Titus 2:13 -- The Smoking Gun -- Jesus is God

This verse is one of a handful of verses that, in my view, can reasonably be interpreted to support a Trinitarian Christology. The VAST majority of NT verses, however, cannot be so interpreted, and in fact, support the view that Jesus is NOT God.

As for Titus 2.13, I think it's important to note that nowhere else in the pastoral epistles is Jesus called God, and in fact, 1 Timothy 2.5 makes clear the distinction between God and the "man" who mediates the relationship between that one God and humanity. (See also the distinction between God and Jesus in 1 Timothy 5.21: "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. Titus makes a similar distinction in Titus 1.4: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior." The construction of the bolded clauses offer strong evidence that the author(s) intend to distinguish between God and Jesus.) 

Acts 5:31

Peter's Christology is quite clear in Acts, I believe.

• Acts 2.22-24: God "attested" to Jesus by "mighty works and wonders that God did through him." Jesus was crucified according to God's plan, then God raised him up.
• Acts 2.32: God raised Jesus up.
• Acts 2.36: God has made Jesus both Christ and Lord.
• Acts 4.10: God raised the crucified Jesus from the dead.
• Acts 4.27, 30: (a joint prayer; not just Peter) Jesus is God's "holy servant."
• Acts 5.30: God raised Jesus.
• Acts 5.31: God exalted Jesus to God's right hand.

All of those verses report actions God took for or through Jesus. In NONE of them does Peter or anyone else assert that God acted upon and through one who was also God, or that when God raised Jesus, God actually raised one who was also God.

I am passionate about vigorous, intentional, AND respectful engagements with CD posters. I am a fanatic about the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people." And I'm grateful for the spirit of interest and invitation that's apparent to me in your posts. I look forward to our exchanges.

As for getting used to the place and its processes, take all the time you need.

That Jesus raised himself, and therefore demonstrated his divinity, is an argument at least one other CD poster has made. Some comments about the verses you quoted:

John 10.18: To my awareness, this is the only place in which Jesus claims to be able to "take up" his life once sacrificed. There is reference to raising the temple from the crucifixion crowd in the Synoptics, but only in John does the image come from Jesus himself. I claim that the VAST majority of NT verses on the issue make clear that Jesus did not raise himself; God did. At no time does Peter, for example, give ANY indication that he believes God and Jesus and the Spirit are one in the same, so that when God raised Jesus, God actually raised God.

The other thing to note about the claims Jesus makes in John 10 is that he attributes his ability to do those things to the call/charge God has made upon his life. (as you quoted the verse, "This is the command I received from my Father") A natural question to ask, then, is, does Jesus believe he would have had his ministry had the one he calls "Father" not commanded him to it? There is no indication in the Gospels that I'm aware of that Jesus believes he would (see John 5.19-30)

I see no indication in the Romans text that the Spirit is a separate entity/dimension of a larger godhead. Rather, in my view, the Spirit is synonymous for God's power and authority. Consider John the Baptist's word about Jesus in John 3.34: "For he is sent by God. He speaks God’s words, for God gives him the Spirit without limit. 35 The Father loves his Son and has put everything into his hands." (cf Matthew 1.18; Luke 1.35; Luke 24.49; Acts 1.8, 8.18; Acts 10.38)

In John 4.24 Jesus says "God is Spirit," which again suggests to me that the Spirit is synonymous with God, not a unique, separable manifestation of God (as for Jesus, I believe, "Father" is synonymous for God)

In sum, I think Romans 8.10 says God raised Jesus from the dead (note that Paul does NOT claim Jesus raised himself from the dead) and that if the Spirit/power of the God who raised Jesus from the dead is in us, we will be raised to new life also.

I certainly agree that all scripture relating to a subject should be put aside in order to understand the subject correctly.

I would also say this: If there are many plain and clear verses on a subject and one verse or a few verses seemingly difficult or contradictory, then the one or few seemingly difficult must be interpreted in light of the many clear plain ones !! The many clear plain ones must not be interpreted to "fit" the one or few difficult or contradictory one

Thus, the one or few verses which seem as if they could be interpreted to say that the man Jesus raised himself from the dead and thereby contradict the many plain and clear verses which state the God raised the man Jesus from the dead must be carefully examined to see if they can be understood in a way which would not cause such a contradiction.

It would be incorrect to re-interpret the many clear verses somehow in order to make them seemingly "agree" with the one contradictory one.

How do you understand these words of Jesus in John 10:35 concerning the subject of whether or not Jesus is God ?

@YourTruthGod posted:

If by putting a text "aside" you mean refuse to consider or engage it, then certainly I don't think we can put any text "aside." But when one text says "X" and nine texts say "NOT X," one's final assessment as to whether "X" is true will, of necessity, disagree with at least one text. In my view, while there are a handful of texts which can be interpreted to support a Trinitarian Christology (i.e. they say "X") the VAST majority of texts are most sensibly interpreted to support the rejection of a Trinitarian Christology (i.e. they say "NOT X"). In such a circumstance, at least one text - or perhaps more accurately, at least one interpretation of at least one text - must be rejected.

For example: In a previous post, I offered several texts from the book of Acts, texts which I claim declare Peter's view of Jesus' relationship to God. These texts:

Your response was to assert that "The reason why some scriptures say the Father raised Jesus, and some say the Holy Spirit did, and some others say Jesus did is because they are three and the same." The problems with your claim are at least two: 1) The cited texts say "God" raised/exalted Jesus, not "the Father," or "the Holy Spirit," or "Jesus;" and 2) None of the cited texts gives ANY indication of support for the view that "Father," "Holy Spirit," and "Jesus" are "three and the same." So what do you do SPECIFICALLY with the cited texts from Acts? Do you set them "aside" in the sense that you disagree with their most sensible meaning, in favor of texts whose most sensible meaning, in your view, supports your Christology?

Please cite text(s) which in your view declare that "the Father," "Jesus," and "the Holy Spirit" are "one and the same and interchangeable." Then I will cite additional texts which in my view make the opposite claim.

Paul clearly believes that the resurrected Jesus ("Lord") is a spiritual being, one he calls "the Spirit." Notice, however, that Paul does NOT call Jesus the "Holy Spirit." He refers to the Holy Spirit on many times in his letters to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, but NEVER does he identify Jesus AS the Holy Spirit. And if you are among those who believe Paul wrote Ephesians, then Ephesians 1.13 and Ephesians 2.18 seem to offer more evidence of Paul's belief that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.

I see nothing in the Revelation passages that requires Jesus to be God. Jesus can release God's fury without being God... as God's representative or emissary, for example.

Where in the Revelation text do you find reference to the horse rider's being called a "spirit"? In the text, it seems to me that John describes the rider as a physical being.

Quickly, regarding the mentioned subject of who raised Jesus to life – Jesus (Jn. 10:18), God (Acts 5:30), Holy Spirit (Rm. 8:11) – scripture is neither confused, nor is it promoting a three-way competition; I wish to comment that all three – Father, Son, Holy Spirit – clearly work together in harmony, and unity in the resurrection of Jesus as demonstrated by the above referenced texts of scripture.  

Oh good to hear! lol

That two persons are one does NOT mean that they are the same person. It could mean - depending on the context of such a statement - that the two persons are of one mind, have one goal, work together on something, etc. ... BUT it would NOT mean that the two are one and the same.

Jesus raised himself. He was COMMANDED by the Father to do so.

If Jesus did not raise himself, then he did not obey the Father.

Jesus IS the resurrection and the life.

Yet, you say he didn't raise himself when he did.

Some comments:

1. John 10.18 does NOT say Jesus raised himself.
2. The verse does NOT say the Father "COMMANDED" Jesus to raise himself. The "command" is that Jesus have the "authority" to "lay down [his] life" and "to take it up again."
3. To my knowledge, no other New Testament text even hints that Jesus raised himself (please cite passages to correct my understanding)
4. The VAST, VAST majority of NT verses on the subject - that is, every one except John 10.18 - say the resurrection was an action of which Jesus was the recipient, NOT the cause.
5. Jesus' word that he is the resurrection and the life is not an assertion that he raised himself. He defines his pronouncement in the very same verses (John 11.25-26) - "Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying. 26 Everyone who lives in me and believes in me will never ever die...." That is, for Jesus, being the resurrection and life means those who believe in him will be raised to eternal life.

A perceptive find, Wolfgang. Thanks.

In John 10.30, Jesus says he and the Father are "one." In John 17.21, as you point out, Jesus prays that his followers will be "one" just as he and the Father are one. Clearly, in my view, that means Jesus does NOT believe his oneness with God is a sign of personal divinity; instead, I think he believes it's a sign of spiritual intimacy... the likes of which he prays for those who follow him.

@Wolfgang

No. Jesus puts us in him and the Father. No matter how much we believe like Jesus, we are not Jesus.

The scriptures do not say:"The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit raised Jesus."

There are scriptures that say the Father raised Jesus. There are other scriptures that say Jesus raised himself; and, there are other scriptures that say the Holy Spirit raised Jesus. Again, there are no scriptures that say what you say about the Father, Jesus, and Spirit raising Jesus. Do you know what I mean?

We are flesh and spirit. The flesh dies but not the spirit.

Jesus was flesh and Spirit. His Spirit was the Spirit of God the Father come as a man.

How do initiative and authority on Jesus' part demonstrate his role in the completion of the resurrection? Other than, perhaps, John 2.19, where are the OTHER NT verses/passages that declare Jesus' raising himself?

Further, it's not clear to me that by the phrase "take it up again" Jesus means he will raise himself. In my view, the most reasonable interpretation of the phrase is that after laying down his life in sacrifice (John 10.17) he will pick it up again after he is raised. Recall that on several occasions (quoted in previous post) Jesus makes it clear that the resurrection is something that will happen TO him, not because of him. I think Jesus means he will lay down his life in sacrifice and pick up his life when it is given to him by the God who raises him - at least that's translation that is congruent with the VAST majority of NT passages on the matter.

But John 2.22 makes it clear that John believes the resurrection was something that happened TO Jesus: "After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered he had said this, and they believed both the Scriptures and what Jesus had said."  If John believed Jesus' reference to his raising the temple in three days meant Jesus raised himself, then I think John would have said, "After Jesus raised himself [or at least no less than "After Jesus rose from the dead..."]..." but that's not what John reports. John reports Jesus as the passive recipient of the raising. In my view, that's not a declaration of Jesus' raising himself.

And the vast majority of those other verses report the resurrection as something that happens TO Jesus, not because of him. At some point, it seems to me, it is incumbent on you to explain why the Gospel writers and Jesus himself could so frequently declare the resurrection to be an action taken upon Jesus, when it was actually an action taken by him. Why so much misleading witness?

I base my claim on the grammatical meaning of the passive voice. "Jesus was raised" means, grammatically, that someone other than he raised him. Consider:

• If I tell you that "I was taken to the library," do you think I mean I took myself to the library?
• If the news reports that "the escaped prisoners were caught," do you think it means that the prisoners caught themselves?
• Given the grammatical meaning of the passive voice as displayed in those examples, if the Gospels report that Jesus was raised, how likely is it that they mean Jesus raised himself?

I applaud your candor and accountability. Thanks for the good example.

I respect your view, but strongly disagree. I think the textual evidence is scarce to nearly absent that anyone other than God raised Jesus, and that the option that Jesus raised himself is specifically and on multiple occasions ruled out by the grammar employed in the verses.

Titus 2:13 King James Bible Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Acts 5:31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Leader and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins.

Jude 1:25 to the only God our Savior be glory,

Did you read that?

In Titus 2:13, it says the words great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, but some here won't say that scripture is saying Jesus is God. However, look at Jude 1:25, it says to the ONLY GOD AND SAVIOR.

So then, if Jesus is not God the Father, then how can he be called the Savior when there is ONLY ONE GOD AND SAVIOR?

@Wolfgang, I have no idea how you think you disproved anything that I said.

First, thanks for an invigorating and satisfying exchange of views.

Prompted by your post, I did a Logos search for the word "raised" when used to describe Jesus' resurrection. I'll offer the text list at the end of this post, but for the moment, here's a summary of what I found:

• 25 instances of "raised" - 10 of which are in the Gospels - where Jesus is the passive recipient of resurrection by an unidentified power/force/person/deity.
• 24 instances of "raised" that name God as the one who raised Jesus.
• 1 instance of "raised" in which "the power of the Holy Spirit" raises Jesus.
• And 0 instances of "raised" in which Jesus raises himself.

As for those 24 unidentified agents of resurrection:

1. We know from their use of the passive voice that the writers/speakers of those instances do NOT contend that Jesus did the raising.
2. 1 Corinthians 15.35,43,52 all refer to US as passive recipients of resurrection, but in the passage Paul ALSO tells us who will raise us: God. (1 Corinthians 15.38)

Given the totality of that record, I don't see a textual basis upon which to argue that Jesus raised himself. It seems to me that your argument relies on one, perhaps two verses/passages in John, verses which must hold their ground against the persuasive impact of at least 49 other verses/passages in the NT, almost of whose grammatical constructions - either via the passive voice or through presenting Jesus as the direct object of God's action - rule out Jesus as the agent of resurrection.

I don't see the textual support for your view. In my view, the 25 instances of the passive voice by grammatical definition rule out Jesus as the agent of, or even a partner in, his own raising, as do the many verses in which Jesus is the object of God's action.

To my reading of the phrase, for Jesus, the two processes - laying down and taking up his life - are distinct and separable. I respect your different conclusion.

I agree that Jesus had the authority, power and ability to lay down and take up his life. We disagree, as previously noted, as to what taking up his life means.

-------------------------------------------------------

NOW HERE'S THE LIST OF NT TEXTS I FOUND IN WHICH "RAISED" REFERS TO THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. [KEY: (p)=passive voice/unidentified agent; (G)=God raised Jesus; (HS)=the power of the Holy Spirit raised; I used the NLT version and for this list excepted only the clause in which the word "raised" appears. I'm open to correction, but I don't believe my process or quotations risk contextual challenges.]

(p) Matthew 16.21 - would be raised 
(p) Matthew 19.9 - will be raised
(p) Matthew 20.19 - will be raised
(p) Matthew 26.32 - after I have been raised
(p) Mark 14.28 - after I am raised
(p) Mark 16.14 - after he had been raised
(p) Luke 9.22 - will be raised
(p) John 2.22 - after he was raised
(p) John 14.20 - when I am raised
(p) John 21.14 - since he had been raised

(G) Acts 2.24 - God released... and raised him
(G) Acts 2.32 - God raised Jesus
(G) Acts 3.15 - God raised him
(G) Acts 3.26 - God raised up his servant
(G) Acts 4.10 - the man you crucified but God raised from the dead
(G) Acts 5.30 - the God of our ancestors raised Jesus
(G) Acts 10.40 - God raised him
(G) Acts 13.30 - God raised him
(G) Acts 13.37 - someone whom God raised

(HS)Romans 1.4 - raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit
(G) Romans 4.24 - believe in him (God), the one who raised Jesus our Lord
(p) Romans 4.25 - he was raised to new life
(G) Romans 6.4 - Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father
(p) Romans 7.4 - the one who was raised from the dead
(G) Romans 8.11 - the Spirit of God (or) God raised Christ Jesus
(p) Romans 8.34 - was raised to life for us
(G) Romans 10.9 - God raised him from the dead

(G) 1 Corinthians 6.14 - God will raise us...just as he raised our Lord
(p) 1 Corinthians 14.4 - he was raised from the dead
(p) 1 Corinthians 15.13 - if... then Christ has not been raised either
(p) 1 Corinthians 15.14 - if Christ has not been raised
(G) 1 Corinthians 15.15 - God raised Christ 
(p) 1 Corinthians 15.16 - if... then Christ has not been raised
(p) 1 Corinthians 15.17 - if Christ has not been raised
(p) 1 Corinthians 15.20 - Christ has been raised
(p) 1 Corinthians 15.23 - Christ was raised

(G) 2 Corinthians 4.14 - God, who raise the Lord Jesus
(p) 2 Corinthians 5.15 - Christ, who died and was raised for them

(G) Galatians 1.1 - God the Father, who raised Jesus

(G) Ephesians 1.19-20 - God’s power... that raised Christ from the dead
(G) Ephesians 2.4-5 - God...gave us life when he raised Christ
(G) Ephesians 2.6 - he (God) raised us from the dead along with Christ

(p) Philippians 3.10 - the mighty power that raised [Christ] from the dead

(G) Colossians 2.12 - God, who raised Christ from the dead

(G) 1 Thessalonians 1.10 - Jesus, whom God raised
(p) 1 Thessalonians 4.14 - Jesus died and was raised

(p) 2 Timothy 2.8 - Jesus Christ... was raised from the dead

(G) 1 Peter 1.3 - God raised Jesus
(G) 1 Peter 1.21 - he (God) raised Christ from the dead
(p) 1 Peter 3.18 - he was raised to life in the Spirit