Neither Titus nor any of John's letters ever call Jesus "Lord"! So?

Crazy, huh? Yep, that's right folks. Astonishingly, neither Titus nor any of John's letters ever call Jesus "Lord"! What might that mean?

I guess that this, along with the scant usage in Mark, is evidence for my thesis that there is first-century diversity in imagining Jesus' "exaltedness". It also is still further evidence that the early Greek-speaking (or Aramaic-speaking...) church was not going around proclaiming that Jesus is Yahweh. But let's not get sidetracked by silliness.

Titus 

Even mentioning that Jesus was "Lord" didn't figure in the Titus version of good news, but rather that God's saviour and our saviour (see 1:3 and 3:4), Jesus Christ would soon gloriously appear (2:13). If you were hunting for evidence that maybe Titus was not written by Paul himself, the fact the author does not refer to KYRIOS once in 659 Greek words is difficult to explain by the supposed "pastoral" sub-genre alone. 1 Timothy (1591 words) and 2 Timothy share this sub-genre with Titus and contain by my quick count 23 occurrences, including in the classic Paul opening greetings.

By the way, I have just done a major revamp of my 2016 post on Titus and the confusion expounded by many modern translations between the God who authors the salvation plan and the saviour he sends to achieve that plan for us. I have added a lot more clarification and an extra example case. For reference, the text did not read: Jesus Christ our God and Saviour, although I can't deny it does now!

1, 2 and 3 John

Along with Titus, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John are also completely silent on "Lord".
In addition to being "lordless", 3 John does not even mention Jesus or Christ. It's really quite extraordinary. But both 2 John and 3 John are pretty short, only 245 and 219 Greek words respectively.

1 John is 10 times longer than either of these: 2141 Greek words. What might that mean that the author these 2500 words of Christian exhortation fails to express either God or Jesus in terms of KYRIOS? While speaking of Jesus as HO KYRIOS and citing the LXX translation of Yahweh, KYRIOS, was commonplace in some churches, I think we might assume that this was not a de-facto usage. If it were, then why does the author of the epistles write in 1 John in 4:2:

"Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ ..... " IS LORD? No! He writes:
"Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God". Oh, ok.

If you were in a church founded by the writer of these epistles, then you would not necessarily interject every religious sentence with a "Lord"-this or a "Lord"-that. Rather, you might delight in the sense of cleansing light and presence of God through his Son the incarnate Word, and his animating spirit-life, an indwelling truth.

These proto-orthodoxies represented in the diverse expressions of very early Christianity are fascinating both in the historical picture they paint but also the subsequent need to bind them together in the face of even greater theological diversity, A.K.A. heresy. Maybe a case of circling the wagons.

Word counts courtesy of overviewbible.com here.

Titus: "God our Saviour", some hazy light...

In my christological studies, I have frequently noted that Titus has been a little book that is a bit... well, different. More recently, in 2018 during my research into translation options for KYRIOS, I even noted that it was one of 4 new Testament titles that completely fails to mention the word (as if that were each book's mission). But my initial reason for noticing the uniqueness of Titus was that among the epistles accredited to Paul, I found strong evidence (approx. 90% "suggestive") in English for metaphysical connection in the author's thinking between "God" and Jesus Christ the Saviour. But for the author there is strong distinction too even in English. In English, he does not seem particularly purposeful in stressing one or the other, which might suit Two-Natures doctrines quite nicely: the doctrine might be said to simply "flow".

In English, Titus struck me as different because on several occasions it seemed that Jesus was simply understood as God our Saviour, or that the title was used indiscriminately between the Father and the Son. On 1 March 2016, however, I was struck by what may well be a theological assumption on the part of those translating the Greek in the opening verses of Titus, which contain a translation problem. Why is it problematic? It's to do with possessives (genitive).

It's not perfect, but let's first take an example of a local member of parliament. In British English we talk all the time of "our MP". Ben Bradshaw has been Exeter's Labour MP since 1997. As citizens of Exeter, Bradshaw was "our" MP. For the first 10 years, Bradshaw was Tony Blair's MP for Exeter too, but the possessive construction here means something quite different. In my family and entourage, we were just several of many thousands of constituents of Bradshaw, our sole MP. For Blair, Bradshaw was just one of dozens of MPs across the country, but note that Bradshaw was also Blair's one-and-only MP for Exeter. So how might you express grammatically and using both possessives the different relationships between the following?

• Exeter (citizens)
• The Prime Minister
• The Member of Parlement

We might say: "Tony Blair's MP for Exeter (citizens)" (inverting the second "of"). Separately, both the "of" prepositions stand, but in English we don't like it, hence the substitution for a different preposition. 

Here's an even better example. A school, "St Thomas", has exactly one Biology teacher, Mr Haggis. Billie and Julie are in that school, and both the following statements are true:

• Mr Haggis is St Thomas' Biology teacher: Mr Haggis is the Biology teacher of St Haggis
• Mr Haggis is Billie and Julie's Biology teacher: Mr Haggis is the Biology teacher of Billie and Julie

But, clearly, it does not follow that either:

• Billie and Julie are St Thomas
• Mr Haggis is St Thomas

That's quite clear, is it not? The "of" possessive prepositions do not signify that the middle party, Mr Haggis, has only one kind of unique Biology-teacher-relationships. Paradoxically, he has many! The confusion has typically occurred because there happens to be just the one biology teacher, and that uniqueness has been conflated to fuse the middle and upper party for the purpose of some anachronistic translation methods.

PUPILS --> HAVE EXACTLY ONE --> BIOLOGY TEACHER
SCHOOL --> HAS EXACTLY ONE --> BIOLOGY TEACHER

However, it is a quite awkward combination of things to try to express both these unique relationships in one short sentence in English. So again, we could appeal to a different preposition and maybe even a repetition: Billie and Julie's Biology teacher, Mr Haggis, the Biology Teacher for St Thomas. The combination of "the" and "for" pack a powerful punch: he's the one.

So, I think it is precisely this combination that the Pauline author is condensing in Titus 1:3-4 and 3:4-7, and I think we can demonstrate it.

Verse 3 concludes: according to the command of the saviour of us of God.
Of the Saviour of us: tou [OF THE] Sōtēros [SAVIOUR] hēmōn [OF US]
Of God: Theou [OF GOD]

In full:

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology 3753 [e] hote ὅτε when Adv 1161 [e] de δὲ moreover Conj 3588 [e] hē ἡ the Art-NFS 5544 [e] chrēstotēs χρηστότης kindness N-NFS 2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj 3588 [e] hē ἡ the Art-NFS 5363 [e] philanthrōpia φιλανθρωπία love of mankind N-NFS 2014 [e] epephanē ἐπεφάνη appeared, V-AIP-3S 3588 [e] tou τοῦ of the Art-GMS 4990 [e] Sōtēros Σωτῆρος Savior N-GMS 1473 [e] hēmōn ἡμῶν of us, PPro-G1P 2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦ, God, N-GMS

Verse 4 continues immediately to state:

to Titus,	N-DMS
1103 [e]	gnēsiō	γνησίῳ	[my] true	Adj-DNS
5043 [e]	teknō	τέκνῳ	child,	N-DNS
2596 [e]	kata	κατὰ	according to	Prep
2839 [e]	koinēn	κοινὴν	[our] common	Adj-AFS
4102 [e]	pistin	πίστιν·	faith:	N-AFS
5485 [e]	charis	χάρις	Grace	N-NFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
1515 [e]	eirēnē	εἰρήνη	peace	N-NFS
575 [e]	apo	ἀπὸ	from	Prep
2316 [e]	Theou	Θεοῦ	God	N-GMS
3962 [e]	Patros	Πατρὸς	[the] Father,	N-GMS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
5547 [e]	Christou	Χριστοῦ	Christ	N-GMS
2424 [e]	Iēsou	Ἰησοῦ	Jesus,	N-GMS
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	the	Art-GMS
4990 [e]	Sōtēros	Σωτῆρος	Savior	N-GMS
1473 [e]	hēmōn	ἡμῶν.	of us.

The Saviour of us is there again, although this time seemingly much more clearly distinguished from the one who is called God, the Father. Wow, that's a fast turnaround.

The exact same pattern of 1:3 returns in Titus 3:4, so whatever the Pauline writer was saying here, this grammar is a strong, consistent and even logical reflection of his thinking on this.

You could even say Paul was saying Jesus Christ is our "God saviour", but the hyphen almost self copy-pastes in so I'd caution against it! No, the author is simultaneously stating that Jesus Christ is God's and our means of salvation.

So I find myself now in 2018 as sceptical of the NIV interpretation of Titus 1:3 as I was when I first wrote this post over two years ago, precisely because of the consistency of the grammar, the contexts and the logic.

I hope I'm getting better at positively looking forward these days with some helpful alternatives. So what could I suggest given our examples and brief examination of the grammar? I might go for:

...According to the command of God's Saviour for us, Jesus Christ.

What do you think?

What I think it achieves is a much more consistent reading of Titus, whereby the Saviour is consistently Christ. Christ is God's saviour, not that he saved God, but that he is the saviour through whom God mediates salvation for man.

Looking outside the box briefly, Jesus is God's saviour and God's Messiah elsewhere in Scripture too:

Acts 13:23 reads:
From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Saviour Jesus, as he promised.

Revelation 11:15 reads:
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said:‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.

This is not an anti-trinitarian argument, it is a non-trinitarian argument over which various interpretations should be able to find agreement, since I doubt Trinitarians would hold that "Jesus is of God" to be unorthodox - that would seem to fit with a conviction that Scriptures teach the eternal generation by the Father of the Son, who was sent by the Father into the world. Furthermore, the uniqueness of the connections between us and the one Saviour and God is clear.

I also concede that in 2 Timothy 1:10 the genitive following "saviour of us" states "Christ Jesus" but I stress that this is a secondary consideration from a separate context and document.

There is hope for the NIV! A quick peak at Titus 2:13

I had a period where I started to really like the NASB, and also at times the NET Bible translations. You know what they say, it is always worth checking another translation. Well, if you are reading the older translation of the NIV then it is also worth checking the updated one, I think around 2011 for the full Bible. The version many evangelicals were reading in the 80s and 90s, and still many today, has some subtle but very significant differences. There is a very notable one I spotted in Hebrews 1, where we shift from Jesus being made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honour and everything put under his feet, to MANKIND being made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honour and everything put under our feet. That might seem like a big jump, but that is simply what is now understood to be in the original Greek. Too much had been made of the title "son of man", and all the glory, honour and authority so naturally seeming like something Jesus should have.

But the passage that is bouncing around my brain right now is from Titus 2:10-13. Up until now, I had been thinking that Titus was a really special book in terms of Christology, because my study was showing it to consistently assume that Jesus simply was the highest form of deity there could be. Jesus is God for the Titus writer. I was looking forward to writing a special section about it. Until I stumbled over a very significant change from old NIV, which follows the KJV, to new NIV.

Old NIV:
...while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us...

New NIV:
...while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us...

Can you see why this update is significant? It is actually significant on two levels, both of which I think are of great importance.

Firstly, in terms of my quest for the biblical justification of the fourth-century doctrine of the Triune God as something more than an "interpretation", I thought I had a solid "blue" text here, that is to say suggestive and compatible with later developments. It is now possible from the current NIV rendering - which I note to be now the mainstream reading - to understand the original passage differently, that Jesus is the glory of God that is to appear. But I suspect it is even more than that, and I am not alone. Literally the Greek says:

awaiting the blessed hope and [the] appearing of the glory of the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus.

Huther refers for proof to Buttman and Wince, perhaps affirming essentially that the "—" (dash) after "hope" is OK, because it is impossible to treat "the hope" and the "appearing" as one subject. Jesus is the glory of our great God. So the second [the] is justified, and the appearance of Christ Jesus is also the blessed hope.

This update from NIV is also significant for me on a second level. I feel very encouraged that while theological commitments will always have their influence on translators (and that can historically be shown without a shred of doubt), that this discipline with regard to bible translation and textual criticism is showing true advances toward neutrality, thus better translations, even at the cost of trinitarian proof texts! I admire that.

Before closing, I should also note that quite a few scholars seem to also keep open the possibility of another older interpretation, from a point of view of grammatical and author consistency, that the sentence requires in English the insertion of a second "our", which means that while Christ and God are distinguished, the eagerly awaited glory is shared and non-personified, as opposed to the previous interpretation. Suffice it to say that the chances of the Titus-writer meaning Titus to understand that Jesus just is God here seem to me slim according to current textual scholarship.