Bible Study The Begotten Word of God

[Squeakybro]

The whole reason they thought Jesus was claiming to be God was because they didnt have the Holy Spirit. So they had no spiritual understanding.

John 7:39
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

They picked up stones to stone Him because they didnt understand.

 

[FreeGrace]

The whole reason they thought Jesus was claiming to be God was because they didnt have the Holy Spirit. So they had no spiritual understanding.

John 7:39
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

They picked up stones to stone Him because they didnt understand.

SB,

They didn't understand...

Well, I suppose they didn't understand a lot of things. Explain then...

Why Thomas calls Jesus God in John 20:28? (Note, Thomas addresses Jesus specifically.)

Why does God call Jesus God in Heb. 1:8?

Why does John the apostle state that Jesus was the Word which was God that became flesh (John 1:1,14)?

Why is the phrase "Call upon the name of the LORD" (Hebrew, YHWH, i.e., Psalm 116:4) used only of God on the OT, and translated into the Greek in the LXX as "Call upon the name of the LORD (greek, KURIOS)," applied to Jesus in the NT (1 Cor. 1:2) if Jesus is not God in flesh?

Why does the apostle John say that Jesus was, "...calling God His own Father, making Himself equal to God," (John 5:18)?

What did Jesus say that caused the Pharisees to claim that Jesus was making Himself out to be God?

Several times in John we see the Jews gathering stones to stone Jesus. Each time it is because they understand Him to be claiming to be God - to be equal with God. Were they wrong in each instance? Did Jesus allow them to misunderstand and not correct them? If He were not God, that would have been sin for Him to do that.

John 5:16-18 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath.

But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."

Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Does the Bible in fact say that Jesus is God’s Son, and not just infer it?

Answer:
Mark says it at the outset of his gospel (1:1).

The angel told Mary her child would be the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

John the Baptist said the same thing (John 1:34).

Nathanael said it (John 1:49).

Martha believed it (John 11:27).

The centurion said so (Matthew 27:54).

Jesus admitted that He said so (John 10:36).

Jesus clearly says it in John 11:4. Let's look at that one more closely:

When Jesus heard that, He said, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it."

So to glorify the Son of God is to glorify God... Think about it. Jesus is acknowledging here that for Him to claim to be the Son of God - which he clearly claimed - was to claim to be God.

The demons called Jesus the Son of God (Matthew 8:29; Luke 4:41; Mark 3:11).

The charge against Jesus was that He claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:43; John 19:7), a claim He never denied, and He plainly acknowledged it in Luke 22:70.

The Gospel of John was written to convince the reader that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31). ("...the Christ, the Son of the living God.")

Why, you might ask, does Jesus not say so more plainly? I think the answer is found in Matthew 16:15-17:

Matthew 16:15-17 He said to them, “And who do you say that I am?†Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!"

Jesus did not want Peter and His disciples to believe He was the Son of God just because He said so. He wanted God to bring them to this conclusion, based upon the overwhelming evidence of Scripture and our Lord’s life and teaching. Jesus explained that He spoke in parables so that only those genuinely seeking the truth would find it.

And SB, if you genuinely seek the truth, you will find it. But you are not there yet. I do not mean to offend you when I say this, or talk down to you. But it is the truth. Until you trust in Christ as the living Son of God - you cannot truly know Him.

A insightful question t oask is, "What would the term 'Son of God' have meant to a 1st Century, pious Jew?"

Answer:
I think our safest and most reliable course of action is to see how the term is used and understood in the New Testament. Here are the references to "Son of God" in the NT:

Matt. 4:3; 4:6; 8:29; 26:63; 27:40; 27:43; 27:54

Mk. 1:1; 3:11; 15:39; 1:35; 3:38; 4:3; 4:9; 4:41; 22:70

Jn. 1:34; 1:49; 3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4; 11:27; 19:7; 20:31

Acts 8:37; 9:20

Rom. 1:4

2 Co. 1:19

Gal. 2:20

Eph. 4:13

Heb. 4:14; 6:6; 7:3; 10:29

1 Jn. 3:8; 4:15; 5:5; 5:10; 5:12; 5:13; 5:20

Rev. 2:18

It is interesting to note that Satan, in the temptation of our Lord (Matthew 4:3, 6; Luke 4:3, 9), challenged Jesus on the basis of His being the Son of God (the “if†here does not cast doubt on this fact, but is used in the sense of, “since you are. . .â€Â). This is what is called in Greek the first class conditional statement. It requires an EI "if"/since" in the indicative mood in the protasis (the if clause part of the statement). That is what we have in Matthew 4. (You can look this up in any Greek grammar.)

So what, you say. Well, in such an instance this construction is best translated as "since..." IOW, the first class conditional statement in Greek is one that affrirms the reality of the condition. The statement is assumed to be true - hence the "since" in translation is usually the most clear about what was intended. What Satan was saying is that it was assumed that Jesus was the Son of God. "OK, since you're the Son of God, prove it! Cast yourself..."

I believe that here Satan is challenging Jesus to (mis)use His power and authority as Messiah. = "You are the Messiah, so let’s see you act like it."

The demons, too, referred to Jesus as the "Son of God" (Matthew 8:29; Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41). The text in Luke is most enlightening:

Luke 4:41 Demons also came out of many, crying out, “You are the Son of God!†But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.

Notice that being “the Son of God†was the same as being “the Christ†– the Messiah. I realize that you accept Jesus as the Christ - the Messiah. But to do so means to accept Him as the Son of God. And to do so also means to accept Him as God.

I think it is safe to say that in nearly every instance in the NT, being the “Son of God†meant our Lord was the Christ, the Messiah (see John 1:49; 11:27).

There are indications, however, that as the “Son of God,†Jesus was more than a mere man, a mere “son of David,†who would sit on the throne of His father, David. This is especially clear in the Gospel of John, beginning in chapter 5. It also seems to be clear at the trial of our Lord. When Jesus was asked by the priest if He was the “Son of God,†He admitted that He was, and was charged with blasphemy – claiming to be God (see Matthew 16:63, 65, 68).

You see, all of these people are not drawing wrong conclusions. I think we need to discuss what "son of" means as used in scripture. To say someone is the "son of" means he is that type of whatever. It means that he is that thing. The expression "son of man" is used in theOT to refer to being human - a man. The reason Jesus referred to Himself as theSon of Man was because of the whole focus for why He came.

jesus came to die for mankind. God's plan was for God Himself to become man, live as man, andthen die asman - for mankind. Hence, the Messiah is twice referred to in the OT as the"Son of Man."

Eve understand from God's promise to her that her seed was oneday going to defeat Satan. As only a man - that could never happen. As God in the flesh - it did.

FG

 

[Squeakybro]

you said
Why Thomas calls Jesus God in John 20:28? (Note, Thomas addresses Jesus specifically.)

I said
Thomas wasnt addressing Jesus specifically. Thomas was addressing God and Jesus specifically. Thomas already knew at that time that God was in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself. And by knowing that Thomas didnt want to address one and leave the other out.

2 Cor 5:19
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
(NKJ)

 

[FreeGrace]

you said
Why Thomas calls Jesus God in John 20:28? (Note, Thomas addresses Jesus specifically.)

I said
Thomas wasn't addressing Jesus specifically. Thomas was addressing God and Jesus specifically. Thomas already knew at that time that God was in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself. And by knowing that Thomas didnt want to address one and leave the other out.

2 Cor 5:19
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
(NKJ)

SB,

Thx. Now if you read that text in John 20 carefully in context, it is quite clear:

John 20:27-29 Then He said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and observe My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Don't be an unbeliever, but a believer." 28 Thomas responded to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said, "Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who believe without seeing."

Here's a note from the Bible Knowledge Commentary:

Thomas’ response, My Lord and My God! is the high point of the Gospel. Here was a skeptical man, confronted by the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. He announced that Jesus, the Man of Galilee, is God manifest in the flesh. Thus the truths in the first chapter were realized personally in this apostle (1:1, 14, 18). The Resurrection (a) demonstrated that what Jesus predicted about His being raised was true (Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; John 2:19), (b) proved that Jesus is the Son of God (Rom. 1:4) and was sent by God (“vindicated by the Spirit,†1 Tim. 3:16), (c) testified to the success of His mission of salvation (Rom. 4:25), (d) entitled Jesus to a position of glory (1 Peter 1:11), and (e) proclaimed that Jesus is the “Lord†(Acts 2:36).
Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

Now in John 1:1c Jesus Christ is called God. Here in John 20:28 he again is called "hO THEOS" (God). Note for those who think it really matters, that there is an article in John 20:28. Thomas clearly called Jesus "my Lord and my God." There is absolutely no indication at all of the Father being involved in this particular conversation at all. The English text has it, "Thomas responded to Him."

In Greek it is, APEKRITHA THOMAS KAI EIPEN AUTO- "answered Thomas and said to Him... This is quite clear. Thomas answered Jesus and said to Him (Jesus).

Let's look at that 2nd text in context:

2 Corinthians 5:18, 19 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Clearly - from vs. 18 - the"God" here is referring not to God in general, but to the Father. This is talking about how God, the Father, reconciled the world to Himself. It was His plan to do that through His Son becoming a man and paying the penalty for those sins. Vs. 18 speaks of "through Christ." The meaning of the phrase "in Christ" is determined by its context.

Vs. 18 has DIA CHRISTOU - "through Christ." Vs. 19 has EN CHRISTO - "in Christ." But this preposition (EN) can mean all kinds of things in Greek. What does it mean to say that the Father was "EN CHRISTO?"

Now I hate to get technical, but I looked this up in Wallace's grammar - p. 175. EN plus the dative is most often called "the dative of sphere." (Dative is the case here.)

Dative of sphere emphasizes the sphere or rhelm in which the word related takes place. This is quite common. For example, in Luke 3:16 John said "I baptize you "in water" - or, "with water." The idea is that the means by which John baptized was water - rather than the Spirit. Similarly here, the "means" by which God reconciled the world was "in Christ" - "by means of Christ."

The point of all this is that we should not take "in" to literally mean that the Father was physically or in some other sense "inside" Christ. And when in doubt, as always, consider the context. The context is clear - "God reconciled us to Himself through Christ."

That's what that text is saying.

Thx,

FG

 

[Squeakybro]

you said
John 20:27-29 Then He said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and observe My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Don't be an unbeliever, but a believer." 28 Thomas responded to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said, "Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who believe without seeing."

I said
Your forgetting one very important thing. John 20 was after Jesus had already walked with the disciples for 3 years. They already knew that God was in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself. There never was a question about that to the disciples.

John 15:22-27
22 "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.
23 "He who hates Me hates My Father also.
24 "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father.
25 "But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, 'They hated Me without a cause.'
26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.
27 "And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.
(NKJ)

 

[FreeGrace]

SB,

Bottom line: Thomas called Jesus "my Lord and my God" and Jesus did not correct Him.

FG

 

[Squeakybro]

Thats true and if I stood before Jesus I would of addressed them both also. Its just like on judgment day everyone is going to say, Lord Lord. Do think they will say that because Jesus is Lord Lord, or because their addressing both the Lord Jesus and also the Lord God almighty.

Luke 6:46
46 "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?
(NKJ)

Matt 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
(NKJ)

 

[FreeGrace]

Thats true and if I stood before Jesus I would of addressed them both also. Its just like on judgment day everyone is going to say, Lord Lord. Do think they will say that because Jesus is Lord Lord, or because their addressing both the Lord Jesus and also the Lord God almighty.

Luke 6:46
46 "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?
(NKJ)

Matt 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
(NKJ)

Hello, SB.

I do not agree with your opinion about what this means. I suppose you're not too surprised. I'll keep this short. First, notice that he said, "'I never knew you." This is a parable. We need to be especially careful about the conclusions we draw from parables.

But this matters not since this is simply not relevant. The passage you quoted has to do with whether or not the person who called Christ "Lord" ever really knew Him. It has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus is the Lord. The fact remains: Thomas called Jesus Lord and God. And Jesus Christ did not correct him.

You still haven't dealt with this issue.

Have a good evening.

FG

 

[Squeakybro]

you said
You still haven't dealt with this issue.

I said
Yes I did. In a spiritual way. Your assuming that the word and is for two titles to one person. But that verse is a circumstantial verse. The word and can be applied as to one person or two persons. Its not a factual verse. Now the next two verses are factual verses. There is one God the Father. Or there is one God and Father.

John 20:28
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
(NKJ)

1 Cor 8:6
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
(NKJ)

Eph 4:6
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
(NKJ)

 

[Vice]

FreeGrace, you have dealt just fine with the deity of Christ. Sb has not. Sb relies on a spirit other than the Christian Holy Spirit, which is why he wrongly interprets the scriptures and dismisses any structural and grammatical analysis of the Greek texts as 'intellectual idiocy.'

It has probably never occured to SB that God entered into human history at the perfect linguistic time--when Greek and Latin (two very precise languages) were widely being used, thus ensuring that the things he spoke could be recorded with great clarity. He gave us the ability to interpret and find deeper meanings in the languages he used, but those languages and abilities are being ridiculed and overridden by the phrase "the Holy Spirit revealed to me..."

Unfortunately, SB also has to deal with plenty of other scriptures that call Jesus God:

(taken from NKJV)


"....looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." --Titus 2:13
(hmmmm, I wonder who said that he would come again? God the Father? Or was it Jesus?)

"...of whom are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen." --Rom 9:5
(pretty clear statement here. Christ is the eternally blessed God.)

"Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." -2 Peter 1:1
(Hmmm, there's that God and Savior Jesus Christ again. How strange!)

"...and his name will be called wonderful counsellor, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, prince of peace." (emphases mine) --Isaiah 9:6
(so are there two Gods or is there only one God?)

"...then they will look on me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for him as one mourns for his only son..." --Zech 12:10
(What? God was pierced? When did this happen? Oh, I remember! That was in John 19:37.)


FreeGrace, you've been far more gracious with SB than I've been, but it's clear that he follows the instructions of a different spirit. Therefore, unless he ceases to pontificate, I urge you brother not to cast your pearls before swine.

 

[Squeakybro]

you said

Sb relies on a spirit other than the Christian Holy Spirit, which is why he wrongly interprets the scriptures and dismisses any structural and grammatical analysis of the Greek texts as 'intellectual idiocy.'


I said
It appears I do deal with a different spirit than you do. Mine is the one from the Word of God. Not one that man has perverted with his grammatical pervertion.
Its like the way you perverted this verse. It starts out speaking about God the Father. Ends with God the Father and then adds in the Savior Jesus Christ.

Titus 2:11-13
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,
12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,
13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
(NKJ)

 

[FreeGrace]

you said
You still haven't dealt with this issue.

I said
Yes I did. In a spiritual way. Your assuming that the word and is for two titles to one person. But that verse is a circumstantial verse. The word and can be applied as to one person or two persons. Its not a factual verse. Now the next two verses are factual verses. There is one God the Father. Or there is one God and Father.

John 20:28
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
(NKJ)

<snip>

No, SB, it cannot. The context is quite clear, as is the grammar. You can say that Thomas was wrong if you like. But to say that Thomas was addrssing it to two different people does not work grammatically, not does it fit the fact that Thomas addressed it "to Him."

FG

 

[FreeGrace]

<snip>
Unfortunately, SB also has to deal with plenty of other scriptures that call Jesus God:

(taken from NKJV)


"....looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." --Titus 2:13
(hmmmm, I wonder who said that he would come again? God the Father? Or was it Jesus?)

"Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." -2 Peter 1:1
(Hmmm, there's that God and Savior Jesus Christ again. How strange!)


FreeGrace, you've been far more gracious with SB than I've been, but it's clear that he follows the instructions of a different spirit. Therefore, unless he ceases to pontificate, I urge you brother not to cast your pearls before swine.

Vice,

Thx. The two passages I quoted from your post above are very interesting. They follow what's called the Granville-Sharp rule. When I get time, I'll go into this some, if interested. But if I do, it'll be for your benefit, not SB's. I have to admit - SB has not shown a willingness to address the issues I bring up. He is not "fighting fair." :-? I must admit I am losing patience. He has shown little indication of a desire to genuinely seek the truth, IMO. I'm giving him every benefit-of-the-doubt that I can... but he must start responding to posts I make.

But I will say this about those two passages: the G-S rule maintains that those passages are speaking about one person. IOW, "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" is referring to one person. It cannot be two. This grammar rule is never violated even one time in the Greek NT or the Greek Septuagint. Not once.

Perhaps SB would like to give some evidence (from the text and surrounding text only) that it should be translated as two persons... "our great God" and our "Savior, Jesus Christ." But this is not grammatically possible.

I'll come back to this later. It's a powerful argument for the deity of Christ. Dr. Daniel Wallace of the NET Bible (editor) at http://www.bible.org has done a thorough analysis of the G-S rule in his grammar.

Thx Vice,

FG

 

[Vice]

But I will say this about those two passages: the G-S rule maintains that those passages are speaking about one person. IOW, "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" is referring to one person. It cannot be two. This grammar rule is never violated even one time in the Greek NT or the Greek Septuagint. Not once.

Re: Titus 2:13

I can no longer remember if I was taught that particular rule in my NT Greek classes. The only reason I brought up the Titus passage is because I vaguely recall a Greek scholar opposing Dr Julius Mantey on the 'issue' of Christ's deity. The scholar (whose name I no longer remember) then went on to discuss the difficulty he had with Titus 2:13 because, according to him, it seemed to be a passage that actually claimed that Jesus was God.

Ah well, back to Mounce.

 

[Squeakybro]

you said
No, SB, it cannot. The context is quite clear, as is the grammar. You can say that Thomas was wrong if you like. But to say that Thomas was addrssing it to two different people does not work grammatically, not does it fit the fact that Thomas addressed it "to Him."
I said
I think your forgetting something very important here. None of the bible was written in the grammatical contents that it is written in now. When all the books of the new testament were written they were written no periods , no comma's , no capitol letters. Man has done all that, and anything man has a part in you know they can get deceived by the devil.
Now with the fear of God in someone and all the disciples had it. Do you really believe that they would ignore God and just address Jesus after Jesus had taught them that it wasnt Him doing the works but God that was dwelling in Him.

John 14:10
10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.
(NKJ)

 

[Vice]

you're forgetting a couple of things first that every language has a grammatical structure to it no matter how primitive it is thus it is wrong for you to say that none of the bible was written in the grammatical contents --whatever that means-- that it is written in now because koine greek has a grammatical structure second punctuation is important but the meaning of any sentence can be grasped quite intelligibly without punctuation for example this paragraph has no commas periods or capital letters but you can understand it nonetheless

I think you are just grasping at straws now.

 

[Squeakybro]

Your the one that started this grammatical arguement not me. And what it appears is your useing that to over ride the Holy Spirit. And it is a silly arguement.
The point being that the Holy Spirit only quotes verses and a christian can rely on them verses from the Holy Spirit.
And when I ask who was God I can trust the Holy Spirit when He says There is only one God the Father.

1 Cor 8:6
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
(NKJ)

Eph 4:6
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
(NKJ)

 

[FreeGrace]

But I will say this about those two passages: the G-S rule maintains that those passages are speaking about one person. IOW, "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" is referring to one person. It cannot be two. This grammar rule is never violated even one time in the Greek NT or the Greek Septuagint. Not once.

Re: Titus 2:13

I can no longer remember if I was taught that particular rule in my NT Greek classes. The only reason I brought up the Titus passage is because I vaguely recall a Greek scholar opposing Dr Julius Mantey on the 'issue' of Christ's deity. The scholar (whose name I no longer remember) then went on to discuss the difficulty he had with Titus 2:13 because, according to him, it seemed to be a passage that actually claimed that Jesus was God.

Ah well, back to Mounce.

Vice,

You know, I can't remember it being anything of a major emphasis either - but it was touched on - when we spent time talking about the place of the article in Greek. Wallace's grammar has a thorough coverage of the article. I think he did some research on it for his masters or doctorate.

We used Mounce and Robertson in our 2nd year. I'm fairly sure that Mounce discusses it, but I don't have it with me here at work. I've noticed that in some instances the grammars don't give all the requirements for the rule. Dr. Paul Dixon has some things to say on it too, if I remember correctly. I believe he talked about the importance of being sure that you were meeting the requirements of the rule.

The problem is that it has abused in the past. Sometimes people try to apply it where it doesn't fit - where it doesn't meet all of the requirements. Those who hold to Christ not being God have tried to find examples in the NT or LXX, but have not been able to find any exceptions. In each instance, one or mre of the rules is violated. They say, "The G-S rule has exceptions," but none have been demonstrated.

Anyway, here's a brief explanation followed by the NET note (http://www.bible.org) on Titus 2:13 which explains how the rule is applied.

Granville Sharp rule:
There are four texts with clear grammatical forms following the G-S rule, proving that Jesus Christ is God (2 Thessalonians 1:12, 1 Timothy 5:21, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1). Each fit the "Granville Sharp" Greek grammatical rule in which two "titles" are describing the same person. IOW, in each of those instances above the Greek actually clearly states that Jesus is God - though it is not always as clear in the English how specific it is in the Greek. Dr. Daniel Wallace in His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics has a section going into great detail on this - but it requires some background in NT Greek. Let me just list one below - Titus 2:13 with the NET note. FYI, this Granville Sharp rule finds over 100 instances that it appears in the NT, and in every instance it can be shown that it does refer to the same person. "our great God" and "Savior Jesus Christ" is the same person.

Titus 2:13 - as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.20
20tn The terms "God and Savior" both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-kai-noun (where kai = the conjunction usually translated as "and"), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as "the friend and brother," "the God and Father," etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp's point. The only issue is whether terms such as "God" and "Savior" could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both "God" (THEOS) and "savior" (SOTAR) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp's rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp's rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp's rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp's rule see D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.

In order for a construction to meet the requirements of the G-S rule, it had to be in the article-noun-kai-noun format. IOW, an article with a noun followed by KAI (conjunction-"and") followed by another noun. The two nouns have to both be singular. They also have to be of the same case (both nominative, genitive, dative, etc.) The nouns can have modifying adjectives present, but cannot be proper nouns, though the rule has shown to apply in some instances there as well. Studies have been done to show that even with plural nouns the rule usually holds. But G-S defined it in the singular only, and it has been demonstrated that there are no exceptions in the NT in the singular. In Titus 2:13 we have:

TOU MEGALOU THEOU KAI SOTAROS hAMON IASOU CHRISTOU
the great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Article (TOU-"the"), noun ([with modifier] - MEGALOU THEOU - "the great God"), KAI ("and"), noun (SOTAROS hAMON - "our Savior"), "Jesus Christ"

So it should be translated something like,

our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (Jesus Christ is appositive) or
our great God and Savior (Jesus Christ). I prefer the latter because apposition is so often misunderstood by the reader when just commas are used.

1 John 2:22, 23 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Thx,

FG

 

[Squeakybro]

Those who think Jesus is God cannot confess Jesus as coming in the flesh because they have to say that God came in the flesh. Now confess means to "agree fully". When it says that Jesus came in the flesh, to agree fully with that statement means they cannot say He was God.

I Jn 4:2-5
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them.
(NKJ)


I Jn 2:22
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
(NKJ)

 

[FreeGrace]

SB,

Actually I'm glad that you respond here, because you've brought to the forefront a common misunderstanding about the trinity by those who don't accept it as biblical. You see, any Christian will read what you just said and say, "say what?" Because that is not what we believe.

You said,

Those who think Jesus is God cannot confess Jesus as coming in the flesh because they have to say that God came in the flesh. Now confess means to "agree fully". When it says that Jesus came in the flesh, to agree fully with that statement means they cannot say He was God.

You are distinguishing between God and "the Father" here. We cannot confess that the Father has come in the flesh. We do confess that Jesus has come in the flesh.

The context of those verses in 1 Timothy you shared is the end of the previous chapter where we read:

1 Timothy 3:16 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

And the context for that 1 John 2 passage is found in 1 John 3:

1 John 3:5, 8 You know that He was revealed so that He might take away sins, and there is no sin in Him.

The one who commits sin is of the Devil, for the Devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose: to destroy the Devil's works.

and

1 John 2:23 No one who denies the Son can have the Father; he who confesses the Son has the Father as well.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and took up residence (lit. - "tabernacled") among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
("tabernacled" is referring to the shikainah glory of the appearing of God before the ark)

Do some research if you're interested in it, but what John was fighting here was heresy from Cerenthus. Cerenthus taught that a man, Jesus, wasborn. He was merely aman. But at His baptism He became indwelt by God (the SOn) and theSOn left Him at the crucifixion. He had difficulty accepting that God could die - be crucified. In that respect, he believed similarly to yourself. Everyone accepted that theSon of Godwas God. But Cerenthus started a following because he did not believe that the Son of God actually became a human being. (Again, similar to yourself.)

So that is why John starts off his 1st letter the way he does:

1 John 1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life -- the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us -- that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

So in the text that you quoted in 1 John 2:22 what John was insisting upon was that we confess that Jesus (the Son of God) came in the flesh. So actually, you are the one who cannot confess this.

FG