One potential prooftext for the deity of Christ is Rom 9:5. Bruce Metzger wrote a classic essay on that years ago ("The Punctuation of Rom 9:5"). Unfortunately, it has never been posted on the internet. Here's a more recent, albeit brief, defense of the same interpretation:
It is possible that Paul concludes his description of the Israelites (Rom 9:4-5) with his third set of privileges after using the workgroups "of whom adoptive sonship…", "of whom the fathers," and "from the whom the Messiah…", and then, after a major stop, praises God for what he has done. This does not seem to follow Paul's logic of his argumentation at this point, however. Paul is not intent on praising God for what he has done, since he has just recounted his own agony over his people. Instead, Paul recounts the privileges of the Israelites, which have culminated in his noting that they are the line from whom the Christ has come. If there is praise to be given, it is praise of this Christ. Paul praises him as the God who is above all things, blessed for eternity. These two elements–having the divine nature that places him positionally over all things, and being blessed forever–are both reflective of statements that are often attributed to God. God's position of being over all things is firmly established since Genesis 1 in the OT, and the term "blessed" (cf. Rom 1:25), with God being "blessed unto the ages") is one that is often used to describe God himself (e.g. Gen 14:20; 24:27). Paul's rising crescendo regarding the privileges of Israel are fittingly capped by his proclamation that they themselves are responsible for the earthly origins of the Messiah who, as Paul has already established even in the letter to the Romans, functions as one with God, and is, in fact, the God over all things and is to be blessed. S. Porter, The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary (Sheffield Phoenix Press 2015), 183-184.
"functions as one with God, and is, in fact, the God"
ReplyDeleteCooperates with God (so not identical, but rather someone else) but is God (so is identical, God himself). At least, that's how many will read this. Sad that standards of clarity are so low. A good editor should have hammered that sentence.
This passage deserves a full arguing through, but here's a quick way to rule out that Paul is in 9:5 identifying Jesus with his God: note that all through ch. 8 he distinguishes between them. Same in 1:1-7. Charity prevents us from attributing this contradiction to Paul.
Whether Jesus is in some lesser way "divine" is another issue, of course.
I realized that you're perennially intellectually challenged, but Porter isn't substituting philosophical jargon to draw theological distinctions. Rather, he's simply reusing the language that's used in the text, where "God" is generally a synonym for the "Father" in Romans. A way of naming a referent. Goes back to your persistent inability to distinguish between proper nouns and common nouns.
DeleteIn Rom 9:5, however, Paul breaks with customary usage to apply that preeminent designation to Jesus. And that's all the more dramatic, given the backdrop of his customary usage.
Paul isn't saying Jesus is divine in some lesser way. To the contrary, he's saying Jesus is divine in the same way as the Father, given the precedential terminology of the descriptors.
George Caraway wrote his dissertation on this verse. It was published as "Christ is God Over All: Romans 9:5 in the context of Romans 9-11" (The Library of New Testament Studies)
DeleteI think you can get the dissertation version in PDF from the web.
I've collected like 10 different quotes from various scholars along with many links regarding Roman 9:5 in my blogpost:
ReplyDeleteRomans 9:5 and Christ's Full Deity
I might add a link to this blogpost by Steve.
I have a long quote from Charles Hodge.
DeleteHere's a sample:
QUOTE
2. The words κατὰ σάρκα demand an antithesis. There would be no reason for saying that Christ, as far as He was a man, was descended from the Jews, if He was not more than man, and if there were not a sense in which He was not descended from them. As in Rom. i. 3, 4, it is said that κατὰ σάρκα He was the Son of David, but κατὰ πνεῦμα the Son of God; so here it is said, that κατὰ σάρκα He was descended from the patriarchs, but that in his higher nature He is God over all, blessed forever.
END QUOTE
Yes, I know that grammatically this is ambiguous, and that there are many article-length treatments. Many, many unitarian scholars have dealt with this too. But I think we can easily get obsessed with a tree here, overlooking the forest.Just look at the two readings side by side:
Deletehttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=RSV;NIV
Is Paul (RSV) just piously punctuating an aside here, praising God? Or is he (NRSV) dropping a theological bomb, asserting that the human Messiah is as divine as God, aka the Father, is? And then he just says "Amen" and moves on??! This would be a big deal in the 1st c. I know which I think is more likely.
Also, notice that on the RSV reading, it is God who is "over all", but on the one some evangelicals and other catholics want to go to war for, it is Christ who is "over all." Now, it's possible that Paul could describe Christ that way, if the "all" he has in mind is just the cosmos. But if "all" is unrestricted here, we recall that Paul says that God is over Christ. http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-3.htm Compare also with http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-24.htm Honestly, it doesn't sound like something Paul would say, that Christ is "God over all", as it is beyond dispute Paul calls one "God" who is "over" Christ.
But hey, if you want to stake your christology on some fine and disputed points of grammar instead of explicit NT teaching, you're free to do that.
Dale
Delete"Many, many unitarian scholars have dealt with this too."
You mean, like the "scholars" at the Watchtower?
"Is Paul (RSV) just piously punctuating an aside here, praising God? Or is he (NRSV) dropping a theological bomb, asserting that the human Messiah is as divine as God, aka the Father, is? And then he just says 'Amen' and moves on??! This would be a big deal in the 1st c. I know which I think is more likely."
There are many occasion when Paul affirms the deity of the Messiah.
Yes, it's a big deal–and as Porter explains, this is not just a parenthetical aside, but the climactic point of his argument (in this section).
"Also, notice that on the RSV reading…"
Yes, Dale, I'm aware of the fact that different versions give different renderings. That's why we need to sift the arguments. That's why I began by noting Metzger's classic article. And that's why I quoted Porter's exegetical argument.
"But if 'all' is unrestricted here, we recall that Paul says that God is over Christ. http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-3.htm Compare also with http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-24.htm."
In that context, Paul is framing the issue in terms of his ideal Adam typology/Christology. That's discussed by Greg Beale in his A New Testament Biblical Theology.
"But hey, if you want to stake your christology on some fine and disputed points of grammar instead of explicit NT teaching, you're free to do that."
The deity of Christ is explicit NT teaching.
I don't claim that Rom. 9:5 unambiguously teaches Christ's full deity as Yahweh. Though, I do think that it is the best and most likely interpretation (having the greatest explanatory power and scope). The quotes I gathered from eminent scholars in my blogpost should carry some weight (even if not decisive).
DeleteAnd then he just says "Amen" and moves on??! This would be a big deal in the 1st c. I know which I think is more likely.
But we don't want to beg the question. The Christian claim that Jesus is Yahweh explains better why the Jews were so hostile toward and persecuted to death Christians. Merely claiming Jesus was a human messiah or even an angelic-like or god-like incarnation (from the divine council) wouldn't have provoked that kind of reaction. Also, the other numerous times the New Testament makes connections and identifications of Jesus with Yahweh would be consistent with interpreting Rom. 9:5 as also identifying Jesus with Yahweh.
As you (Dale) know, I've collected some of those passages in my blogpost titled, "Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah."
But if "all" is unrestricted here, we recall that Paul says that God is over Christ. http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-3.htm
As you know, there are versions of Trinitarianism that allows for the functional subordination of the Son in the immanent Trinity (sans creation/redemption) while rejecting an ontological subordinationism. Besides, 1 Cor. 11:3 seems to better fit with something like Trinitarianism IMHO. Men and women are ontologically equal. Women aren't inferior to men ontologically even though men are head over women. Christ is ontologically equal with men as to His human nature if one accepts the doctrine of the incarnation and dual nature of Christ. Also, with those same assumptions of the incarnation and dual nature, Christ is also ontologically equal with the Father as to His divine nature.
CONT.
Regarding 1 Cor. 15:24, as I've told you before, it can refer to Christ as messiah (Christ means messiah), rather than to Jesus' deity. That's why we can say AT THE SAME TIME that 1. in one sense Christ's kingdom ends when He hands it over to His Father, AND 2. in another sense Christ's kingdom is without end (Dan. 7:14) since He is also God. The dual nature of Christ can make sense of this apparent contradiction that Jesus' reign WON'T and yet WILL last forever.
Delete....onestly, it doesn't sound like something Paul would say, that Christ is "God over all"
Yet in the very next chapter Paul seems (at least to me) to say Christ is "Lord of all." That seems to be a similar or equivalent term.
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Notice once again how Paul connects Jesus with Yahweh in the OT since he applies Joel 2:32 to Christ when originally it was referring to Yahweh/Jehovah.
But hey, if you want to stake your christology on some fine and disputed points of grammar instead of explicit NT teaching, you're free to do that.
Having been both a Unitarian and a Trinitarian, it seems to me that it's Unitiarians who are constantly having to explain away uncomfortable passages contrary to their natural sense. Roman 9:5 is just one of many such passages.
IMHO, Trinitarianism seems to be more consistent with Christ's own radical claims as well as the early Christians' radical claims concerning Christ than the various Unitarian options. Do, I think only Trinitarians are saved? No. But I do think that something like Trinitarianism better accounts for all of the Scriptural data.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOne consistent way to interpret 1 Cor. 11:3 in a Unitarian fashion is to say that as the Father is head over Christ, so the Father is ontologically superior to Christ. As Christ is head over men, so Christ is ontologically superior to men. As men are head over women, so men are ontologically superior to women.
DeleteHowever, we find that Genesis 1:27 teaches (at least to me) that men and women are equally made in the image of God.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Also, we know that Christ while on earth was (at the very least) fully human. If Christ post ascension continues to possess a human nature (as Orthodox Trinitarian teaches), then Jesus is still human (as numerous NT passages seem to teach). It would take too long to cites all the passages in support of this contention. I'll just cite some. According to Acts 1:9-11 Jesus ascended into heaven has a human with a human body, and will one day return as a human with a human body. Jesus' continual priesthood over New Covenant believers is dependent on His continuing to be a human being (Heb. 2:14-18). According to 1 Tim. 2:5 Jesus is still a man.
There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. - 1 Tim. 2:5
BTW, the Trinitarian doctrine of the incarnation can uniquely account for how Jesus can be a mediator between God and man in that it teaches Jesus is BOTH God and man. That Jesus has two natures whereby He is both fully God and fully man and therefore can reconcile the two, being a member of both parties ontologically. An angel neither has the nature of God nor the nature of man, and Heb. 2:14, 17, teach Jesus took on human nature. Just as Phil. 2 teaches Jesus was in the form of God and took on the form of a servant (i.e. human nature).
We also know various passages in the NT that seem to teach an equality between the Father and Son if not also ontologically, then in authority and status. For example, as far as I can tell, the best interpretation of John 5:18 is to affirm the equality of the Father and Son rather than a denial of that equality. Other passages include John 14:9; Phil. 2:6; John 14:1; Rev. 21:22-23. I would also include John 10:33 as I argued HERE. The passages that teach the ontological equality of Christ with the Father are disputed by Unitarians, but IMHO the better interpretations side with (something like) Trinitarianism. Though, I don't have the time to argue for that in this comment.
Hi Annoyed, I literally don't have time to engage your truckload of points. Just a few:
ReplyDeletePaul calling Jesus "Lord of all" in Rom 10 - yes, of all the Jews and Gentiles! And in the immediate context, he distinguishes them - God raised Jesus from the dead, but not vice-versa.
About your big load of passages "identifying" Jesus and Yahweh. I don't know what to say to someone who is willing to ignore the indiscernibility of identicals, to to state if differently, the non-identity of differents. Once you have this in mind, and that Father / Yahweh and Son qualitatively differ in the NT, in many ways, then in every case, you're going to settle on an interpretation where the writer doesn't *identify* the two, as that writer is always thinking differently about them, and it's uncharitable to read him as saying something obviously impossible, confusing together as one two whom he also knows to differ. It's as if you have a giant list of passages showing that 2 + 2 = 5. But that's plainly impossible, so (given that those passages are asserting only truths), you must be misreading them. We can't read authors we respect as if they're idiots, or royally confused about the central subject-matter.
Now above you say "connections and identifications" between Jesus and God. Well, any Christian thinks that Jesus and God and related in interesting ways, and will associate them together, and "identify them" together in that sense. This is a key confusion. You can find a million passages that associate the two, e.g. assigning some of the same roles, titles, actions, properties. But then people infer, mistakenly, that the two are being identified as one, the opposite of being distinguished. But of course, they're constantly distinguished. That's why they are given different names and titles: God vs. Son of God, God vs. Jesus, the one God vs. the one Lord, the Father vs. the Son, the Almighty vs the Messiah, etc.
Ontological vs. functional subordination - the distinction doesn't matter. Beings which differ only functionally differ, and so are non-identical.
"Regarding 1 Cor. 15:24, as I've told you before, it can refer to Christ as messiah (Christ means messiah), rather than to Jesus' deity."
Sorry, but this is just confusion. The "he" there is Jesus. His deity or his humanity (or messiahship) are not the sorts of things which can deliver over a kingdom to God. Jesus is there said to do that. As a person/self, and not a mere essence or nature of a person, he can do things like that. Sure, he might hand it over in one sense and keep it in another, but that doesn't presuppose the confusion you offer us. In any case, the one handing over is different than the one getting it.
You're banking quite a lot, theologically, on your intuitions about the Jews' outrage. How could they be so mad, unless the Christians were teaching Jesus to be God. Well, read through Acts - there is heated, even violent conflict throughout, and yet the gospel there, over and over, neither says nor implies that Jesus is Yahweh. To the contrary, he's Yahweh's messiah who died, and has now been raised and exalted by Yahweh. The theme of the deity of Christ is just not there. Actual, detailed info about early Christian - Jewish disputes must trump your intuitions - sorry!
Paul calling Jesus "Lord of all" in Rom 10 - yes, of all the Jews and Gentiles!
DeleteYes, Paul might merely mean Lord of all Jews and Gentiles. But he doesn't explicitly state that. The surrounding context however would seem to me to favor it being all inclusive since in the same breath in the very next verse Paul connects Jesus with Yahweh by applying Joel 2:32 to Him. My interpretation is consistent with John 3:31.
He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.- John 3:31
This verse is clearly referring to Jesus. And that with divine-like status. Compare the following OT verses.
For the LORD, the Most High, is to be feared, a great king over all the earth.- Ps. 47:2
that they may know that you alone, whose name is the LORD, are the Most High over all the earth.- Ps. 83:18
The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.- Ps. 103:19
The LORD is great in Zion; he is exalted over all the peoples.- Ps. 99:2
You wouldn't say that Ps. 99:2 is limited to humans and excludes angels. If Ps. 99:2 can be consistent with Yahweh's full deity, then Rom. 10:12 can be consistent with Christ's full deity.
Yet, Jesus claimed the divine prerogative of raising the dead (John 5:21), even of raising Himself from the dead (John 2:19; 10:17).
I don't know what to say to someone who is willing to ignore the indiscernibility of identicals, to to state if differently, the non-identity of differents.
I'll let folks like Steve (who understand philosophy & logic) handle such issue (as Steve has done in the past).
But then people infer, mistakenly, that the two are being identified as one, the opposite of being distinguished. But of course, they're constantly distinguished. That's why they are given different names and titles: God vs. Son of God, God vs. Jesus, the one God vs. the one Lord, the Father vs. the Son, the Almighty vs the Messiah, etc.
Being distinguished as persons doesn't necessarly entail being distinguished as beings.
Beings which differ only functionally differ, and so are non-identical.
This begs the question as to whether the different persons of the Father and the Son are different beings or the same being. Even some Modalists can say the Father and Son have different functions, yet they'd argue for the Father and the Son to be the same being (and person).
As a person/self, and not a mere essence or nature of a person, he can do things like that.
A person with one nature can play different roles, how much more a person with two natures (i.e. Christ). For example, a judge can rule that the father of a delinquent child pay for the property damage he caused. If the judge himself is the child's father, then the judge himself could pay for that damage according to his own ruling. As the human Messiah, Jesus has to eventually hand over the Kingdom to the Father. As God (in the flesh), Jesus will eternally rule as God. I don't see how your Unitarianism accounts for the apparent contradiction in the Bible that Jesus' rule WON'T and WILL last forever.
I've already cited Dan. 7:14. According to Peter, Jesus kingdom is everlasting/eternal.
For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.- 2 Pet. 1:11
Of the increase of his [i.e. Christ] government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.- Isa. 9:7
CONT.
Sure, he might hand it over in one sense and keep it in another, but that doesn't presuppose the confusion you offer us.
DeleteThat admission weakens your appeal to 1 Cor. 15:24 by just that much.
In any case, the one handing over is different than the one getting it.
And Trinitarians wouldn't disagree since we don't deny the difference and distinction between the Father and the Son.
You're banking quite a lot, theologically, on your intuitions about the Jews' outrage.
My appeal to my intuitions was in response to your appeal to your intuitions when you wrote, "This would be a big deal in the 1st c. I know which I think is more likely."
Well, read through Acts - there is heated, even violent conflict throughout, and yet the gospel there, over and over, neither says nor implies that Jesus is Yahweh.....The theme of the deity of Christ is just not there.
There are many indicators pointing to Jesus' full deity in Acts.
-They pray to Jesus on multiple occasions. See Robert Bowman's Putting Jesus in His Place regarding Acts 1:24.
-They refer to Jesus' gospel as "the word of the Lord" (corresponding to the OT "word of the LORD/Yahweh/Jehovah/Adonai"). Compare Isa. 2:3 with Acts 8:25; Acts 11:16; Acts 13:49; Acts 15:35-36; Acts 16:32; Acts 19:10; Acts 19:20.
-Stephen commits his spirit to Jesus as if He were God (cf. Acts 7:59, 14:32 with Ps. 31:5).
- They call upon and invoke the name of Jesus in Acts in the ways that would seem to be reserved only for Yahweh (cf. Acts 9:14; 21; Acts 22:16 cf. 1 Cor. 1:2).
-The disciples are Jesus' Witnesses (Acts 1:8) corresponding to the Israelites being Yahweh's Witnesses (Isa. 43:10,12; 44:8).
CONT.
- Acts 1:9-11 seems to identify Jesus with Yahweh in Zech. 14:3-5. Notice how both passages refer to someone coming from above to land on the Mount of Olives. Zechariah even saying Yahweh's "feet" will stand on the mount of Olives.
Delete- Jesus speaks in a God-like manner to Ananias with Ananias saying "Here I am" similar to how Samuel and Isaiah did in response to Yahweh's speaking and calling.
-Acts 9:31 & Acts 19:17 might refer to the "fear of the Lord" as the fear of Jesus. See my blogpost HERE on the other passages in the NT that talk about the "Fear of Jesus" as analogous to the "Fear of Jehovah"
- Acts 19:17 has Jesus' name being "extolled" or "magnified" in a way that's reminiscent of how Yahweh's name is in the OT.
- In Acts 5:41 Jesus' name is called "the name" similar to how Jews refer to Yahweh's name as "Ha Shem" (i.e. The Name). Compare with Lev. 24:11
and the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.- Lev. 24:11 ASV
-Acts teaches that grace flows from Jesus Christ ( Acts 15:11, 40). When this is something normally attributed to full deity, and the prerogatives of God; seeing that NT "charis" in some sense corresponds to the mercy/"chesed" of Yahweh in the OT.
- Jesus is called "the Author of Life" in a way reminiscent of full deity.
- Stephen says, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them" (Acts 7:60). He seems to ask Jesus not to hold his stoners' sins against them as if Jesus were God and had the power to pardon and passover sin.
Beliving in Jesus is terms "turning to the Lord" (Acts 9:35; 11:21) which is reminiscent of many OT pasages like:
"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.- Isa. 45:22
- Acts seems to talk of the "hand of the Lord" in reference to Jesus as the OT talks about the "hand of Yahweh" (Acts 11:21).
-Jesus' blood might be God's blood in Acts 20:28 (depending on textual variant and translation).
There are other passages in Acts I can allude to but the above should suffice to make my point.
Finally, we also have to remember that the book of Acts is a continuation of the book of Luke. It's Luke's volume II. In which case, we should add to the the book of Acts all those places in the Gospel of of Luke where Jesus' full deity is also alluded to as well. I don't have time to post on all those many places.
My statement: Yet, Jesus claimed the divine prerogative of raising the dead (John 5:21), even of raising Himself from the dead (John 2:19; 10:17).
DeleteWas in response to your statement, "And in the immediate context, he distinguishes them - God raised Jesus from the dead, but not vice-versa."
TYPO CORRECTION:
Delete-Stephen commits his spirit to Jesus as if He were God (cf. Acts 7:59, 14:32 with Ps. 31:5).
That should be Acts 14:23 NOT Acts 14:32.
TYPO CORRECTION:
DeleteBeliving in Jesus is terms [IS TERMED] "turning to the Lord" (Acts 9:35; 11:21) which is reminiscent of many OT pasages like:
"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.- Isa. 45:22
Dale always trots out his one-trick pony. It's time to put that poor little overworked pony out of his misery. Have it stuffed. It never was a clever trick. But that's the best Dale can do.
DeleteSteve, and you've addressed it many times. My subjective sense is that you've dealt with it like 25 times in various blogposts. Of those times, you dedicated something like 10 blogposts and/or comments to deal with it in-depth.
DeleteIs Paul (RSV) just piously punctuating an aside here, praising God? Or is he (NRSV) dropping a theological bomb, asserting that the human Messiah is as divine as God, aka the Father, is?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that while the NRSV is even more liberal than the RSV, the NRSV scholars were honest enough with the Greek grammar and context, and confident enough in their interpretation of it to place in their main text a translation that does indentify Jesus as "God blessed forever" (rather than place that translation in a footnote as an alternative translation).
And then he just says "Amen" and moves on??! This would be a big deal in the 1st c. I know which I think is more likely.
But if it was standard (and understood) Christian teaching that Jesus is fully God, then Paul could just "move on." It wouldn't be a theological bomb in that case. Or if it is a bomb, Paul's audience was already used to it like soldiers used to bombs exploding all around them and still being able to sleep. It's not like Paul never hinted or taught Christ's full deity in his other correspondences. He does so repeatledly in the undisputed Pauline epistles as well as the Deutero-Pauline epistles. That's not only true in the Pauline corpus, but in Matthew, Mark, the Lukan corpus (as I sampled above), Johannine corpus (including Revelation), Petrine corpus, the book of Hebrews. It's even Jacobean teaching.
But if "all" is unrestricted here, we recall that Paul says that God is over Christ.......Honestly, it doesn't sound like something Paul would say, that Christ is "God over all", as it is beyond dispute Paul calls one "God" who is "over" Christ.
A human king can be ruler over all his kingdom as well as over his son the prince. Yet, at the same time the prince can be king over all his father's kingdom JUST AS MUCH as his father is (so long as his will is in keeping with his father's will). Coregency of father and son is a common feature in the Old Testament. To say that a king is over his son doesn't make the prince any less royal. David made Solomon king while he was still alive (1 Chron. 23:1) to ensure no one could dispute Solomon's royal claims.
CONT.
Paul alluded to a similar principle:
DeleteI mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything- Gal. 4:1
....note that all through ch. 8 he distinguishes between them. Same in 1:1-7. Charity prevents us from attributing this contradiction to Paul.
Regarding Romans chapter 8:
In Rom. 8:9 the "Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ" seem to be the same Spirit. Thus identifying Christ as God, or at the very least making Christ equal with the Father. It should be noted that with all the references to the Spirit of Jehovah/Yahweh in the Old Testament, that the New Testament references to the "Spirit of Christ" or the "Spirit of Jesus" or the "Spirit of his [i.e. the Father's] Son" implies that Jesus is also fully God since we find Jesus having a Spirit and that that Spirit performs the same type of functions as Jehovah's Spirit. Hence emulating Jehovah Himself. Therefore, it's no stretch to conclude that 1. Jesus is equal to the Father in divinity, 2. the Spirit of the Father is the same Spirit of the Son (cf. Romans 8:9), 3. The person of the Holy Spirit is equal with the Father and the Son (which makes sense if the perichoresis/circumincession/interpenetration is true).
Even the personality of the Holy Spirit is taught in Romans 8. The Holy Spirit leads (Rom. 8:14); bears witness (Rom. 8:16); helps us in our weakness (Rom. 8:26); intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26); has a mind (Rom. 8:27). Your appeal to Romans 8 is probably the worst chapter you could appeal to in order to argue against Trinitarianism in the book of Romans.
typo correction: (which makes sense if the [DOCTRINE OF] perichoresis/circumincession/interpenetration is true).
Delete"I'll let folks like Steve (who understand philosophy & logic) handle such issue (as Steve has done in the past)."
ReplyDelete[facepalm]
Annoyed,
ReplyDeleteOK, so you're choosing to ignore considerations about coherence/self-consistency. Instead, you are free-associating - if anything in a context says something that sounds like talk of Yahweh, you take that as a hint of the "deity of Christ." This is a perverse way of interpreting what are not at all esoteric books. All NT books except Revelation wear their message on their face; there is no tricky hinting going on. Thus, while no one in Acts says that Jesus is God (etc), you are able to magically discern "indicators" of "Jesus's deity" (whatever that thesis is - you seem to be unclear about that).
About Acts,
"They pray to Jesus on multiple occasions"
Yes, Christians may, and always have prayed to the risen and exalted Lord Jesus. (Perhaps you're assuming that only God can be prayed to; that's evangelical tradition, but clashes with the NT.)
"They refer to Jesus' gospel as "the word of the Lord" (corresponding to the OT "word of the LORD/Yahweh/Jehovah/Adonai"). Compare Isa. 2:3 with Acts 8:25; Acts 11:16; Acts 13:49; Acts 15:35-36; Acts 16:32; Acts 19:10; Acts 19:20."
Well yes, Jesus's gospel is the word of the Lord - of the Lord Jesus, the exalted man (Ps 110:1), and also of the Lord God, of Yahweh. Their message is the same because it is God's message given through, proclaimed by, Jesus. See the gospel on John on this.
"Stephen commits his spirit to Jesus as if He were God"
Here, you merely assume that a dying person won't commit his soul to the care of man who is exalted to God's right hand. But there is no reason anyone should agree.
"They call upon and invoke the name of Jesus in Acts in the ways that would seem to be reserved only for Yahweh" (cf. Acts 9:14; 21; Acts 22:16 cf. 1 Cor. 1:2).
"that would seem to be reserved only for Yahweh" There's something like an evangelical idea of "shirk" operating here. You must think it blasphemy to suppose that anyone should relate to a man in ways similar to how they relate to God, as that would be a disrespectful "associating" of a creature with the creator. Well, the NT authors disagree.
"The disciples are Jesus' Witnesses (Acts 1:8) corresponding to the Israelites being Yahweh's Witnesses (Isa. 43:10,12; 44:8)."
Sorry, this is just free association. Nothing follows re: the matter of our disagreement.
"Acts 1:9-11 seems to identify Jesus with Yahweh in Zech. 14:3-5. Notice how both passages refer to someone coming from above to land on the Mount of Olives. Zechariah even saying Yahweh's "feet" will stand on the mount of Olives."
The NT perspective is that God is working through Jesus; thus, prophecies about what YHWH will do can be fulfilled by things Jesus does. It's just a fallacy to infer that if Y fulfills a prophecy about what X will do, then X = Y. See http://trinities.org/blog/proving-that-bush-sgt-speedo/ and http://trinities.org/blog/the-bible-teaches-that-david-is-god/ .
"Jesus speaks in a God-like manner to Ananias with Ananias saying "Here I am" similar to how Samuel and Isaiah did in response to Yahweh's speaking and calling."
Wow. Free association. I reckon that both of us have in this way "spoken in a God-like manner."
"Acts 9:31 & Acts 19:17 might refer to the "fear of the Lord" as the fear of Jesus. See my blogpost HERE on the other passages in the NT that talk about the "Fear of Jesus" as analogous to the "Fear of Jehovah""
If Jesus is the exalted Lord, he should be feared for that very reason. As the one in charge, he has the right and power to punish. Again, not relevant.
"Acts 19:17 has Jesus' name being "extolled" or "magnified" in a way that's reminiscent of how Yahweh's name is in the OT."
ReplyDeleteAnnoyed, do you really think that Luke is dropping these sorts of hints? Sorry, but you're ignoring the many speeches he puts in the mouth of Peter, Paul, etc. which reveal exactly what he wants his message to be. Let's take Luke to be a competent, clear writer, not a trickster.
"In Acts 5:41 Jesus' name is called "the name" similar to how Jews refer to Yahweh's name as "Ha Shem" (i.e. The Name). Compare with Lev. 24:11"
Well, translations differ here, and so it seems that translators disagree on whether there's such an allusion. http://biblehub.com/acts/5-41.htm But what if there is? What if early Christians sometimes respectfully dropped using the name "Jesus" and instead referred to "the Name." That would be like what Jews had done with YHWH. And...? That's all that follows, right? Would that be a big surprise in the case of the exalted unique human Son of God? If not, then it'd not be any effective hint of his "deity," as you want it to be.
"Acts teaches that grace flows from Jesus Christ ( Acts 15:11, 40). When this is something normally attributed to full deity, and the prerogatives of God; seeing that NT "charis" in some sense corresponds to the mercy/"chesed" of Yahweh in the OT."
Why should grace not flow from the Lord Jesus, the exalted man?
"Jesus is called "the Author of Life" in a way reminiscent of full deity."
Would it make sense to call the human Jesus, who has by his ministry brought us into a new, eternal life, "the author of life"? It would seem so. But then, it would not seem a title only appropriate to God.
"Stephen says, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them" (Acts 7:60). He seems to ask Jesus not to hold his stoners' sins against them as if Jesus were God and had the power to pardon and passover sin."
Stephen believes that God will judge through the man Jesus.
"Beliving in Jesus is terms "turning to the Lord" (Acts 9:35; 11:21) which is reminiscent of many OT pasages..."
"Acts seems to talk of the "hand of the Lord" in reference to Jesus as the OT talks about the "hand of Yahweh" (Acts 11:21)."
Sorry, but this is just free association, ignoring the authors' explicit points.
"Jesus' blood might be God's blood in Acts 20:28 (depending on textual variant and translation). "
This would seem, on external grounds, an obvious late corruption. Those grounds are: the NT is very reticent about calling Jesus "God". This changed completely by the late 100s - early 200s. In any case, think this through. "God" here is the Father. Does he have blood? No. But he has a Son with blood. So one could take Luke to mean that God bought us with "his" (i.e. his Son's) own blood, though that seems an awkward phrase and idea. Or, you can take it, perversely, as a hint that Jesus is God himself.
Here's my challenge to you. Read through all the speeches in Acts where a character presents the gospel. List out all the explicit claims about Jesus and God, etc. Then, step back and observe what Luke thinks the gospel is. See if you can find there that Jesus is God, that he's "fully divine", that he's a member of the Trinity, etc.
Annoyed,
ReplyDeleteTaking Steve as your authority in matters of logic and philosophy is a huge mistake. Do you think a guy who had a handle on those things would so consistently feel the need to abuse rather than argue? You will notice that people trained in philosophy generally don't get aggressive like he does. This is because they know how to argue, and how to understand their opponent. Steve, as soon as he doesn't understand something I'm saying, resorts to abuse. You need to aim higher.
Also, taking apologists as your authorities in matters of church / theological history is a huge mistake. You say,
"But if it was standard (and understood) Christian teaching that Jesus is fully God, then Paul could just "move on." It wouldn't be a theological bomb in that case."
It was not a part of mainstream Christian teaching that "Jesus is fully God" until at least the time of Nicea. I've done quite a few posts @ trinities where I quote leading pre-Nicene figures, and almost to a man they hold theses incompatible with Jesus being "fully God." e.g. http://trinities.org/blog/?s=origen or http://trinities.org/blog/?s=trinitarian+or+unitarian or http://trinities.org/blog/the-lost-early-history-of-unitarian-christian-theology/ The only exceptions would be, possibly, some of the so-called "monarchians," but the matter is obscure.
The material is there, waiting for you to read it. You can of course choose to see only what fits with the catholic narrative that it was always part of Christian belief that Jesus had the same ousia as the Father - it was just the terminology that needed a little developing. This is not true, and anyone who honestly digs into the history will see this. And it makes you realize that the NT simply doesn't clearly assert the "fully deity" of Jesus. If it did, then early Christians c. 100-300 would have understood and believed that. There are countless honest scholars who can then help you to sort out what the NT authors are really saying, be they conservative or liberal, atheists or theist, trinitarian or unitarian. But: not evangelical apologists. They have, against the NT, mistakenly accepted the view that Christianity all stands or falls with this vague thesis of "the deity of Christ". Similar points would hold for Catholic apologists.
I take the time to say all this because you seem like a smart and sincere guy, who cares about getting the message of Christianity right.
God bless,
Dale
I've spent so much time on this already that I can only respond briefly. I'll stick to your comments which I think are the most powerful.
DeleteI take the time to say all this because you seem like a smart and sincere guy, who cares about getting the message of Christianity right.
I sincerely wish the best for you as well. I hope that has come across in all our interactions.
This is a perverse way of interpreting what are not at all esoteric books. All NT books except Revelation wear their message on their face; there is no tricky hinting going on.
This seems to manifests a rationalistic mindset that doesn't allow for mystery and transcendence in God. As if God were like any other finite creature that must fit in the box of our limited use of logic.
It was not a part of mainstream Christian teaching that "Jesus is fully God" until at least the time of Nicea.
Holding to Sola Scriptura (which I've defended numerous times), that doesn't phase me. Scripture, not tradition binds my conscience. Also, my interpretation of Scripture allows for progressive development and understanding of doctrine both DURING and AFTER Apostolic times. So, what's implicit in the Apostles can be made explicit by latter church theologians. I've explained this before to you and gave examples of the development and refinement of doctrines like justification, the atonement etc. Even during the times of the Apostles they were growing in their understanding of the gospel and of the person of Christ and the implications of what they believe concerning those two topics. You can actually witness the doctrinal development of the Apostolic church in the New Testament documents themselves.
Here's my challenge to you. Read through all the speeches in Acts where a character presents the gospel. List out all the explicit claims about Jesus and God, etc. Then, step back and observe what Luke thinks the gospel is. See if you can find there that Jesus is God, that he's "fully divine", that he's a member of the Trinity, etc.
When the disciples or Apostles preached the gospel in an evangelistic setting, they would obviously start with the basics. They naturally wouldn't get into the nitty gritty of the details of deeper theology or all the logical implications of the basics. But when we do get into the details of the Gospels and Epistles (it seems to me that) there are so many data points pointing to the full deity of Christ (not to mention that of the Holy Spirit) that a Unitarian interpretation of the Bible just doesn't seem to fit. Unitarianism makes a lot of sense until we get into the details of Scripture (both OT, NT and as they relate to each other).
One way (of many ways) to make Unitarian nearly fit is to just simply reject the canonicity of the 1. Antilegomena, 2. Deutero-Pauline epistles and the 3. Johannine corpus. Some Unitarian Jewish believers in Yeshua's messiahship actually do something like that. But that would call into question God's providential ability to reveal the canon to His church. It would also mean that the church had gotten the canon wrong by A LOT (by a wide margin). IMO, it's theoretically possible that the church got a few books wrong, but NOT by THAT much. A God who could allow his message to be THAT corrupted isn't worthy of worship, faith or trust. Besides, I'm convinced of the Protestant understanding of the recognition of the canonical books.
CONT.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHere's just one example of the type of details I'm talking about.
DeleteRev. 2:23 COMPARE WITH Jer. 17:10; Ps. 62:12; 1 Kings 8:39
In Rev. 2:23 Jesus is described as doing what ONLY YHWH is said to do in Jer. 17:10. To, search the heart and test the mind, and to give every to man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds. Notice, Jesus doesn't say, "I [merely] represent the one who searches and judges hearts." Rather, Jesus says, "I am he" who does it. Jesus is referring to his own person.
"I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds."- Jer. 17:10
and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he [i.e. Jesus] who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.- Rev. 2:23
then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind),- 1 Kings 8:39
How could Jesus say this if Unitarianism is true? He could have said something like, "Like my Father, I too can search mind and heart." But instead Jesus says, "I am he" who does it even though this is a clear/obvious/unambiguous allusion to Jer. 17:10. And the book of Revelation is the most Old Testament SOAKED book in the New Testament. When we add to this all the other passages in the Revelation where Jesus does something similar (e.g. HERE), I can't help but conclude that the author of Revelation is teaching us that Jesus is full deity just as much as the Father. So, either I accept that or reject the canonicity of the book of Revelation. But then, to be consistent, I'd have to do that for many more books of the NT until I've eliminated the 1. Antilegomena, 2. Deutero-Pauline epistles and the 3. Johannine corpus.
So, my viable options are:
1. a Unitarianism with a finitely powerful and semi-sovereign God who can't preserve His message down through history,
2. a Trinitarian-like God who's powerful enough to preserve His message,
3. atheism
I choose #2 because it's consistent Biblically, historically, theologically, logically, existentially, providentially.
As I wrote in my blogpost responding to one of your friendly challenges:
DeleteAs I wrote in my blogpost responding to one of your friendly challenges:
[I don't want to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum] Nevertheless, it is interesting that the most successful forms of Christianity have been Trinitarian. I'm including Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy even though as a Protestant I have serious problems with both communions (doctrinally, historically, regarding persecution and abuse of political power etc.). Trinitarians have been the most successful in missions and evangelism. Trinitarians have always been at the forefront of apologetics (ever since Constantinople I in 381 A.D.). Trinitarians have always had the best believing (as opposed to unbelieving/liberal) Biblical scholars who are also the most familiar with the Biblical languages. Trinitarians have had the best seminaries and divinity schools. Trinitarians have had the most effective charities helping the needy in Jesus' Name in fulfillment of Matt. 25:31-40. Also, my subjective sense of history is that Trinitarian Christians have had the most miracles as well (cf. my blogposts at Charismata Matters like Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here). The greatest and best devotional literature seem to have come from Trinitarians. And finally, the holiest Christians in church history (that I'm aware of) have mostly been (self-consciously) Trinitarian. It's almost as if the providential Blessing of God is upon Trinitarianism. I suspect it is.
If the God of the Bible wasn't powerful and sovereign enough to preserve His message down through history, then atheists are justified in their agnosticism and/or rejection of the Christian God.
DeleteWe're not in the first few centuries of the Christian Era when the canon was being debated and recognized. The Canon should be basically settled by now after 2 millennia. Interestingly, while professing Christians still dispute the canon of the Old Testament [though IMO the correct one is clear], virtually all professing Christian communities are in agreement concerning the NEW TESTAMENT canon. Yet, it's precisely THAT canon that contains books which teach something like Trinitarianism.
DeleteWith all that I know of the NT, and if I were a Unitarian, I would seriously consider questioning (even rejecting) the canonicity of Revelation, the Gospel of John (and other books) since they are clearly of a late date. I would consider the possibility that there's too much theological development in them to reliably convey the teaching of the earliest Christians. But this is exactly the road that some scholars have gone toward liberalism, even theistic agnosticism and/or atheism.
DeleteA high view of Scripture goes hand-in-hand with a high view of Christology, and vice versa. Conversely, a low view of Scripture goes hand-in-hand with a low view of Christology. Why? Because it displays either a high or low view of God the Father's providence over church history and history in general.
[Dale] "This is a perverse way of interpreting what are not at all esoteric books. All NT books except Revelation wear their message on their face; there is no tricky hinting going on."
ReplyDelete[Annoyed] This seems to manifests a rationalistic mindset that doesn't allow for mystery and transcendence in God. As if God were like any other finite creature that must fit in the box of our limited use of logic."
Annoyed, you simply assume that the texts force apparent inconsistencies on us. You need to consider that some of those may be due to the lenses through which you read them. Anyway, my point is about plainly understandable, pedestrian writing vs. esoteric, quasi-gnostic or magical texts. In your hermeneutics, I say that you're treating them like the latter, always mumbling and hinting at their real point. But they just don't do that - again, Revelation aside. The speak their message up front and in a full voice - no games. This is why you can't just run wild with any allusion you think you see.
Speaking on God's ultimate purposes and overarching designs, I believe that God in His sovereignty veils His truth so that only His elect will believe it. The doctrine of the God's sovereignty, like the doctrine of the Trinity, is hidden in plain sight throughout Scripture. That there are deeper and hidden truths in Scripture is just as clearly taught as the progressive nature of revelation and of doctrinal development. We need to be given eyes to see and ears to hear in order to understand and accept it.
DeleteIt is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out. - Prov. 25:2
10 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?"11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.- Matt. 13:10-11
8 as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day."- Rom. 11:8
40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." 41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.- John 12:40-41
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.- 1 Cor. 2:14
7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.- 1 Cor. 2:7-8
Pascal said it in the following ways in his Pensées:
574 All things work together for good to the elect, even the obscurities of Scripture; for they honour them because of what is divinely clear. And all things work together for evil to the rest of the world, even what is clear; for they revile such, because of the obscurities which they do not understand.
577 There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.—Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Sébond.
562 It will be one of the confusions of the damned to see that they are condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion.
I'm not saying that all Unitarians are unregenerated, or non-elect, or doomed to hell. However, I do believe that the acceptance or rejection of Christ's full divinity is a major doctrinal issue which can be a manifestation of a person's regenerate or unregenerate state.
I agree that John 8:24 isolated from it's context doesn't necessitate a claim of full deity on Christ's part. Jesus might merely be saying "I am [he, i.e. the Messiah]" (ego eimi). However, when we do take into consideration the context and the denouement of that episode in Christ's life (John 8:57-59), I do think it Christ is hinting at His full deity in v. 24 as He does in v. 58 (though, of course Unitarians dispute the proper translation of verse 58).
With the assumption that John 8:24 is a veiled reference to Christ's full deity, then Jesus seems to hinge nomative salvation on belief of that full deity.
" I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM [i.e. fully divine] you will die in your sins."
Admittedly, the wording and grammar of 8:24 and 8:58 could allow for non-Trinitarian-like translations, but the context (of the passage and of the entire Gospel itself) militates against that. Rather, IMHO the whole tenor of the Gospel is for a claim to absolute deity.
"It was not a part of mainstream Christian teaching that "Jesus is fully God" until at least the time of Nicea.
ReplyDeleteHolding to Sola Scriptura (which I've defended numerous times), that doesn't phase me. Scripture, not tradition binds my conscience."
Annoyed, I'm Protestant too. You're missing the point. The argument is: what is obviously taught in the texts is going to be believed by most Christians c. 100-325. But the "full deity of Christ" is not. So, it is not obviously taught in those texts.
I again urge you to take my Acts challenge. It won't due to assert that when preaching publicly, they only gave the basics. On *your* view, the "full deity of Christ* is a basic, and is essential. On my view, it is not. The apostles loudly proclaimed all the essentials. They did not, Gnostic or Mormon or Scientology style, save all the juicy bits for private or in-house teaching only. Again, see whose side Luke is on. He wrote Acts to be read in churches, and was well familiar with the apostles' instruction.
No, I don't agree that being a Christian unitarian requires revising the Protestant canon. Perhaps you imagine that some claims are just so clear that we must cut them out. But no, we see the whole 27 books as consistent about Jesus and God.
You need to also factor in doctrinal development in the Apostolic church and their latter/deeper reflection of their earlier doctrine. Luke is trying to be faithful to the gist of the messages the Apostles delivered even if they didn't always fully understand the implications of all they taught in their earlier ministries. That's why the books of the NT that were written later are more explicit regarding the full deity of Christ. Why the Christology of the Gospels elevate the later they're written. As high as Mark's Christology is, Matthew and Luke's are higher, and John's and Revelation the highest.
DeleteIt also must be remembered that the speeches recorded in Acts are only summaries. Also, having said what I've said about doctrinal development among the apostles and how their later works express their more mature theology, it's also the case that the earliest New Testament works nevertheless portray a very high Christian (hence the now common phrase "Early High Christology").
DeleteWhen the Apostles evangelized Jews, they naturally wouldn't want to express flat out the full deity of Christ. Otherwise, they would have be quickly dismissed without a fair hearing because they would immediately have been considered polytheists. So, it's natural to begin with OT prophecies of the Messiah and how Jesus fulfilled them. When they evangelized Pagan, they had to start from where they were at, and so had to begin with the doctrine of creation, monotheism and the invisibility of God.
They did not, Gnostic or Mormon or Scientology style, save all the juicy bits for private or in-house teaching only. Again, see whose side Luke is on.
I agree that there were no secret teachings given only to privileged initiates and disclosed in whispers within darkened rooms. I'm saying that the was milk and there was meat.
I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,- 1 Cor. 3:2
11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.- Heb. 5:11-14
Annoyed, you want to run with allusions to OT claims about YHWH in Revelation, but look at the whole book. In Revelation, Jesus *has a god* over him, God, the same one who is over you and me. (Rev 1:6, 3:12) http://trinities.org/blog/in-the-new-testament-jesus-has-a-god-same-as-ours/ Yes, both are called Alpha and Omega - the origin and the destination in some sense(s), but the book throughout distinguishes between Jesus and his God. If you try to read this author is implying that they're the same, you're being uncharitable to him, reading him as confused about his central subject-matter. You ought to have more respect for him. It's a perverse interpretive tradition that foists contradictions on an author and then congratulates him for being so profound as to express mysteries. On any other topic, we weed out the contradictions as we settle upon an overall good interpretation. But here, catholic tradition misleads us.
ReplyDelete"it is interesting that the most successful forms of Christianity have been Trinitarian"
I agree that trinitarian groups have had some good success. But I also think that Christianity did quite well up till 381, which is when it became trinitarian!
"A high view of Scripture goes hand-in-hand with a high view of Christology, and vice versa."
Not at all. All unitarians before the critical revolution of the 19th c. held what you'd call a "high" view of scripture. Views are mixed since then, just as with trinitarians.
You keep urging me to jettison John and Revelation. Honestly, neither of them worries me at all, because I've spent so much time reading and carefully parsing them, particularly John. Far from being a problem, John has always been beloved by various unitarians. Granted, they've disagreed about whether John teaches a literal, personal pre-existence for Jesus as "the Logos". But the book is crystal clear that the one God is the Father, and that Jesus is a real man, who depended on the Father for all he did and taught. And it explicitly says that Jesus's God is none other than ours. All the main texts discussed here: http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-episode-70-the-one-god-and-his-son-according-to-john/ I'm hardly alone in this view; I've met or read many past and present unitarian Christians who absolutely love both John and Revelation.
About the pastorals, of course, views differ, but not for these core theological and christological reasons.
"If the God of the Bible wasn't powerful and sovereign enough to preserve His message down through history, then atheists are justified in their agnosticism and/or rejection of the Christian God."
Be careful, Mr. Protestant! There was this period from 381 to 1520 when persecution was the norm, and when the bishops' doctrines could not be challenged, and idolatry was institutionalized. Did God fail? I think not. He allows quite a lot of foolishness and sin on our part.
To clarify, in 1520 sadly, persecution was still the norm. But what started to be challenged was the official catholic readings of the Bible, and the non- and anti-biblical teachings and practices of the Catholic church. The mainstream Reformers were guilty of some serious sins when it came to persecution, but more thorough-going reformers, some of whom were unitarians, put aside the traditional rationalizations, and thus the Western world took its first steps back towards religious freedom.
ReplyDeleteJesus *has a god* over him, God, the same one who is over you and me.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's not inconsistent with a Trinitarian understanding of the incarnation. But even sans incarnation, I personally don't think that necessarily denies Christ's full deity for the Father to be "God" (in some sense) over the Eternal Son. Since, even in some Trinitarianisms there is an eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father.
Yes, both are called Alpha and Omega....
Not just Alpha and Omega. Jesus seems to be the speaker in Rev. 22:12-13 (as I've argued HERE). If so, then Jesus claims the divine titles of:
1. the Alpha and the Omega
2. the first and the last
3. the beginning and the end
If these aren't titles and attributes of absolute deity, I don't know what are.
If you try to read this author is implying that they're the same...
The same God, but not the same person.
....you're being uncharitable to him, reading him as confused about his central subject-matter. You ought to have more respect for him.
One could argue that Unitarianism is uncharitable to God's providence in the inspiration and canonization of Scripture.
It's a perverse interpretive tradition that foists contradictions on an author and then congratulates him for being so profound as to express mysteries.
IMHO, there's more unresolvable/irreconcileable contradictions in Unitarianism than Trinitarianism.
You keep urging me to jettison John and Revelation.
I wasn't urging you to do that. I was saying what I would do if I were a consistent Unitarian. Only by extension did I imply that other Unitarians might have to do the same for consistency's sake.
Granted, they've disagreed about whether John teaches a literal, personal pre-existence for Jesus as "the Logos"
IMO, the personal pre-existence of Jesus is clear in the gospel of John. (e.g. John 1:14; 3:13, 31; 6:38, 62; 8:14, 23, 42; 10:36; 13:3; 16:28; 17:4-5 etc. [cf. 1 John 4:9-10, 14]).
Be careful, Mr. Protestant! There was this period from 381 to 1520 when persecution was the norm, and when the bishops' doctrines could not be challenged, and idolatry was institutionalized. Did God fail? I think not. He allows quite a lot of foolishness and sin on our part.
My affirmation of the presevation of Scripture and of the Christian Gospel doesn't entail a denial or ignorance of the errors of intitutionalized Christianity. There has been persecution on most sides by most every other side up to the present. Though, there have been some pacifistic professing Christian believers. My own theological forebears, Reformed Baptists were persecuted by the children of the Reformers. In fact, it was the Reformed Baptists (among others) who urged and argued for more theological freedom and charity among denominations, along with a greater separation of church and state. Not only did Trinitarians persecute non-Trinitarians, but the reverse was true too. For example, many of those attempting to be faithful to Nicene orthodoxy who attended Constantinople I attended maimed (with missing limbs, eyes etc.) due to the persecution of the aproximately 50 year Arian Ascendancy.
Jesus *has a god* over him, God, the same one who is over you and me.
DeleteIn response to this objection Trinitarians have cited a verse in John.
......'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"- John 20:17
Trinitarians point out that Jesus didn't say He was ascending to "OUR Father" and to "OUR God." If Jesus had, then He would be placing Himself on the creature side of the Creator/creature divide. Rather, Jesus seems to be making the point that the Father's Fatherhood and Godhood over creatures is different than that over Himself/Christ. Believers' sonship and the Father's Fatherhood over them is by adoption. Believers' submission to God and God's Godhood over them is on account of creation. Whereas God's Godhood and Fatherhood over Christ is by nature.
BTW, citing the Lord's Prayer where it says "Our Father" as an instance when Jesus combines the Fatherhood of God over Him and believers doesn't count since the Lord's Prayer is a model prayer given by Christ for Christians to pray. In every other instance in the Gospels Jesus says, "YOUR Father" or "MY Father," but never "OUR Father" (this seems to be true of all four Gospels).
This blogpost is pretty quiet now, so I don't know if Dale Tuggy is still monitoring it. However, I'd like to add just a bit more.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion Trinitarianism has the burden of proof. That because of OT monotheism, Unitarianism is the default position. The Unitarian position that Jesus is God (for all intents and purposes) by proxy as God's unequaled representative makes a lot of intuitive sense. That's why I was a Unitarian for as long as I was. What can be clearer? If there is only one God, and the Father is God and Jesus is not the Father, then Jesus is not God. Q.E.D. But when one looks into the details of Biblical statements and teaching Trinitarianism better explains all the data in a mutually consistent and mutually supportive way. With less ad hoc and contrived explaining away of uncomfortable passages.
Take just four data points in Matthew.
1. Matthew 12:6 has Jesus saying, "I tell you, something greater than the temple is here." How can Jesus say about Himself that He's greater than the temple when the temple is where the presence of Almighty God is "located". He would Himself have to be Almighty God for Him to say that. Otherwise it's blasphemy. I deal with this in greater depth HERE.
2. Matthew 18:20 has Jesus saying, ""For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst" (NASB). This is similar to another saying,
"Where two sit together to study the Torah, the Shekinah glory [i.e. the Divine Presence] rests between them." (Mishnah, Pirke Aboth 3:2)
The above was a common saying among rabbis during the first century according to some scholars. The Jewish Annotated New Testament confirms this on page 34, "rabbinic teachings stated that the Divine (Heb “shekhinah”) is present when people study Torah (m. Avot 3.2,6)." Therefore, it makes much sense that when the Gospel of Matthew records the statement of Jesus in Matt. 18:20, that the author of Matthew intended for us to identify Jesus with God.
3. Jesus is called Emmanuel in Matt. 1:23. Matthew himself states that the name means, "God with us." Now, either the God who was incarnated and is "with us" is one of the lesser gods of the Divine Council or God Almighty. Since, I accept Michael Heiser's general thesis on the Divine Council, the former is a logical possibility. However, it's interesting that Matthew wrotes "ho theos" rather than merely "theos." The use of the definite article is better in keeping with Matthew meaning absolute deity. I deal with this with greater depth in one of my blogposts HERE.
CONT.
4. I listened to Dale Tuggy's recent interview of Robert Bowman. I agreed with everything Bowman said. Though, I think his comments on Matt. 28:19 as pointing in the direction of the Trinity was slightly too modest. Matthew is a book written in view of a likely Jewish audience. Jews understood that names (ideally) represent the nature, character and attributes of the ones who bear them. The fact that Matthew uses the singular "name" (rather than "names") and encompasses the triad of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit under that one name should (IMHO) strongly lead us to infer Trinitarian-like conclusions. Note too that verse 20 has Jesus claiming God-like omnipresence when He says, "I am with you always, to the end of the age." That's reminiscent of the many OT passages where Yahweh says He will be with His people. Even the divine name Jehovah-Shammah ("The LORD is There [i.e. present, here and with us]"
Deletefear not, for I AM WITH YOU; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.- Isa. 41:10
Compare with Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20 where Jesus similarly tells the disciples not to fear because He's present with them (even using the phrase "ego eimi" in all three verses).
The fact that Unitarians disagree among themselves about the personal pre-existence of Christ is telling. Any theology or Christology that doesn't have that nailed down would seem (at least to me) to be problematic. Philippians 2 has the pre-incarnate Christ making a mental consideration before His incarnation (regardless of how one translates "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"). Mental considerations are done by persons, not and impersonal or abstract plan/logos in the mind of God the Father. Philippians goes on to say that Christ chose to be humble (prior to incarnation) and so was willing to be made in the form of a servant.
Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me;- Heb. 10:5
Hebrews 10:5 is so clear to me that I would have to excise it from the NT canon if I were to maintain a non-personal pre-existence of Christ.
If anyone is interested, here's my blogpost on the topic of Christ's Pre-Existence
Hi Annoyed,
ReplyDeleteYou're right to sense that your original answer re Jesus having a god was not adequate. The NT clearly and repeatedly says that the Father is the god of / over Jesus. (Of course, as the one true God, he's over all others.) It won't do to make a gesture at traditional two-natures speculations. How could those help? And immediately after telling me that it's OK that the Father is god of the Son, you tell me that they're the same god. But the idea of a god being god of / over himself is just nonsense. Conceivably, some sort of deity/god may be under another. But not when it comes to the monotheistic concept of a god; this one is by definition the highest authority.
"If these aren't titles and attributes of absolute deity, I don't know what are."
Well, of course, those are titles given to God. But you're assuming, again with no reason other than it fits your theory, that they can *only* be used of God, and never also used for another. This is why I remarked either that you seem to have shirk-like concerns. To be sure, this assumption is part of catholic traditions. But it needs to be tested by scripture. In any case, I think the NT refutes you there, they're used for Jesus too.
We're at an impasse, with this inconsistent triad
Only God can rightly be called X.
Jesus is rightly called X.
Jesus and God are non-identical.
We agree on the second. I am tell you that in every case, you have no warrant, scriptural or otherwise, for the first. That is why I deny the first and affirm the third, which has plenty of scriptural warrant, namely, all the differences between them. (One would be enough!)
"......'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"- John 20:17
Trinitarians point out that Jesus didn't say He was ascending to "OUR Father" and to "OUR God." If Jesus had, then He would be placing Himself on the creature side of the Creator/creature divide. Rather, Jesus seems to be making the point that the Father's Fatherhood and Godhood over creatures is different than that over Himself/Christ."
Wow, this is breathtaking eisegesis. The Nicene theory just must rule all, it seems. Look, the statement there patently assumes that there is some who is Jesus's god and also the disciples' god, and who is Jesus's "Father" and also the disciples' "Father." There is one who is those four things. It follows that either Jesus or his disciples could have said this one is "our" god and Father; that would just be a stylistic variant on what the text has. There's no iota of a hint that the Father is over Jesus or the god over Jesus in a different sense than he's over us. God is god over all. This doesn't imply that his relationship with the unique is the same as with us, of course.
On *your* views, one who is fully divine is the one God, and so can have no god over him. But several texts don't hint, don't imply, but straight up say that Jesus has a god over him. So, he's not "fully divine;" whether he's divine in some lesser sense that is consistent with being under God is still an open issue.
You place a lot of weight on divine providence. In short, my view is better off there. Your view seems to require the gospel to be lost c. 100 - 381. In my view, based on the NT, the essence of the message is very simple, and has always been preserved, even through the clogging of our theological arteries with various speculations. Some details here: http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-85-heretic-four-approaches-to-dropping-h-bombs/
ReplyDelete"God-like omnipresence when He says, "I am with you always, to the end of the age." That's reminiscent of the many OT passages where Yahweh says He will be with His people. Even the divine name Jehovah-Shammah ("The LORD is There [i.e. present, here and with us]"
ReplyDeleteSorry, but this is very sloppy arguing. How is God omnipresent? Essentially. How do we get that from Jesus' statement? We don't. When is God omnipresent? At all times or timelessly. How do we get that from Jesus' statement? We don't. Actually, we don't get the "omni" part at all, do we? The risen Jesus could be present wherever his church members are, individually or collectively, if he was limited to the space of the earth, plus a little for the few Christian astronauts.
Does this sound like some things YHWH says in the OT. Yes!
And...? Perhaps you assume, I speculate, that only God himself (or a fully divine being) can be invisibly "with" a scattered church? Just another assumption, it seems, with nothing that can be said for it, beyond its utility in arguing for catholic views.
"1. Matthew 12:6 has Jesus saying, "I tell you, something greater than the temple is here." How can Jesus say about Himself that He's greater than the temple when the temple is where the presence of Almighty God is "located"."
ReplyDeleteBecause as God's anointed, the presence and power of God are in him, and in a greater way. The Temple, he knows, will soon pass away. But he will rule forever.
"3. Jesus is called Emmanuel in Matt. 1:23. Matthew himself states that the name means, "God with us.""
It always surprises me when trinitarians bring this up. This misunderstands the whole ancient practice of putting god-names into people names. It was not meant to imply that the person was that deity. Also, note the other way of rendering "Immanuel": God *is* with us. The name isn't a description meaning "God, who is with us". It's rather a way of honoring, by naming a child after, the God who was then still with Israel. This is why no one inferred the deity of that baby in the time of Isaiah who was the first fulfillment of the prophecy.
You want to know what Matthew's point about Jesus is? He takes all the guesswork out of it: Matthew 16:16. Then in case you missed it: Matthew 27:11, 22, 37, 40, 43, 54. Did this title "Son of God" mean that he was God? No - see 27:43.
Does the author then, in the second to last verse in the book, drop the bomb that Jesus is actually 1/3 of God, or one of three "persons" sharing the divine ousia? Not likely! But the hint-hunters never tire.
You're right to sense that your original answer re Jesus having a god was not adequate.
ReplyDeleteI never intended for my previous answer to be exhaustive. Also, my second response about the difference between the Fatherhood/Godhood of the Father over believers and Jesus is an old response. I remember hearing it over 20 years ago (I think on the Bible Answerman show).
But the idea of a god being god of / over himself is just nonsense.
Even in some types of modalism that would made sense. But as a Trinitarian, I wouldn't phrase it that way. I would say that the person of the Father is God over the person of Jesus in some sense. Either on account of the incarnation and/or functional subordination within the immanent Trinity.
But not when it comes to the monotheistic concept of a god; this one is by definition the highest authority.
I addressed that in my above comments about human kings and their sons being both king in a coregency. I don't see why the same thing cannot apply to Godhood.
Well, of course, those are titles given to God. But you're assuming, again with no reason other than it fits your theory, that they can *only* be used of God, and never also used for another.......In any case, I think the NT refutes you there, they're used for Jesus too.
Your view is nearly non-falsifiable. Almost all titles and attributes are attributed to Christ, yet that does't phase Unitarians!!! Only a few titles/descriptions may not. Unitarians would cite the phrase "only true God" (John 17:3). However, a case could be made that Jesus is called "the only true God" in John 5:20. Though, it's not decisive, Unitarians should take that into consideration similar to how "kurios" is used of Christ in ways suggestive of the tetragrammaton being applied to Christ. Though, of course in many cases it's not conclusive since "kurios" can refer to lesser "lords" as well. BTW, I've gathered some scholarly quotes in defense of Jesus being called "only true God" in my BLOGPOST HERE. Another example Unitarians might cite is the fact that Jesus is never called or identified as the "Father". Well, of course. In Trinitarianism the Son couldn't be called the Father because they are different persons. So, that doesn't count against Trinitarianism. Nevertheless, while the Son cannot be called the "Father" intra-Trinitarianly and sans creation, the Son is called "Father" in terms of creation in Isa. 9:6 ("Everlasting Father").
This is why I remarked either that you seem to have shirk-like concerns.
Yes, I do have shirk like concerns. It's Biblical (both in the OT and NT). And I say that even though I believe in Heiser's Divine Council of "gods" hypothesis.
CONT.
I am tell [sic, "telling"?] you that in every case, you have no warrant, scriptural or otherwise, for the first.
Delete6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. 7 Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.- Isa. 44:6-7
Yahweh says HE is "the First and the Last" and besides Him there is no god like Him. He even says, "WHO IS LIKE ME?" Well, Jesus is like God, why didn't Isaiah make room for Jesus or mention Him? God inspired Isaiah to exclude anything less than absolute deity to be "like God" in that sense of being First and Last. Yet, Jesus repeatedly claims that title.
1 Kings 8:39 states that Yahweh alone "knows every human heart." Of course Yahweh can reveal to other beings or possibly enable other beings to read hearts. But the inherent ability to do so is a Divine prerogative. Yet Jesus claims the same in Rev. 2:23. Above I argued for why Jesus appears to claim to be the Yahweh of Jer. 17:10 cf. Ps. 62:12.
In Isaiah 44:24 Yahweh states He created the heavens and earth ALONE. Yet, we know the NT teaches Jesus participated in creation. Either that's a direct contradiction, or Jesus is Yahweh in some sense. Either in a Modalistic or Trinitarian sense.
Yahweh says in Isa. 45:23 "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance." Yet, that's applied to Jesus in Phil. 2. Obviously, as the human messiah Jesus represents Yahweh. However, in virtually all the places where Jesus is identified with Yahweh, is there no qualification by a NT author saying, "Oh, and by the way, you know I'm only saying this with the assumption that Jesus only represents Yahweh, but isn't actually Yahweh Himself, right?" On the contrary, the identification seems to be explicit. For example, OT concept of "the Day of the LORD/Yahweh" is freely applied to Jesus in the phrase "the Day of the Lord/kurios." As you know, I've cited many MORE SIMILAR HERE.
I could go on, but I'll leave it there.
Your view seems to require the gospel to be lost c. 100 - 381.
Not at all. Firstly, Greater theological clarification was necessary as more ontological questions were posed/raised by believers and heretics. That's why I can accept the genuine salvation of many of the ante-Nicene fathers even though their Christology and pneumatology didn't rise to the level of Nicene-Constantinopolitan theology. It would be analogous to the ethical question of whether cloning is permissible. The question didn't arise until the late 20th century because the technology wasn't possible previously. Similarly, when new theological questions are raised further distinctions need to be made as well.
Secondly, even the Post-apostolic and ante-Nicene fathers disagreed among themselves regarding Christology and pneumatology. There wasn't absolute consensus. There was even contradiction among themselves (and even in a single father's earlier and latter works; thus contradicting himself). Greater clarification was necessary and that's why there was theological debate for those first few centuries.
CONT.
Actually, we don't get the "omni" part at all, do we?
DeleteThat's why I wrote "God-like" rather than say only God can have apparent omnipresence. Sure, theoretically God could endow a creature with the power of near and apparent (but not absolute) omnipresence. But my point was that that kind of language in the OT was reserved for God alone. Hence, Jesus' appropriating a similar (if not also exact) attribute strongly hints at a claim to deity.
23 "Am I a God at hand, declares the LORD, and not a God far away?24 Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD.- Jer. 23:23-24
7 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? 8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!- Ps. 139:7-8
"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!- 1 Kings 8:27
And...? Perhaps you assume, I speculate, that only God himself (or a fully divine being) can be invisibly "with" a scattered church? Just another assumption, it seems, with nothing that can be said for it, beyond its utility in arguing for catholic views.
And you can leave it at that? Your conscience can rest there? Given Unitarianism, I would have expected the NT authors to given some explanation as to how someone other than Yahweh can display such attributes and powers. To even hear the prayers of all believers simultaneously and answer them. But we have no explanation coming from them. On the contrary, wherever we turn we see them applying OT passages of Yahweh to Jesus (e.g. Eph. 4:8 and Ps. 68:18).
Because as God's anointed, the presence and power of God are in him, and in a greater way. The Temple, he knows, will soon pass away. But he will rule forever.
Where is THAT explanation in the NT? Besides, the NT also identifies Jesus as the New Temple of the New Covenant. The Word became flesh and "taburnacled/dwelt" among us (John 1:14). My interpretation fits better overall (cf. Rev. 21:3; Matt. 1:23).
This misunderstands the whole ancient practice of putting god-names into people names. It was not meant to imply that the person was that deity. Also, note the other way of rendering "Immanuel": God *is* with us. The name isn't a description meaning "God, who is with us". It's rather a way of honoring, by naming a child after, the God who was then still with Israel. This is why no one inferred the deity of that baby in the time of Isaiah who was the first fulfillment of the prophecy.
Agreed. I think I anticipated and addressed most of that response in my blogpost on the topic. Though, I'm going to need to expand on it. I think Matthew saw Jesus' incarnation is a greater, fuller and ultimate fufillment of the prophecy. Though, he didn't explicitly state that Jesus is Almighty God because it would have offended away his intended Jewish audience. The intention of Matthew was probably that after repeated reading his Gospel people would come to Trinitarian-like conclusions. I think that's true of Mark as well since there are so many apparent r'mazim (i.e. hint, from the Jewish interpretive method of PaRDeS which many Hebrew Christian scholars claim Matthew wrote in [e.g. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, one of the fathers of the modern Messianic Jewish movement]).
CONT.
Did this title "Son of God" mean that he was God? No - see 27:43.
DeleteI've addressed that in my blogpost titled, Jesus the True and Proper SON of God.
Not likely! But the hint-hunters never tire.
In Matthew 13:10 it says, "Why do you speak to them in parables?"11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given."
Then he ends his string of parables with the following:
And he said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old."- Matt. 13:52
So, "hint hunting" is not only Jewish, it's historical, it's Biblical and even Dominical (i.e. from the Lord Jesus).
Both Arnold Fruchtenbaum (see lecture three in this series) and David H. Stern (writer of the Jewish New Testament Commentary) believe in using PaRDeS to interpret the New Testament.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBTW, I've heard that scholars suspect that the author of John reserved the word "son" (υιος) for Christ, while he used the word for "child/children" in reference to believers. Probably because he wanted to emphasize the difference between Christ's divine Sonship and the childrenhood of adopted believers. [The KJV translates John 1:12-13, and 1 John 3:1-2 with the word "sons" though the underlying word is not [AFAIK] a form of υιος but τέκνα.]
DeleteThe only exception in the Johannine corpus that I'm aware of is Rev. 21:7. But it's not clear that the Father is speaking rather than the Son, and we know that Jesus wasn't hesitant to call some people "son" or τεκνον (Matt. 9:2). So, admittedly, the scholarly suspicion doesn't fully match the textual evidence.
These next few posts will probably be my last comments on this blogpost.
ReplyDeleteI have a few more things to say regarding the Father being God over Christ. Dale was quick to reject an appeal to the incarnation to explain how Jesus could have a God. But it's interesting that (AFAIK) in every place where Jesus is said to have a God over Him it's post incarnation. Even the prophecy in Ps. 45:6-7
6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; 7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;- Ps. 45:6-7
This is a messianic psalm about the future Davidic King. In which case it's about the human Messiah. The companions are probably a reference to the Davidic King's entourage. BTW, though this is a prophecy of David's human descendant, verse 6 might hint at the the essential divinity/deity of this person by calling this "God's" throne one that's forever and ever. [N.B. most scholars I know reject the translation "God is thy throne," nevertheless even if that's the correct translation it doesn't negatively affect Trinitarianism since it would be like pulling a grain rice from a large heap of rice. The sorites paradox doesn't apply yet.] Notice too that the Messiah's throne is everlasting/eternal ("forever and ever") even though Unitarians like to emphasize the fact that the messiah's reign will end when He hands over the Kingdom to His Father. Again, the point is that in this passage Jesus has a God AFTER His incarnation. I accept an appeal to the incarnation to explain how Jesus can be God and still have a God over Him. But for the sake of argument, I'll make my Trinitarian defense more difficult by setting aside that appeal. Let's say that doesn't work, how can Trinitarianism still be defended? This bring me to my next point.
I want to make explicit what I implied in a previous comment. In human kingdoms it is possible for a king to have a son (the prince) who is also the king (i.e. in a coregency; examples of which exist in the OT). His reign, rule and authority is equal to that of his father's so long as he properly represents and carries out his father's will. The fact that the son is just as much a king as his father doesn't deny the fact that the father is still nevertheless king over his son. Yet, both are equally royalty. Similarly, Jesus can be fully God and still have God the Father over Him as His God.
A Unitarian response might be that I'm proving too much because the analogy breaks down since fathers exist before their sons. And Jesus is called "SON of God" more often than God. When applied to Christ, that would imply Christ began to exist at some point in time, yet Trinitarians reject that idea. There is where Trinitarians will have disagreements among themselves. Some affirm a doctrine of eternal generation (ET), while others don't. I understand and sympathize with those who reject ET. They're trying to safeguard Christ's full deity, aseity and status as autotheos, unoriginate and ingenerate. I'm open to that position, but I lean toward some doctrine of ET.
CONT.
With the assumption of ET, I think it's possible to account for how Jesus can be fully God and still nevertheless be truly God's offspring in a way better than Unitarians. Unitarians like to emphasize Christ as God's Son. But in actuality, they don't really believe that. Often, (but not always) they hold to an Arian-like or Semi-Arian like understanding of Christ's nature. If they are asked what kind of nature does Christ has in comparison to God the Father? Here are some possibilities. One can say Christ's "divine" nature is totally different (or *other*) than the Fathers, like the Arians did (heteroousios). That's why they believed Christ was created virtually from and out of nothing. There's no substantial or essential connection between the two. Or one can say Christ's nature is very *similar* or *like* that of the Father's, but not the exact same type, like the Semi-Arians (homoiousios). Or one can say that Christ's nature is the same type of substance as the Father's, as the Nicene orthodoxy teaches (homoousios). If Unitarians want to seriously and consistently assert that Jesus is God's true Son, then they have to admit that Jesus' nature is homoousios. But, AFAIK, Unitarians cannot consistently hold to homoousios. In which case, they can't consistently claim Jesus is God's true, proper and Son/offspring with the exact same nature as His Father. Even though, in semitic cultures it was understood that kind begets kind, like begets like. The Jews understood this based on Gen. 1:11-12, 21, 24-25 where each species produces offspring "according to their kind." Since, God the Father's nature is eternal, and Jesus has the same nature as God, therefore Jesus' nature is eternal. How can this be? I explain one way in my blogpost titled, "Jesus the True and Proper SON of God" There's no room in this blogpost to explain how.
DeleteBTW, I think Nicene Monarchists are right in saying that homoousios is nowadays interpreted by some Trinitarians as "of ONE substance" rather than the original meaning of "of SAME substance" and that a better term that those forms of Trinitarianisms might use is "monoousios." My limited understanding of Nicene Monarchism leads me to conclude that they believe that the triad's substances are the same type/species, but that there are actually different substances, and hence beings. Which to me smells like tritheism. That's why I lean away from it even though I find the position intriguing and slightly appealing. Nicene Monarchists, as I understand it, think this might actually be the original position of Nicaea I (325 AD), but that Constantinople I (381 AD) changed the interpretation of homoousios to mean what would be better termed monoousios. I favor this latter Trinitarian interpretation (which most Evangelicals hold). So, I vote for Evangelicals starting to use the term monoousios because it better expresses what we believe and better affirms the Unity of God and the full deity of the Son and Holy Spirit.
Dale seems to reject an appeal to the incarnation to explain how Jesus can have a God not based on it being false, but because of it being incoherent. But I don't see how it is. Setting aside the truth and falsity of Trinitarianism for a moment, if we accepted Trinitarianism hypothetically for the sake of argument, can it make sense that Jesus is God and still have a God over him? I think so. How? Well, think about it. If there are three persons who eternally share the one being of God and one of the persons took on a human nature (without ceasing to be God), and if it is the duty of humans to obey and worship God, then that second person ( as a human and in order to consistently be human, which Christ would want to do per Phil. 2) would naturally have God over Him. The Father would be over Him. While the Holy Spirit is not said to be "over" Christ, Christ nevertheless was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1) and led by the Spirit (Luke 2:27) and operated by the direction (Luke 4:1; Matt. 4:1; Mark 1:12) , authority and power (Luke 4:14) of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:28; Acts 10:38; Luke 4:18). Trinitarians interprets Paul's teaching to keep in step with the Holy Spirit as a form of obedience to the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:25 cf. Acts 13:2, 4; 16:6; 20:28). Jesus seemed to do the same thing. In which case, it would be a form of obedience to the Holy Spirit. Some might object and say that this would entail that Jesus would have to be submitted to Himself too since He's a divine person as well (along with the Father and Holy Spirit). But that's not difficult to understand even in terms of a mere human. Humans quote Shakespeare's statement all the time, "This above all: to thine own self be true" (Hamlet Act 1, Scene 3). In Christ's case, some Trinitarian theologians postulate a dual mind view of Christ that can account for Christ's non-omniscience as to His human nature. I think this dual mind's view can also be appealed to to explain how Christ's human mind could be subservient to and obey His divine mind. William Lane Craig seems to hold to this view (or at least he's mentioned it a few times in his lectures). He seems to have appealed to it in his debate against some Muslim apologist. Probably the one vs. Yusuf Ismail.
DeleteIdentifying Jesus: Is He Man or Both Man and God? William Lane Craig vs. Yusuf Ismail
https://youtu.be/ZWaPA52sa2Q?t=1h33m9s
The video link above is already cued up to 1 hour and 33 minutes. Craig appeals to (what I would assume is) the Dual Minds view 1 minute and 10 seconds after the cued up video. Here's a DIRECT LINK
DeleteOOPS. I cued the video incorrectly.I think the right time is 1 hour, nine minutes and 21 second.
DeleteHERE IS THE DIRECT LINK
Oliver Crisp mentions the two minds view of the incarnation in passing in this 10 minute interview HERE
DeleteThomas Morris addresses the two minds view in his book The Logic of God Incarnate
Dale wrote:
ReplyDeleteWell, read through Acts - there is heated, even violent conflict throughout, and yet the gospel there, over and over, neither says nor implies that Jesus is Yahweh. To the contrary, he's Yahweh's messiah who died, and has now been raised and exalted by Yahweh. The theme of the deity of Christ is just not there. Actual, detailed info about early Christian - Jewish disputes must trump your intuitions - sorry!
AND
Here's my challenge to you. Read through all the speeches in Acts where a character presents the gospel. List out all the explicit claims about Jesus and God, etc. Then, step back and observe what Luke thinks the gospel is. See if you can find there that Jesus is God, that he's "fully divine", that he's a member of the Trinity, etc.
AND
I again urge you to take my Acts challenge. It won't due to assert that when preaching publicly, they only gave the basics. On *your* view, the "full deity of Christ* is a basic, and is essential. On my view, it is not. The apostles loudly proclaimed all the essentials. They did not, Gnostic or Mormon or Scientology style, save all the juicy bits for private or in-house teaching only. Again, see whose side Luke is on. He wrote Acts to be read in churches, and was well familiar with the apostles' instruction.
Dale's statements seem to either prove too little or prove too much. Dale said the speeches recorded in Acts present a fairly complete explication of the Gospel. Or as he put it, "The apostles loudly proclaimed all the essentials." Yet, where in all of the speeches in Acts is Jesus portrayed as the logos of John? Or the one who was "in the form of God" in Philippians? Where is any explication of some kind of incarnation? Where is the doctrine that all the fullness of deity (or however a Unitarian would translate it) dwells in Christ in bodily form as found in Col. 1:19 & 2:9? Where in Acts is Jesus said or implied to be "...the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature..." (Heb. 1:3)? Or said to be the Lord who "laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning" (Heb. 1:10 quoting Ps. 102:25)?
My point is that the identity of Jesus isn't fully explicated in the Acts speeches just like I argued. I argued that the Acts speeches 1. are merely the gists of their actual speeches, 2. that they were basic because evangelistic (geared toward the ignorant or newbies), and that 3. there is a distinction between milk doctrines and meat doctrines. I also denied a gnostic secret knowledge among Christians.
If the Acts speeches are basically complete explications of the Gospel, then the book of Acts contradicts the rest of the New Testament, including the Gospel of Luke (of which Acts is volume 2)!!! That's why I think Dale's statements either prove too little or too much.
Dale's interpretive approach to Acts could lead to a theology whereby Jesus is merely a human who somehow, (at the very least) was an exalted human; or (at the most) a human who attained a Jewish version of apotheosis-lite (a diet divinity).
DeleteIn either case, they are both still too Low of a Christology as compared to the rest of the New Testament. And that's even in comparison to NT epistles written much earlier than the gospel of Luke or Acts. Early epistles like Philippians and 1 Corinthians already have a High Christology.
There are three possibilities:
1. the Christology of the early Church declined in between the time of the writing of Philippians and the writing of Acts.
2. Luke misrepresented the early church's teaching
or
3. my position that, the Acts speeches 1. are merely the gists of their actual speeches, 2. that they were basic because evangelistic (geared toward the ignorant or newbies), and that 3. there is a distinction between milk doctrines and meat doctrines.
Annoyed, I'm afraid that the strength of your arguments is inversely proportional to their volume! Just a few last points:
ReplyDeleteThe "two minds" approach to the incarnation is relatively new, is not what was meant by the catholic tradition, and doesn't help with the problem of Jesus having a God over him. If you want to cast that as one of Jesus's minds, the human one, being subject to the Father, the problem is the God-subject relation is an I-Thou one, a person to person one. So you've now fallen into Nestorianism by having two persons/selves in Jesus - the divine mind/self and the human one. And this just doesn't fit the picture we see in the gospels.
Relatedly, I see that like many you're treating "the human nature" as a human self, but that is not what the mainstream tradition says (because the Logos is already a self, and they don't want two). Thus the bizarre claim that the incarnate Jesus is "man" but not "a man." In other words, he can be called "man" because of the mysterious union of the Logos with "a complete human nature" but NOT a man, i.e. a human self.
Anyway, you're quite right to be worried about this. If you're not going to count this (straight up assertions that the Father is the god of Jesus) as evidence of unitarian theology, on which the Father alone is the one true God, then you're not going to count anything. BTW, your exegesis of John 17:1-3 simply ignores that an identity claim is being made, not a mere description. Details here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHPKzIGrJkQ but you'll have to watch the earlier parts if you haven't studied any logic. There is a reason why Augustine repeatedly speculated that the "Arians" had changed this verse!
About my Acts challenge: "where in all of the speeches in Acts is Jesus portrayed as the logos of John? Or the one who was "in the form of God" in Philippians? Where is any explication of some kind of incarnation? "
ReplyDeleteAnnoyed, these should be clues to you that catholic tradition has misread both of those texts. Many have given non-arbitrary, scripturally grounded and convincing readings of both which don't imply that Jesus pre-existed as the Logos. In brief, John never says that the eternal Logos is Jesus, and 1:14 doesn't say or imply that they are the same person. The Word is something like God's plan or wisdom, by which, the OT says in a couple of places, God created. It was "with" him then. (Prov 8) Phil 2, when you see that Paul is contrasting Jesus with Adam, doesn't presuppose Jesus's pre-existence (nor does it rule it out). The "form of God" needn't be having the divine essence, but can be read as a paraphrase of "made in God's image and likeness." Whereas Adam tried to grab at equality with God, Jesus declined to. Remember the ethical thrust of the whole thing (see the start of the chapter); Jesus is being held up as our example based on his actions during his human life.
I stand by my claims for Acts. No doctrine is *essential* in the sense of you must believe it to be saved unless it is preached to unbelievers in Acts - unless you're willing to say that Luke is incompetent. (I'm not.) I'm not saying that they there preached all that is important and true, or all that a mature believer must believe. But I would like you to see that the "Athanasian" creed is dead wrong in saying that anyone is damned who doesn't believe the catholic speculations about Trinity and the two natures of Jesus.
"My limited understanding of Nicene Monarchism leads me to conclude that they believe that the triad's substances are the same type/species, but that there are actually different substances, and hence beings. Which to me smells like tritheism. That's why I lean away from it even though I find the position intriguing and slightly appealing. Nicene Monarchists, as I understand it, think this might actually be the original position of Nicaea I (325 AD), but that Constantinople I (381 AD) changed the interpretation of homoousios to mean what would be better termed monoousios. "
ReplyDeleteYes, I've independently come to the same conclusion. "true God from true God" presupposed two who can be called "true God", so (given their assumptions) two with the universal essence of deity - and so co-eternal, excluding the "Arians," which was their aim. But yes, that's two gods - and not the same god. In 381, after a lot of fighting, the view seems to have prevailed that the shared essence is a singular property, this implies that the sharers are one and the same, but they problem is that such singular properties seem to be unshareable by definition; in other words, this seems to imply the identity of the three. That you accepting this reading of "homoousios" is why, I think, you go along with the confused evangelical tradition of identifying Jesus with his God (i.e. asserting them to be numerically identical). An exegetical disaster to be sure; which is, I suggest, why you find the other view tempting. As exegesis, Dr. Larry Hurtado really ripped into this confusion in my second interview with him. (I think he's roughly in what you call the Nicene Monarchist camp.)
Finally, about your omnipresence hint-hunting:
"And you can leave it at that? Your conscience can rest there? Given Unitarianism, I would have expected the NT authors to given some explanation as to how someone other than Yahweh can display such attributes and powers."
No, these writers assumed that somehow some angels can influence a wide area. So Satan is the "god of this world," and they held that angels were put over countries. So Jesus, exalted to a higher position than any angel, must also have such powers. Presumably the upgrade in position came with the needed abilities. We may be curious quite how this works, but I guess they were not. Some unitarians, and also Tom Morris have made the good point that we just don't know what the upper limit on human powers is, i.e. what sort of power and knowledge is consistent with being a human being. We can't just reason from typical examples.
I leave you with one last exhortation: explicit, repeated, emphasized statements > perceived allusions and hints. Thanks for the conversation & God bless,
Dale
Just a few last points:
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking time to interact with me and my arguments. Dialoguing with you has always been intellectually stimulating. These next posts will also be my last. I wish God's blessing be upon you too.
The "two minds" approach to the incarnation is relatively new, is not what was meant by the catholic tradition...
My allegiance is to Scripture and truth, not to Catholic tradition. I go along with Catholic, Protestant (et al.) tradition only to the degree that it's Scriptural.
If you want to cast that as one of Jesus's minds, the human one, being subject to the Father....
My appeal to the two minds view was not specifically to deal with how Jesus could have a God over Him since I don't even think it's necessary to appeal to the incarnation in order to field that objection. Rather, I appealed to the two minds view to anticipate the possible objection that if all three persons of the Trinity are God, then the human Jesus would have to have each person of the Trinity over Him and be obedient to each of the three INCLUDING HIMSELF!
If you want to cast that as one of Jesus's minds, the human one, being subject to the Father, the problem is the God-subject relation is an I-Thou one, a person to person one.
I'm open to William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland's neo-Apollinarian Christology. They make an interesting case that the traditional view is itself Nestorian in that it posits the person the Son having a human soul. If I understand them correctly, it's the human soul itself what makes a human a person. By replacing the human soul with the mind of the Logos that safeguards against Nestorianism.
Thus the bizarre claim that the incarnate Jesus is "man" but not "a man."
I have no problem calling Jesus "a man." Just not "a MERE man."
BTW, your exegesis of John 17:1-3 simply ignores that an identity claim is being made, not a mere description.
But what of the apparent identity claim of 1 John 5:20? Though, admittedly, it's not clear that Jesus is there called the "true God." But a good (not great) case could be made he is.
CONT.
In brief, John never says that the eternal Logos is Jesus, and 1:14 doesn't say or imply that they are the same person.
ReplyDeleteTrue, John never EXPLICITLY states the Logos is Jesus. Though, I think 1:17 does imply it in light of John 17:5 and the other verses I cited (e.g. John 1:14; 3:13, 31; 6:38, 62; 8:14, 23, 42; 10:36; 13:3; 16:28; 17:4-5 etc. [cf. 1 John 4:9-10, 14]). These verses don't explicitly state that Jesus was personally preexistent, but I think it's a fair (even strong) inference since there are so many such passages, and because the context often wouldn't make sense if Jesus' wasn't claiming personal preexistence. As you know, my theology is very abductive. Also, scholars in Greek have said that the word "pros" in John 1:1 implies a personal and intimate relationship that's "face to face" (so to speak). While John 1:18 doesn't specifically refer to a preincarnate relationship, it might include it. Christ being in the "bosom" of the Father also implies intimacy and relationship. Jesus' statement in John 8:56-58 that "Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad" better makes sense of Abraham actually did see/interact with the preexistent personal Christ (probably in reference to the incident in Gen. 18). Otherwise, it wouldn't make much sense for Jesus to say before Abraham was I am (or however you'd translate it)" in response to the Jews' question "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" If "Jesus" was only the plan of God conceived in God's mind when Abraham rejoiced to see his day, then there would have been no sense in a before and after. Abraham's very knowledge of a coming messiah would itself be his seeing it. Yet, Jesus distinguishes Abraham's past expectation and his latter experience.
CONT.
The many " I have come" statements of Jesus in the Synoptics suggests a personal preexistence. The fact that 1. so many passages in the NT (from the Synopics, John, Pauline corpus, Hebrews) suggest a personal preexistence and 2. that no NT passage tells us that Jesus was NOT personally preexistent should lead us to favor a personal preexistence (it's the natural reading of those passages). In what other instance in the the Bible is there a preexistence that's not personal? And especially since a strong case could be made that one of the angels of the Yahweh was a very special Angel (messenger) who is probably Christ Himself. This Angel is treated like Yahweh (if not as actually Yahweh) in the OT in a similar fashion as Christ is in the NT. See for example this excerpt of E.W. Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament on the topic of the Angel of Yahweh
ReplyDeleteThe Word is something like God's plan or wisdom, by which, the OT says in a couple of places, God created.
I'm not sure where those places in the OT that state that Wisdom was created other than Prov. 8. Prov. 8 BTW, was one of the major obstacles in my becoming a Trinitarian over 20 years ago. It's not clear that the impersonal "Jesus" is being referred to in Prov. 8. And even if it has Christological significance, wisdom is personified in a way that would suggest an actual personal preexistence as Prov. 30:4. Also, the NT comes on the heels of the intertestamental apocrypha and pseudepigrapha that many times implies the eternality of personified Wisdom, and so counts against a created Wisdom. Scholars dispute whether Micah 5:2 implies an eternal past preexistence of Christ (personal or impersonal). Nevertheless, at the very least the words are consistent with an eternal past. Also, earlier you seemed to agree that John presents the impersonal Logos as eternally with (pros) God. At least that's how many Greek scholars interpret the word "en" in "en arche en o logos." As one scholar put it, "...as far back as you wish to push 'in the beginning,' the Word is already in existence. The Word does not come into existence at the 'beginning,' but is already in existence when the 'beginning' takes place."
CONT.
The "form of God" needn't be having the divine essence, but can be read as a paraphrase of "made in God's image and likeness."
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be saying that the phrases "form of God" and "form of a servant" are both postpartum. However, it's only after Paul uses the phrase "form of a servant" that he says, "being born in the likeness of men." Paul seems to be making a contrast of the two phrases with "being born" the transition point.
Whereas Adam tried to grab at equality with God, Jesus declined to. Remember the ethical thrust of the whole thing (see the start of the chapter); Jesus is being held up as our example based on his actions during his human life.
In context Paul is talking about humility before equals, not humility before a superior. He's talking to Christians in general and how they should treat each other. Christ not grabbing/grasping for God's position which He doesn't inherently possess isn't an act of humility. It's an act of obedience and submission. Only if Jesus actually was equal with God would it be an act of humility. Paul wrote in verse 3, "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." He didn't say, acknowledge others more significant than yourself. To make Paul's analogy work, either 1. Jesus and God are equals, just as fellow Christians are equals; OR 2.God is superior to Jesus, just as some Christians are superior to other Christians.
No doctrine is *essential* in the sense of you must believe it to be saved unless it is preached to unbelievers in Acts....
I don't believe that one must believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. However, I think as Christians grow in their understanding of the Gospel and Scripture that the truly regenerate among professing believers will naturally tend to accept the Trinity.
CONT.
That you accepting this reading of "homoousios" is why, I think, you go along with the confused evangelical tradition of identifying Jesus with his God (i.e. asserting them to be numerically identical).
ReplyDeleteI identify Jesus with God because of both NT and OT reasons. If it weren't for the OT evidences for a plurality in Yahweh, I wouldn't hold to (the meaning) of monoousios. I've collected the OT evidences in my blogpost:
Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God [cf. also my blogposts HERE and HERE. Though, now I suspect the "watchers" in Daniel are members of the Divine Council along with the "us" [in "Let US make man in OUR image"] in the opening chapters of Genesis.
No, these writers assumed that somehow some angels can influence a wide area.
Agreed. However, influencing others by broadcasting subliminal thoughts, temptations, fears etc. is one thing. Reading thoughts, hearing silent prayers, answering such prayers simultaneously, upholding the universe by the Word of His power (as Christ does in Heb. 1:3) is something else. Moreover, "in [Christ] all things hold together" (Col. 1:17) and "through [Christ] we exist" (1 Cor. 8:6). The exploits of demons in the book of Daniel, Job, Colossians, Ephesians and the Gospels pale in comparison.
CONT.
So Satan is the "god of this world," and they held that angels were put over countries.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. But Satan works through his demonic cohorts in military or gang-like hierarchical fashion. I don't find Scripture to teach he's globally omnipresent. On the contrary, when asked "From where have you come?," Satan replied, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it" (Job 1:7).
So Jesus, exalted to a higher position than any angel, must also have such powers. Presumably the upgrade in position came with the needed abilities. We may be curious quite how this works, but I guess they were not.
I agree that God can give extraordinary powers to creatures. My citation of Jesus' ability to do the things He does isn't meant to directly prove He's God. I cite them as indirect evidence since everywhere else in the OT and NT such powers are reserved for Almighty God Himself. They are used as a means of identifying and describing God. Often directly or indirectly saying ONLY God can do those things. In which case, when the NT applies such powers, characteristics, attributes to Jesus, it's only natural for the original recipients of the books (who presumably were steeped in OT theology) to infer Jesus' full divinity. If Jesus isn't being taught to be God, then that would just confuse those recipients by present a contradiction between OT & NT theology and explicit statements.
FINIS