DALE SAID:
The subordinationist unitarian takes what you can call apparent Christ-creator texts this way. I don't think they in fact teach Jesus to have created. My point was that even if they teach that he created, you would need to rule out this rather obvious, agential way to take them, which was so popular with the 2nd c. "fathers."
You’re free to qualify the force of your previous statements. Keep in mind, thought, that I was responding to what you said at the time, and not your ex post facto revisions
Until you rule this out, it's hard to see why such would imply that Jesus is God himself, or even that he's divine in the same sense the Father is divine.
Agential categories are not a logical alternative to the full deity of Christ. There are different types of agential relations. In a master/slave relation, the slave can act on behalf of the master, but a slave is only a slave. Just about any slave can play that role.
In a father/son relation, by contrast, a son can also act on behalf of his father, but the dynamic is very different because father and son are intimately related to each other. Two of a kind.
Likewise, take a king/prince relation. Royal subjects will defer to the crown prince, but not merely because he’s been authorized to act on the king’s behalf.
One difference is that if the royal subjects snub the prince, the king will take that as a personal affront in a way that wouldn’t be the case if they snubbed a mere courtier. A son naturally represents his father. It’s not just a legal or social convention–like sending a courtier.
Even more to the point, the prince isn’t merely acting on the king’s behalf, but in his stead. For one day, the crown prince will actually take his father’s place. Royal subjects, or adjoining kingdoms, know that by dishonoring the prince they are not merely dishonoring the king who sent him–they are simultaneously dishonoring a future king. One day the crown prince will rule over them in his own right.
Even if the old king doesn’t avenge the slight to his son (it may not be politically expedient to do so, perhaps he needs to preserve a military alliance), the crown prince will settle the score when he assumes the throne. By snubbing the crown prince, they are making enemies with a future king.
The sort of imagery we have in, say, Ps 2, evokes and exploits these social and emotional connections.
Of course, humanitarian unitarians have every right to help ourselves to the Jesus as God's agent idea, for it is central to the NT the Jesus acts as God's agent, on God's behalf. This is why Jesus emphasizes that he's been given authority to do things one might assume only God himself could do - e.g. forgive sins, send God's spirit, judge humanity, giving new life, speak God's word, etc. (John 5:27, John 12:49, 17:2; Mt. 9:8, Mt. 28:18; Lk 10:19)
Several problems:
i) That defies your unitarian prooftexts in Isaiah. Tuggy plays a double game. When he’s casting about for unitarian prooftexts, he turns to Isa 40-48, which underscore Yahweh’s unique, incomparable claims. But when Tuggy wants to relativize what the NT says about Jesus, he must relativize what the OT says about Yahweh. So he constantly oscillates between these two opposing strategies.
How much can God delegate to a creature? Tuggy bounces back and forth between the inimitability of God in Isaiah over against the imitability of God in the NT.
ii) In addition, NT ascriptions go beyond instrumental ascriptions. Take Col 1:16-17. The Son isn’t a creature creating other creatures. Rather, the Son is the universal Creator. The Son stands in categorical contrast to the created order.
We could also discuss Col 2:9, which certainly goes beyond instrumental/agential language. For more details, see Moo’s commentary.
iii) You’re also selective about what details you press. But as I pointed out before, that cuts both ways. For instance, the image of the crown prince who assumes his father’s throne is corollary to the image of the geriatric king who abdicates the throne. Take the depiction of God as a white-haired old man in Dan 7:9. Take the depiction of the heir apparent in vv13-14.
Here we have the familiar story of an old king who’s been grooming the firstborn son to take over, to reign in his place. The reigning monarch is over-the-hill while the crown prince is in his prime. Out with the old, in with the new. The transition of power from one generation to the next.
Unitarians pick-and-choose which details of which depictions they wish to take to their logical conclusion.
Of course, if Jesus were YHWH himself, or were equally divine, he wouldn't need to have such authority granted to him by another.
Which fails to take the Incarnation into account.
Paul prophesies a sort of climax of all this authority-giving by God:
1 Cor 15:24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power. 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 15:26 The last enemy to be eliminated is death. 15:27 For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But when it says “everything” has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him. 15:28 And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.
I already dealt with that passage–and others like it:
("God" throughout is the Father, as is normally the case in the NT.)
A red herring. When two parties are in view, different designations will be used for each to distinguish the grammatical subjects. And, indeed, Paul is using “God” as a proper name for the Father in this passage.
But unitarian usage requires “God” to be used as a common noun for the Father, and to be reserved for the Father alone. I’ve explained this to you repeatedly. Unfortunately, Tuggy has a very limited repertoire of arguments at his disposal, so he recyles the same, often contradictory, arguments rather than revising his stale arguments to address the counterarguments.
About "divine" intertestamental intermediaries. I don't put much weight on them; this is a dark subject. I only cite them for examples of beings other than YHWH, but who serve closely with him, "bearing his name".
Oh. So now you don’t put much weight on them. Seems to me you put a lot of weight on them when it served your purpose:
In a religious atmosphere where it is presupposed that God is not a man, one can heap exalted terms, terms normally reserved for God, onto that special man, the Son of Man, and people will not infer that that man is God himself. Over and over, you ignore the crucial points that predictions about YHWH can be fulfilled in his special agent, and that beings other that YHWH can be called by names and titles normally reserved for YHWH - even the proper name, ‘Yahweh’!
You say whatever you think you can get away with at the time.
In addition, you also confuse two distinct issues:
i) Does Jesus bear the name of “Yahweh.”
ii) Does Jesus have attributes or exercise prerogatives that are uniquely associated with “Yahweh.”
There are passages like Isa 40-48 where “Yahweh” is the name of the individual who has certain prerogatives or attributes. “Yahweh” (as well as Elohim) is his designation. And, of course, Isaiah would have to attach a name to the property-bearer so that readers know who he’s referring to.
However, when Christians say Jesus is “Yahweh,” they don’t simply mean he goes by that name (or the Septuagintal equivalent in NT Greek).
No, they also mean he has the prerogative and attributes that are uniquely associated with that named individual. And they say that because that’s what the Bible says about Jesus.
This, of course, being done to Jesus at his exaltation. (Phil 2:9) I suppose that in your view, he should have had this name restored to him; but, that's not what it says.
i) You often talk as if you never understood the Trinity in the first place. There’s a difference between the Son qua Son and the Son qua incarnate. What’s true of the Son qua Son is not conterminous with the Son qua incarnate, or vice versa.
By the same token, there’s a distinction between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. The immanent Trinity subsists in a timeless state.
By contrast, the economic Trinity has a history, with successive stages in the life of God. So, no, the Son doesn’t have the same standing throughout the economy of salvation. Rather, it has its ups and downs.
ii) Moreover, you’re selective in what you pick out. You disregard the ascription of divine coequality in Phil 2:6. For detailed analysis, see Fee and O’Brien in their respective commentaries.
Steve, another great post. I hesitate to chime in since, a) you are doing a much better job than I ever could in dismantling Tuggy's assertions, and b) Tuggy never provides a cogent, biblically-sound answer to anything anyway.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do want to turn Tuggy's assertion against his beliefs. He said:
Of course, if Jesus were YHWH himself, or were equally divine, he wouldn't need to have such authority granted to him by another.
Tuggy's claim proves too much, since it ends up proving that YHWH himself can't be YHWH either! Note the following passage:
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage." Deuteronomy 32:8-9
YHWH's ALLOTTED inheritance is Jacob/Israel? Allotted by whom?
Here is another:
"Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!" Psalm 82:8
YHWH shall arise to inherit the nations? Really? I thought YHWH already owns everything? How can he, therefore, inherit or be allotted anything?
In fact, is Tuggy aware that liberal, critical scholars use Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9 to prove that the Israelites initially believed that YHWH was one of the sons of El, and therefore a subordinate deity? These critics argue that it was only later in Israelite history that YHWH and El became submerged into each other. Case in point: http://religionatthemargins.com/2011/07/the-most-heiser-yahweh-and-elyon-in-psalm-82-and-deuteronomy-32/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thomstark+%28thomstark%29
Now if Tuggy has no problem with YHWH disincarnate inheriting or receiving things, then why in the world would he have a problem with YHWH incarnate being appointed or receiving an inheritance?
If YHWH disincarnate can still be the only true God despite receiving or inheriting [from] his own creation, then why can't Jesus be the only true God even though he has been appointed by his Father as Heir of all things?
Can't Jesus receive back what he voluntarily set aside after humbling himself for a season by taking on the status of a slave in order to accomplish the redemption of God's people? If not, why not?
"ex post facto revisions"
ReplyDeleteSteve, if you're going to throw an accusation of inconsistency, you need to show that your opponent clearly asserts or implies both P and not-P. That something strikes you as new may just show that you're still coming to understand the position.
"Agential categories are not a logical alternative to the full deity of Christ."
That's exactly right. You're also right that doer-instrument relations can take many forms, and that the best analogy for God-Jesus is Father-Son. e.g. Luke 20:9ff.
"That defies your unitarian prooftexts in Isaiah. Tuggy plays a double game. When he’s casting about for unitarian prooftexts, he turns to Isa 40-48, which underscore Yahweh’s unique, incomparable claims. But when Tuggy wants to relativize what the NT says about Jesus, he must relativize what the OT says about Yahweh. So he constantly oscillates between these two opposing strategies."
Steve, what is the inconsistency exactly? I agree that Is. shows YHWH (the Father) to be the only creator and all-provident governor. This is wholly consistent with his authorizing Jesus to do things on his behalf, even massively important things like judging humanity.
"the inimitability of God in Isaiah over against the imitability of God in the NT"
Eh... I don't think I have a problem of inconsistent texts here. Do you?
You should lay off the accusations of weaseling, and pay more attention to the arguments.
"[In Col] the Son is the universal Creator"
Ah, the joys of question begging. Pound that table. :-)
"You’re also selective about what details you press"
This is probably true for any analogy, and any theologian. I'm afraid that you have not shown any ad hoc elements of my view. This is a hard charge to make stick, of course.
"Which fails to take the Incarnation into account. "
No, it doesn't. The Incarnated Son is still wholly divine, and still, in your view, was Creator. It seems these will logically imply that he has the same rights as before. I suppose your idea is that he voluntarily divests himself of certain rights. It's an interesting ethical question whether even an omnipotent being could do that. What I'm presupposing here is what philosophers call the necessary "supervenience" of moral facts on non-moral facts.
"But unitarian usage requires “God” to be used as a common noun for the Father, and to be reserved for the Father alone. I’ve explained this to you repeatedly."
ReplyDeleteSteve... this is about the wildest non sequitur you've put out there. Yes, if unitarianism is true, then the Father is a god, the only god. But this does not imply that no other being can be described or addressed as "God" or "a god." e.g. Heb 1:8-9 features a being addressed as "God," and this being has a god, who is YHWH/the Father. The author does not thereby contradict monotheism. But my point is independent of any text; monotheism is one thesis, and mono-theos-ism (only one being can be called "God") is another, which is not implied by the first (and which goes against both OT and NT).
"You say whatever you think you can get away with at the time."
Steve, you're pretty deep into the poisoning the well fallacy here - an extreme form of ad hominem. If I'm such a weasel, why should any reasonable person argue with me at all?
"Does Jesus bear the name of “Yahweh.”
Yes.
"Does Jesus have attributes or exercise prerogatives that are uniquely associated with “Yahweh.”
Yes - he does things uniquely (in the OT) associated with YHWH. But he doesn't do what only YHWH can do. That's to assert a contradiction - that only YHWH can do X, and yet here is someone else, numerically distinct from YHWH, who can also do X.
"when Christians say Jesus is “Yahweh,” they don’t simply mean he goes by that name"
Agreed. They often mean (1) the confused view that he's YHWH himself (they're personally identical) even though they differ, or (2) just that Jesus is "fully divine" - which can mean a bunch of things, depending on the metaphysics one is assuming.
"There’s a difference between the Son qua Son and the Son qua incarnate"
Oh, I understand this all too well. This is to sweep an inconsistency under the linguistic carpet. I recommend abandonment of the whole "qua" strategy of argument. We can talk about this more if you want. Philosopher Tom Senor has written some penetrating stuff on this.
"there’s a distinction between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity"
I think Randal Rauser has shown this distinction to be either trivial or mistaken. So, no, I don't think there's any such important distinction, despite the theological tradition of this sort of discourse. Steve, as you spell it out, one of them's timeless, the other in time. Therefore, the one Trinity isn't the other (since they differ). Therefore, there are (at least) two Trinities. Yikes!