Cfrtjryk

Before I can arrive at a conclusion, or even make comment on a recent question asked in Stack Christianity, I need clarification on the Greek text of two scriptures. The matter relates to both God the Father and the Son of God being called “Saviour” throughout the Bible. The question is whether this means that the Bible advocates two Saviours (if the Father created the Son, therefore ruling out them having the one Being of God) or whether both the Father and the Son are, without contradiction, the one Saviour of mankind that the Bible presents God as being (e.g. Isaiah 43:11 ‘I – I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.’ (New World Translation i.e. N.W.T.)

In some answers already given on the ‘Christianity’ site, it would appear that the explanation given by advocates of the N.W.T. depends (to a critical degree) on whether the N.W.T. has correctly translated the two verses below. I quote the entire paragraph, for the sake of context, in the article entitled ‘How Many Saviors Do You Have?’ which advocates of the N.W.T. cited in support of their answers. [Awake! 22nd October 1976 pp 27-28]

But what about Jesus Christ? He, too, cannot be spoken of as being a
Savior besides Jehovah, that is, as a rival of his Father. The
Scriptures clearly establish that Jesus’ role as Savior was assigned
to him by his Father. The Christian apostle John wrote: “We ourselves
have beheld and are bearing witness that the Father has sent forth his
Son as Savior of the world.” (1 John 4:14) Aged Simeon, on seeing the
babe Jesus at the temple, exclaimed: “Now, Sovereign Lord, you are
letting your slave go free in peace according to your declaration;
because my eyes have seen your means of saving.”—Luke 2:29, 30.
[Source https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101976768#h=8 ]

The concluding paragraph of that article is quoted below, again for clarity and context as to the interpretation applied by advocates of the N.W.T.:

The testimony of the Bible as a whole thus makes it clear that there
is but one Savior, Jehovah God. All others who have rightly been
called saviors, including Jesus Christ, are not rival saviors. Rather,
they were willing to be used by Jehovah God in this capacity. Hence,
those desiring to gain divine approval must acknowledge that salvation
proceeds from the Father through his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
[Source https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101976768#h=13 ]

However, when I compared the Interlinear of the N.W.T. with that for the A.V. I notice differences in the literal English. For 1 John 4:14 the N.W.T. (Greek Interlinear, abbreviation is K.I.T.) literally reads in English, “And we have viewed and we are bearing witness that the Father has sent off the Son Savior of the world.” But the A.V. (Interlinear Greek Nestle text, literal English of Dr Alfred Marshall) has, “And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son [as] Saviour of the world.” Note the square brackets around ‘as’, indicating that word has been added. It is not actually in the Greek text. I ask, regarding this verse, does the literal Greek state “the Son saviour of the world”?

The other verse in Luke 2:30 has Simeon saying of the baby Jesus (in the KIT), “because saw the eyes of me the means of saving of you…” However, the A.V. literal English reads, “because saw the eyes of me the salvation of thee…” I ask, regarding this verse, does the literal Greek state “means of”?

As I have no knowledge of biblical Greek or the ability to reproduce the Greek text here, I crave your patience for reading my preamble to my two questions, and that you would answer in a way that would help me form a conclusion about the initial question that got me thinking, namely, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67761/do-jehovahs-witnesses-have-one-saviour-or-two/67833#67833 However, I am NOT seeking comment on THAT question as I only want clarification on my two questions about two verses of scripture, namely, 1 John 4:14 and Luke 2:30.

Here is the Greek text of the two verses you ask about:

1 John 4.14

καὶ ἡμεῖς τεθεάμεθα καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέσταλκεν τὸν υἱὸν σωτῆρα τοῦ κόσμου.

Luke 2.29-30

Νῦν ἀπολύεις τὸν δοῦλόν σου, δέσποτα, κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ ὅτι εἶδον οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου τὸ σωτήριόν σου

So the precise answer to your precise questions is:

(1) Yes. In 1 John 4.14 the literal Greek says "The son saviour of the world" (τὸν υἱὸν σωτῆρα τοῦ κόσμου).

(2) No. In Luke 2.30 there is no Greek directly relating to "means of". The phrase is "ὅτι (because} εἶδον (have seen) οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου (my eyes) τὸ σωτήριόν σου (your salvation)".

For what it's worth, my personal view is that questions about the identity of Jesus can never be fully answered in the narrow grammatical way implied by the OP. For example, consider the two proposed translations of 1 John 4.14:

(1) And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son Saviour of the world.

(2) And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son [as] Saviour of the world.

To my mind those sentences mean the same thing. The word "as" is added in the sense that it is necessary in English to express the meaning of the Greek sentence. We might just as easily say, the Father has sent the son [to be] the Saviour of the world. Whatever we add, the goal is to assist the translation process by moving from the natural Greek statement to a natural English statement. Sentence (1) is a correct word for word translation, but it's bad English. In sentence (2) the word "as" is added not to change the meaning but to express the meaning in a natural way in English. I can't see any difference between the sentences.

When Jehovah's Witnesses say as per the linked question that Jesus is only Saviour in an assigned sense, I actually think they are half right. 1 John 4.14 explicitly says that the Father sent the Son. Agency is involved. The son is a sent one. But the challenge remains for all of us. How can the Son be any kind of Saviour if he is only human? The Jewish leaders understood this. When Jesus claimed to forgive sins they respond, who can forgive sins but God alone? (eg Matthew 9.1-7) However we deal with small (but important) technical questions such as this one, the big question of Jesus' identity remains, and I for one do not see how he can be limited to a human identity. The testimony of the New Testament demands more from us.

It’s very hard to explain this when you think from a Greek mindset, G d is ONE which to our ears sounds like singular. The passage comes from the Hebrew and it reads G d is echâd. But echâd is one in the sense that He is UNITED; one in direction, drawing from the same source.

All through the Old Testament the concept of echâd appears in relation to G d. Throughout the New Testament you have the Father and Son switching position for the same role.

Your question is demanding an either the Father or the Son but in fact it’s both the Father and the Son.

“one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4:6‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Notice how this term gets used by the same author elsewhere

“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭3:11‬ ‭ESV‬‬

One time it’s the Father the other is the Son because G d is echâd.

“And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭4:14‬ ‭ESV‬‬

If you read this out of the OT context of the two powers and G d being echâd then yes it would appear in English with a Greek mindset that the Son is not G d. But that is not being true to context, New Testament is nested in Old Testament Scripture. It cannot mean something completely different.

“for my eyes have seen your salvation”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭2:30‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Same thing here, in isolation from the Hebrew OT understanding of the Messiah, it appears that Jesus was a means.

But that’s just a limitation of translating to Greek a Hebrew concept. A man and a woman are also echâd. Two people but united. Or we read two become one.

There are obvious examples of G d being echâd in the OT like, Let US make man in OUR image, or who has believed OUR report, and there are subtle ones like

“"As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire.”
‭‭Daniel‬ ‭7:9‬ ‭ESV‬‬

More than one throne because it’s plural, thrones, and G d sits on more than one throne at the same time? No, G d is echâd. You also have the Christophanies, in the OT where the Angel of the Lord accepts worship, He is speaking on Mt Sinai and entering into Covenant with Israel, He calls Himself G d like at Isaac’s sacrifice.

It is paramount Jesus be G d otherwise His sacrifice was insufficient. G d has infinite value, a representative lamb does not and neither does a representative ‘angel’. Intrinsically they don’t have enough value to cover all sins, but G d intrinsically does. And only G d would have been sufficient ...fortunately Jesus Intrinsically was G d, echâd with the Father which is how you can have G d the Father in heaven putting His wrath on G d the Son on the cross. Because G d is ONE, echâd, united, drawing from the same, working in the same direction, for the same goals. Hear O Israel G d is echâd. If G d were singular then it would be yachid but that’s never referenced to G d, it’s slways echâd.

Interlinear text is a helpful thing, but also very limited - it translates each word individually and unfortunately don't help much with understanding a syntax, which is crucial thing.

John 4:14: καὶ ἡμεῖς τεθεάμεθα καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέσταλκεν τὸν υἱὸν σωτῆρα τοῦ κόσμου. Bold text is a construction called "double accusative" and can by simply translated as "-verb- something [as] something" - in this case "-has sent forth- his Son as Savior". Word "as" must be added by a translator, because in English language there is no other way to give back a meaning.

Luke 2:30 is a very simple sentence and I think that "For my eyes have seen your salvation" is just an adequate literal translation. I have no idea what intention the first translator had in mind.

Because verses you cited are quite simple sentences, your question regarding translating
can by easily answered. Which can't be said unfortunately about the theological discussion in the background, which in my opinion is quite artificial and away from the text itself. I'm afraid that my answer won't be helpfull in this case.