Of God the Son — B. The Divinity of Christ (3. Holy Scripture Expressly Calls Christ 'God')

3. Holy Scripture Expressly Calls Christ “God”

Having demonstrated the Divinity of Christ, it will serve to confirm our argument to note that Holy Scripture in several places expressly refers to Him as God.

a) If the Tetragrammaton YHWH is God’s incommunicable proper name, which expresses His Divine Essence,¹ then a Being that is identical with the Old Testament Yahweh must be true God. Now Jesus Christ is identical with the Old Testament Yahweh. Therefore He is true God.

In his Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Paul says: “Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum [sc. Christum] in orbem terrae, dicit: Et adorent eum omnes angeli — And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him.”² This text not only proves that Christ is true God; it also proves that He is Yahweh. For, in the passage which St. Paul here quotes,³ the Psalmist describes how Jehovah appeared on earth for the purpose of founding a kingdom; how He reappears as the terrible Judge; how the heavens declare His justice and all the people behold His glory, and how those are confounded who adore graven things and glory in their idols. Then there follows the exhortation (verse 7): “Adore him (i. e., YHWH), all you angels.” Consequently Christ is the Jehovah of whom David speaks in this Psalm.

We read in the Messianic Psalm XLIV, which is ascribed to the sons of Core: “Sedes tua, Deus (Elohim), in saeculum saeculi — Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.”⁴ The Rationalist exegetes, who take the word Deus in this text for a nominative instead of a vocative, disregard both the dignity of God and Scriptural usage. If their interpretation were correct, the meaning of the text would be: Thy seat, or throne (i. e., according to the Rationalist conception, the throne of an earthly king), is God Himself for ever and ever. Though Holy Scripture sometimes refers to creatures (e. g., heaven and hell, angels and men) as the seat or throne of God, it nowhere designates God as the seat or throne of man, e. g., of an earthly prince. This interpretation is positively untenable in the light of Heb. I, 8: “Ad Filium [scil. Christum] autem dicit: Thronus tuus, Deus, in saeculum saeculi (ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος),” where the text Ps. XLIV, 7 is used to show Christ’s superiority over the angels. That St. Paul intends ὁ θεός for a vocative is plain from New Testament Greek usage, as the student may see from a comparison of such texts as Matth. XI, 26; Mark V, 41; Luke VIII, 54; John XIX, 3; Eph. VI, 1; Col. III, 18; Heb. X, 7; Apoc. VI, 10. Consequently Ps. XLIV, 7, can only mean: “Thy throne, O God, stands for ever.” Since the sons of Core never employ the term “Elohim” except when they wish to designate the true God, it follows that Christ bears the Divine Name Elohim, i. e., θεός = God.

The hardness of heart which the Jews manifested in spite of the many wonderful miracles wrought by our Saviour, St. John attributes to the prophecy of Isaias⁵ and adds: “Haec dixit Isaias, quando vidit gloriam eius et locutus est de eo — These things said Isaias, when he saw his glory and spoke of him [Christ].”⁶ Turning to the sixth chapter of Isaias, we read: “Vidi Dominum sedentem super solium excelsum… . Seraphim clamabant alter ad alterum et dicebant: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus exercituum (YHWH), plena est omnis terra gloria eius — I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated… . The seraphims … cried to one another: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the earth is full of his glory.”⁷

Hence, according to St. John, Christ is “God” (Dominus, YHWH) and “Lord of hosts” (Dominus exercituum, YHWH Tzevaot).

It should also be noted that St. Mark, in the beginning of his Gospel,⁸ refers the well-known exhortation of Isaias⁹ “Parate viam Domini — Prepare ye the way of the Lord,” to John the Baptist, as the precursor of the “Lord,” thereby acknowledging the latter to be “Jehovah.” In Mark I, 2, we have a citation from Malachias (attributed to Isaias), in which Jehovah Himself is quoted as prophesying: “Ecce ego mitto angelum meum et praeparabit viam ante faciem meam — Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face.”¹⁰ Now this angel is none other than John the Baptist, who, as a precursor, is to “prepare the way before the face of Jehovah,” i. e., Christ. As Christ¹¹ also applies this text to the Baptist, resp. to Himself, we have a double warrant for the assertion that the Jehovah of Malachias is identical with Jesus.

b) Christ is expressly called “God” in at least four New Testament texts. A fifth occurs in the prologue of St. John’s Gospel, but we defer the discussion of it to the next Section, where we shall treat explicitly of the Logos.

α) The first of the four passages just alluded to is John XX, 28. The Evangelist describes how Christ reproached the incredulous Thomas for his unbelief, whereupon “Thomas answered and said to Him: My Lord and my God (ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου — Dominus meus et Deus meus)!” Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius represented this reply as a mere exclamation of surprise; but the text plainly says: “dixit ei ([Thomas] said) to him.” These words also exclude the Rationalist theory which asserts that the Apostle, in exclaiming “My Lord and my God!” did not address Jesus, who stood before him, but Almighty God in Heaven.

It is obvious from the context that Thomas desired to make a profession of faith not simply in the Resurrection of Christ, but also in His Divinity, for which the Resurrection furnishes such a triumphant argument. It is in this sense that Christ replies to him: “Quia vidisti me, Thoma, credidisti; beati, qui non viderunt et crediderunt — Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.”¹²

β) Christ is again expressly called God in Tit. II, 13: “Exspectantes beatam spem et adventum gloriae magni Dei et Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi (τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) — Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

St. Paul does not mean to distinguish two separate persons — the “great God,” or Father, and “Our Saviour Jesus Christ.” He is speaking solely of Christ, who is both “the great God” and “our Saviour;” else he would repeat the definite article and express himself like this: τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Whenever St. Paul wishes to distinguish between the different Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, he always repeats the article. On the other hand, he never repeats the article when heaping several predicates on one and the same Person. Cfr. 2 Cor. I, 3: “Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου — Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”¹³ The Ethiopian translation has dropped the καί without in the least changing the signification of the text. But there is also a strong objective reason for applying the phrase “the great God” to Jesus Christ. For in speaking of the “coming of the glory of the great God,” the Apostle can only mean Christ, because Holy Scripture tells us nothing of an epiphany of the Father, and we know that the second coming (parousia) of Christ will coincide with the Last Judgment.

γ) An equally cogent argument can be constructed from 1 John V, 20: “Scimus quoniam Filius Dei venit et dedit nobis sensum, ut cognoscamus verum Deum et simus in vero Filio eius: hic est verus Deus et vita aeterna — And we know that the Son of God is come: and he hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and life eternal.” Here the Divinity of Christ, which is logically deducible from the fact that He is a true Son of the true God, is expressly reaffirmed in the concluding phrase: This is the true God, ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός.

It is contrary to the rules of logic and grammar alike to refer the phrase “This is the true God and life eternal,” not to the immediately preceding word “Filio,” but to the more remote “verum Deum” (i. e., Patrem). In that case ille — ἐκεῖνος should be the pronoun used, not hic — οὗτος. To refer the demonstrative pronoun hic — οὗτος to the determinative pronoun eius would offend against the idiom of the Latin language. If Erasmus were right in his assumption that the phrase, “The true God and life eternal” designates the Father, not the Son, St. John would have made himself guilty of an insufferable tautology, viz.: “Verus Deus est verus Deus.” Moreover, the aim of St. John’s First Epistle, which was written as a prologue to his Gospel, is not to demonstrate the Godhead of the Father, which no one denied, but the Divinity of the Son, who had appeared corporeally in Christ. It is furthermore to be noted that the “true God” whom St. John has in mind, is also called “eternal life” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος). Now St. John never means the Father but invariably the Son when he uses the phrase “eternal life.” Consequently Christ is as certainly “verus Deus” as is His Father. Cfr. 1 John I, 2: “Annuntiamus vobis vitam aeternam, quae erat apud Patrem et apparuit nobis — We declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father, and hath appeared to us.”¹⁴ 1 John V, 11: “Vitam aeternam dedit nobis Deus, et haec vita in Filio eius est. Qui habet Filium, habet vitam; qui non habet Filium, vitam non habet — God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life.” The last vestige of possible doubt is removed by the Greek text, which reads thus: “Καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.” The demonstrative pronoun clearly points to Jesus Christ.

δ) The “crux Rationalistarum” is the famous doxology, Rom. IX, 5: “Ex quibus [scil. Israelitis] est Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula (ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας).” Whoever reads this sentence without prepossession will unhesitatingly refer the predicate Deus super omnia (ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός) to Christ.

The Greek manuscript codices present the New Testament text without punctuation marks, and it would seem to be the business of exegesis rather than of textual criticism to determine whether there should be a comma or a period after the word σάρκα. If a comma, then the whole doxology plainly refers to Christ; if a period, it would be most natural to refer it to the Father or to the Deity in general. Similarly, in the Latin text of the Vulgate, the Rationalists place a period after “carnem” and reconstruct the passage thus: ”… ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem. Qui est super omnia Deus [= Pater], benedictus [sit] in saecula.”¹⁵ But this punctuation is arbitrary. There is no intrinsic reason whatever for inserting such an abrupt hymn of praise in honor of the Father into a context which treats solely of the Son. Conversely, the Apostle had excellent reasons for connecting the doxology with the name of Christ, whose descent according to the flesh from the Jews he had accentuated immediately before. This interpretation of the passage is so natural and plausible that the early writers were unanimous in referring the doxology to the Son and not to the Father. To the fifteen witnesses whom Petavius¹⁶ was able to marshal in confirmation of this statement, Cardinal Franzelin¹⁷ added thirty others, while Hurter¹⁸ enriched the list with fourteen more. This practically unanimous consent of the Fathers loses none of its force by the circumstance that some of them (in a very correct sense) assert that the epithet ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός belongs solely to the Father, because the Father alone, as the First Person of the Blessed Trinity, is unoriginate (ἄναρχος) and at the same time the principle of the Son (ἀρχὴ τῆς ἀρχῆς). Thus Athanasius,¹⁹ Basil,²⁰ and Gregory of Nyssa.²¹ However, since these Fathers did not have in mind the Epistle to the Romans, but that to the Ephesians, in which St. Paul writes: “Unus Deus et Pater omnium qui est super omnes (ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων) — One God and Father of all, who is above all,”²² we can reasonably assume that they do not mean to contradict the other Fathers. This assumption is rendered still more probable by the fact that these same apparently dissentient Fathers elsewhere expressly interpret the doxology as referring to Christ.²³ For the rest, such unsuspected witnesses as Rosenmüller and the editor of the new edition of H. A. W. Meyer’s voluminous commentary on the various books of Sacred Scripture, B. Weiss, admit that the Rationalist interpretation involves a violation of the rules of Greek grammar. In fact it would be just as unnatural and ungrammatical to write ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, instead of ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, as it would be natural and grammatical to resume by ὁ ὤν the immediately preceding subject, namely, ὁ Χριστός.

Be it noted in conclusion that Christ’s standing epithet in the pages of the New Testament is not “God” (Deus, θεός), but rather “Lord” (Dominus, κύριος), as can easily be gathered from a perusal of the Apostolic Epistles. But inasmuch as “Dominus” corresponds exactly to the Hebrew YHWH, the texts in which Jesus is called “Lord” prove His Divinity quite as cogently as those in which He is called “God.”