Robert A. Morey & Christ’s Deity Pt. 2

I will be quoting from the late Dr. Robert A. Morey’s The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, published by World Bible Publishers, Inc., Iowa Falls, IA, in 1996, Part IV: The New Testament Evidence, Chapter 17. God The Son. All emphasis will be mine.

The Blood of God

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (Acts 20:28)

It never ceases to amaze us that Arians will ignore the established rules of textual criticism whenever those rules support Trinitarianism. For example, one well established rule is that the more difficult or controversial the reading, the more likely it was the original text.

Why do we say this? If you were given the responsibility of copying the text of Scripture, what would you think when you came to some words which seemed strange or controversial to you? Would you not be tempted to think that the scribe before you must have made a slip of the pen and that you should replace the difficult reading with simple or noncontroversial wording

The reverse rule is just as obvious. If the wording of a text is quite simple and straightforward, would there be any reason for you to make it difficult or odd? No. We all naturally want to make things go from the difficult to the simple, from the strange to the familiar. And this is why there are nine variant readings in Acts 20:28. They came from the natural desire of scribes to correct what was perceived by them to be mistakes made by the scribes before them.

The two rules mentioned above are well established and utilized by all scholars. Acts 20:28 is a classic example of this process. As we approach the text, Murray Harris reminds us:

There can be no objection (on broad a priori grounds) understanding the verse to refer to Jesus, for elsewhere the NT refers to Jesus as theos and depicts him as acquiring church through his death.⁹⁶

Of course, as we have repeatedly emphasized, anti-Trinitarians begin with the a priori assumption that Jesus is not called theos “God” in the New Testament. Thus, when they are confronted with texts which contradict that assumption, they will often ignore the normal rules of textual criticism.

It is important to point out that the doctrine of the Trinity is not jeopardized if “the church of the Lord” is found to be the best reading. Trinitarians are happy either way because neither “God” nor “Lord” threaten their belief system. They have the luxury of following the textual evidence to an objective conclusive.

On the other hand, Arians do have a tremendous problem if “the church of God” ends up the best reading. The phrase “the church of God” in and of itself is not controversial. But if it is the best reading, then the pronoun “his” in the next phrase (“his own blood”) would grammatically have to refer to the immediate antecedent which is “God.”

This would mean that God shed his blood for us. Since this is surely a reference to Jesus, then He is here called theos. Thus, the belief system of the Arians is jeopardized if theos is allowed to stand. They have to support “Lord” instead of “God” for theological reasons instead of following the normal rules of textual criticism.

All the critical evidence is in favor of the words the “church of God” (ten ekklesian tou theou). This is now supported by nearly all modern textual critics, grammarians, commentators, and translators.⁹⁷ Since they all go into great detail on the manuscript evidence, we will not do so here. The reason there was so much controversy over this text in the nineteenth century is explained by Heinrich Meyer:

With the reading tou theou this passage was a peculiarly important locus for the doctrine of the divinity of Christ and the communicatio idiomatum against the Socinians.⁹⁸

The Socinians and their descendants the Unitarians did their best to defuse this text before it blew up in their faces. But in the end, they had to admit that “God” and not “Lord” was no doubt the original reading.

How did the variant readings arise? Given the fact that the word theos would imply that Paul is referring to “the blood of God,” some scribes replaced the word theos with the word kyrios “Lord” because they felt that it would be more normal to speak of the “blood of the Lord [Jesus].” Also, the word theos might give the wrong idea that the Father’s blood was shed. Raymond Brown explains:

One very plausible reason why some scribes may have changed “God” to “Lord” is that a reading which has God shedding blood seems to smack of Patripassianism.”

Patripassianism is the ancient heresy which says that the Father died for our sins on the cross. In order to avoid this heresy, some scribes replaced “God” with “Lord.⁹⁹

The same holds for the variant readings for the phrase “with his own blood.” Which is more likely? Would a scribe be more likely to change the wording from “with his [i.e., God’s] blood” to “with the blood of His own [Son]” or to change “with the blood of His own [Son]” to “with his [i.e., God’s] blood”? Obviously, the more difficult and controversial reading would be “with his [i.e., God’s] blood.”

There would be no reason to change a statement about the blood of Jesus as this is referred to elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom. 3:25; 5:9; Eph. 1:7, etc.). But to speak of the “blood of God” would seem strange. Thus the propensity to change the strange to the familiar and the controversial to the non-controversial would favor “with his own blood” as the original text instead of “by the blood of his own [Son].”

This is further confirmed by the numerous references to “the blood of God” in the Apostolic Fathers. They clearly derived the phrase from Acts 20:28.¹⁰⁰ Given all the evidence, Christ our Lord, is here called God.”¹⁰¹ 

Over All, God Blessed Forever

whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (Rom. 9:5)

on oi pateres ek on ho Christos to kata sarka ho on epi panton theos eulogetos eis tous aionias, amen.

Although there are no significant variant readings, this is the most discussed text on the subject of the deity of Christ. It is so controversial because if it is a doxology to Christ, then not only is Jesus here referred to as theos but He is also here worshipped as God! It is the doxological factor that drives the anti-Trinitarians into a frenzy.

Arians can handle a few scattered references to Christ as theos as long as they can be reduced to “a god.” But a doxology is clearly an act of worship to true deity. Thus, a doxology to Christ as God cannot be reduced to anything less than the worship of true deity. This is why a storm of criticism broke out on this text in the nineteenth century.

Today, most commentators, grammarians, exegetes, etc., have come to the conclusion that Romans 9:5 is a doxology to Christ as God.'” If the sentence had been found in a secular writer of the first or second century, there would be no controversy over its translation or punctuation. As Canon Liddon in his Bampton lectures at Oxford University points out, a doxology to Christ as God:

is the natural sense of the passage. If the passage occurred in a profane author and its essence and structure alone had to be considered, few critics would think of overlooking the antithesis between ho Christos to kata sarka and theos. Still less possible would it be to destroy this antithesis outright, and to impoverish the climax of the whole passage, by cutting off the doxology from the clause which precedes it, and so erecting it into an independent ascription of praise to God the Father.¹⁰³

We translate the Greek as follows:

and from whom, as far as his human nature is concerned, is the Messiah, who is sovereign over all things, God blessed forever. Amen.

As we have already pointed out, the working assumption which underlies this text is the dual nature of the Messiah. Hendriksen comments:

This item serves as a fitting climax. From them, that is, from the Israelites (see verse 4) Christ derived his human nature. He was and is a Jew. What a source of intense satisfaction and rejoicing this should be for Jews! The apostle hastens to add that although Jesus is indeed a Jew, he is also much more than a Jew. Though he has a human nature, he also has a divine nature. He is God! It should be clear that when Paul says, “Christ, who is over all God blest forever,” he confesses Christ’s deity¹⁰⁴

In his Word Studies, A.T. Robertson writes:

A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after sarka (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See Acts 20:28 and Titus 2:13 for Paul’s use of theos applied to Jesus Christ.¹⁰⁵

That this is the correct interpretation is based on the following considerations:

1. As we have already documented, the Messiah was called God in the intertestamental Jewish literature. Thus, it was perfectly in accord with contemporary Jewish thought for Paul to refer to the Messiah as God.

2. There is a clear contrast in the verse between the human and divine natures of the Messiah. He was a Jew according to the flesh. But He was also the King of the universe and thus God blessed forever.

3. The words ho on “who is” must grammatically refer back to the immediate antecedent which is ho Christos “the Christ.” The Princeton theologian Charles Hodge comments:

The relative who must agree with the nearest antecedent. There is no other subject in the context sufficiently prominent to make a departure from this ordinary rule, in this case, even plausible.¹⁰⁶

Dean Alford points out, “The rendering. . . is the only one admissible by the rules of grammar and arrangement.”!¹⁰⁷ Raymond Brown comments:

This interpretation would mean that Paul calls Jesus God. From a grammatical viewpoint this is clearly the best reading, Also, the contextual sequence is excellent; for having spoken of Jesus’ descent according to the flesh, Paul now emphasizes his position as God.¹⁰⁸

4. Not once in the New Testament did Paul or anyone else ever insert a doxology into a text without first introducing the Person who was the object of that doxology.¹⁰⁹

5. When Paul would break into a section with a doxology to the Father, he would first introduce the Father into the text before giving the doxology.

The Father is nowhere introduced into the text.¹¹⁰

6. The words epi panton “over all” refer to One who is sovereign over all things. It was Paul’s habit to speak of Christ as the Lord of all things.¹¹¹ (see: Rom. 10:12; 14:9; Eph. 1:20-23; Phil. 2:9-11, etc.). In fact, Paul taught that it was Christ who created and upholds all things by His sovereign power (Col. 1:16-17).

7. The words epi panton by themselves prove the deity of Christ. Lenski comments:

Christ is over all, i.e., the supreme Lord. This apposition is complete in itself. If no more were added, this apposition makes Christ God, for we have yet to hear of one who is “over all” and is not God.¹¹²

8. Paul did not place the word eulogetos before the word theos as if he stopped writing and looked up to heaven and exclaimed, “Blessed be God!” Instead Paul put the word “blessed” after the word “God” and wrote theos eulogetos. whom we bless. This means he is identifying Christ as the God whom we bless.¹¹³

9. The testimony of the early Church is fully in favor of the orthodox interpretation of the text. The older commentators such as Alford, Godet, etc., and modern writers such as Faccio demonstrate that the early church Fathers applied Romans 9:5 to Christ and not to God the Father. Faccio in particular refutes those Arians who claim that Romans 9:5 was applied to God the Father.¹¹⁴ Sad to say, some modern Arians are still convoluting the evidence and need to be corrected on this point once again.

10. Lastly, some Arians have gone so far as to rewrite the Greek text, to rearrange the words, and to invent novel punctuation without any manuscript evidence whatsoever. Their actions only reveal how devastating Romans 9:5 is to their belief system. The nineteenth century Scottish commentator Robert Haldane wrote in his own day:

The awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their explanations, or rather perversions, of the Word of God, are in nothing more obvious than in their attempts to evade the meaning of this celebrated testimony to the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ. They often shelter themselves under various readings; but here they have no tenable ground for an evasion of this kind. Yet, strange to say, some of them have, without the authority of manuscripts, alter the original, in order that it may suit their purpose. There is no difficulty in the words—no intricacy in the construction; yet, by a forced construction and an unnatural punctuation, they have endeavored to turn away this testimony from its obvious import. Contrary to the genius and idiom of the Greek contrary to all the usual rules of interpreting language, as had often been incontrovertibly shown—they substitute “God be blessed”. . . . Such tortuous explanations are not only rejected by a sound interpretation of the original, but manifest themselves to be unnatural, even to the most illiterate who exercises an unprejudiced judgment.¹¹⁵ (Pp. 330-336)

Thy Throne, O God

But of the Son He says, “THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. (Heb. 1:8)

Pros de ton hyion, Ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiona tou aionos, kai he rhabdos tes euthutetos rhabdos tes basileias sou.

This text is the first passage set forth by Raymond Brown under section III, “Texts Where Jesus Is Clearly Called God.”¹⁶⁶ Oscar Cullmann states, “Hebrews unequivocally applies the title ‘God’ to Jesus.” Brown and Cullmann are perfect examples of the difference between what Warfield calls the “Old Liberal School” and the “New Liberal School.”¹⁶⁷

Eighteenth and nineteenth century liberals did their best to overturn Hebrews 1:8 as a proof text for the deity of Christ by giving it various novel translations. In his classic commentary on Hebrews, John Brown explains:

Those who deny our Lord’s divinity have been greatly perplexed by this passage, and have attempted to get rid of the argument by rendering the words, “God is Thy throne for ever and ever.” But this is not only contrary to the usage of the language, but it would utterly destroy the force of the Apostle’s argument.¹⁶⁸

B.B. Warfield was perturbed by the attempts of liberals to wiggle out of Hebrews 1:8 by retranslating it in such a way to avoid the deity of Christ:

It undoubtedly does not make for edification to observe the expedients which have been resorted to by expositors to escape recognizing that these Psalms do ascribe a superhuman nature and superhuman powers to the Messiah. What they have done with Ps. xlv. 6—to take it as an example. Rather than take it as it stands, they would prefer it seems to translate vilely, “Thy throne is God,” “Thy throne of God,” “Thy throne is of God,” or to rewrite the text and make it say something else, “Thy throne [its throne is firmly fixed], God [established it],” or “Thy throne [shall be] forever.”¹⁶⁹

These novel translations were “violent avoidance’s” as well as “vile,” according to Warfield Such strong emotive utterances seem strange in today’s climate of relativism. But we must remember that the nineteenth century Unitarian debates were hot and heavy. The debate generated over five thousand books, pamphlets, and tracts as it raged in Europe as well as in North America.

The old liberals knew that if Hebrews 1:8 was translated in the vocative, i.e., Christ was being addressed by the Father as “God,” then their dogma that Jesus was never called theos in the New Testament would fall to the ground. In their desperation to avoid this, they went so far as to add words to the Hebrew text of Psalms 45:6, even though they did not have a single manuscript to back them up!

With the appearance of the Werde-Boussett thesis, modern liberalism changed its mind and now readily admits that Jesus was called theos in the New Testament. Thus, Hebrews 1:8 was just one more such place. Trinitarian scholars had won the day when it came to the grammar and syntax of these passages. But this did not mean that modern liberals are ready to convert to Christianity.

Modern liberals were now willing to admit that the Messiah was called “God” in such places as Psalms 45:6; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8, etc., but the word “God” did not mean true deity but only a “divine hero” like the ones found in pagan mythology.¹⁷⁰ Having failed to get rid of the offending word “God,” they weakened its meaning into something less than God.

Testaments of The Twelve Patriarchs [Judah One 24:1]), and the Talmud (Shab. 63a) all see the Messiah as the One whom Psalms 45:6 is addressed. to Lenski comments:

Here we have a vocative even in the Hebrew as well as in the LXX and in Hebrews, and only the unwillingness of commentators to have the Son addressed so directly as ‘Elohim, theos (the article with the nominative is used as a vocative), “God,” causes the search for a different construction.¹⁷¹

Ho theos is found sixty-three times in the vocative in the Psalms. Why then deny it here? Nowhere in Scripture is God ever said to be someone’s throne. The language “God is your throne” is rather odd and out of place in Psalms 45 and Hebrews 1. How does such a phrase prove that Jesus has a superior name and nature to the angels? Please also notice that the word “God” has the definite article in Hebrews 1:8 (ho theos). A comparison of what anti-Trinitarians say on the significance of the presence or absence of the article before theos reveals an astounding contradiction. They assure us that the lack of the article before theos in John 1:1c “the Word was God” (theos en ho logos) signifies that the word theos refers to something less than true deity. Thus, Jesus is only “a god” and not really “God.” If theos had the article, they tell us, it would mean true deity. While their understanding of the presence or absence of the article is erroneous, nevertheless, it is what they claim to believe.

Given their view, what should they say about such passages as John 20:28, Titus 2:13, and Hebrews 1:8, which all have the article before theos? Do they acknowledge that Jesus is true deity because theos has the article? No. They either ignore the presence of the article or state that its presence does not imply true deity!

They try the same contradictory approach with the Hebrew word elohim. Since it does not have the article in Psalms 45:6, then it does not mean true deity. But the fact is that the lack of the article before elohim is quite normal in Hebrew poetry.¹⁷²

After all the grammatical evidence is examined, nearly all grammarians and commentators reach the same conclusion as Murray Harris:

From the analysis of five proposed translations of Psalm 45:7a, we reached the conclusion that that traditional rendering, “Your Throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” is not simply readily defensible but remains the most satisfactory solution to the exegetical problems posed by the verse.¹⁷³

The context of Hebrews 1:8 is the final proof. The point of the author is that Jesus has a “more excellent name” than the angels (v. 4). What could that name be? It could not be “Jesus” because there was nothing special about that name. The “more excellent name” has to be so special that causes all the angels to worship him (v. 5).

What name could be so wonderful that the angels would bow down and worship? The only name given to Jesus in the immediate context is “God” in verse 8. A.W. Pink explains:

This supplies us with one of the most emphatic and unequivocal proofs of the Deity of Christ to be found in the Scriptures. It is the Father Himself testifying to the Godhead of Him who was despised and rejected of men. And how fittingly is this quotation from Psalm 45 introduced at the point it is in Heb. 1. In v.6 we are told that all the angels of God have received command to “worship” the Mediator. Now we are shown the propriety of them so doing. He is “God!” They must render Divine honors to Him because of His very nature. Thus we admire, once more, the perfect order of Scripture.¹⁷⁴

The modern attempt to lessen the impact of the vocative in Psalms 45:6 or Hebrews 1:8 by reducing the word “God” to “divine hero” is no longer possible. Since both old and new liberalism developed their respective interpretations of these passages without knowledge of the literature of early Judaism in general and the Dead Sea Scrolls in particular, their claim that we must look to pagan Greek mythology for the source of such language is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

It has now been established beyond all doubt that the background, themes, imagery, and vocabulary of the book of Hebrews is Semitic, and not Greek. For example, the references in the Dead Sea Scrolls to Melchizedek may explain why so much attention is paid to him in Hebrews.¹⁷⁵ (Pp. 347-350)

Further Reading

Robert A. Morey & Christ’s Deity