Unitarian prooftexts

I've often commented on unitarian prooftexts, so some of this will reiterate my stated interpretations. However, I'll add a few new things. Finally, there's value in pulling that together in a single post. So in this post I'll evaluate what I take to be the major unitarian prooftexts (such as they are). The most popular, most quoted unitarian prootexts. A few general observations before I comment on specific passages:

i) If we didn't have any prooftexts for the Trinity or deity of Christ, then some of the unitarian prooftexts would be more persuasive. But Trinitarians aren't reading these passages in a vacuum. Since Trinitarians rightly think the deity of Christ is multiply-attested in the NT, it becomes a harmonistic issue. 

ii) In my experience, most unitarians are so lacking in critical detachment that they don't know what it means for a Bible verse contradict Trinitarian theology. They fail to appreciate that when you contend that a Bible verse is inconsistent with Trinitarian theology, you have to argue that point on Trinitarian grounds. You have to take the Trinitarian paradigm into consideration, you have to adopt that viewpoint for the sake of argument, then show how the verse is incompatible with Trinitarian theology given Trinitarian assumptions. 

Instead, they quote prooftexts that are inconsistent with Trinitarian theology from a unitarian viewpoint. They don't bother to ask themselves how a sophisticated Trinitarian would respond. They don't play devil's advocate with their own position, to anticipate the counterarguments. This is true even for someone who ought to know better, like Dale Tuggy. 

iii) In addition, some unitarians are so uninformed or uncomprehending that they don't even know what the opposing position represents. They haven't stopped to consider the implications of the opposing position. They never studied the other side of the argument. 

1. Mt 28:18

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

i) In general, unitarians imagine that passages which say "the Father" or "God" gave Jesus something are incompatible with the deity of Christ. It's not entirely clear why they suppose that's the case.

a) Here's one possibility: if Jesus just is God, then God can't give Jesus anything because that implies a distinction between the donor and the recipient. It's nonsensical to say God gave himself something. 

While that may indeed be illogical on a unitarian concept of God, it fails to take into consideration the nature of a triune God. It's not contradictory to say one person of the Godhead gives something to another person of the Godhead. So the objection is confused.

b) Here's another possibility: What do you give to someone who already has everything? 

However, even in that respect, there's a sense in which creatures can give God something. We give God praise. We give God thanks. 

ii) More to the point, the objection fails to take the Incarnation into account. Even assuming that God can't be given anything, which is simplistic (see above), it doesn't follow that the Father can't confer something on the Incarnate Son. Something which might be inconsistent with mere deity may not be inconsistent with a divine-human composite. 

iii) Finally, as one scholar explains, this passage actually implies the deity of the Son:

Matthew's way of expressing the unique cosmic sovereignty—"all authority in heaven and on earth"—deserves a little more scrutiny. It is the climactic example of Matthew's frequent and significant use of the twofold division of the cosmos into "heaven" and "earth."36 It is clear that, for Matthew, these are importantly distinct realms (see, e.g., 6:10,19-20; 23:9). Jonathan Pennington argues that in 28:18 "in heaven and on earth" is not only a comprehensive expression for the whole cosmos but also an antithetical usage that contrasts Jesus's authority during his earthly life with his more comprehensive authority at his exaltation. Hitherto, he has had authority only on earth (9:6); now he has authority also in heaven.37 Unlike Adam, whose authority was explicitly limited to the earthly member of the pair "heaven and earth" (Gen 1:1, 26-28), the exalted Jesus has authority also in heaven. Unlike the Davidic Messiah, to whom God gives "the ends of the earth" (Ps 2:8), the exalted Jesus has authority also in heaven. This explicit extension of Jesus's authority to the realm that belongs to God and not to humans (Ps 115:16) invalidates Kirk's assimilation of Jesus's cosmic sovereignty to the rule of Adam or David over "the world" (e.g., pp. 258, 571). For first-century Jews such as Matthew, distinguishing "heaven" and "earth" was a far from quibbling issue (see, e.g., Ps 148:1-2,11,13; Isa 55:9; 2 Macc 15:3-5; 1 En. 12:4). Richard Bauckham, Bulletin for Biblical Research 27 (2017), 517. 

2. Mk 10:18

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

Unitarians think Jesus is denying his deity. But that fails to take into account the nature of the dialectic. For instance:

Jesus uses questions and riddles to lead his audience into the mystery of who he is. Cf. Tom Thatcher, Jesus the Riddler: The Power of Ambiguity in the Gospels (WJK, 2006). 

Jesus ends by telling the rich young man that the "one thing" he still lacks is to sell all he has and follow him. This ending is essential for unlocking the riddle of his words. Yet it is constantly overlooked by those who claim Jesus is denying that he is God. After making his declaration about the goodness of God, Jesus does something stunning: he adds a command to follow him to the obligation to keep the Ten Commandments. In a 1C Jewish context, this would have been shocking. In Jewish Scripture, the Ten Commandments are written by the very "finger of God" (Exod 31:18). Yet here Jesus is adding the command to follow him as if that was on par with keeping the commandments.  As Simon Gatherole writes:

What is most striking is that having established the one good God as the one who defines what is required of human beings, in the final analysis Jesus is the one who defines what is ultimately commanded…If God alone is good and able to give commandments, then Jesus does as well. By implication then, he is also good. And he is good not in the sense implied by the rich man, but in the absolute, divine sense used by Jesus himself. Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus (Image 2016), 151-52.

3. Lk 2:52

And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

i) Unitarians imagine that statements like this are incompatible with deity. But even if that was the case, it fails to take the Incarnation into account. So often, unitarians never engage the argument. They never get inside the opposing position. 

ii) In addition, it's possible to be a unitarian open theist. Dale Tuggy is a prominent example. If open theism is true, then the deity of Jesus is consistent with Jesus growing in wisdom. The God of open theism is on a learning curve. 

I think open theism is false (indeed, heretical), but I'm just responding to unitarians on their own grounds. 

4. Jn 5:26

For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

i) Unitarians take this to mean Jesus is a creature. He owes his existence to God. 

But in Trinitarian theology, while the Son is eternally preexistent, Jesus is not. Jesus is a composite being. Jesus didn't always exist. There was a time before the Incarnation.

ii) But in any case, the unitarian appeal is beside the point since that's not what the passage can mean. In Johannine usage, "life" refers to salvation. The gift of eternal life. So it's not about existence. Rather, the Father grants the Son the authority to confer eternal life on Christians. Indeed, that's what makes them Christian. 

iii) In passing I'd note that this is also a prooftext for eternal generation. But that's a misinterpretation. It cannot refer to the divine life because it's something that God shares with humans. It's not the essence of deity but what is represented by eternal life in the Fourth Gospel. Spiritual renewal. Everlasting life. 

5. Jn 10:29; 14:28

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all

If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

i) Unitarians imagine that this is inconsistent with the deity of Christ. But even if that's inconsistent with mere deity, it doesn't follow that this is inconsistent with Incarnational theology. 

To take a human analogy, a son can be both his father's subordinate and his father's equal. A royal son may be subordinate to his father so long as his father reigns, but when his father dies or abdicates, and his son takes his place on the throne, the son is now his father's equal. 

ii) Father/son form a natural parallel to king/prince. The crown prince is typically the firstborn son of the king. So father/son language can have royal connotations. 

iii) While this is somewhat anthropomorphic (and scripture does use anthropomorphisms(, it's more than just a theological metaphor. The Son Incarnate can undergo changes in his status. While the Son qua Son has a timeless divine status, union with a human nature allows for changes in the status of the composite entity. 

iv) In context, Jesus said this (Jn 14:28) prior to his Ascension and enthronement. While he was subordinate on earth, it doesn't follow that he remains subordinate after the Ascension and Session. Indeed, books like Revelation, which may share common authorship with the Fourth Gospel, depict the Father and Son as coregents. 

6. Jn 17:3

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

i) The "only true God" is just a synonym for Yahweh. In OT theism, Yahweh is the one and only true God. Because the Fourth Gospel is written in Greek, it doesn't call the Father Yahweh. Instead, it uses an equivalent designation. Retranslating the passage back into OT terminology: "that they know you, Yahweh, and Jesus the Messiah, whom you have sent." But that's perfectly consonant with Trinitarian theology.

ii) The point of contrast isn't between the Father as the only true God and Jesus. In standard biblical usage, the point of contrast is between Yahweh and pagan polytheism. The one true God in opposition to idolatry. 

7. Jn 20:17

I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

i) Notice the synonymous parallelism. In this passage, "God" is a proper name or synonym for the Father. But it's quite consistent with Trinitarian theology to distinguish between God the Father and the Son. 

ii) In addition, there's a distinction, in Trinitarian theology, between God and Jesus. Jesus has a human side. 

8. 1 Cor 8:5-6

5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

As several scholars have argue (e.g. Bauckham, Fee, Wright), Paul subdivides the Shema, assigning the Elohim designation to the Father and the Yahweh designation to the Son. Far from being a unitarian prooftext, this is a powerful witness to the deity of Christ.  

9. 1 Cor 11:3

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Unitarians think this is at odds with the deity of Christ. However, Paul is using Adam typology. You can see that in vv7-8:

7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

So Paul's point is that the Son, in his economic role as the Last Adam, is subordinate to the Father. 

10. 1 Cor 15:28

When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Once again, this must be understood in the context of Paul's Adam typology: 1 Cor 15:21-22,45-49. The subordination has reference to the economic Trinity, not the immanent Trinity. Although unitarians reject that paradigm, that's irrelevant since the point at issue is that the passage is entirely consistent with Trinitarian theology. 

11. Col 1:15

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 

i) Unitarians imagine that calling Jesus the "firstborn" means he's just a creature. But as one commentator explains: 

God says of David in Ps 89:27 that "I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth." This latter text is probably especially important for Col 1:15, since Ps 89 rings with messianic allusions, and Paul has just been describing Christ in messianic/kingly terms (vv12-14)…Against this background, then, and since the "hymn" goes on to affirm Christ's mediatorial role in all of creation (v16)–and hence his existence before creation–it is clear that the word is used here in this sense of "supreme over," D. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (Eerdmans 2008), 119-20. 

ii) In addition, the unitarian appeal rips the passage out of context. Paul goes on to explain that the Son is the preexisting Creator of the world: 

16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 

12. 1 Tim 2:5

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus

Unitarians take this this to mean that Jesus is just a man, in contrast to God. That, however, is not the intended distinction. As one commentator explains:

This phrase establishes the central thrust of the christological formulation–namely, the association of salvation with the humanity of Christ, which the subsequent appeal to the Jesus tradition (v6) will complement by stressing the substitutionary and representative nature of Jesus' human death… Philip Towner, The Letter to Timothy and Titus (Eerdmans 2006), 181.

The passage stresses the humanity of Christ because Christ must be human to undergo sacrificial death, which lays a plank for his mediatorial role. But that doesn't rule out a divine Incarnation. 

13. 1 Tim 6:15-16

15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

Unitarians take this to mean that the Father alone is immortal, in which case the Father alone is divine. 

i) However, that's not the point of contrast. The intrinsic immortality of God stands in implicit contrast to creatures. 

ii) Moreover, the unitarian appeal proves too much. By that logic, since the Spirit of God is not the Father, the Spirit of God is mortal! 

14. Rev 3:14

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler [or beginning] of God’s creation.

Unitarians take this to mean the Son was God's first creation. However:

i) It could be rendered "the ruler" of God's creation:

Christ calls himself "the ruler" of God's creation (3:14), recalling how he was previously said to be "the ruler of the kings of the earth," Craig Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Yale 2014),  343, cf. 336. 

ii) Conversely, as one commentator explains: 

The thought is similar to 1:5, where Christ is “the firstborn from the dead” (see Col. 1:18). By his resurrection he has inaugurated or begun the new creation.

https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-returning-king/

iii) In addition, this is from the same book that applies to Jesus one of Yahweh's exclusive titles: First and Last.