There are different ways of broaching the deity of Christ, but here's a simple, neglected tack: what's the difference between the Son of God and a prophet of God? Here's one crucial difference:
i) Prophet: believe me
ii) Jesus: believe in me
We should believe a prophet of God because he speaks for God. We should believe his message.
But we don't believe in him. He's just a messenger. Indeed, it would be idolatrous to believe in him, as if a prophet is an end in itself, or object of faith.
Of course, we ought to believe Jesus, but it goes beyond that. We should believe in Jesus. Take the classic "Believe in God; believe also in me" (Jn 14:1).
Notice the symmetry. Like Father, like Son.
In popular American parlance we sometimes say "I believe in you," which means "I trust you" or "I have faith in your potential."
And certainly the trust element is part of how Scripture defines saving faith.
But that's not what Jn 14:1 means. Rather, Jesus is the object of faith, the object of worship. Not a means to an end, but the destination.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Steve,
ReplyDeleteThe only problem with this argument is that it doesn't actually imply or even suggest the deity of Jesus.
Of course, he *is* a prophet. (Deuteronomy 18:15) We do "believe in" prophets - that is just to trust them. There's nothing idolatrous about such trust. We're trusting them to inform us about the God who (allegedly) sent them; we may thus entrust them with our very lives, our eternal destinies. It is trust in the man, and not only in what he says. Just so with Jesus. He too is a messenger from God. But it doesn't follow that he's "just" a messenger; he's the Messiah too, with all that implies.
Indeed, Jesus is a proper object of faith, and even of prayer in the NT ("calling upon the name of the Lord"). He couldn't serve as the mediator between God and us, if we couldn't talk/pray to him. (1 Timothy 2:5)
John 14:1 - Yes, Jesus demands our absolute trust, like the trust we place in God. Of course, we trust God *by* trusting in the one he sent. Note his "also" there. If you trust in God, you haven't automatically trusted in Jesus - they're distinct. Some of his Jewish opponents thought they could do the first without doing the second; but since God sent, empowered, and confirmed the ministry of Jesus, rejecting Jesus was rejecting the one who sent him. (John 13:20)
Worshiping, trusting, praying to Jesus: all of this, I'm happy to say, was argued for and stoutly defended by Socinus. Anthony Buzzard too.
And now: Steve Hays. And me. http://trinities.org/blog/who-should-christians-worship/
Guess we're team-mates, buddy. :-)
I agree with Steve's point above. I've made similar comments Here.
ReplyDeleteDale, in your two videos you make some (finer) distinctions which I have agreed with for decades and is the reason why I don't make certain simplistic arguments other Trinitarians make. In video two you cite Philippians chapter 2. The following is an excerpt adapted from my comments at my blogpost: Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah
Phil. 2:10-11 COMPARE WITH Isa. 45:23;
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.- Phil. 2:10-11
By myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.- Isa. 45:23 ASV
Here Paul again clearly alludes to and quotes Isa. 45:23. In the original context it is referring to YHWH. Isaiah chapters 40 to 48 is commonly understood to be the "trial of the false gods." Yet Paul directly applies Isa. 45:23 to Jesus when the whole point of that verse and surrounding chapters is to affirm, highlight and emphasize the unique and sole Godhood of Jehovah. Thus strongly suggesting that Jesus is fully God, Almighty God. Moreover, in this verse Paul seems to be saying that one can "bow down" to and worship Jesus as one would Almighty God in the Old Testament. Something which would seem to clearly violate monotheism if Jesus isn't true and full deity like the Father is true and full deity. We know this because the religious use of the phrase "bowing the knee" was a reference to an act of worship reserved for what one believed (rightly or wrongly) to be the true God. Baal worshippers "bowed the knee" to Baal as the one true God (Rom. 11:4; 1 Kings 19:18). Paul also says that Jesus has been given the name that is above every name. Even Unitarian Greg Stafford is willing to grant that that name may possibly be Jehovah. However, Stafford argues that since Jesus is given the name, it's not His intrinsically. He didn't have it previously, according to Stafford. Therefore, Jesus couldn't be Jehovah ontologically, but only representationally or agentivally.
However, Stafford assumes a priori that Jesus never had it previously. Yet, Scripture does ascribe to Jesus things which were true and known to be true prior to their declaration.
For example, Acts 2:36 has Peter saying, "...God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" even though Jesus was Lord and Christ before Jesus' resurrection. Similarly, Paul wrote in Rom. 1:4 that Jesus "was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" even though Jesus was declared the Son of God prior to His resurrection (Mark 1:11). So, is there evidence that Jesus had the name of Jehovah prior to it being given to Him after His resurrection? There is. In Exodus 23:20-21 Jehovah tells the Israelites to heed the angel who will guard them on their way to the Promised Land because His (i.e. Jehovah's) name is in him (i.e. the angel). Who better than the preexistent and pre-incarnate Jesus to be that angel/Angel/messenger in whom the name of Jehovah resides? Hence, Phil. 2:10-11 is consistent with and is even best interpreted to imply that Jesus is Jehovah ontologically and worthy of the kind of worship Jehovah alone is due. Interestingly the New World Translation doesn't insert the name "Jehovah" in Phil. 2:11 for "Lord" even though many of the Hebrew translations they rely on does make the connection between the Greek word "kurios" and the tetragrammaton.
Dale, also your citation of Luke 10:16 would seem to backfire.
Delete"The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me."- Luke 10:16
You make a distinction between direct and indirect acceptance and parallel that with a direct and indirect worship. Now it's clear in the Old Testament that both human and angelic beings were "bowed down to" or "worshipped" (e.g. 1 King 18:7). Taken consistently, neither angels nor apostles were obligated to reject any obeisance directed toward them.
Yet, we have to ask ourselves then why did Peter (Acts 10:25-26) and an angel(s) (Rev. 19:10; 22:9 both of which you cite) refuse accepting other people's "worship/obeisance/bowing down to"? Apparently (i.e. it seems to me) that by the time of the 1st century Christians (possibly inheriting it from certain conservative Jewish theological schools) taught that bowing down to should now (at that time) be reserved to the one true God alone (especially in the context of what could be construed as religious worship). Since Jesus accepts such religious worship in the book of Revelation, that would imply Jesus' full deity. I don't think this is the same simplistic appeal to Rev. 19:10 & 22:9 that you (rightly) point out some Trinitarians use.
Finally, as James White pointed out in his debate with Greg Stafford, your interpretation of Rev. 5:13-14 would make it impossible to ever be able to distinguish what kind of worship is reserved for Almighty God alone. When I was a Unitarian that was one of my major problems. How to relate to Jesus. Can I worship Jesus and if so, to what degree? How do I tell whether I've crossed the line between permissible obeisance toward Jesus and idolatry? Why doesn't the New Testament teach us where that line is and how to avoid crossing it? Eventually, I had to ask, "Did the New Testament not make such a clear demarcation precisely because Jesus is fully God?"
Apparently Christians AND ANGELS started doing this to safeguard the proper worship of God and to prevent idolatry. Dale, even you cited (and apparently agreed with) scholars who argue that passages like Rev. 19:10 and 22:9 were meant to prohibit angel worship that was common in both Jewish and Pagan mysticism at the time. If you agree with that, then doesn't that mitigate against Unitarianism? One has to ask on which side of the line Jesus stands in the Creator/creature distinction. If Jesus is not on the side of true Creator God, then how can Jesus stand anywhere else but on the side of creatures? Or is there an ontological position in between and distinct from Creator and Creature? If so, what? Is this distinction described in the Bible?
DeleteAnnoyed, you make a number of good points. Still, I have to say, you're in the grip of this theory that Jesus just must, must be "fully divine" - all is adjusted to fit that theory, and you seem to see it hinted at everywhere in the texts. But again, all it takes to explain all this association of Jesus with God in the NT is that Jesus is indeed like God, and has been exalted to a God-like position of honor and rule. This is what the NT straightforwardly teaches happened to the man.
ReplyDeleteLet's reason carefully though this. What the commandment says is: Only Yahweh may be worshiped. This is the one called "Father" in the NT. The commandment is not, as trinitarians would like it to be, Only a fully divine person may be worshiped. What the OT command, so long as it is in force, implies is that for any x, if can be worshiped, then x = Yahweh. But you grant, I think, that Jesus and the Father are numerically distinct. If so, the OT presents a difficulty for you too.
I believe that the solution is just that the command doesn't apply to us. We're not under the law. Neither does the Sabbath law apply. And by raising his Son to his right hand, God was thereby putting him in a position where he must be worshiped. Thus, Christians have done this since the beginning. And as Larry Hurtado has pointed out, all the reason we need is that God has so commanded, it is his will that we worship him. But then, I would add, we don't need these as a justification: that Jesus is God himself, or that Jesus has a divine nature, or that Jesus is "fully divine."
I'll be brief in these comments since you know I tend to be prolix. Also, I still have Your Five Part response to My Rebuttal I plan on responding to.
DeleteI believe that the solution is just that the command doesn't apply to us. We're not under the law. Neither does the Sabbath law apply.
I was once an Armstrongite and therefore used to observe many of the ceremonial laws. I agree that the Sabbath is no longer binding as found in the OT. However, I do believe the general equity of the OT is still binding along with the moral aspects of the OT laws. Obeisance to beings other than Yahweh in the OT (and I'd say technically NT too) is permitted. However, worshipping God alone, AS GOD, is one of the moral laws of the Old and New Testaments. It's not an OT ceremonial law fulfilled or abolished in Christ. To worship anything other than Yahweh AS GOD is idolatry. This is why Peter and the angel refused to accept obeisance even though technically they could have received it. You try to get around it by appealing to a form of antinomianism. Jesus' New Covenant teaching that one should worship and serve God alone (Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8) and that we should love God with all our heart/soul/mind/strength (Mark 12:29-30) is still binding under New Covenant believers. They are the very first of God's commandments and first duties of fully sentient creatures. Your view has God contradicting Himself, His Commands and His nature. You have God commanding in the NT what was idolatrous in the OT. You also miss the obvious implication that the reason why the man Jesus could be worshipped is because He's no mere man, but Yahweh in the flesh (as the NT teaches in Matt. 1:23; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6-7; Col. 1:19; 2:9 etc.).
But you grant, I think, that Jesus and the Father are numerically distinct.
I take it that the Father and Son are two different centers of consciousness who share the same being. Same WHAT but different WHOS.
If so, the OT presents a difficulty for you too.
I don't see how.
"To worship anything other than Yahweh AS GOD is idolatry."
DeleteThat's not based on any scriptural or other good definition of idolatry. That's only being asserted, and is in our present argument question-begging.
More importantly: what do you mean by "as God"? I don't worship Jesus "as God" if that means confusing him for his Father. But I worship him, "as God" in the sense that some of the things I do in worshiping God, I also do in worshiping Jesus. e.g. singing songs to him
Note that in Matt and Mark Jesus is still operating under the old covenant. He hasn't yet been exalted, and so at that time, no, no one else should be worshiped.
About the NT saying that Jesus is "Yahweh in the flesh" - I think you know that all the cited texts are contended ones. They're not going to settle this. I suggest, though, that you should reflect on the clear, repeated NT theme of God (not coming himself but rather) sending his Son.
"Same WHAT but different WHOS."
Problem is, we all think that any given who is identical to some what. If you think things can be the same F but different Gs, you're committing to the controversial (and minority) philosophical theory of relative identity. I think there are solid non-theological reasons for rejecting this, but we can't settle it here. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/#RelIde I'll just note that this is a severe price to pay, a price which many, probably most Christians who understand what it's all about, will not agree with.
"a difficulty for you too."
Bible says only worship y. I was assuming you grant that y = f, and that -(f=s). Well if so, it would follow for you that according to the Law, we should not worship s.
But now, I'm not sure you are granting all that. A relative identity theorist would not.
Note that in Matt and Mark Jesus is still operating under the old covenant. He hasn't yet been exalted, and so at that time, no, no one else should be worshiped.
DeleteThat assumes Jesus wasn't worshipped as Yahweh in the OT. Yet, John 12:41 seems to indicate that it was Jesus who Isaiah saw and worshipped in Isaiah chapter 6.
The New Testament states no one has seen God (John 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; 1 John 1:12; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16). Yet, the Old Testament repeatedly states Yahweh was seen (e.g. Gen. 18:1ff.; Ex. 24:10; Isa. 6:1ff.; Gen. 3:8 etc.). Is this a contradiction? Unitarians have difficulty explaining this. Whereas Trinitarians believe they didn't see Yahweh in one sense (in not seeing the Father), yet they did see Yahweh in another sense (in seeing the Son). If Jesus was the Yahweh they saw and worshipped, than Jesus was worshipped as God (i.e. as Yahweh) before His resurrection (even if the original worshippers didn't know it was the pre-incarnate Jesus who they were worshipping).
I suggest, though, that you should reflect on the clear, repeated NT theme of God (not coming himself but rather) sending his Son.
Isaiah 48:16
" Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD [YHWH] and His Spirit Have sent Me."
Here's a passage where YHWH is speaking and says that another person whose name is also YHWH and YHWH's Spirit (evidently the Holy Spirit) has sent Him (i.e. YHWH who was speaking).
----------
Hosea 1:7: "Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword or battle, by horses or horsemen."
Here YHWH speaks about another person as YHWH.
----------
Zechariah 2:8-9: "For thus says the LORD of Hosts: "He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he that touches you touches the apple of His eye. For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become spoil for their servants. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me."
This passage could be referring to the prophet (Zechariah) himself, or (possibly) it has YHWH speaking and saying that another person who is YHWH has sent Him (i.e. YHWH).
"confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"
ReplyDeleteSo, we agree that worshiping Jesus is worshiping God. I say, because God has exalted him. We glorify Jesus, and Paul says that the glory, as it were, passes on to God, to the God who exalted him as a reward for his service. Some would say that the reason is that Jesus just is God, that they are numerically one. But I think what you're saying the reason is that Jesus is a "fully divine person" within the one God. But why think, that if you've worshiped one "Person" of the Trinity, you've thereby worshiped another? I don't see the NT saying this, but I do see it assuming the idea of direct vs. indirect honoring and dishonoring. Note that there are two recipients of honor in both Phil 2 and Rev 4-5.
"Thus strongly suggesting that Jesus is fully God, Almighty God." Annoyed, we may be gobsmacked, and rightly so, that God would so exalt a man. But the NT everywhere distinguishes Jesus from his God, and as Samuel Clarke noted long ago, it never calls Jesus Almighty. (pantokrator) This feeling that his deity is being "suggested" - sorry, that's just subjective. There's no basis for it in the texts, or in the original context of the 1st c. It's just your feeling that surely no lowly "mere man" could deserve such honors. But Phil 2 tells us the reason for the honors, what Jesus did, so to speak, to earn them.
I say, because God has exalted him.
DeleteYou say this as if forgetting that Paul previous said Jesus was previously already "in the form of god/God." What sort of deity was Jesus prior to His incarnation? Well, when Paul states we should confess Jesus Christ as "Lord" the natural interpretation to me is Jesus Christ is Yahweh since that's the original intent of Isa. 45:23. Honestly, if I were Paul and a Unitarian, I would have said in this passage, Jesus Christ is "theos" rather than "kurios" since kurios would make the connection that Paul was applying the Divine Name to Jesus.
But Phil 2 tells us the reason for the honors, what Jesus did, so to speak, to earn them.
I think it was Athanasius who pointed out that Arian-like Christologies naturally (but wrongly) tend toward a salvation by human works whereby man atttempts to go up to God (given Athanasius' view of theosis/deification/christification). Whereas homoousian Christology affirms salvation comes from God coming down to lift men up to "partake" of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). To use modern myth, it's the difference between a Superman vs. a Batman soteriology.
Regarding Samuel Clarke, I've been browsing his materials for over 15 years. But I still having read in full his major work on the subject. Though, it's on my list of books to read. I'm going through Daniel Waterland's A Vindication of Christ's Divinity first. Though, admittedly, many modern scholars have vindicated Clarke's overall interpretation of the the church fathers over against Waterland other of Clarke's critics at the time.
Waterland is long-winded and unclear. Read Clarke's The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity. Reprinted at lulu.com. He's an impressive scholar and a careful reasoner. Not always right, but always worth hearing out.
DeleteI don't see any implications here for soteriology.
About Phil 2, I think it is irrelevant that Jesus formerly held some exalted position. (I don't think Paul assumes that, but see my podcasts on that if you want to know why.) Let's suppose Jesus did, in ancient days, have this exalted position. Well, still, the reason he's worthy to be worshiped now, is that God has exalted him. Notice that he's not really given full, religious (group, cultic) worship at any point before his exaltation. He is, of course, honored as the rightful King of Israel, bowed to as God's Messiah, e.g. by the foreign kings.
Now, you might think that God needs some reason to exalt him, such that he already held such a position before, or because he's divine. But the text says why God exalted him, and it is Jesus' service to God to the death.
Confessing Jesus as "Lord" - this is a modern mistake, thinking this means identifying him with Yahweh. You don't see this in any early Fathers, the idea that this title implies or suggests that Jesus is the same god as his Father. This should give us pause! Please see my podcasts 14, 15, and 16 on 1 Corinthians 8 on that title. http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-2/ In brief, there is in the NT a middle usage of "ho kurios" based on Psalm 110:1.
Have to run till tomorrow.
God bless,
Dale
Now, you might think that God needs some reason to exalt him, such that he already held such a position before, or because he's divine. But the text says why God exalted him, and it is Jesus' service to God to the death.
DeleteThe context:
4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
The translation and interpretation of the phrase "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" is highly disputed among commentators (as you probably know). What tilts the scales for me is that Paul's point that we ought to have the same type of humility toward each other as Jesus had with the Father. This makes most sense if Jesus was ALREADY equal to the Father prior to His incarnation. If the text meant that Jesus showed humility by not attempt to grasp at an equality he DIDN'T already have, then that wouldn't be an act of humility. It's only proper for inferior beings to not attempt to be equal with God. Satan attempted to gain equality (even usurp) that and he was judged for his prideful arrogance (Isa. 14 and Ezek. 28). But if Jesus ALREADY had equality with the Father, then that WOULD be an act of humility that humans could emulate towards each other (since humans are naturally ontologically equal with each other).
In brief, there is in the NT a middle usage of "ho kurios" based on Psalm 110:1.
Btw, the second "lord" in Psalm 110:1 is not clearly "adon" it could have been "adonai" since the vowel pointing we have for "adon" is based on the Post-Christian era reading by the Masoretes. So, they had a vested interest to point it as "adon" rather than "adonai." I'm not saying that should be pointed "adonai," but I wouldn't be surprised if it originally was because verse 5.
Both the NASB and the NKJV capitalize the "y" in "Your" to indicate that the pronoun refers to Almighty God. Yet the underlying Hebrew word for "Lord" is "adonai" (which is only used of the one true Lord, Almighty God Himself). This might suggest two divine persons are being described here.
John Gill states in his commentary regarding this verse:
These words are either directed to Christ, at whose right hand the Lord was to help and assist him, Psa_16:8 or to the church, consisting of the Lord's willing people, at whose right hand he is to save them; is ready to help them, and is a present help to them in time of need, Psa_109:31 or rather to Jehovah the Father, at whose right hand the "Adonai", or Lord, even David's Lord, and every believer's Lord, is, as in Psa_110:1, and who is spoken of in all the following clauses; and to whom the things mentioned are ascribed...
"Taken consistently, neither angels nor apostles were obligated to reject any obeisance directed toward them."
ReplyDeleteAs is well-known, talking of worship would often mean bowing down, and depending on the context, this could be religious or civil (i.e. to king or grandpa) But this is a good question - if a man, Jesus, can be worshiped, why do the apostles and angels refuse worship? Why does Peter say, e.g. "I'm just a man like you". Yes, in general, it is wrong to worship men; there's only one man whom God has exalted, and it's not Peter. The same with angels. It is not their place to accept anything like religious honor from humans. But God has made it Jesus's place. He's still a man, but he's not "just like us"!
So the OT says only worship God. But the NT says worship God, and also Jesus, now that he's been raised by God. But nowhere will you find a principle like: only worship a person or being if he is "fully divine."
I'm not even sure what "fully divine" means if not just: being a god. But, there's only one god, whom the OT calls YHWH, and the NT the Father or God. Jesus isn't him, but someone else. So then, in these days it is false that one should only worship a "fully divine" being, if that's what it means. Clear scriptural statements must be allowed to overrule principles which sort of sound right to us.
So the OT says only worship God. But the NT says worship God, and also Jesus, now that he's been raised by God.
DeleteThe OT says only worship God BECAUSE only God is Creator.
Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am Yahweh, who made all things, Who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,- Isa. 44:24
Yet, from the New Testament we know that the Father created the world THROUGH the Son. Is this a contradiction between the OT and NT teaching of creation? Not if Jesus is fully divine, or Yahweh/Jehovah along with the Father. That's the same reason why Jesus can be worshipped like the Father because is also Yahweh.
The Trinitarian position doesn't require a new law, or an abrogation of the first and greatest commandment. Whereas various Unitarian positions do require a new law that contradicts the old moral law. The Unitarian focus and preoccupation on the Unity of God (God is one) is in conflict with the Biblical preoccupation and focus on the SOLE [religious] WORSHIP of God. Whereas the Trinitarian can affirm both Biblical emphases of the Unity of God and the Sole [religious] Worship of God. Not to mention the Old Testament teaching on the Plurality of God. The word Elohim is used thousands of times to refer to Yahweh in the Old Testament as well as Adonai. Interestingly, both of these words are plural nouns in Hebrew.
"When I was a Unitarian that was one of my major problems. How to relate to Jesus. Can I worship Jesus and if so, to what degree? How do I tell whether I've crossed the line between permissible obeisance toward Jesus and idolatry? Why doesn't the New Testament teach us where that line is and how to avoid crossing it? Eventually, I had to ask, "Did the New Testament not make such a clear demarcation precisely because Jesus is fully God?""
ReplyDeleteCommon questions and anxieties. These are why I made that video .Towards the end, I say, no, I don't think we can really distinguish higher and lower kinds of worship, where only God can get the higher, but Jesus too can get the lower. It's a verbal move that can't really be cashed out in terms of specific rules, actions. But, we don't need to. We do the same sorts of things to both Jesus and to his God, but on different bases. Jesus is honored because of his obedience undo death, exaltation, and current (God-given) rule. God is worshiped - see Revelation 4 - because he's the one God, the creator.
"ask on which side of the line Jesus stands in the Creator/creature distinction"
This "line" rhetoric, I think, derives from Athanasius, but it only obscures issues. If God has exalted Jesus so that we should worship him, it doesn't matter what "side of the line" he's on. Suppose Jesus began to exist in Mary's womb. Doesn't matter, if he's been exalted, right? Would you sass back to God - Sorry, can't worship your Son, because he's on the wrong side of the Creator-Creature line? Me, I wouldn't dare! Again, suppose God made all things through the pre-human Jesus. So then, it is the Father alone who is creator in the sense of the ultimate source of all else. Jesus would be a sort of instrumental creator, the one God used to create. Would this disqualify him from the sort of worship we see in Revelation 5? There's no reason to think that it would, even if someone pounds the table and insists only the ultimate source of all else can be worshiped. Sorry, but that's just not self-evident, and according to the NT, it's not true.
"ontological position in between and distinct from Creator and Creature"
The difference is between a being which is a se, and the rest which are not. No, I don't think there is any in-between. Justin, following Philo and Plato, seems to have thought so - but that's another conversation.
God bless,
Dale
Jesus is honored because of his obedience undo death, exaltation, and current (God-given) rule. God is worshiped - see Revelation 4 - because he's the one God, the creator.
DeleteThe New Testament teaches Jesus is co-creator with the Father. Current God given rule?
Unitarians have a contradiction between OT and NT. In the NT it states that Jesus' kingdom and rule will end when He gives back the authority He received to the Father. Or as Paul states it, when Jesus "...delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power..." (1 Cor. 15:24).
However, the OT teaches that the Messiah's reign will last forever and will have no ending. As the book of Daniel states, "....his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Dan. 7:14b).
For the Homoousian, there's no contradiction because Jesus' rulership as the one true God eternally extends past His rulership as the human messiah.
Jesus ruled previous to His incaration. John 12:41 cf. Isa. 6:1ff.; Heb. 1:3b; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:10-12; John 8:58; Rom. 9:5, 1 Cor. 8:6b; Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1.
The difference is between a being which is a se, and the rest which are not.
The NT appears to teach Jesus' past eternality. Only a few passages could possibly be interpreted to teach Jesus had a beginning (e.g. Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15 etc). But Trinitarians have answers for those passages.
If Jesus does claim to be Yahweh in John 8:58, then Jesus would be a se. Of course, the proper translation and interpretation of John 8:58 is one of those disputed texts between Homoousians (e.g. James White) and non-Homoousians. I've read Greg Stafford's first edition of his book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended. Presumably, editions 2 and 3 have stronger arguments against the traditional translation of "I Am."
BTW, I wasn't very impressed by Sean Finnegan's handling of the Holy Spirit. David Barron and Greg Stafford seem more adept defenders of Unitarianism(s) than Sean or Sir Anthony Buzzard.
Two quick points: past eternity does not show aseity. A being may, conceivably, always exist dependently. Second, John 8:58 is hardly the slam dunk many assume it to be, for the idea that Jesus "claims to be God." Many, many scholars both trinitarian and unitarian, have made helpful observations about that text which undermine such a reading. Episodes 61-63. http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-2/
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA being may, conceivably, always exist dependently.
DeleteYes, you're right here. I forgot that. I remember encountering that point in Waterland's addressing Clarke and his defenders.
I agree that John 8:58 is not a slam dunk silver bullet. That's why I agree it's disputed.
However, IF Jesus is identifying Himself with Yahweh by claiming to be I Am (Or "I AM"), then that would seem to teach Jesus' aseity since He's claiming to be Yahweh. The divine name of course has been interpreted by many scholars etymologically to imply self-existence. The fact that the group that came to arrest Jesus fell down to the ground when Jesus stated "I am" (ego eimi) in John 18:5-6 is in keeping with the traditional translation/interpretation. In John 8:58 the Jews picked up stones to throw at Him. Probably to stone Him to death for blasphemy. This too would be in keeping with Jesus' claim to full divinity/deity/Yahweh/Jehovah.