God wants us to worship Jesus - compare the heavenly worship scene in Rev 5. This topic of worship and idolatry is a fascinating topic, and one unitarians have spent a lot of time on - can't go into it all here though. (Yes, there have been some unitarians like Priestley who enthusiastically wielded charges of idolatry against trinatiarins.)
The sequence of Rev 4 & 5 is interesting. Rev 4 is all a vision of God (the Father), like in Isaiah or Ezekiel.
Jesus makes his entry in ch. 5 looking very much like a creature entering God's court, and is declared worthy because of his obedience (9-10) to God, accomplishing the mission God gave him. On this basis, he's worthy to receive the things in v. 12 - things which if he were God, he would not need to be given. Consequently, he is worshiped alongside God, as if sharing God's throne. (13-4)
Several problems:
i) One of the major themes in Revelation is the distinction between true and false worship (e.g. 19:10; 22:9).
ii) Actually, Jesus makes his first appearance in chap. 1.
a) There we find a Yahwistic text (Zech 12:10) directly applied to Jesus (Rev 1:9).
b) We also find a uniquely Yahwistic title (Isa 44:6; 48:12) alternately applied to the Father and the Son (Rev 1:8,17; cf. 21:6,13). This places Jesus on a par with Yahweh and the Father alike.
ii) The interrelation between Rev 4 & 5 is, indeed instructive. Parallel doxologies are applied to both (4:11; 5:12). The whole point of the back-to-back comparison is to accentuate their parity.
iii) In fact, the doxology for Son is even more effusive than the doxology for the Father.
Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power.
Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!
iv) The concentric architecture also accentuates the divine worship of Jesus. The divine throne-room is structured in concentric circles. The whole point is to make the central figure God.
v) As for Jesus “looking very much like a creature,” let’s not forget how he looks in chap. 1:
12Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.
This includes imagery which evokes the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:9-10.
vi) As far as appearances go, let’s not forget that the Father is also depicted in human terms, as a monarch seated on a physical throne (Rev 4:2).
vi) From an incarnational standpoint, Christ is creature and Creator in one, so highlighting some creaturely aspects of Christ is hardly at odds with Trinitarian theology or Christology.
This is all parallel to Phil 2:1-11. Unitarians see these as about the exaltation of Jesus for the first time, not a restoration of former glory temporarily laid aside.
i) That destroys the V-shaped line of Phil 2:1-11, where you have the downward motion followed by the upward motion. The ascent presupposes the prior descent.
ii) This is underscored by the:
a) Synonymous parallelism between morphe theou and isa theo
as well as the:
b) Antithetical parallelism between morphe theou and morphe doulou.
iii) Then, in vv9-11, you have a uniquely Yahwistic text directly applied to Christ. To take in the full context:
Isa 45:18-25
18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens
(he is God!),
who formed the earth and made it
(he established it;
he did not create it empty,
he formed it to be inhabited!):
"I am the LORD, and there is no other. 19 I did not speak in secret,
in a land of darkness;
I did not say to the offspring of Jacob,
'Seek me in vain.'
I the LORD speak the truth;
I declare what is right.
20 "Assemble yourselves and come;
draw near together,
you survivors of the nations!
They have no knowledge
who carry about their wooden idols,
and keep on praying to a god
that cannot save.
21 Declare and present your case;
let them take counsel together!
Who told this long ago?
Who declared it of old?
Was it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me.
22"Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
23 By myself I have sworn;
from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
a word that shall not return:
'To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance.'
24 "Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me,
are righteousness and strength;
to him shall come and be ashamed
all who were incensed against him.
25In the LORD all the offspring of Israel
shall be justified and shall glory."
Phil 2:9-11
9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Steve, this is an avalanche of stuff, only some of which is relevant to the dispute.
ReplyDeleteI'll sift through a few points.
Of course Jesus appears before ch 4 - I was talking of his entry into the throne room scene.
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"! These are points well know to careful interpreters, both trinitarian and unitarian.
About Rev 5 - note that there are two objects of worship there. Also, interestingly, the Holy Spirit is not an object of worship there.
"the V-shaped line of Phil 2:1-11"
This is the very point at issue. We see a line shaped like this: _/ And by "we," I don't mean just unitarians. I mean them, plus super heavyweight trinitarian exegete Dunn, who reads it as a case of Pauline Adam theology - Jesus, new Adam, being contrasted with the old Adam, who grasped after equality with God. This passage is among the most disputed and most important for christology, and deserves much more discussion. About the ref to Is 45 - sure, he's raised to God's position, by God, all to the glory of God. (v. 11) Jesus, like other agents of YHWH in ancient Jewish lit, has the name "YHWH" bestowed on him by YHWH - at least, we assume this is the name in question. (v.9) All of this, as plain as day, supposes them to be numerically two, and hence, not one God.
DALE SAID:
ReplyDelete“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.”
Your argument is self-defeating. If any term, however exalted, that’s “normally” reserved for God, can be transferred to creaturely agents, then you lose any monotheistic benchmark to distinguish the true God from the creature, or false gods.
“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’!”
What I ignore is when you repeat tendentious assertions.
Let’s go back to Rev 2:23. How does a creature “fulfill” the attribute of judicial omniscience?
Likewise, in what sense can a creature be the final judge of other creatures? They are not ultimately accountable to a fellow creature.
“These are points well know to careful interpreters, both trinitarian and unitarian.”
Which is circular inasmuch as you dismiss any interpreters who disagree as careless interpreters.
“This is the very point at issue. We see a line shaped like this: _/ And by ‘we,’ I don't mean just unitarians. I mean them, plus super heavyweight trinitarian exegete Dunn, who reads it as a case of Pauline Adam theology - Jesus, new Adam, being contrasted with the old Adam, who grasped after equality with God. This passage is among the most disputed and most important for christology, and deserves much more discussion.”
Needless to say, scholars like Bauckham, Bockmuehl, Fee, O’Brien, and Silva have scrutinized the alleged Adam-typology. And even if there’s something to it (which is disputed), that’s an echo, not a prism.
“About the ref to Is 45 - sure, he's raised to God's position, by God, all to the glory of God. (v. 11) Jesus, like other agents of YHWH in ancient Jewish lit, has the name ‘YHWH’ bestowed on him by YHWH - at least, we assume this is the name in question. (v.9)”
Which begs the question of whether creaturely agents can be raised to Yahweh’s own level. Also, vague, indiscriminate allusions to “ancient Jewish lit” won’t do the trick. There’s a lot of sorting that needs to be done by date and provenance, as well as what the texts actually say.
“All of this, as plain as day, supposes them to be numerically two, and hence, not one God.”
You’re oblivious to the logical tensions that your own position generates. If divine indicia are transferable, then the “two” become interchangeable at a fundamental level.
You have no basis for affirming the unicity of God in the first place when you erase any discernible (pardon the Leibnizian pun) distinction between God and creaturely agents.
Dale,
ReplyDelete"In a religious atmosphere where it is presupposed that God is not a man"
But aren't trinitarians arguing that the apostles and first Christians thought Jesus was God? In that case, it looks question begging to say that they "presupposed God is not a man" and then say that therefore they couldn't mean Jesus was God.
"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"!"
And apparently the special agent can also do things one would think only YHWH could do. So we have an agent who can act like YHWH, receive worship like YHWH and all the titles of YHWH, but not be YHWH.
So then, how could a trinitarian ever prove his case with you, Dale?
Even if there were a verse that said "The Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God." You could just say this is an instance of theos or YHWH applied to non-divine special agents.
If we show them doing works ascribed to God then this is just an instance of non-divine special agents acting in behalf of God.
So verses that say Jesus is God can be dismissed. Verses that say Jesus acts as God acts can be dismissed. So what other sort of verse is one supposed to marshal?
It looks pretty clear that you're starting with the "one true God" idea and taking it in such a way that one could never derive something other than unitarianism.
Also, Dale, still wondering about the idolatry question.
ReplyDeleteYou said Unitarians believe Jesus is worthy of worship. But I would think not worthy of worship *as God* which is how Christians worship him.
So how is that not being an idolater?
DALE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Jesus, like other agents of YHWH in ancient Jewish lit, has the name "YHWH" bestowed on him by YHWH."
Scholars like Darrel Bock and Craig Evans have sifted through that material, drawing a very different conclusion, viz, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65.