The New Testament Use of Theos Pt. 1

“Jesus answered them, ‘Has it not been written in your Law, “I said, you are gods (theoi)”? If he called them gods (theous), to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),’” John 10:34-35

“And when they had been brought safely through to shore, then we learned that the island was called Malta. And the natives showed us extraordinary affection; for because of the rain that had set in and because of the cold, they kindled a fire and received us all. But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. And when the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another, ‘Undoubtedly this man is a murderer, and though he has been saved from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live.’ However he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. But they were waiting for him to soon swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, changing their minds, they began to say that he was a god (theon).” Acts 28:1-6

“in whose case the god (ho theos) of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:4

“whose end is destruction, whose god (ho theos) is their stomach and glory is in their shame, who set their thoughts on earthly things.” Philippians 3:19

“Let no one in any way deceive you, for it has not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the sanctuary of God, exhibiting himself as being God (theos).” 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

D. Limitations to the Use of theos in Reference to Jesus Christ

The application to Christ of the title theos is exceedingly rare-only seven certain, very probable, or probable instances out of a total of 1,315 NT uses of theos. From an analysis of representative scholarly views concerning the nine texts discussed in chapters II-VII and IX-XI, it may be seen that the majority of scholars hold that theos is applied to Jesus no fewer than five times and no more than nine times in the NT.² The same range characterizes the principal modern English translations of the NT (1 John 5:20 apart).³ Reasons for the relative infrequency of theos as a christological title are discussed below in §G.

The very rarity of the designation of Jesus as “God” is evidence that theos never becomes a proper name when used of Jesus but remains a descriptive title. In accord with this, one never finds theos applied to Jesus without an accompanying identification of the person so titled. In John 1:1 it is the Logos who is theos; in John 1:18, monogenes (hyios); in John 20:28, autos = ho ‘Iesous; in Romans 9:5, hoChristos; in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, ‘Iesous Christos; and in Hebrews 1:8, hyios. Unless the context refers explicitly to Jesus as the person of whom the title theos is being predicated, this term will refer to the Father and be a virtual proper name. Although ho hyios tou theou occurs (where ho theos = the Father) never does one find ho pater tou theou (where ho theos =Jesus). No NT writer says anything comparable to to pathos tou theou mou (Ignatius, Rom. 6:3), or ho theos mou ho agapesas me kai paradous heauton hyper hemou (the reading of minuscule 330 in Gal. 2:20, in the genitive case). (Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI 1992], XIII Conclusions: Theos as a Christological Title, pp. 274-275; emphasis mine)

G. Reasons for the Infrequency of the Usage

Few scholars find more than nine NT uses of theos as a title of Jesus (see n. 2 above). On no reading of the data could the claim be allowed that the early Christians regularly called Jesus theos or ho theos. It would be specious reasoning to argue that since what is assumed by an author comes to expression infrequently and spasmodically, the usage was in fact far more common in the early church than the documents would indicate. On the other hand, given the fewness of the instances of the usage and the fact that Paul has at most two examples, Peter one, and the author of Hebrews one; there is a danger that appeal should be so constantly made to the regular NT usage of theos for the Father that it should be thought impossible for any writer ever to use theos of Jesus. Just as a writer must be permitted to use certain words only once, so on principle a writer must be allowed certain, theological hapax (or dis or tris) legomena.

Certain inadequate explanations of the infrequency of the usage may now be briefly stated and dismissed. First, the sparse use was not because at this point faith was outstripping reason and the early Christians felt unable to accommodate the new christological data within the consistent theological framework of hereditary Jewish monotheism. The presence of any examples of the usage in the early church’s documents discounts this explanation. If the early church was embarrassed by the ascription of theos to Jesus²³ or if the ascription was regarded as heterodox by some elements in the church, it is strange that four NT writers (John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, and Peter) should have examples which represent both a Jewish Christian setting (John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Reb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1) and a Gentile Christian milieu (Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13). Second, it cannot be said that the infrequency is due to a conviction that theos was too sacred a title to apply to Jesus or else was capable of being applied hyperbolically to humans and therefore was a demeaning title for Jesus. Both of these criteria, however, if valid, would have also excluded the christological use of kyrios a title which occurs frequently throughout the epistles in reference to Jesus. Third, the paucity of examples of the employment of the title theos for Jesus cannot be attributed to the belief that kyrios was itself such an adequate title to express the deity of Christ that the use of kyrios was virtually superfluous. This suggestion erroneously assumes that kyrios and theos are virtually indistinguishable in content. Rather, as a christological title kyrios is primarily functional in significance, denoting sovereignty, whereas theos is principally ontological, denoting deity.²⁴

What positive reasons may be advanced to account for this phenomenon?²⁶

First, in all strands of the NT, theos generally signifies the Father (see chapter I §B.4). When we find the expression theos pater we may legitimately deduce that ho theos estin ho pater. And since pater refers to a particular person (not an attribute), the identity between ho theos and ho pater as proper names referring to persons must be numerical: “God” is to be equated with “the Father.” If Jesus were everywhere called theos, so that in reference to him the term ceased to be a title and became a proper noun²⁶ like ‘Iesous, linguistic ambiguity would be everywhere present.

Another reason why theos regularly denotes the Father arid rarely the Son is that such usage is suited to protect the personal distinction between Son and Father (see above §D)²⁷ which is preserved everywhere in the NT, but nowhere more dramatically than where the Father is called “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:17)²⁸ or “his God and Father” (Rev. 1:6) and where Jesus speaks of “my God” (Matt. 27:46 =Mark 15:34; John 20:17; cf. Rev. 3:2, 12), or, in an address to Jesus reference is made to “your God” (Heb. 1:9). God was the one to whom Jesus prayed, the one he called his Father (e.g., Matt. 11:25). It was ho logos, not ho theos of whom John said sarx egeneto (John 1:14).²⁹

Closely related to this second reason is a third. The element of “subordinationism” that finds expression not only in the four authors who use theos as a christological appellation³⁰ but also elsewhere in the NT may have checked any impulse to use theos regularly of Jesus. By customarily reserving the term theos for the Father, NT writers were highlighting the fact, whether consciously or unconsciously, that while the Son is “subordinate” to the Father, the Father is not “subordinate” to the Son. One finds the expression “the Son of God” where God is the Father, but never “the Father of God” where God is the Son.³¹

A fourth reason that may be suggested for the comparatively rare use of theos as a christological ascription was the danger recognized by the early church that if theos were applied to Jesus as regularly as to the Father, Jews would have tended to regard Christianity as incurably deuterotheological and Gentiles would probably have viewed it as polytheistic. If theos were the personal name of the Father and the Son, Christians would have been hard pressed to defend the faith against charges of ditheism, if not polytheism, however adamant their insistence on their retention of monotheism.³²

Fifth, behind the impulse generally to reserve the term theos for the Father lay the need to safeguard the real humanity of Jesus against docetic or monophysitic sentiment in its embryonic form. In the early years of the church there was a greater danger that the integrity of the human “nature” of Jesus should be denied than that his divinity should be called into question, witness the fact that docetism not Arianism was the first christological deviation.

Finally, the relative infrequency of the use of theos for Jesus corresponds to the relatively infrequent use of ontological categories in NT Christology which is functional in emphasis (see §J.1 below).

24. See above, chapter IV §C.2, and below in the present chapter, §J.1.

25. The rarity with which the NT calls Jesus theos corresponds to the rarity with which prayer was addressed to the risen Lord in the early church (see Acts 1:24; 7:59-60; 9:10-17; 22:16, 19; 1 Cor. 1:2; 16:22; 2 Cor. 12:8; Rev. 22:20). To judge by the NT data, neither practice was common in the apostolic period. Generally Jesus was called kyrios (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:6) and prayer was addressed to God the Father (e.g., Eph. 2:18; 3:14).

26. If theos were a proper name when used of Jesus, no adequate reason could be given for the infrequency of the use and one should expect to find statements such as “I have been crucified with God; it is no longer 1 who live, but God who lives In me, and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in God who loved me and gave himself for me” (cf. Gal. 2:20).

27. Similarly Cotter 284; H. N. Ridderbos, Jesus 73. In describing the unity that exists between God and Christ it is probably wiser to speak of “the complete unity of being” (“die vollkommene Wesenseinhelt”; J. Schneider, TBNT 2:607) than of “identification” (e.g., Mackintosh 120; Kung 685), for this latter term may easily be misinterpreted to mean either “personal equation” or mere “copartnership.” “Short of thoroughgoing identification of persons, the unity expressed by their conjunction seems to be complete” (Warfield, Studies 64).

28. That the Father is the “God of Jesus” is also a legitimate inference from the expression ho theos kai pater tou kyriou hemon ‘Iesou Christou found in 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3; cf. 2 Cor; 11:31.

29. Cf. D’Aragon 201-2.

30. For example, (for John) John 6:19, 30; 10:36; 14:28; 17:3; (Paul) 1 Cor. 3:23; 11:3; 15:28; (Auctor) Heb. 1:2-3; 6:6, 10; (Peter) 2 Pet. 1:17; and see V. Taylor, Person 57-60 (for Paul), 96 (Hebrews), 104-7 (John); and Barrett, Essays on John 1-6.

31. Since subordination does not imply inferiority (see Crawford, “Christ”), it does not argue against the description of Jesus as theos (contra Schmeichel 606).

32. Fortman proposes that Paul preferred kyrios over theos as a title for Jesus because with its greater flexibility in meaning kyrios would not so easily offend monotheists (19). Cf. Mackintosh 419-20. (Ibid., pp. 281-283; emphasis mine)