Why isn’t Jesus called “God” more often in the New Testament?
Ever since I started studying the Bible seriously I have noticed a curious fact: in the New Testament, it is very rare that Jesus is explicitly referred to as “God” (Greek theos). In fact, there are only two cases in the whole of the New Testament that Jesus is unquestionably called God (John 1:1; 20:28), although there are a small number of other passages in which the author is probably using the term God to refer to Jesus (John 1:18, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1), although each of these other instances are questioned in some quarters.
What is particularly interesting is that just a few years after the writing of the New Testament books we find other Christians who have no such hesitation. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of John the Apostle and died in the early 2nd century, shows no reserve is calling Jesus God: “For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary” (Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians 18:2); “love towards Jesus Christ our God” (Ignatius Letter to the Romans Preface); “I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you” (Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1).
So why do the New Testament writers hesitate, or even refuse, to call Jesus God if they believed him to be divine?
Some, of course, would say that the N.T. authors did not, in fact, believe Jesus to be divine. But that ignores the overwhelming evidence of the N.T. writings. Even if Jesus were never called God in the N.T. it is still clear that the first Christians believed him to be divine. His authority to change the Law (Matthew 5) and to forgive sins (Matthew 9:1-3), as well as his exaltation as Lord of the Universe (Philippians 2:9-11, Colossians 1:15-20) are just a few examples showing that the N.T. authors believed him to be equal to God. So, again, why didn’t they just go around explicitly calling him God as later Christians would do?
The answer lies in the strictly monotheistic Jewish atmosphere in which the first Christians lived and breathed and the competing worldview of the ruling Roman Empire. To a first century Jew, there was only one God and that was the God of Israel. To apply the term God to another being would be to reject the strongest pillar of Judaism: monotheism. To the first century Roman pagan, on the other hand, there were many gods and applying the term theos to someone caused no more concern than calling him powerful or a ruler. So the first century Jewish Christians (and remember, all the first Christians were Jewish) had a dilemma: they understood and accepted that Jesus possessed divine attributes, yet they also held steadfast to Jewish monotheism, so how could they express this without being perceived as Roman polytheists? If they just blithely called Jesus God, most Jews (and pagans) would believe they were inventing yet another god in the pantheon of pagan gods – or they would have believed that the Christian equated Jesus with God the Father. In many ways, the revelation of the Trinity was the greatest linguistic challenge man ever faced.
So the New Testament authors closely guarded their use of the title God for Jesus, and used many other ways to express his divinity. No one reading the N.T. books in the first century would have questioned that their authors believed Jesus to be divine, but at the same time they would have also been clear that these authors did not believe Jesus to be the same person as God the Father. By being circumspect in their language, they were able to protect both their monotheistic beliefs as well as their conviction that Jesus was God.
Eventually, as Christianity grew it became more confident in its distinctive beliefs regarding the Godhead in contrast to both Judaism and paganism and so was able to more freely assign the title God to Jesus outright, as we see in the writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch. The belief didn’t change, but the language used to express it did develop.
For further reading: Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Murray J. Harris
I may be wrong, but I think the only reference in the four Gospels was “Doubting” Thomas who said, “My Lord and my God.”
A related question would be, “Why does the New Testament have so little to say about the Holy Spirit?”
The answer to both questions is divine humility. The Son speaks almost only of the Father. The Spirit speaks almost only of the Father and the Son.
Compelling article AND comments!
“The Lord said to my lord….”
Indeed, all in THE family!
I think there’s also something else at work here. We’re not Jews who have been steeped in the Old Testament which means we so often miss the “obvious” claims to divinity unless we know the Scriptural and cultural background of Jesus’ hearers:
“…before Abraham was, I am” – John 8:58
There is a simpler and clearer explanation; some of the New Testament writers believed in the divinity of Jesus and some did not. Over the course of time larger numbers of Christians came to believe in the divinity of Jesus, perhaps due to the growing number of Gentiles and the increasing dependence on Pagan philosophy. We can see this development in the Gospels themselves; it is not until the final canonical gospel, the Gospel of John written probably sixty years after Jesus’ death, where we see an Evangelist who is quite clear in his belief in Jesus’ divinity. On the other hand we see no evidence in the early sources, Paul and Mark for instance, in such a belief. You of course cite Romans 9:5 which, unfortunately for your thesis, is controversial and is often translated differently. Your examples in Matthew are rather tenuous, though I do believe that Matthew was close to this belief, if not all the way there.
Of course, none of these writers ever met Jesus. As you note, the 1st century was not an era where there was much reluctance to declare someone a god; the ruler of the world in Jesus’ day, Caesar Augustus, was routinely declared the son of god.
In all thre synoptics Jesus makes the statement, “The Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.” “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD (Yahweh); remember to keep it holy.” If this is not a clear confirmation of His equality with the LORD of the Sabbath, I don’t know what else could be.
Joseph,
Your comment shows a knowledge of modern scholarship, and, of course, is completely wrong in all the salient facts.
To think that Paul did not accept Christ’s divinity rejects the clear sense of his letters. To just take one example, Philippians 2:5-11 expresses Christ’s divine prerogatives, and it was probably a pre-Pauline hymn – so acceptance of Christ’s divinity pre-dates any of the New Testament!
Your point about Romans 9:5 is a perfect example of the weakness of most modern scholarship. It is “controversial” mostly because it declares something that goes against the presupposition already accepted: that Paul didn’t believe Jesus was divine. As often happens with modern scholarship, they put the cart before the horse in order to maintain their underlying presuppositions.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no historical basis for flatly stating, “Of course, none of these writers ever met Jesus.” Just because the scholars popular with the media make that statement doesn’t make it true. The writing of the N.T. can be easily explained by accepting the traditional authorship of most books, yet it takes convoluted theories (and invented texts like “Q”) to explain it as a creation of later non-eyewitnesses. In any other science, the simplest explanation is usually the best, but for too many people, when that explanation conflicts with preconceived notions, then it must be rejected.
The Philippians text (2:5-11) whether Paul’s own or something he is quoting seems to be a breath-taking one. I checked the Septuagint text from Isaiah quoted here (I won’t stop in mid-comment to re-check) and it was very close, whereas translations told me this was a case where the Masoretic text has YHWH (I have not yet tried to puzzle my way through the Hebrew). If so, this text would seem clearly – but incredibly compactly – to say that “Jesus is YHWH to the Glory of the Father”: so ‘within’ YHWH the Father is distinguished, and implicitly the Son, but not only is the Son as well as the Father YHWH, but the Man/humanity-of Jesus!
I have not tried to follow this far yet in the Fathers or later commentators: is what I see an exegetical commonplace?
“Again the high priest asked him and said to him: Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed God? And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming with the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rending his garments, saith: What need we any further witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy.” Mark 14:61-64
It’s pretty clear, even here in Mark, that the Jews certainly understood that Jesus claimed to be divine.
D,
Everything of what you wrote looks good up to your last point: “but the MAN/humanity-of Jesus.” We cannot think of Christ’s created human nature as divine, though it is forever fused (the hypostatic union, if you will) to His divine nature. St. Leo the Great is a good source for this, reminding us that in Christ the divine and human natures remain distinct. Perhaps it’s worth considering that the graces we receive, however, come through Christ’s divinized humanity!
Peace,
Rob
From St. Thomas Aquinas:
This term “man” when placed in the reduplication may be taken in two ways. First as referring to the nature; and in this way it is not true that Christ as Man is God, because the human nature is distinct from the Divine by a difference of nature. Secondly it may be taken as referring to the suppositum; and in this way, since the suppositum of the human nature in Christ is the Person of the Son of God, to Whom it essentially belongs to be God, it is true that Christ, as Man, is God. Nevertheless because the term placed in the reduplication signifies the nature rather than the suppositum, as stated above (Article 10), hence this is to be denied rather than granted: “Christ as Man is God.”
Our Blessed Lord did not come to reveal Himself, but rather He came to reveal the Father. However,when He reveals the Father He also reveals His divinity. The NT is filled with numerous passages that Jesus is indeed Divine. The second person of the Most Holy Trininty came into world and became man to fullfill the perfect plan of salvation. “Who though he was in the form of God , did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form fo a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” (Phil 2:6-8) Let us not forget that Jesus did not speak Greek but Aramaic, and the people in 1st century Palestine would not accept this proclamation by Jesus. Let us face the facts the Theology of Our Lord is clearly a descending theology, comming down from above, but for us to better understand Him and His divinity we sometimes must look at it from an ascending view, from earthly to heavenly perspective, to more fully appreciate His awsome divinity.
Our Lord had no problem proclaiming His Divinity. John Ch8 48-59. Also when adjured by Caiphus if He were the Christ, the son of God. Matthew26 57-68.
[...] Why Isn’t Jesus Called “God” More Often in the New Testament? H/T: The Divine Life [...]
Pingback by Why Isn’t Jesus Called “God” More Often in the New Testament? « Orthocath — September 21, 2010 @ 10:18 amBecause JESUS is not GOD… Very Simple