And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone (Mk 10:18; par. Mt 19:17; Lk 18:19).
That's a unitarian prooftext. The typical evangelical explanation is that Christ's response is ad hominem. The young man suffers from an exaggerated opinion of his virtue, so Christ is redirecting his attention to the absolute standard of comparison.
I think that's correct, but I'd like to make another point. This text poses a dilemma for unitarians, for Jesus links God and good. If the statement denies that Jesus is God, then by parity of reasoning, the statement denies that Jesus is good. Jesus makes these parallel claims. You can't affirm one and deny the other; either affirm both or deny both.
Easy to escape dilemma. But first, Steve, your explanation makes no sense. Jesus "redirects" the man... to the same god, the same being as before? That's not a redirection. And if Jesus is God, one can't have an exaggerated idea of Jesus's virtue!
ReplyDeleteThe other idea I've heard is that somehow Jesus is adopting the man's own perspective. i.e. He doesn't think Jesus is God (though he is) and so (consistent with that wrong perspective) he shouldn't say Jesus is good, as only God is. The idea seems that Jesus is try to get the guy to realize that he's God. But the way to do that is to argue:
1. Only God is good.
2. [I (Jesus) am good.]
3. _____________ (you draw the conclusion, buddy)
But that's not what he does - look at the texts! No hint of 2 there. Only one "who" (Mt version) is good - the Father, obviously. Jesus seems to be assuming the soundness of this argument:
1. Only God is good.
[2. Jesus is not God.]
[3. Therefore, Jesus is not good.]
Premise 2 is left unsaid, as we often do, because it is all too obvious. 3 seems to be the point of Jesus's pseudo-question to the man, really a challenge or rebuke.
The standard unitarian reading will be like this. We all know that Jesus is good, and extraordinarily so, given his track record of obedience to God and self-sacrifice. But he says only God, only the Father is good. So, he must have in mind some unusual meaning of "good." Perhaps: absolutely good, perfectly good, essentially good, necessarily good. immutably good. Somesuch distinction makes sense, as the NT explicitly asserts that God can't be tempted, and that Jesus was tempted - you know the texts. One kind or degree or aspect of goodness is untemptability - immunity from the allure of sin.
So whatever this other sense is, Jesus is straightforwardly saying that he isn't good in that sense, though God is. Thus, he *does* redirect the man's attention: from Jesus to Jesus's, the man's, and our god, God, aka the Father. (John 20:17)
Why doesn't Jesus bother to explain this unusual sense of "good" (on which 1 above is true)? Probably because the idea was familiar from Jewish lit of his and the man's culture. I would think a commenter could enlighten us on what that probably was.
Dale, your first paragraph is obtuse. I didn't suggest that Jesus had an exaggerated opinion of his own virtue, but the young man!
DeleteI understand you to be making a point about the man, yes. And the problem, you're saying, is that the man has too high a view of Jesus's virtue (as he calls him "good teacher").
DeleteYes?
If so, your reading (assuming that "Jesus is God") makes no sense, for the reasons I stated.
Strike two. I didn't suggest the man had too high a view of Christ's virtue, but his own virtue. Care to risk strike three?
DeleteLOL. You're the umpire, huh?
ReplyDeleteStill a lesser problem for your reading, now that you've clarified it. It makes sense that Jesus would direct the man's attention away from the man himself to God. But then it would be puzzling why (on your assumption of "the deity of Christ") why he also directs the man's attention away from Jesus, with the implied rebuke for his calling Jesus good.
Both, of course, make sense on a unitarian reading.
Once you're done calling strikes, perhaps then you should admit that your dilemma is easy for any unitarian reader to address. Looking forward to that.
In reality, the context is of a teacher. There are different ways in which things may be called good, including people; for instance, Jesus is called the "good shepherd" because he lays down his life for the sheep, in contrast with the "wicked shepherds" who care nothing for the sheep. In another parable, Jesus calls the righteous "good trees" that bear "good fruit"; but the bad trees by contrast bear bad fruit.
ReplyDeleteAs far as what is good, the man calls Jesus "good teacher", and Jesus is saying there is no "good teacher" but God. This is consistent with Jesus's own view about his own, personal words: he claims that his words lead to eternal life only because he speaks whatever the Father tells him to.
In response to Jesus asking, "why call me good? there is none good if not God", the man says again, "teacher..." In Jesus's follow-up response, he alludes to the Father being the originator of the Law. This is also mentioned in John 4 and John 8.
If anyone still has a problem, the Matthew rendering of the question fits with this answer.
Why doesn't Jesus bother to explain this unusual sense of "good" (on which 1 above is true)? Probably because the idea was familiar from Jewish lit of his and the man's culture. I would think a commenter could enlighten us on what that probably was.
ReplyDeleteI'm going by GMark's account in these comments. If Dale is right that the idea of the unique goodness of God was generally understood among Jews, then why would Jesus say to the Rich Young Ruler "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." Dale's position is inconsistent with itself because the Rich Young Ruler [RYR] would have KNOWN this already. Especially since he was Jewish man who attempted to be seriously religious from his early youth. Given Dale's interpretation, Jesus' statement inexplicably seems to come FROM NOWHERE and to/for NO PURPOSE. Why would Jesus be treating the man like a child who doesn't know the ABCs of Judaism?
It seems to me that in this incident Jesus was doing two things. 1. pointing out the inadequacy of the man's own righteousness to be acceptable to God, and 2. the man's inadequate understanding of who Jesus is. Dale IS RIGHT that Jews commonly understood that God's goodness is a different genus from ordinary human (or even angelic) goodness. However, Jesus was subtly pointing out that the RYR was incorrectly applying the lower kind of goodness to Him (i.e. Jesus), and therefore implying His own full divinity.
Dale says Jesus doesn't explicitly say He's God. However one of the repeated themes and purposes of Mark is to cause its readers to ask who Jesus is and to hint at His full deity multiple times. As I pointed out in my blogpost on Markan Christology
See Licona's lecture Did Jesus Think He Was God? HERE
At 21:34 Licona points out that Mark is written like a biography in the style of ancient Greek biographies (rather than a history). Ancient Biographies attempted to reveal the nature and character of the person being biographized.
At 30:16 Licona goes (nearly) chapter by chapter showing Jesus is hinted as God in Mark (I don't agree with all his examples or how he phrases it, but his general point is true as I show in my blogpost).
The standard unitarian reading will be like this. We all know that Jesus is good, and extraordinarily so, given his track record of obedience to God and self-sacrifice. But he says only God, only the Father is good. So, he must have in mind some unusual meaning of "good." Perhaps: absolutely good, perfectly good, essentially good, necessarily good. immutably good.
And the Gospels go out of there way to emphasize Jesus' goodness. Even Jesus' demonic adversaries are COMPELLED to affirm that He's "the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24 cf. Isa. 49:7; 54:5 and 55:5). Mark records the crowds pointing out that Jesus as had "done all things well" (Mark 7:37).
CONT.
Somesuch distinction makes sense, as the NT explicitly asserts that God can't be tempted, and that Jesus was tempted - you know the texts. One kind or degree or aspect of goodness is untemptability - immunity from the allure of sin
DeleteGod can't be tempted or manipulated unwillingly. But He can be "tempted" willingly for His own eventual purposes.
"....He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason."- Job 2:3c
In the same way Jesus allowed Himself to be tempted and tested on Earth in order to purchase salvation and be victorious over the world and demonic Kingdom. Jesus said the devil "has nothing in Me" or "no claim on Me" (John 14:30). There are versions of incarnational theology where Jesus could be tempted externally with respect to His human nature and/or mind, but not as to His divine nature and/or mind. That's part of the reason for the formulation of the doctrine of Christ's Impeccability. Christ was not only able not to sin, but (ultimately) was also not able to sin.
Dale claims God can't be/do X, but Jesus is. However, the opposite is true. The Gospels constantly and repeatedly imply only God can do X, yet Jesus goes on right ahead and does it too. Only God can work on the Sabbath, yet Jesus does too. Only only God can unilaterally forgives sins, yet Jesus does too. Only God is greater than the temple, yet Jesus is too (Matt. 12:6). Only God can heal blindness from birth (John 9:32-33; Prov. 20:12), yet Jesus does too. Only God can't be defiled, yet Jesus remains pure despite contact with lepers, an unclean woman with an issue of blood, prostitutes and tax collectors. Only God can receive our full devotion/commitment/ allegiance, yet Jesus can too (see also Mark 1:17,20; 2:14, 19-20; 8:34, 38; 9:7, 42; 10:14, 21, 28-30; 11:13-14; 12:6; 14:4-7, 21, 22-25). ET CETERA
CONT.
In his book The Doctrine of the Trinity (pages 18-19) Richard N. Davies wrote:
DeleteQUOTE: Christ said to a certain ruler: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark x, 17, 18.) Christ did not deny that he himself was "good," nor did he deny that he himself was God; but the ruler had not acknowledged him to be God, and our Lord's question to the ruler was based upon that fact. It was as much as to say, As you do not confess me to be God, why call me good? Our Lord said: "There is none good but one, that is, God." It would follow from this that whoever is perfectly good must be God; but our Lord is perfectly, infinitely good, hence must be God........The dilemma, as regards the Socinians, has been well put (see Stier II, 283, note), either, 'There is none good but God; Christ is good; therefore Christ is God;' or, 'There is none good but God; Christ is not God; therefore Christ is not good.' " (Alford, in loco) END QUOTE
typo correction:
Delete"In the same way [in a similar way] Jesus allowed Himself to be tempted and tested on Earth in order to purchase salvation and be victorious over the world and demonic Kingdom."
The similarity is in God's and Christ's willingness to be placed in "tempting" situations. In the case of YHVH, it appears that YHVH actually falls for it. But in actuality He didn't. In the case of Christ, Jesus never has the appearance of falling for sin. Though, some Jews did interpret some of His words/actions as sinful.
If Jesus had openly and unreservedly proclaimed His divinity to all in the Jewish context He ministered in, He would have been laughed to scorn, immediately rejected and immediately stoned. He would have been thought a liar or lunatic (as Lewis put it) just as we would have in our day.
DeleteRather, in keeping with Jewish "metaphysics" (so to speak) such as it was [which didn't develop or express itself in a Greek rationalistic manner], Jesus revealed His full divine identity by His character, actions and works. He spoke, acted and worked in ways only the God of Israel did.
For example, He could apply the analogy of a female bird gathering and protecting its chicks under its wings like YHVH did in multiple times in the Old Testament (e.g. compare Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34 with Psalm 91:4; 63:7; 17:8; Deut. 32:11-12). Jews who knew their OT would have seen Christ as treading on thin ice. He was bordering on calling Himself God. The fascinating thing is that Jesus does this over and over and over.
I'm convinced that if Unitarians understood the OT better, they'd cease being Unitarians. Precisely for the same reasons the Jew's reject Jesus. Namely, the fact that the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels is subtly (yet clearly) claiming to be the God of Israel; and/or because Jesus is portrayed as being on par with God such that it amounts to polytheism. Unitarianism is unstable. It should either reject Jesus as God's messiah altogether, or subsume Jesus into the Godhead along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
You can also most hear the internal monologue of the Rich Young Ruler after Jesus says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."
DeleteRYR probably silently thought. "Yeah, I guess that's true. It's such a basic tenet of Judaism that it doesn't even come into my mind to refer to refer to this rabbi as "good" in the sense that God is GOOD. I'm not sure if I've offended him, or why he's bringing this up. But if (for whatever reason) he wants to emphasize that fundamental of the faith, so be it. I guess he thinks I need the reminding. Apparently this rabbi is either saying 1. he's not God or 2. that he is God. Obviously, he can't be claiming to be God, since God is not a man as it says in the Torah (Num. 23:19)."
However, Jesus wasn't in the habit of always correcting people's false impressions and inferences. He often allowed people to continue in their error. For example, when people thought He was teaching it was essential to literally eat His literal flesh. They walked away from such a disgusting teaching without Him correcting them. He didn't say, "Wait, Wait! You misunderstood me. I was speaking figuratively. I guess I need to speak more literally or else I'll eventually lose all my disciples." Jesus knew that it took the Holy Spirit to give people eyes to see and ears to hear, and so understand His teaching, its rightness, and so accept it and Him as the Messiah, Lord and God.
Obviously in my portrayal of the RYR's thoughts I'm obviously exaggerating and being partly facetious. To continue....
DeleteThe RYR resumes his internal monologue:
"I guess this Galilean [nearly "hick"] preacher thinks I'm not emphasizing the transcendent nature of God's goodness and that I need to do so much more. Possibly to the point of not calling other human beings "good"? That seems a bit extreme. Nah, probably he just meant in this one instance. Since other rabbis know this truth and they don't shame other people into affirming it, or requiring people to not call other people "good".
Anyway..... he's a rabbi. He's obviously holier and "gooder" (i.e. more good) than I am, a layman. THAT'S the sense in which I called him "good". I was affirming his relative holier status in comparison to me and most other people. You'd think he'd appreciate my compliment. Anyway, back to why I've approached him. He might have some good advice as to how I can gain, or merit or earn eternal life. He probably can tell me those few more holy things I can do to guarantee my salvation. I've probably done most of the necessary things already. I just need to add a little more."
[[The RYR of course didn't fully realize that God's standard is perfection (Matt. 5:48), and therefore why Christ's atonement and imputed righteousness was necessary for salvation. the RYR was incorrectly trusting in his own righteousness to be acceptable to God.]]
To continue....
Jesus says, "............. You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
RYR thinks: "WAIT! WHAT?!?!? I need to sell all my stuff and give it all to the poor? Woah! This rabbi's standards are WAY too High! First he wants me to reserve the term "good" for God alone (as if I and all other Jews didn't know about the spiritual point he made); NOW he wants me to be dirt poor?!?! These are way too high standards and price for me to pay. Hmmm.....Let me think about this some more."
Then the RYR walks away sorrowful and frustrated.
Dale's interpretation would entail that the RYR would be completely and utterly ignorant about the unique & transcendent nature of God's goodness. Is that likely? Wouldn't the RYR have some inkling about that basic Jewish theological point? Wouldn't the RYR naturally get a bit annoyed that Jesus would make such a big deal about a fundamental of Judaism? That's possibly why the RYR tried to impress Jesus with his good works which he had been doing since his youth. As well as impress Jesus with his pious concern for the salvation of his soul. Almost as if to say, "You think I'm so ignorant as to not know only God is GOOD, WELL LET ME TELL YOU how good of a Jew I am." [[Even cultural Christians can sometimes react that way]].
Of course, by trying to impress Jesus with his own goodness, the RYR was tacitly contradicting the truth of God's unique goodness. Since, by raising men's righteousness higher than the filthy rags that they are, men inadvertently lower God's standards as well as lower the transcendence of God's unique goodness. If the RYR was going to treat Jesus as just another human teacher, then Jesus rightly rebuked him for calling Him "good teacher". But that's pretty much what Unitarians actually do in their treatment of Jesus in relation to the Father. Namely, lower God's goodness (even though they do it under the banner and for the purpose of preserving and exalting that transcendent goodness). No matter how exalted Jesus is portrayed in Unitarianism, it still falls short of God's glory, and is ironically an offense to God's glory because it attempts to bring a creature's (i.e. a Unitarian conception of "Jesus") glory in between the Creator/creatures divide and difference, when there is no such middle ground.
DeleteWhich again displays the instability of Unitarianism. Since Jesus is either on the God side, or the creature side of the Creator/creature divide. That's why Unitarians dispute among themselves Jesus' preexistence. Because the affirmation or denial of personal preexistence is a manifestation of the internal tension within Unitarianism which wants to affirm both the greatness and lowness of Christ apart from the traditional (Trinitarian) conception of Incarnation whereby Jesus has two natures, one of which is truly divine and the other truly human. Given the Incarnation as historic Trinitarianism teaches, one can unabashedly and coherently affirm the true greatness/highness and lowliness/lowness of Christ.
I promise, these are my last comments unless someone responds to me.
Annoyed Pinoy said:
ReplyDelete"Jesus was...pointing out the inadequacy of the man's own righteousness to be acceptable to God"
I say:
Are you saying the inadequacy of anyone's "works" to enter the kingdom? If so, I disagree.
Instead of pointing out the inadequacy of the man's righteousness, he actually gives him his answer in how to do the works of God, and what they are. After the young man went away sad that he had to do more than what he had already doing (not discounting it, but looking with love on what he was already doing, as it plainly says), he said, "how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom!" After this, Jesus speaks about men leaving land and family for him and how they will be blessed with eternal life. Upon this, Peter said, "hey, we have actually done this, Jesus; what is there for us?" to which Jesus replied, "you will sit on twelve thrones, judging..." I had to address the protestant nuance, whether you were speaking that way or not.
Nevertheless, since the man did not say, "good Jesus" or "good man, teacher", or "teacher, a good one", then I don't think it's adequate to say that Jesus was being called "good" anything except for "teacher". That he was asking about what he could be taught to gain eternal life is also significant, and the variation in Matthew about where he doesn't even call Jesus a good teacher at all, but only asks him about what is actually good; shows me that the emphasis is strictly on Jesus being "good" in the sense of a skilled teacher, one who knows what is good.
As such, Jesus saying that only One knows what is good, and then recites his Father's commands, also saying that he has to give all he has and follow Jesus (which he also calls the Father's command in another verse, if you recall), combined with him also saying throughout that he only speaks what the Father tells him, tells me that he is plainly equating that goodness with only the Father, and not deceptively trying to insinuate that he himself is God.
Some problems with the idea that the rich man was trying to impress Jesus:
1) Jesus looked on the confession of what he did with love, not anger
2) the rich man asked further, after Jesus's answer, "what else do I lack?"
3) that the rich man believed Jesus when he said that he must give all he had, or he wouldn't have gone away sad, Jesus saying that it's difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom
Annoyed Pinoy said:
Delete"No matter how exalted Jesus is portrayed in Unitarianism, it still falls short of God's glory, and is ironically an offense to God's glory because it attempts to bring a creature's (i.e. a Unitarian conception of "Jesus") glory in between the Creator/creatures divide and difference, when there is no such middle ground."
I say:
The whole "glory of God" phrase which is circulated amongst Trinitarians comes from Paul saying that, "all have fallen short of the glory of God". As such, it would be strange to think that the glory of God is being God, or is pertaining to being uncreated, when Paul, in the derived-from citation, is using it to mean being pleasing to God unto glorification. This is what we attribute to Jesus, and this is "glory as of an only-begotten with a father". I believe the understanding of these things, and where the Apostles recalled their concept from the Bible, will dispel a lot of Trinitarian misconceptions about Jesus.
Speaking of misconceptions, I also noticed this:
DeleteAnnoyed Pinoy said:
"However, Jesus wasn't in the habit of always correcting people's false impressions and inferences. He often allowed people to continue in their error. For example, when people thought He was teaching it was essential to literally eat His literal flesh. They walked away from such a disgusting teaching without Him correcting them. He didn't say, "Wait, Wait! You misunderstood me. I was speaking figuratively."
I say:
No, but it's because they understood him that they walked away. Look at the entire passage, and how he first fed the thousands with bread. Then, they went looking for him because they were taken care of. When Jesus was found on the other side, they said, "master, when did you get here?" Jesus plainly tells them to not keep looking for actual berad, but the real bread that he would give them. Throughout the next several verses, they are ridiculously trying to get him to make more food for them, trying to convince him by saying things like, "how will you get us to believe you? You know, it's written that Moses gave them bread from heaven..."
So, there are also different groups in view here: the "Jews", and the "Disciples". After the Jews said that Jesus was insane, and asked who could understand him, he then said to his own disciples, who said, "this is a hard teaching; who can understand it?", "The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” These were the disciples, mind you. At first 66, because of him saying this, many disciples (not Jews) turned and followed him no more. Why? Because he explained that the "bread" he was talking about was his words. Peter also understood, because when Jesus asked if they too wanted to go, he said, "to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life".
NT scholars are in disagreement as to what degree the Jews of the 1st century believed regarding salvation by grace. Some NT scholars fault the apostle Paul for inaccurately representing 2nd temple Judaism as teaching salvation by strict merit (or to use an anachronism Pelagianism and/or Semi-Pelagianism). Paul wouldn't have denied that the Jews believed and would acknowledge that salvation was by God's grace. However, Paul's point was that in practice, and in effect they did teach salvation by works.
DeleteAs a former Roman Catholic (30 years ago) and now an Evangelical Protestant (and Calvinist), I believe that salvation has various aspects like election, external call, regeneration, internal call, conversion, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification etc. Justification has to do with the basis upon which God can accept us as righteous. That basis is twofold 1. the forgiveness of our sins based on Christ's passive obedience whereby He atoned for our sins by His death on the cross; 2. the imputed righteousness of Christ into our account. By those two things God can reckon us as acceptable to Himself and by which He can adopt us into His family. Sanctification has to do with obedience to God and being changed/conformed morality into the person we should be (i.e. like Christ). Both Catholics and Protestants deny that salvation can be earned (i.e. by strict merit). However Catholics believe that by God's grace we can graciously merit salvation by our good works which we perform by the enabling grace of God. Protestants believe we cannot earn OR Merit our salvation. Salvation is a free gift given by God received through faith. Salvation can refer to the entire process of salvation or to one aspect of that process (e.g. justification). If we're referring specifically to justification, then that's received through faith ALONE. That's apart from our own works, because Christ's work alone is the basis of justification. Sola fide is theological shorthand for justification by the perfect and all sufficiently meritorious works of Christ alone. However, since the entire process of salvation includes more than just justification, works by the believer are involved and "required". Not required to merit salvation and/or justification, but as part of obedience. While other Protestants might disagree, for Calvinists all those whom God justifies He also sanctifies.
For many Calvinists and many other (but not all) Evangelicals, works are seen as necessary to get to (i.e. enter) heaven. But not as the basis upon which one becomes worthy of it. Yes, Jesus requires obedience. Without obedience (and holiness according to Heb. 12:14) no one will see the Lord (i.e. enter heaven). That's a condition we must fulfill (by the help and empowering grace of the Holy Spirit) to obtain heaven, even though we cannot acquire/buy/earn it through that condition. The fact that obedience cannot be the basis for entrance is precisely because our works (even empowered by God in this life) are never perfect. That's why Christ's atonement and imputed righteousness are necessary. So, I'm not denying that we must obey Christ and perform good works. But they aren't the basis upon which we're accepted by God. Paul makes that clear in the book of Romans. BTW, in glorification (i.e. after death) we will be able to fully obey God by the power of the Holy Spirit. But, by God's design/decision/decree, such completed and fully realized sanctification isn't possible this side of the grave.
CONT.
Having said all that, our works do contribute to our future rewards, even if they don't qualify us for entrance into heaven. We will be rewarded "according" or "in proportion" to our works, but not by strict correspondence. It must be a gracious type of reward because technically all our works are always tainted by sin as well as falling short of perfection (in terms of quantity, quality, intention, motivation and focus). By the strict requirements of the Law of God, our good works not only do NOT merit salvation, they technically could strictly merit hell (if it weren't for forgiveness, justification and the fact that the Holy Spirit has enabled us to do the little we do perform).
DeleteSome problems with the idea that the rich man was trying to impress Jesus:
I didn't say that the RYR was definitely trying to impress Christ. I was describing various possible thoughts and motivations the RYR **might** have had. Not that he definitely did have each and every single one that I mentioned. All of your three points can still fit with my overall hypothetical, including his possible attempt to impress Christ. Human psychology is more complex that you're presenting it. People can have internally conflicting and tension filled thoughts [logically, emotionally, motivationally, etc.].
The whole "glory of God" phrase which is circulated amongst Trinitarians comes from Paul saying that, "all have fallen short of the glory of God".
No, the principle(s) and concepts of the glory(ies) and honor of God is throughout Scripture. A simple Bible search would demonstrate that. It's so basic that I don't feel the need to even defend it. I mean, how many times does God say in the OT that He does things for His name's & glory's sake? Or consider Paul's overarching Christian motivation to do all things to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). Or how God state's He won't share His glory with another. Yet, in another sense promises through Christ to share His glory with creatures. Yet, in another sense shares His glory with Christ in a way that would violate Unitarianism (e.g. John 5:23).
CONT.
As such, it would be strange to think that the glory of God is being God, or is pertaining to being uncreated, when Paul, in the derived-from citation, is using it to mean being pleasing to God unto glorification.
DeleteYou're just not understanding the different manifold ways we Evangelicals mean and apply the term glory of God. Especially among Reformational Evangelicals like Lutherans and [most especially] Calvinists.
No, but it's because they understood him that they walked away.
Yes, they were trying to manipulate Jesus to make more bread. By implication they were even willing to make Him King if He'd promised to perpetually supply food for them. However, John makes it clear that they couldn't accept His teaching about eating His flesh and drinking His blood as the reason they stopped following Him. See John 6:60-69.
Peter also understood, because when Jesus asked if they too wanted to go, he said, "to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life".
Yes, Peter understood because, as Jesus said, (v. 65) "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." In other words, Christ was referring to how God elects some to salvation (vv. 37-39, 44) and to them alone He gives understanding (v. 45). Those who fell away weren't truly enlightened to understand what Jesus was saying. They thought He was referring to His physical body as food. Also, not all who listened to Him were hostile to Him. Some were followers and in that lower level sense. They were fair weather "disciples". It was these types of "disciples"/followers who fell away at that time. My point still stands that Jesus didn't go out of His way to always explain what He meant. Jesus sometimes used prevarication, ambiguous language, dissimulation and even dissembled. Think for example Jesus' statement, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). People misunderstood it (John 2:20-21; Matt. 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29). Yet, He didn't correct them.
Annoyed Pinoy, I think the only things we disagree on are the points where you misunderstood me.
DeleteThe very verse you cited, which I said had its origin with Paul (which you actually quoted) is about being glorified by God --- it has nothing to do with being God. I don't misunderstand the idea of the varying nuances of the word glory, but I was touching on that idea that Paul meant anything there other than being glorified by God.
I'm not sure what John 5:23 would do to violate Unitarianism, seeing as how I understand that to be saying that God grants Jesus the authority to judge (that is, the power over life and death), in that all men must listen to him, honoring him as that authority. In other words, they must say, "lord Jesus".
The glory passage that most people refer to when saying that God cannot share His glory with any creature (???), or actually, the ONLY passage I hear, is in Isaiah, where He said, "I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images." This sounds like God is saying what is accredited to Him, He won't allow any idol to steal. He does this in the passage by saying what He would do beforehand, so that they would know that no one else did them. This sounds like the Father only to me, (Hebrews 1:1,2) and Jesus doesn't participate. (Acts 1:7;2:23; Galatians 3:17; 2 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Peter 1:2; etc.) Being that this glory is recognition for bringing all of these events to pass (1 Corinthians 3:6), having ordained them beforehand, and that Jesus's glory is one of an only-begotten child, a beloved, a well-pleasing one; then I can conclude that I am not one of those who are of the camp that is confusing glory with glory.
About John 6: the passage which you are citing is the one I was quoting from when I explained what I meant. They did not believe, so they did not care for his words. When he explained to his disciples (not the "Jews" --- there's a distinction there) that the "flesh" he was talking about was his words coming by the Spirit, this is when they left, because they wanted food. This has nothing to do with not understanding, but they only left when they understood. Again, this is why Peter says that he has the words of eternal life: because the "flesh" he had been saying that, once eaten, would give eternal life, he said are his words which, when believed, permitted the Spirit.
About John 6: the passage which you are citing is the one I was quoting from when I explained what I meant. They did not believe, so they did not care for his words.
DeleteThey did not believe what?
When he explained to his disciples (not the "Jews" --- there's a distinction there) that the "flesh" he was talking about was his words coming by the Spirit, this is when they left, because they wanted food.
Nowhere in the passage does it say that Jesus explained His meaning. Peter "got it" precisely BECAUSE he was spiritually and invisibly taught by the Father (v. 45) according to the Father's election/predestination. In verse 36 Jesus says some of them don't believe, and He explains why in the next four verses (vv. 37-40) where He describes God's process of saving those whom He has predestinated to salvation. Then Jesus alludes to predestination/election again in verse 44. Then in verse 45 He explains why and how it is that some are saved. Namely, because God personally teaches them spiritually and invisibly so that they really hear and understand what Jesus is saying. This teaching/enlightening by the Father is invisible because it cannot be detectable by human (external) observation.
which, when believed, permitted the Spirit.
That's the exact opposite of the soteriology of GJohn. The Spirit isn't given after one believes, rather one believes because of the prior activity of the Spirit. Election/predestination precedes (chronologically, logically, causally) faith. Jesus didn't say that people weren't His sheep because they didn't believe. Rather, Jesus said that they didn't believe because they weren't among His sheep (John 10:26). Meaning, they weren't among those predestined for salvation. Being born again is not a matter of self-generated and self-initiated faith/belief, rather Jesus says that the Spirit blows where it/He wishes (John 3:8). People become children of God not by the will of man, but ultimately because of the will of God (John 1:12-13).
I think the only things we disagree on are the points where you misunderstood me.
I suspect we have many disagreements. You seem to be a Unitarian. If so, that's a major disagreement. Also, a Reformational understanding of salvation depends on the doctrine of the Trinity. Since you reject it, you can't hold to the same understanding of atonement or regeneration that Evangelicals have. For example, substitutionary penal atonement depends on the full deity of Christ and His dual natures. Only if Jesus is fully God can He atone for the sins of many others. He alone can be truly sinless and whose death be of infinite worth. Or the teaching, guiding, regenerating, interceding work of the Holy Spirit depends on the full divinity and real personality of the Holy Spirit.
CONT.
Your complaint/disagreement about "glory" stems from my statement that I repeat here:
DeleteNo matter how exalted Jesus is portrayed in Unitarianism, it still falls short of God's glory, and is ironically an offense to God's glory because it attempts to bring a creature's (i.e. a Unitarian conception of "Jesus") glory in between the Creator/creatures divide and difference, when there is no such middle ground.
This general statement of mine covers many issues. I obviously cannot address all of them, so I'll just choose one (and even then only briefly). You asked what relevance John 5:23 has. Well, in that verse we're taught to honor Jesus AS we would honor God. Given (consistent) Unitarianism, it would be idolatry to give honor to someone other than God the kind of honor God alone deserves. However, Unitarianism is inconsistent that way. Hebrews 1:6 says all the angels of God are to worship Jesus. That's an allusion to Ps. 97:7 and Deut. 32:43 where the original is talking about worshipping YHVH. If Jesus isn't fully God, then it would be blasphemy to worship Jesus in the same way as YHVH is. That's why Unitarians disagree among themselves as to whether Jesus is to be worshipped or not. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses have switched back and forth on this issue on the worship of Jesus. Whether it's right and required or wrong and sinful. Even among those Unitarians who do believe Jesus can be worshipped, they don't actually worship Him as TRULY God. In which case, it's not true worship. Or if they do worship their false conception of Jesus with the same worship reserved for God alone, then they are committing idolatry (by giving glory/honor to someone not YHVH that should only go to YHVH).
...but I was touching on that idea that Paul meant anything there other than being glorified by God.
Among many things, I was talking about Jesus being glorified AS God which He should be, but isn't under Unitarianism. As well as taking away glory/honor from God by giving to Jesus who is, in Unitarianism, only a creature, or semi-divine, something in between a creature and God.
...and Jesus doesn't participate.
Arguably the most monotheistic verse in the arguably most monotheistic chapter in the entire Hebrew Bible is Isa. 45:23. Yet, Paul applies that verse about worshipping and bowing in submission to YHVH to Jesus in Phil. 2:10-11. Or take the example of Paul apply Joel 2:32 to Jesus in Rom. 10:13. In Joel it talks about calling upon the name of YHVH, yet Paul implies Jesus is that YHVH who people should call upon. Or take 1 Cor. 8:6 where Paul modifies the Shema and includes Jesus within the one God. Examples could be multiplied.
If you're interested, I have a blog in defense of the doctrine of the Trinity.: http://www.TrinityNotes.blogspot.com
some of the major typos:
Delete"This teaching/enlightening by the Father is invisible because it cannot be detectable [detected] by human (external) observation."
"As well as taking away glory/honor from God by giving to Jesus who is, in Unitarianism, only a creature, or semi-divine, [OR] something in between a creature and God."
"Or take the example of Paul apply [APPLYING] Joel 2:32 to Jesus in Rom. 10:13. In Joel it talks about calling upon the name of YHVH, yet Paul implies Jesus is that YHVH who [whom?] people should call upon."
OK, so the page was accidentally removed, as was the text in the text field. Now you are not the only one annoyed...
ReplyDeleteI'll have to sum up:
1) Isaiah 45:22-25 is understandable in light of Psalm 2, in addition to Matthew 10:40/John 5:24. It's the same type of thing going on with Acts 2, where Peter says that he poured out that which you see and hear, having been exalted (unless he just is speaking of the Father there), being that Jesus calls this the promise of his Father, and said that he would ask the Father to send the Spirit. You get the same kind of thing in John 11:41 + John 12:1.
2) Hebrews 1:6 is being misrepresented here. This is out of the original context, as are the verses beforehand, but it gives you a clue as to what the Spirit told them. Verse 6 follows from verse 5, where Jesus was appointed to sonship. (Matthew 12:18; Luke 9:35) Because of this, he is using the Deuteronomy passage in a new context: Jesus's exaltation. This works perfectly fine with Unitarianism, since all of us here, of all theologies (I hope) believe that Jesus was placed above angels at this time.
3) Paul's point in Romans 10 is that both Jews and Gentiles would be blessed by the same lord. Through Jesus we have access to the Father, and no one is calling Jesus "YHWH", but they are calling his name "Jesus". After all, if we are honoring Jesus as we honor the Father, then maybe we should call on Jesus just like we call on YHWH, the Father. Since he was appointed to a position of authority, and has become a mediator, then he is the go-between for those who were previously calling on YHWH --- and they still do call on the Father by him (1 Peter 1:17).
4) Let's take your point of honoring God with the honor He deserves. OK, so why then are they not honoring Jesus with all of the things that Trinitarians do in the Scriptures? Why such a contrast between Revelation 4 and 5?
5) Nowhere did it say that Jesus explained his meaning? First, they wanted food. He said instead to work for the food that doesn't pass away. He said, this food is my flesh. After all of this, he said, the flesh profits nothing, but the Spirit gives life; my words are Spirit and life. You said that Peter understood Jesus's words because he was invisibly taught by the Father. The slant you are putting on this is from your theology. Jesus plainly said that his words give eternal life when he said, "my words are spirit and they are life". This is why Peter understood: Jesus EXPLAINED what he meant by, "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life". Peter was one of Jesus's DISCIPLES, which is why it says that his DISCIPLES grumbled, and then he said this afterwards.
That's pretty simple, right? :)
With point 5, I am referring to Matthew 13:10,11. This is what is going on here, where Jesus explains to his disciples, but not to the others.
DeleteOK, so the page was accidentally removed, as was the text in the text field. Now you are not the only one annoyed...
DeleteI'll have to sum up:
That's happened to me enough times that nowadays I type my comments in a word processor program first, then copy and paste into the combox. It also helps if the word processor automatically saves periodically.
1) Isaiah 45:22-25 is understandable in light of Psalm 2,......
I don't see how that undermines my Trinitarian interpretation. In this paragraph you're basically just saying the OT and NT fit together. I wouldn't disagree.
Verse 6 follows from verse 5, where Jesus was appointed to sonship.
The sense in which sonship mentioned is makes a difference. It can be taken in a way that affirms the full deity of Christ (e.g. Trinitarian, Binitarian, Sabellian, Nicene Monarchism etc.) or not (e.g. Arian, Semi-Arian, Socinian, humanitarian Unitarian etc.).
Because of this, he is using the Deuteronomy passage in a new context: Jesus's exaltation.
Trinitarians would object to that interpretation for the reasons I gave in my previous comments. Namely, that it idolatrous to give to someone who is not fully God the worship and honor that should only go to God. It idolatrously exalts a non-God to the level of God; as well as takes away from God honor that only belongs to Him. Father God would not teach or participate in that because He wouldn't give or share His glory with another. The God of the NT wouldn't contradict the God of the OT.
Because of this, he is using the Deuteronomy passage in a new context: Jesus's exaltation.
Paul is specifically applying a Y/Jehovahistic (to coin a term) passage to Jesus. That's idolatrous if Jesus isn't fully God just as the Father is.
After all, if we are honoring Jesus as we honor the Father, then maybe we should call on Jesus just like we call on YHWH, the Father.
There are too many NT passages that predicate Jesus as YHVH, as I've documented in my blogpost: Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah
4) Let's take your point of honoring God with the honor He deserves. OK, so why then are they not honoring Jesus with all of the things that Trinitarians do in the Scriptures? Why such a contrast between Revelation 4 and 5?
DeleteI don't know what you're talking about here. Citing chapters doesn't explain what you mean. Also, I'm not referring to how people should honor the Father like they do Jesus. But the opposite. How Jesus should be honored like the Father. Given Unitarianism, that violates the 1st and 2nd Commandments, as well as monotheism.
First, they wanted food. He said instead to work for the food that doesn't pass away. He said, this food is my flesh. After all of this, he said, the flesh profits nothing, but the Spirit gives life; my words are Spirit and life.
Most of that happens BEFORE verses 52, 60-61. In verses 52, 60-61 they are still confused and grumbling. Here, let me quote them.
Nowhere does it say that those who stopped following Jesus understood He was speaking figuratively and not literally. It's made clear that Peter and other disciples did understand, but only after those who apparently continued not to understand walked away.
I can see how you can interpret verse 63 as Jesus explaining His figurative meaning so that those who walked away did so in disappointment that He was speaking figuratively. Maybe you're right. But there's no indication that they did understand. It just says they walked away. Though I may be wrong, I think the natural reading is that they continued to misunderstand. His statements in verse 63 are not much more of an explanation than what He said previously (even before verse 52). If they finally understood that Jesus was speaking figuratively and not teaching people should literally eat His flesh, then there would still be the hope that He might perform more miracles of multiplying bread (which, BTW, He later actually did in the feeding of the 4,000). If they left because they concluded from His statement in verse 63 that He wouldn't be producing food like they had hoped, then they should have left previously because He was talking about eating His body/body. Unless you mean to say that they wouldn't have minded that. Which is highly unlikely since 99% of His audience would have been Jewish. If you're right, then His explanation in verse 63 should have relieved them. Yet, they still walked away. My earlier point stands about how Jesus often did not correct other people's misunderstandings, even if this passage fails to be an example (meaning, even if you're right about its interpretation).
With point 5, I am referring to Matthew 13:10,11. This is what is going on here, where Jesus explains to his disciples, but not to the others.
Yes, I agree that Jesus explained His parables in private. Something which is better in keeping with election than with the assumption that Jesus was doing His very best to save as many people as possible. Since Jesus says He spoke in parables to disguise His meaning, not to make it more plain (Mark 4:10-12; Matt. 13:10-17; Luke 8:9-10; John 12:37-41).
The point of it fitting with Psalm 2 shows that that which applies to YHWH in Psalm 45 can apply to Jesus, since not only is the same thing going on, but in Psalm 2, there are two: someone who is called "YHWH", and someone who is not.
ReplyDeleteThe sonship of Jesus is one that is bestowed upon him, as it was on Solomon (1 Chronicles 28). The difference with Jesus is the person that he is: he was that specific messiah that they were hoping for.
About them walking away: no one walked away until it was explained; they hung around after he said the bread he had for them was his flesh. They stayed until he said this was his words. I guess we can agree to disagree.
Speaking of which, this is getting out of the scope of the OP, so I am going to pull a Jonah.
God bless!!!
P.S.- I don't know why I said Psalm 45 --- I mean Isaiah 45. I think it's because of Psalm 45 coming up yesterday in another discussion... Bye for real this time! :p
Delete...but in Psalm 2, there are two: someone who is called "YHWH", and someone who is not.
DeleteThat poses no problem for Trinitarianism since we affirm Jesus' true humanity. The problem is there are passages in the OT where there appear to be two or more persons who possess the name YHVH. See my blogpost here: Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God
Here's just one example:
Genesis 19:24 "Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens."
This passage suggests that there are (at least) two persons with the name [or who share the name of] YHVH. A YHVH on earth who had been speaking to Abraham and A YHVH in heaven who sends down fire and brimstone.
The sonship of Jesus is one that is bestowed upon him, as it was on Solomon (1 Chronicles 28). The difference with Jesus is the person that he is: he was that specific messiah that they were hoping for.
There are multiple ways Trinitarians can view Jesus' Sonship. One of them is shared by Trinitarians and Unitarians. The one that deals with Jesus as God's Son in the same way Israelite kings were "sons" of God. So, that poses no problem for Trinitarianism. However, the same cannot be said about how Jesus is predicated as YHVH in the NT, or how there are multiple persons in the OT who possess the name of YHVH. Those facts (and others) DO poses a problem for Unitarianism.
I mean Isaiah 45.
Multiple problems. 1. YHVH says that it's to HIM that they would bow. 2. Phil. 2:10-11 says that people would bow to Jesus. It even says that every tongue will confess that Jesus is kurios (which is the Greek word used to translate the tetragrammaton in the LXX). Sure, kurios in the LXX isn't reserved for only YHVH. Nevertheless, in THIS context, it makes all the sense in the world for us to interpret kurios in Phil. 2:11 to have the meaning of YHVH.
God bless!!!
Have a good day and rest of the week too.