysis of passages such as Titus 2:13, Romans 9:5, and Philippians 2:6 illuminates the consistency in Paul’s theological views, offering a deeper understanding of Jesus Christ’s divine persona.

The exploration of Greek semantics and syntax, particularly through the lens of Granville Sharp’s Rule, offers valuable insights into the linguistic complexities of the New Testament. While the rule has its critics, its judicious application can serve as a valuable tool in the interpretation of the New Testament, enhancing our understanding of Jesus as God and Savior.

The use of Trinitarian terminology in the New Testament, particularly the term “hypostasis”, plays a pivotal role in consolidating our understanding of Jesus as God. The concept of the Trinity, with its affirmation of one God in three persons, provides a robust framework for understanding Jesus’s divinity. The New Testament’s use of Trinitarian language, while not as elaborated as later creedal formulas, is pivotal in affirming Jesus’s divinity.

The Full Interval Trinity Theory (FITT), with its emphasis on Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP) and Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO), offers a unique perspective on the understanding of the Trinity and, by extension, the divinity of Jesus Christ. FITT affirms that Jesus, as the Son, fully embodies the divine essence, actualizing all qualities and capacities inherent to divinity. This aligns with the New Testament affirmations of Jesus’s divinity, where He is portrayed as God, Savior, and Lord.

In conclusion, the exploration of Jesus Christ’s divinity in the New Testament is a multifaceted endeavor, encompassing linguistic analysis, theological reflection, and historical context. The key findings of this exploration affirm the profound significance of Jesus’s divinity in the context of Christian faith, highlighting how this fundamental belief has shaped Christian doctrine and practice throughout history.

The belief in Jesus Christ as God lies at the very heart of Christianity, shaping not only its theological understanding but also its spiritual practice. The New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as God, Savior, and Lord is not a mere titular honor but a profound theological assertion that has echoed powerfully within the Christian community, impacting its faith, doctrine, and practices.

The exploration of Greek semantics and syntax, the use of Trinitarian terminology, and the application of the Full Interval Trinity Theory (FITT) all contribute to a deeper understanding of Jesus’s divinity. They illuminate the richness and complexity of Christ’s divine persona as captured within the New Testament, inviting us to grapple with the profound theological implications beneath the surface of the biblical text.

The implications of these findings for Christian faith and doctrine are profound. They affirm the centrality of Jesus’s divinity in Christian belief and practice, underscoring the importance of rigorous textual and theological study in the life of faith. They invite us to delve deeper into the mysteries of faith, to wrestle with the complexities of divine revelation, and to stand in awe of the profound mystery that is God.

In the end, the exploration of Jesus Christ’s divinity is not merely an academic exercise but a journey of faith. It is a journey that invites us to encounter the divine, to grapple with the mysteries of faith, and to be transformed by the profound truths of Christian doctrine. As we continue this journey, may we be ever mindful of the profound significance of Jesus’s divinity, and may our understanding of this fundamental truth continue to shape and inform our faith.

Additional Notes *, **

*Please note the AI wrote large swaths of this paper way better than I did so I just rolled with it. If that offends you don’t read this. My goal for this was just to get the point across not be a writer per se. The subject is pretty obscure so it’s helpful to have the AI just knock out what needs to be said.

**If you want more background into my theological approach to the trinity you can go here for a start: 

The above link will help with this reflection: 

In the realm of Trinitarian theology, the term “hypostasis” is used to describe the individual reality or personal existence of each of the three Persons of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This concept helps us articulate the unique individuality of each Person of the Trinity, while also affirming their unity as one God.

In the context of the Divine Confluent Identity Theory (DCIT), each hypostasis, or Person of the Trinity, fully embodies the divine essence in terms of Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP) and Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO). This means that each Person of the Trinity fully actualizes all the potentials inherent in the divine essence in an infinitely open manner. This concept underscores the dynamic interplay and mutual indwelling among the divine Persons, each expressing the divine essence and engaging uniquely with creation.

The term “hypostasis” also plays a crucial role in the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. This doctrine refers to the union of Christ’s divinity and humanity in one hypostasis, or individual existence. This doctrine affirms that the human nature assumed by the divine hypostasis exists within the personal reality of Jesus Christ. It emphasizes the personal identity of the Son, who unites Himself with humanity while retaining His divine nature.

In the context of the Full Interval Trinity Theory and the Divine Confluent Identity Theory, the Hypostatic Union can be understood through four main aspects:

1. Interval T = [Actus Purus, Immanentia Omnis]: The Hypostatic Union is framed within the full actualization of divine potentiality (DivAP) and complete immanence (DivIO) manifested in Christ. This perspective represents the incarnation of Christ as the complete actualization of divine potential in an infinitely open and immanent manner within creation while maintaining divine perfection.

2. Pure Agency (PA): Within the context of Jesus, the PA (DivAP * DivIO)+S indicates that Christ, as the Son, fully embodies and actualizes all divine potentials within His unique relational identity, which is both human and divine.

3. Relational Identity Theory: The Hypostatic Union can be considered as the expression of the unique relational identity of the Son. The Son exists in relation to the Father and the Spirit while also engaging in relationship with humanity. In Christ, divine and human natures interact and communicate, embodying the perfect unity-in-diversity characteristic of the Trinity.

4. Perichoretic Unity Proposition (PUP): The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union utilizes the concept of perichoresis or mutual indwelling, to illuminate how the divine and human natures co-exist in the one Person of Christ. Just as the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, so too is the divine nature in the human, and the human in the divine in the Person of Christ, without confusion or change.

Thus, within this framework, the Hypostatic Union is understood not as a static, abstract doctrine, but as a dynamic, relational reality deeply rooted in the Trinitarian identity and God’s loving relationship with creation. It underscores Christ’s unique identity as fully God and fully man, emphasizing the inseparable unity of his divine and human natures, and provides a foundation for understanding the broader narrative of God’s redemptive action in the world.

By emphasizing the Hypostatic Union, we highlight the broad applicability and significance of the concept of “hypostasis” in Christian theology. It shows how this concept is used to navigate some of the most profound and complex mysteries of the Christian faith, including the nature of the Trinity and the nature of Jesus Christ.