Given the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, Christian theologian John Edwards [not to be confused with Jonathan Edwards] argued contrary to many church fathers that the Son could still be not only necessarily existent (as many of the fathers taught) but also self-existent like the Father (as many church fathers denied). Edwards argued in the following fashion. Tell me if you think if it makes any sense, or if it's nonsense or contradictory.
Edwards argued in the following way (paraphrased): Theologian John Edwards argued in the following manner given John 5:26. Where we see that what is said of the Father, is said of the Son, that is that they have both of them life in themselves: And without doubt the Son hath life in himself in the same sense and propriety that the Father hath life in himself. The essence and life of the Father are self-existent; therefore the essence and life of the Son are so too. The antecedent is evident. The consequence is as evident, for the life and essence of the Son and of the Father are the same, or they are not: If they be not the same, then the Father and the Son have different essences, and consequently are different Gods; Or if the essence be the same, it must be a self-existent essence and life, unless it can be proved, that self-existent essence and life, and non self-existent essence and life are the same. Meaning a contradiction.
But it will be objected, that in the text before mentioned it is said that this self-life is given. When the Son said "as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself" he plainly declares the absolute likeness of the Son to the Father, for the Son has life, just as the Father has life, namely, a natural and essential life of his own. This signifies the natural and essential procession from him. This giving does not imply that the Son had not that in himself which is said to be given by the Father. Though self-existence be given to the Son by the Father, yet it is a proper self-existence. It is no more a contradiction than the Father raising the Son from the dead, and the Son raising himself from the dead.
If it is the essential property of the Father to exist of himself, then the Son must have a self-existence, otherwise he has not the same essence with the Father. The Son is of himself, because he is of the Father whose essence is his, and that essence is self-existent. This is implied when Jesus said in John 14:10 "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." Their existence is mutual and reciprocal and they are and subsist in one another; which is called perichoresis/circumincession. This follows from their being the same numerical substance: if one of the persons be self-existent, the other must be so too. In Christ all the fullness of the deity dwells in bodily form. There can nothing belonging to the deity be lacking in Christ, and consequently not self-existence, which is of the very nature of the deity. Whence it follows, that the Son has his existence not only from his Father, but from himself.Someone might say, he that exists from another, does not exist from himself. But Edwards answers, that of finite and created being this is a true maxim; but it is not true concerning the infinite and uncreated Being of God. If we speak of beings of the former sort, it is supposed that he that exists from another was after the other, and it would be true. But when we speak of an eternal being or generation, it is otherwise, for then there is neither before or after. Wherefore, we must not argue from a corporeal and human generation to a spiritual and divine one, and such as was from eternity, for then we confound uncreated and eternal beings, with those that are created and finite. The Son was produced or generated out of the substance of the Father, but that substance did not exist before the production of the Son, for the production was from all eternity. the existence could not precede that generation, because they were both eternally together.
Thursday, December 31, 2065
Friday, December 30, 2050
The Most Important Blogposts in This Blog
This blogpost lists what I (subjectively) believe to be the most important blogposts in this blog. There are three sections. The first section is on the Deity of Christ. The second section is on the Trinity or the Plurality of God. The third section is on the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Each section has links to blogposts where the most important links (as I perceive it) are above, and with the lesser links below. For example, in the section on The Deity of Christ my blog "Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah" (which is nearer the top) is much more important than my blogpost "The Spirit of Jesus" (which is near the bottom of the section).
Here's my main Resources in Defense of Trinitarianism
Here's a link to my blogpost where I've collected links to outside blogs where I've commented and interacted with others on the topic of the Trinity: Blog Comments on the Trinity
The Deity of Christ
Of the Distinct Personality, and Deity of the Son by John Gill
Markan Christology
The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser
Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah
Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah Resources
The Angel of the LORD by E.W. Hengstenberg
The Angel of the Lord; or Manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament by W. Pakenham Walsh
"Why Do You Call Me Good?" — Did Jesus Deny Being God in Mark 10:17-18
Jesus' Claim to be the Temple of God Proves His Full Deity
Jesus as God by Murray J. Harris
The Names of Jesus by Elmer L. Towns
Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels
The Requirement to Love Jesus Is Evidence of Jesus' Divinity
The Tempting/Testing of Christ Is Evidence of Christ's Full Deity
The "Cup and Table of the Lord" As Evidence for Christ's Full Deity
Concerning 1 John 5:20 ( from The Trinity: Evidences and Issues)
Romans 9:5 and Christ's Full Deity
Regarding Mark 14:62 and Daniel 7:13; Jesus Coming With the Clouds
Doxologies to Christ
The Wings of Christ Are God's Wings
Jesus the True and Proper SON of God
The Meaning of the Term "Son of Man"
Jesus' "Breaking" the Sabbath as Evidence of His Equality with the Father
Jesus Lord of the Sabbath
John 20:28 And Its Proximity To John 20:30-31
God in the Midst
Lord [Jesus Christ] Willing? God's Will and Christ's Will
The Reverence for Jesus is the Fear of Jehovah
Trust in Jesus Is Apparently Trust in Jehovah
The Spirit of Jesus
The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective
Matthew 1:23 and "ho theos"
Concerning the Magnificent and August Names and Titles of the Messiah in the Old Testament by John Gill
Revelation 22:12-13 and the Deity of Christ
Worshipping a Merely Human Jesus Is Wrong No Matter How Exalted
God, gods and Jesus in John 10:30-39
Is the "Oneness" of John 10:30 a "Oneness" of Purpose or Being?
Jesus' Omniscience
Does Mark 13:32 Disprove Jesus' Omniscience?
Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?
Brief Selective Survey of Christ's Full Deity in the Synoptics
Melchizedek Resembles the Son of God, Not the Other Way Around
The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer
Interactions with Well Known Unitarian and Philosopher Dale Tuggy
Does the New Testament Require Belief in the Full Deity of Jesus For the Reception of Salvation?
Response to Two Unitarian Articles on John 8:58
The Trinity or Plurality of God
The Doctrine Of The Trinity Stated And Vindicated by John Gill
Links to John Gill's Chapters on the Trinity in His Work "A Body of Doctrinal Divinity"
The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser
Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God
Proving That There Is A Plurality In The Godhead
Quotes from "Of A Plurality In The Godhead" by John Gill
Edward Henry Bickersteth's Books In Defense of the Trinity
All Three Persons of the Trinity Mentioned In Scripture (Directly or Indirectly)
Omniscience of the Persons of the Trinity
The Aaronic Blessing Is Highly Suggestive of the Doctrine of the Trinity
Regarding Jewish Professor Dr. Sommer's Comments About the Trinity
Quotations from the Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern
The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One? [The Trinity in Early Judaism]
Comments and Blog Posts on the Trinity
Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner
F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel
The Most Plausible Anti-Trinitarian Complaint
Speculative Arguments In Defense of the Trinity
Miscellaneous Speculative and/or Suggestive Arguments In Defense of the Trinity
Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity
The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective
A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity by William Lane Craig
The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer
The Trinity At the Beginning of Creation
Why Do Trinitarian Prooftexts Have "So Many Problems"?
Interactions with Mike Gantt
Part One: F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel
Part Two: Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner
The Deity of the Holy Spirit
The Full Deity of the Holy Spirit
Of the Distinct Personality, and Deity of the Holy Spirit by John Gill
Praying to and Worshipping the Holy Spirit
The Witness of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit Contradicts the Accidence of Personality
The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
The Names of the Holy Spirit by Elmer L. Towns
Do the Father and Son Love the Holy Spirit?
The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer
Some eye opening articles from the Jews for Jesus website:
Jewishness and the Trinity
The Trinity: Questions and Answers
A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective
Kabbalah's Best Kept Secret?
Monday, May 12, 2025
A Brief Proof that Jesus is Worshipped in the New Testament
- Doxologies are an act of worship and there are doxologies to Jesus: 2 Pet. 3:18; 2 Tim. 4:17; Rev. 1:6; Rev. 5:13-14; Rom. 9:5; passim.
[18] But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior JESUS CHRIST. TO HIM BE THE GLORY both NOW and to the day of ETERNITY. Amen.
See my blogpost linked below for more:
Doxologies to Christ:
- In Heb. 1:6 the author applies the Greek Septuagint's translation of angels worshipping Yahweh in Deut. 32:43 and Ps. 97:7 to Jesus. Proving Jesus is higher than the highest Angel, and proving Jesus is God because He receives the highest type of worship due only to Yahweh.
[43] “Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries. He repays those who hate him and cleanses his people’s land.”
[7] All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods!
[6] And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
- Isaiah 45:23 is arguably the most monotheistic verse in the most monotheistic chapter in the entire OT, and its worship is applied to Jesus in Phil. 2:10-11.
[23] By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’
[10] so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
- Revelation 5:13-14 has ALL CREATURES in heaven, earth, under the earth, and in the sea WORSHIPPING both the Father and the Son.
[13] And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” [14] And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.
- Calling on Jesus is an act of worship. It parallels calling on Yahweh in the Old Testament [Ps. 116:4, 13, 17; 145:18]. In fact, calling on Yahweh in Joel 2:32 is applied to Jesus in Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:2. Cf. Acts 9:14; 22:16; 2 Tim. 2:22
[4] Then I called on the name of the Lord: “O Lord, I pray, deliver my soul!”
[13] I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord,
[17] I will offer to you the sacrifice of thanksgiving and call on the name of the Lord.
[32] And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD [YHWH] shall be saved....
[13] For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [i.e. Jesus] will be saved.”
[2] To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together WITH ALL THOSE WHO IN EVERY PLACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, both their Lord and ours:
[14] And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who CALL ON YOUR NAME.”
[16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, CALLING ON HIS NAME.’
[22] So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who CALL ON THE LORD from a pure heart.
- Prayer is an act of worship, and Jesus is prayed to in the NT: 2 Cor. 12:8ff.; Acts 1:24; 7:59-60; 9:10-16; John 14:14 [critical text has "if you ask *ME* anything in my Name"]
- The Prophecy of Dan. 7:13-14 has the Son of Man being served. The Hebrew word there for "serve" is pelach.
As Artison Rex wrote: QUOTE
//This term (pelach) is reserved for ritualistic service and worship in the book of Daniel. In Daniel, all peoples and nations worship the Son of Man. Earlier in Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to worship the golden statue, stating they only worship God. So if the Son of Man is worshipped, that implies divinity, since worship (pelach) is reserved for God. This parallel between the forced worship of the statue and the rightful worship of the Son of Man is a strong argument for His deity.
• Reserved for Deity: In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to pelach (worship) Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, reserving this term for God alone.
• Divine Honor for the Son of Man: In 7:14, the Son of Man receives pelach from all nations—a direct parallel to Yahweh’s exclusive right to worship. This inversion of Daniel 3 underscores His divinity.
The scene in Daniel 7 clearly recalls the earlier false worship of the golden statue where all peoples were to serve it. This kind inclusio structure is often done in Biblical material. Before in Chapter 3, the three Jews refused to do so; saying they worship God alone; but here all people rightly worship this Son of Man figure. This indicates the Son of Man is a hypostasis of God, since only YHWH is worthy of this worship or service (pelach).//
END QUOTE
- Jesus is bowed down to in a religious context which connotes worship and which is denied even to angels and false gods [Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9; Rom. 11:4]
kamptō [Phil. 2:10-11]
proskuneō [Matt. 28:17; Luke 24:52]
[10] so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
[17] And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.
[52] And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
Theological Implications of the Son of Man in Daniel 7
Copied from a Facebook post by Artison Rex
Theological Implications of the Son of Man in Daniel 7
Daniel 7:9–14 (LSB)
9 “I kept looking until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days was seated... 13 In my night visions, I saw one like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. 14 To Him was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples and nations should serve Him. His dominion is everlasting, unyielding; His kingdom indestructible.”
Introduction: A Figure of Paradox
The "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 presents a profound paradox—He is both human and divine. While grounded in ancient Near Eastern (ANE) symbolism, this figure reflects Israel’s monotheistic theology, challenging pagan divine kingship and foreshadowing the Messianic hope fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
I. Divine Attributes of the Son of Man
A. Cloud-Rider: A Divine Motif
In ANE cultures, cloud-riding was a well-known divine attribute, especially associated with Baʿal in Ugaritic mythology. The Hebrew Bible appropriates this imagery and applies it exclusively to YHWH, asserting His supremacy.
"There is no one like the God of Jeshurun,
Who rides the heavens (rokhev shamayim) to your help,
And through the skies in His majesty."
• Psalm 68:4 (68:5 in some versions)
"Sing to God, sing praises to His name;
Extol Him who rides on the clouds (rokhev ba-aravot),
By His name Yah, and exult before Him."
• Significance: The phrase rokhev ba-aravot ("rides on the clouds") mirrors Baʿal’s title rkb ʿrpt ("Rider of the Clouds") in Ugaritic texts. Here, YHWH is declared the true "cloud-rider," usurping Baʿal’s epithet.
"Behold, YHWH is riding on a swift cloud (hineh YHWH rokhev al av kal)
And comes to Egypt;
The idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence."
• Significance: YHWH’s arrival on a cloud signals judgment against Egypt and its gods, emphasizing His supremacy over pagan deities.
"YHWH is slow to anger and great in power,
And YHWH will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.
In whirlwind and storm is His way,
And clouds are the dust of His feet (avan shchak raglaiv)."
• Significance: Clouds are portrayed as mere dust beneath YHWH’s feet, underscoring His transcendent power over natural forces.
Significance: The Son of Man’s coming on the clouds (Dan 7:13) is a direct divine identifier, aligning Him with YHWH’s cosmic sovereignty and eschatological authority.
Polemic against Baʿal: By using Baʿal’s own title—“cloud-rider”—for YHWH, the Hebrew Bible subverts Canaanite religion. Daniel furthers this polemic by assigning the same imagery to the Son of Man, implying He shares in YHWH’s identity.
• Polemic Against Baʿal: Baʿal was worshipped as the storm god who "rides the clouds" in Ugaritic mythology (e.g., KTU 1.2 IV). By appropriating this imagery, the Hebrew Bible subverts pagan claims and asserts YHWH’s exclusive divinity.
B. Universal Worship (Pelach)
The Aramaic term pelach in Daniel is a liturgical term reserved for deity. Its use in Daniel 7:14 is theologically significant.
• Daniel 3: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to pelach Nebuchadnezzar’s idol, insisting worship belongs to God alone.
• Daniel 7:14: All peoples pelach the Son of Man.
Implication: This is not civil homage but cultic worship. The Son of Man is not merely a representative of God—He is worthy of the same worship that belongs to YHWH.
Another point is worship. This term (pelach) is reserved for ritualistic service and worship in the book of Daniel. In Daniel, all peoples and nations worship the Son of Man. Earlier in Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to worship the golden statue, stating they only worship God. So if the Son of Man is worshipped, that implies divinity, since worship (pelach) is reserved for God. This parallel between the forced worship of the statue and the rightful worship of the Son of Man is a strong argument for His deity.
• Reserved for Deity: In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to pelach (worship) Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, reserving this term for God alone.
• Divine Honor for the Son of Man: In 7:14, the Son of Man receives pelach from all nations—a direct parallel to Yahweh’s exclusive right to worship. This inversion of Daniel 3 underscores His divinity.
The scene in Daniel 7 clearly recalls the earlier false worship of the golden statue where all peoples were to serve it. This kind inclusio structure is often done in Biblical material. Before in Chapter 3, the three Jews refused to do so; saying they worship God alone; but here all people rightly worship this Son of Man figure. This indicates the Son of Man is a hypostasis of God, since only YHWH is worthy of this worship or service (pelach).
C. Eternal Kingdom and Divine Sovereignty
• Daniel 7:14: His dominion is everlasting and indestructible.
• Daniel 2:44; Psalm 145:13: Echoes of YHWH’s eternal reign.
• The mirroring of Yahweh’s Rule is intentional: The Son of Man’s "everlasting dominion" (7:14) reflects Yahweh’s eternal sovereignty (Psalm 145:13; Daniel 2:44). His kingdom, unshakable and divine, transcends human dynasties. Thus, The Son of Man’s "everlasting dominion" (7:14) intentionally mirrors the eternal reign of Yahweh (Dan 2:44; Ps 145:13). Showing that He is a hypostasis of Yahweh.
• His kingdom will not be destroyed, affirming divine sovereignty.
Conclusion: The Son of Man’s reception of eternal dominion, worship, and divine attributes confirms His identity as a divine figure.
II. Human Duality and Hypostatic Tension
A. The Title “Son of Man”
While in Ezekiel, the term "son of man" emphasizes human frailty, in Daniel 7, it denotes a transcendent figure. He appears human but exercises divine authority, a union that prefigures the doctrine of the hypostatic union.
B. ANE Parallels and Biblical Innovation
• ANE Precedent: Rulers like Pharaoh were seen as hypostases (embodiments) of gods (Ra/Horus).
• No Deification of Humans: Unlike Pharaoh or Ba’al’s proxies, the Son of Man is not a deified human. He is a heavenly figure, pre-existent and transcendent, He is Yahweh incarnate and the Messiah.
• Daniel’s Transformation: The Son of Man is no mere deified king. He is a heavenly figure, distinct – yet, inseparable from Yahweh, executing divine judgment (7:10–12).
• Polemic Against Paganism: The cloud-rider motif and universal worship subvert ANE idolatry, positioning Yahweh’s agent as the true cosmic sovereign.
Daniel’s vision is thus a monotheistic innovation. It preserves divine transcendence while introducing a distinct, personal mediator who embodies YHWH’s rule—without polytheism.
III. Jesus Christ: Fulfillment and Controversy
A. Jesus’ Use of the Title "Son of Man"
Jesus refers to Himself as “Son of Man” over 80 times in the Gospels, connecting His mission to Daniel 7:
• Mark 2:10–12: Authority to forgive sins.
• Matthew 25:31–32: Judge of the nations.
• Mark 14:62: Seated at the right hand of Power, coming with the clouds.
B. Trial Before Caiaphas: The Turning Point and Explosive Declaration
“I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62).
This reference to Daniel 7 and Psalm 110:1 is the theological climax:
• Sitting at God’s right hand: A claim to divine authority.
• Coming on the clouds: A claim to divine identity.
• High Priest’s response (Mark 14:63): Tearing his robes, the formal sign of hearing blasphemy (Lev 10:6; 21:10).
• Verdict (Mark 14:64): Blasphemy.
C. The Scandal of Hypostatic Union
• Blasphemy Charge:
• Divine Equality: Sitting at God’s "right hand" (Psalm 110:1) and cloud-riding (Daniel 7:13) implied shared divinity—a clear blasphemous claim in Second Temple Judaism.
• The High Priest’s Reaction:
• Tearing His Robes (Mark 14:63): A ritual act signaling horror at blasphemy (Leviticus 10:6; 21:10).
• Verdict: "You have heard his blasphemy!" (Mark 14:64).
Why This Was Blasphemy:
• Divine Identity: In Second Temple Judaism, claiming to sit with God or share His throne was unthinkable (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11).
• Hypostatic Tension: While ANE cultures accepted kings as divine hypostases (e.g., Pharaoh as Ra’s embodiment), Judaism strictly rejected human-divine merging. Jesus’ claim to be Yahweh’s hypostasis—
• Hypostatic Union: Jesus’ claim to be both human and divine shattered Jewish monotheistic boundaries, prompting the High Priest to tear his robes (Leviticus 10:6; 21:10).
• Daniel’s Son of Man operates as a monotheistic hypostasis—a unique heavenly figure embodying Yahweh’s rule without compromising His singularity. While rooted in ANE patterns of divine mediation (e.g., Pharaoh as Ra’s hypostasis), the vision transcends them, offering a theological innovation: a divine-human agent who is both distinct to Yahweh and yet identified as Yahweh. He is presented to YHWH as YHWH Himself. This figure became a cornerstone for later messianic and Christological developments, bridging the transcendent and immanent in a way that both echoed and challenged ANE thought.
• Jesus’ use of the "Son of Man" title was neither accidental nor merely messianic. By invoking Daniel 7 and Psalm 110 at His trial, He claimed to be the divine agent of Yahweh’s kingdom—a hypostasis in a Jewish context that allowed no such category. To the High Priest, this was blasphemy; to Christians, it was the revelation of God’s ultimate Word made flesh (John 1:1, 14). The tearing of robes symbolizes the rupture between old paradigms and the new covenant, where the Son of Man’s divine-human identity becomes the cornerstone of redemption.
In Second Temple Judaism, no category existed for a human sharing YHWH’s throne or receiving worship. Jesus’ claim introduces a new theological paradigm—a divine-human person who fulfills Israel’s hopes without violating monotheism.
IV. Theological Implications
A. Monotheistic Innovation
Daniel introduces a divine agent who is with God and as God. This anticipates Trinitarian categories, affirming the Son of Man’s distinct personhood yet shared identity with YHWH.
B. Eschatological Mediator
The Son of Man inaugurates God’s final kingdom (Dan 7:26–27). He executes divine judgment and ushers in everlasting righteousness.
C. Christological Foundation
Early Christians saw Jesus' resurrection and exaltation as the fulfillment of Daniel’s vision:
• Matthew 26:64; Revelation 1:7: Jesus, the divine cloud-rider, returns in glory.
• John 1:14; Colossians 2:9: God’s presence now dwells bodily in Christ.
Conclusion: Bridging Heaven and Earth
Daniel’s Son of Man transcends ANE mythology, offering a vision of divine authority embodied in a human-like figure. For Israel, this was a polemic against idolatry; for Christians, it became the blueprint for understanding Jesus as both Messiah and God. The tearing of the High Priest’s robes symbolizes the rupture between old paradigms and the new covenant—a covenant where the Son of Man, crucified and risen, reigns as the cornerstone of creation’s redemption.
Daniel’s Son of Man is a transcendent figure embodying divine authority through cloud-riding, universal worship, and eternal kingship. These elements, combined with the human title, suggest a messianic figure who bridges the divine and human realms, challenging pagan claims while advancing Israel’s theological narrative. Early Christians saw Jesus as fulfilling this role, interpreting His resurrection and ascension as the ultimate enactment of Daniel’s vision (Matthew 26:64; Revelation 1:7). This synthesis of human and divine motifs makes the Son of Man a cornerstone of biblical messianic expectation.
Final Reflection
The Son of Man in Daniel 7 stands as the cornerstone of biblical theology—a divine-human figure who is worshiped, enthroned, and sovereign over all. He is both divine and human, worshiped and enthroned, embodying the very tension at the heart of the gospel: fully God, fully man. In Him, Daniel’s vision reaches its fulfillment, and Yahweh’s eternal kingdom breaks into human history. His dual identity confronts us with an unavoidable decision—either to tear our robes in blasphemous rejection or to fall in reverent awe before the One who comes with the clouds, worthy of worship as Lord.
Saturday, May 10, 2025
Artificial Intelligence and Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism
I asked various Artificial Intelligences this question:
Just based on the Biblical evidence alone and an inductive study of the Bible alone, and leaving out historical theology and later patristic church developments after the 1st century, which has a greater claim to being biblical? Something like Unitarianism or something like Trinitarianism?
Grok's answer:
To determine whether Unitarianism or Trinitarianism has a greater claim to being biblical based solely on an inductive study of the Bible, without reference to historical theology or post-1st-century patristic developments, we must examine the New Testament (and relevant Old Testament background) for evidence concerning the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. An inductive approach involves collecting and analyzing scriptural data to form conclusions based on patterns and teachings in the text. Below, I’ll outline the key biblical evidence, assess how it aligns with Unitarianism (God as a single person, typically the Father, with Jesus as a distinct, non-divine being or subordinate agent) versus Trinitarianism (God as one being in three distinct, coequal, coeternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and conclude which view better accounts for the full scope of biblical data.
Biblical Evidence
1. Monotheism: The Oneness of God
The Bible consistently affirms that there is only one God, a foundational belief in both Unitarianism and Trinitarianism.
- Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”
- Isaiah 45:5: “I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no god.”
- Mark 12:29: Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:4, affirming, “The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”
- 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6: Paul states, “There is no God but one… for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
Implication: Both Unitarianism and Trinitarianism affirm monotheism. Unitarianism interprets this as God being one person (the Father). Trinitarianism interprets it as one divine essence shared by three persons, consistent with the singular “God” and “Lord” in these texts.
2. The Identity of Jesus (The Son)
The New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus is central to distinguishing between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism.
- Divinity of Jesus:
- John 1:1-3, 14: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” The “Word” (Jesus) is explicitly called God and credited with creation, a divine prerogative.
- John 10:30: Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” prompting accusations of blasphemy (John 10:33: “You, being a man, make yourself God”).
- John 20:28: Thomas declares to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus accepts this without correction.
- Philippians 2:6-7: Jesus, “being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.”
- Colossians 2:9: “In [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”
- Hebrews 1:3: Jesus is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature,” and in 1:8, God says of the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (quoting Psalm 45:6).
- Titus 2:13: Paul refers to “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
- Divine Prerogatives and Worship:
- Mark 2:5-7: Jesus forgives sins, which the scribes recognize as a divine act (“Who can forgive sins but God alone?”).
- John 5:22-23: Jesus says, “The Father… has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father.”
- Revelation 5:12-14: The Lamb (Jesus) receives worship alongside the Father, with creatures ascribing “blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever” to both.
- Distinction from the Father:
- John 14:28: Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I,” indicating a distinction in role or position.
- John 17:5: Jesus prays, “Glorify me… with the glory I had with you before the world existed,” suggesting preexistence and distinction from the Father.
- Matthew 26:39: Jesus prays, “Not as I will, but as you will,” showing distinct wills while united in purpose.
Implication: These passages strongly support Jesus’ divinity, preexistence, and equality with God, aligning with Trinitarianism’s view of the Son as fully God yet distinct from the Father. Unitarianism, which typically views Jesus as a human prophet, Messiah, or subordinate divine agent (e.g., an exalted creature), struggles to account for texts like John 1:1, John 20:28, and Colossians 2:9, which attribute full deity to Jesus. Unitarians might interpret “Son of God” or “Lord” as titles of agency or honor (e.g., Psalm 2:7, applied to kings), but this requires downplaying or reinterpreting explicit claims of deity.
3. The Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit’s nature and role further differentiate the two views.
- Divinity of the Holy Spirit:
- Acts 5:3-4: Peter says to Ananias, “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?… You have not lied to man but to God.” The Holy Spirit is equated with God.
- 1 Corinthians 2:10-11: The Spirit “searches everything, even the depths of God,” and knows God’s thoughts, indicating divine omniscience.
- Psalm 139:7-8 (cited in NT context): The Spirit’s omnipresence is affirmed: “Where shall I go from your Spirit?”
- Personal Attributes:
- John 14:16-17: Jesus calls the Holy Spirit “another Helper” (parakletos), implying a personal role distinct from himself and the Father.
- John 16:13-14: The Spirit “will guide you into all the truth… He will glorify me,” indicating personal actions like teaching and glorifying.
- Romans 8:26-27: The Spirit “intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words,” suggesting a distinct, active role.
- Association with Father and Son:
- Matthew 28:19: Jesus commands baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” placing the Spirit alongside the Father and Son as coequal in divine authority.
- 2 Corinthians 13:14: Paul’s benediction invokes “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit,” suggesting the Spirit’s coequal role.
Implication: The Holy Spirit is depicted as divine (equal to God), personal (not a mere force), and distinct from the Father and Son. Trinitarianism accounts for this by viewing the Spirit as the third person of the Godhead. Unitarianism typically regards the Holy Spirit as God’s power or influence (e.g., citing Luke 1:35, where the Spirit is parallel to “the power of the Most High”), but this struggles to explain the Spirit’s personal actions (e.g., interceding, teaching) and explicit identification as God (Acts 5:3-4).
4. Relational Dynamics and Unity
The New Testament portrays the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in dynamic relationship, often emphasizing their unity.
- John 14:9-11: Jesus says, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father… I am in the Father and the Father is in me,” suggesting a mutual indwelling that preserves distinction yet affirms unity.
- John 15:26: Jesus says, “The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me,” showing the Spirit’s distinct role in relation to the Father and Son.
- John 16:14-15: Jesus says of the Spirit, “He will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine,” indicating shared divine authority and essence.
- Ephesians 4:4-6: Paul speaks of “one Spirit… one Lord [Jesus]… one God and Father,” linking the three in the context of unity. Xxxx
Implication: These texts suggest a complex unity-in-distinction, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct yet share divine attributes and authority. Trinitarianism interprets this as one divine essence in three persons. Unitarianism, emphasizing God as one person, often views Jesus and the Spirit as subordinate agents or manifestations of the Father’s will, but this requires reinterpreting texts that affirm their deity and distinctness.
5. Old Testament Context
The Old Testament provides background for New Testament claims, particularly regarding monotheism and hints of divine complexity.
- Genesis 1:2: The “Spirit of God” is active in creation, suggesting a distinct divine agency.
- Isaiah 9:6: The Messiah is called “Mighty God, Everlasting Father,” attributing divine titles to a future figure.
- Psalm 110:1: David says, “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand,’” which Jesus applies to himself (Matthew 22:41-45), implying a distinction within God’s identity.
- Isaiah 48:16: A speaker (possibly the Servant) says, “The Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit,” hinting at a triad of divine actors.
Implication: While the Old Testament emphasizes monotheism, it contains inklings of divine plurality (e.g., “Let us make man” in Genesis 1:26) that the New Testament expands upon. Trinitarianism sees these as consistent with a multi-personal God, while Unitarianism interprets them as poetic or referring to angels or God’s power.
Analysis: Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism
Unitarianism’s Biblical Case
Unitarianism argues that the Bible teaches God as one person (the Father), with Jesus as a human Messiah or exalted agent and the Holy Spirit as God’s active power.
- Strengths:
- Affirms strict monotheism (Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29), aligning with Old Testament emphasis.
- Cites texts suggesting Jesus’ subordination, e.g., John 14:28 (“The Father is greater than I”) and 1 Corinthians 15:28 (“The Son himself will be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him”).
- Weaknesses:
- Struggles to account for texts explicitly calling Jesus “God” (John 1:1, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13) and attributing divine roles like creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16).
- Requires reinterpreting worship of Jesus (Revelation 5:12-14) and his claim to divine honor (John 5:23) as non-divine veneration.
- Fails to explain the Holy Spirit’s personal actions (John 16:13-14, Romans 8:26) and explicit identification as God (Acts 5:3-4).
- Downplays the relational dynamics in texts like John 14:9-11 and Matthew 28:19, which suggest distinction and equality among Father, Son, and Spirit.
Trinitarianism’s Biblical Case
Trinitarianism argues that the Bible reveals one God in three distinct, coequal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
- Strengths:
- Accounts for Jesus’ explicit divinity (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3, 8), divine prerogatives (Mark 2:5-7, John 5:22-23), and worship (Revelation 5:12-14).
- Explains the Holy Spirit’s divinity (Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11) and personal roles (John 14:16-17, Romans 8:26).
- Harmonizes the distinction and unity of Father, Son, and Spirit in texts like Matthew 28:19, John 14:9-11, and 2 Corinthians 13:14.
- Aligns with Old Testament monotheism (Deuteronomy 6:4) while accommodating hints of divine complexity (Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 48:16) fulfilled in the New Testament.
- Weaknesses:
- Must address subordination texts (e.g., John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 15:28), typically explained as functional (relating to roles in redemption) rather than ontological (relating to essence).
- The term “three persons in one essence” is not explicitly stated, requiring synthesis of multiple texts, which some might argue lacks directness compared to monotheistic affirmations.
Conclusion
Based solely on an inductive study of the Bible, Trinitarianism has a greater claim to being biblical than Unitarianism. The New Testament consistently presents:
- One God (Deuteronomy 6:4, 1 Corinthians 8:4).
- Jesus as fully divine (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:8), preexistent (John 17:5), and worthy of worship (Revelation 5:12-14), yet distinct from the Father (John 14:28, John 17:5).
- The Holy Spirit as divine (Acts 5:3-4), personal (John 16:13-14), and distinct from the Father and Son (Matthew 28:19, John 15:26).
- Relational unity among Father, Son, and Spirit (John 14:9-11, 2 Corinthians 13:14), suggesting one divine essence with distinct persons.
Unitarianism aligns well with Old Testament monotheism and some subordination texts but struggles to account for the New Testament’s clear affirmations of Jesus’ and the Holy Spirit’s divinity and personal distinction. Passages like John 1:1, John 20:28, Acts 5:3-4, and Matthew 28:19 are difficult to reconcile with a strictly Unitarian view without significant reinterpretation (e.g., treating “God” as a functional title or the Spirit as an impersonal force). Trinitarianism, while requiring synthesis to articulate “three persons in one essence,” better captures the full range of biblical data, including the complex interplay of unity and distinction among Father, Son, and Spirit.
Thus, an inductive reading of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, supports Trinitarianism as the more comprehensive and coherent explanation of God’s nature as revealed in Scripture.
Meta AI's answer:
Based solely on biblical evidence and an inductive study, the question of whether Unitarianism or Trinitarianism has a greater claim to being biblical is complex. Both perspectives find support in various scriptural passages.
*Unitarian Perspective:*
- *Monotheism*: The Bible emphasizes God's unity (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:6).
- *Jesus' Subordination*: Some passages suggest Jesus' subordination to God (1 Corinthians 11:3, 15:28).
- *Distinct Roles*: Unitarians argue that the Father, Son, and Spirit have distinct roles but not necessarily distinct natures.
*Trinitarian Perspective:*
- *Divinity of Jesus*: Passages like John 1:1-14 and Colossians 2:9 affirm Jesus' divinity.
- *Divinity of the Spirit*: Acts 5:3-4 and 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 suggest the Spirit's divinity.
- *Co-Equal yet Distinct*: Trinitarians point to passages like Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14, which imply a co-equal yet distinct relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit.
*Inductive Study Considerations:*
- *Contextual Analysis*: Understanding the historical and literary context of key passages is crucial.
- *Thematic Consistency*: Examining the thematic consistency of biblical teachings on God's nature and the relationships between the Father, Son, and Spirit.
While both perspectives have biblical support, Trinitarianism might have a stronger claim due to the cumulative evidence from Christological and pneumatological passages. However, the complexity of biblical data allows for ongoing debate and interpretation.
Duck AI's answer:
When evaluating Unitarianism and Trinitarianism based solely on biblical evidence and an inductive study of the Bible, several key points can be considered for each perspective:
Unitarianism
Strict Monotheism: Unitarianism emphasizes the oneness of God, aligning closely with the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), which states, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." This foundational verse is often cited to support a strict monotheistic view.
Jesus as a Human Figure: Unitarianism typically views Jesus as a prophet or a significant human being, but not as divine in the same sense as God the Father. Verses such as John 14:28, where Jesus says, "the Father is greater than I," are often interpreted to support this view.
Lack of Explicit Trinitarian Language: Unitarianism points out that the term "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible, and that the explicit formulation of the Trinity developed later in church history.
Trinitarianism
Divine Nature of Christ: Trinitarianism holds that Jesus is fully divine and fully human. Key verses such as John 1:1 ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God") and Colossians 2:9 ("For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form") are often cited to support the divinity of Christ.
The Holy Spirit: Trinitarians argue that the Holy Spirit is also fully God, as seen in passages like Acts 5:3-4, where lying to the Holy Spirit is equated with lying to God.
Baptismal Formula: The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," is interpreted as evidence of a triune understanding of God.
Conclusion
The determination of which view has a greater claim to being biblical often depends on the interpretive lens through which one reads the Scriptures. Unitarianism emphasizes a strict monotheism and the humanity of Jesus, while Trinitarianism emphasizes the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, supported by various New Testament texts.
Ultimately, individuals may arrive at different conclusions based on their readings of the same biblical texts, and the debate between these two perspectives continues to be a significant theological discussion within Christianity.
Monday, April 21, 2025
Review of the Dialogue Between Rabbi Tovia Singer and New Testament Unitarian Sam Tideman
Someone in the comments of this Blog asked me to review a dialogue between a New Testament Unitarian named Sam Tideman and the well known anti-missionary rabbi Tovia Singer. Here's the link to the video: https://youtu.be/Jg40zoYJIrM . The following are some of my comments and observations.
I listened to the entire dialogue and I didn't hear anything particularly new or devastating to Trinitarianism. It was a long video, I can only give comments on highlights. I can't review every video everyone asks me to review. I would like to, but I don't have the time. I agreed to do it in this case because in the past I've found both speakers interesting.
Every objection I heard in the dialogue/discussion I can or have refuted or have heard Anthony Rogers address and refute before. Though, not being fluent in the Biblical languages, I wouldn't be able to address the detailed arguments based on Hebrew or Greek. But Anthony Rogers can and has addressed the linguistic issues. There are a lot of good defenders of Trinitarianism alive today, but I think Anthony Rogers is the best one around. I recommend his videos and debates located in his YouTube channel, and in other people's channels. Also his older articles. He has a number of videos addressing rabbi Tovia Singer's objections. I've linked to many of Anthony's videos in this Blog. People can browse or search Trinity Notes.
Anthony Rogers' Youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Ousias1/videos
Anthony Rogers' Articles at Answering Islam on the Trinity and Islam:
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers.html
Many (if not All) of Anthony Rogers' Debates in MP3:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anthony-rogers-debates/id1443906144?fbclid=IwAR196HAP6DuPTG8m3X1SPg26oTjojva_FDjtO2nsqk7o9zmyQcpVV7dnN-w
Unless otherwise indicated, I'll be quoting the ESV for the most part. I'll sometimes quote other translations that are less biased [e.g. for Josh. 5:14 where "worshipped" isn't used in a biased manner, so that the idea of obeisance might be a possible and optional interpretation].
- At 0:07:40 into the video Tovia relayed asking some students, if they were God, and wanted to convey to mankind there's only one God, what would they put in the Bible. After he gives his usual spiel, he then goes on to contradict himself [or at least cause tension in his views] by admitting the Tanakh sometimes refers to creatures representing God [whether humans like Moses or angels] as God. He called it an "inconvenient" reality and feature of the Tanach. Exactly.
Well, to answer his original question about how I would inspire the Bible if Unitarianism were true, I DEFINITELY WOULD NOT use "elohim" or "adonai" to refer to God as the Tanakh does. Why? Because, as Anthony Rogers points out, in the Bible the word Elohim is used thousands of times for “God”; Adonai is used hundreds of times for “Lord”; *both of these words are PLURAL nouns in Hebrew*. This BY ITSELF doesn't prove the Trinity, and not all instances can be used to support the Trinity [e.g. sometimes it refers to men or angels, etc.], but some can. If God were absolutely singular, then it would have been wise for God to not use "elohim" and "adonai."
Nick Norelli in his book The Defense of an Essential: A Believer’s Handbook for Defending the Trinity listed the following:
1. Plural Verbs
o Genesis 20:13
English Translation: God caused me to wander
Hebrew: ה התתְעוו ו אלתהים, א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They caused me to wander
o Genesis 35:7
English Translation: God appeared
Hebrew: נהגתְלֹו ו א אלֹלָיםו לָ ה א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They appeared
o 2Samuel 7:23
English Translation: God went
Hebrew: לָ הלֹתְכוו ו -א א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They went
o Psalms 58:12
English Translation: God that judges
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ששלפתְ ה טיםם
Literally: Gods that judge
2. Plural Adjectives
o Deuteronomy 5:26
English Translation: living God
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ח חים ה יםום
Literally: Living Gods8
o Joshua 24:19
English Translation: holy God
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם תְ קדֹלששהיםם
Literally: Holy Gods
3. Plural Nouns
o Ecclesiastes 12:1
English Translation: thy Creator
Hebrew: בוולרתְ אֶ איםךלָ
Literally: Creators
o Isaiah 54:5
English Translation: For thy Maker is thy husband
Hebrew: בל ע עולֹחיִךתְ עולששחיִךתְ
Literally: Makers, Husbands9
o Malachi 1:6
English Translation: Master
Hebrew: ע אדֹולנהיםם
Literally: Masters10
o Daniel 7:18
English Translation: Most High
Hebrew: אֶ עולֹתְיםולנהיםן
Literally: Most High Ones
footnotes:
8 See also 1Samuel 17:26, 36 & Jeremiah 10:10, 23:36 for “living Gods”
9 See also Psalm 149:2 for “Makers”
10 Nearly every occurrence of the noun “Lord” ( ע אדֹולנהים ) in reference to God appears in the plural form.
END QUOTE
When all is said and done, the Old Testament uses plural nouns, plural pronouns, plural verbs, plural adverbs, and plural adjectives for God. Pretty unwise for God to do that, if there's no sense in which God is multiple in His unity.
Regarding Tovia's admission of the "inconvenient" reality and feature of the Tanakh that someone other than the Father is called God, he can't just chalk it up to it always referring to creatures. Sometimes the Angel of Yahweh is worshipped [or at least bowed down to in obeisance ] in ways seemingly only Yahweh is supposed to be. And the Bible claims or describes the Angel of Yahweh to have done things or to do things other passages [sometimes in the same book] say Yahweh did. Rogers goes into this very well and in-depth. Just Watch Rogers' videos (including his debates). I don't have time to elaborate much. For example these passages:
Judges 2:1-2 [COMPARE with the first of the 10 Commandments where Yahweh says He did it.]
1 Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And HE SAID, "I BROUGHT YOU UP FROM EGYPT and brought you into the land that *I SWORE* to give to your fathers. I said, 'I will never break *MY COVENANT* covenant with you,
2 and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.' But you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done?
Joshua 5:13-15 NASB95
13 Now it came about when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went to him and said to him, "Are you for us or for our adversaries?"
14 He said, "No; rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, "What has my lord to say to his servant?"
15 The captain of the LORD's host said to Joshua, "Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy." And Joshua did so.
Presumably, this commander of the LORD's army is the Angel of the LORD, yet Joshua takes his sandals off in reverence, or even worship. Similar to what Moses did at Burning Bush.
- At 1:38:52 into the video this passage of Jos. 5:13-15 is addressed. But neither Sam nor Tovia addresses or even mentions the issues of Joshua being commanded to take off his sandals because he's on Holy Ground [presumably due the commander's presence]. The answer Tovia and Sam the host give about it being reverence/obeisance [while true in other circumstances] doesn't seem to fit here because of the issue of Holy Ground and the removal of sandals. About 20% way through the video Sam [with Tovia's approval and encouragement] plays/pretends to be a Trinitarian to help Steelman the Trinitarian position and arguments, rather than Strawmanning them. However the host doesn't play the part of Trinitarian's Advocate well by failing to connect it with the Burning Bush incident where something very similar happens. And where a similar command to remove one's sandals is given. So much so are the similarities apparent, that it almost self-prompts the question of whether the Angel of the LORD/Yahweh in the Burning Bush is the same person here in Joshua 5. Compare Exo. 3:2 and the entire chapters with each other. Sam failed at Steelmanning and Tovia failed anticipating Trinitarian rebuttals.
Exodus 3:2 And the ANGEL of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.
A plausible case could be made that the Angel of the LORD is worshipped there. Again, see Rogers' videos for more details.
- At 0:29:40 into the video they address Gen. 1:26. The answers they give don't anticipate or overcome Rogers' arguments in this video Here:
The Trinity in Genesis? Two Objections (The Trinity in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Part 2)
https://youtu.be/6Yf2t3TnTRg
- At 1:11:25 Sam, and then at 1:13:12 Tovia, address the issue of whether God can be seen or not. Sam mentioned the apparent contradiction of Ex. 33:11 and 19 [same chapter!]. Tovia gives his answer, but Sam again didn't play the Trinitarian's Advocate well by failing to connect it with Num. 12:16.
Exo 33:11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
COMPARE WITH THE SEEMING OPPOSITE
Exo 33:19 And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD.' And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live."
Sam should have brought up, and Tovia should have addressed, this passage:
Num.12:6 And he said, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream.
7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and HE BEHOLDS THE FORM OF THE LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"
Or passages like:
Exodus 24:10 ESV [10] and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Trinitarianism can easily explain the apparent contradiction. When God was seen in the Old Testament, they only saw the pre-incarnate Son. But never the Father. That's how God was both seen and never seen in the Old Testament.
Somewhere in the video they mention Jacob's encounter wrestling an angel. Then Tovia says that Hos. 12 makes it clear it's only a mere angel. But he doesn't address, nor does Sam [playing Trinitarian] mention how and why that passage seems to teach the opposite in the opinion of many Trinitarians. Tovia is probably referring to Hos. 12:4, but the very next verse seems to give further clarification that implies it was YHWH Himself. Which fits perfectly well with versions of Trinitarianism that identify the Angel of the LORD/Yahweh as the pre-incarnate Jesus.
[4] He strove with the angel and prevailed; he wept and sought his favor. He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with us— [5] the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD is his memorial name:
- At 1:24:42 Sam brought up John 20:28 where Thomas said, "My Lord and my God." Again Sam doesn't play the Trinitarian Advocate very well. He should have given pushback to Tovia by pointing out the text says Thomas "said TO HIM" [i.e. said TO Jesus]. See also Andrew Schumacher's opening statement in his debate with Sean Griffin Here: https://youtu.be/ljaGlmu4XZU. It starts at 9:23, but the relevant part is at 13:15 where Andrew starts talking about the Jewish use of the possessive "our" or "my" with respect to God and its significance in the New Testament in calling Jesus OUR Lord [as well as here in John 20:28 "MY Lord and MY God.]. Andrew makes an interesting case that the possessive was reserved for Yahweh alone. In which case, this suggests or is at least very consistent with Jesus' full and proper Deity.
- At 1:45:13 Sam says Jesus in Hebrews worships God. That's consistent with ALL [AFAIK] models of the Trinity without detriment to Christ's true and proper Deity. Then Sam says at 1:35:37 that Jesus is not worshipped anywhere in the New Testament. But Heb. 1:6 [in the very book under discussion!] commands Jesus is to be worshipped by the angels. As many [most?] scholars point out, based on the Greek of Heb. 1:6, that the author of Hebrews in this verse is clearly alluding to two places in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament [viz. Deut. 32:43 & Ps. 97:7]. Places where the angels and/or the members of the Divine Council are commanded to worship Yahweh. What can this be but an Old Testament command for the most exalted created creatures to give full-orbed WORSHIP [in the FULLEST sense] to Yahweh. That these passages are applied to Jesus would be bewildering if Unitarianism were true and Jesus weren't proper/full Deity. It would be blasphemous. But the author of Hebrews doesn't even flinch or show any scruples in making such a connection and application. No hesitation, no reservation and no moral unease despite possible perceived IDOLATRY in the minds of his audience. The author(s) of Hebrews was likely a Second Temple Jew who wished to avoid any semblance of idolatry. And, as I understand it, while 2nd Temple Jews sometimes had exalted creatures as mediators [Metatron, Enoch, et al.], they almost never [or absolutely never] made the idolatrous mistake of directing worship to their mediators.
This fact, that the worship of Yahweh in Ps. 97:7 and Deut. 32:43 in the LXX is applied to Jesus, along with the Hebrews author in verses 10-12 applying Ps. 102 [which was originally about Yahweh] to Jesus ought to be near definitive proof of Jesus' proper/full Deity. The author not only seems to predicate Jesus as Yahweh, but also applies to Jesus the divine attributes of Yahweh described in Ps. 102 [immutability, eternality, Creatorship, & perpetual unfading ever "youthful" LIFE]. The common Unitarian rebuttal that it refers to the New Creation rather than the Original Creation seems to me patently Ad Hoc/contrived.
BTW, Sam is mostly correct about church history and Trinitarian history IN THIS VIDEO (not necessarily in other videos), but with his own bias. But he was fairly objective. Some Trinitarians are more biased on these subjects of history by comparison. I recommend reading Daniel Waterland's defenses of the Trinity. I've read most of what he's written on the subject of the Trinity and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND them. I've linked to his works on this Blog Here:
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/daniel-waterland-on-christs-divinity.html
A lot of people criticize Waterland for a number of things. But he's more reliable than his opponents claim. Don't just take someone's word against him.
Friday, April 11, 2025
Can The Son of God Be Both Eternally Generated By the Father And Also Self-Existent?
I'm reading Some Animadversions on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity by John Edwards (1637-1716) [not to be confused with Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)]. At about 68% of the way through [started around page 33 in some editions] I came across an interesting argument for Jesus' Self-Existence despite being Eternally Generated by the Father.
Some Animadversions on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity by John Edwards
A Supplement to the Animadversions on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity by John Edwards
So, I asked ChatGPT the following.
ChatGPT said:
This argument from John Edwards, as you've paraphrased it, is complex, but it appears internally coherent within the framework of a certain theological tradition, particularly in the context of classical Christian Trinitarianism. To evaluate whether it makes sense or is contradictory, let’s break down the key elements of his reasoning:
1. The Argument for Self-Existence of the Son
Edwards begins with the claim that John 5:26 (where Jesus says, “as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself”) teaches that the Son has "life in Himself" in the same way as the Father does. The claim Edwards makes is that the Son must have a self-existent life, just as the Father does, because their essence and life are the same. If the essence of the Father and the Son were different, then the Father and the Son would be two different gods, which Edwards would reject.
-
The Essence of the Father and Son are the Same: This is the core of Edwards' argument. He is asserting that if the Father and the Son have the same essence, then whatever is true of the Father (e.g., self-existence) must be true of the Son. The claim is that self-existence cannot be separated from divine essence. Therefore, if the Father is self-existent, the Son must be self-existent as well.
2. The Challenge of the "Giving" of Life
A significant part of Edwards' argument responds to the apparent contradiction in John 5:26, which says the Father grants the Son the ability to have life in Himself. At first glance, this seems to suggest that the Son did not have life in Himself before, which could imply that He is not self-existent in the same way the Father is.
-
Edwards' Response: Edwards argues that "giving" life to the Son does not negate the Son's self-existence. He draws a parallel to the resurrection of Christ, where the Father raises the Son, but that does not mean the Son is not capable of raising Himself. The act of "giving" life is not contradictory to the idea of self-existence because it pertains to the eternal generation, which does not imply temporal dependence or creation. The Son's self-existence is properly His, even if it is "given" to Him by the Father.
3. Eternal Generation and Perichoresis
Edwards moves on to discuss the doctrine of eternal generation, which posits that the Son is eternally generated by the Father. He also refers to the concept of perichoresis (mutual indwelling), where the Father and the Son are interpenetrating and mutually indwelling in each other. This means that the Father and the Son are so closely united that their existence is reciprocal.
-
Mutual Essence: Edwards argues that since the Father and Son share the same essence, if the Father is self-existent, the Son must be self-existent as well. There is no contradiction here, as he is distinguishing between the finite, temporal generation of creatures and the eternal, divine generation of the Son. The Son is not a created being, and the generation of the Son is not a temporal act, but an eternal and necessary one.
4. Objection and Answer to "Existence from Another"
One of the key objections Edwards anticipates is the idea that if the Son exists from the Father, He does not exist from Himself. Edwards counters this by noting that such reasoning only applies to finite, created beings. For an eternal being like the Son, the categories of "before" and "after" do not apply because the generation of the Son is eternal. The Son's generation is not a temporal event, but a timeless relationship of mutual existence within the divine nature.
Evaluation: Does It Make Sense? Is It Contradictory?
In the context of classical Christian Trinitarian theology, Edwards' argument is plausible and consistent. It hinges on a few foundational theological premises:
-
The eternal generation of the Son: The Son is not created but eternally begotten by the Father.
-
Perichoresis: The Father and Son are not two separate divine substances but one substance in which each person fully shares the essence.
-
Self-existence of the divine essence: If the Father is self-existent, the Son, sharing the same essence, must also be self-existent.
If we accept these premises, Edwards' argument does not appear contradictory. He is drawing careful distinctions between temporal and eternal, finite and infinite realities. His rejection of the idea that "giving" life to the Son negates His self-existence aligns with the broader theological tradition, which often stresses the mystery of divine relations and how they differ from human understandings of generation and dependence.
However, it may be difficult to follow or accept without accepting these traditional theological concepts. The idea of eternal generation and perichoresis is not intuitively obvious and requires a certain metaphysical framework, which not everyone would share. For example, someone holding to a more unitarian or Arian understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son would find this reasoning problematic.
Conclusion
Edwards’ argument is coherent within a classical Trinitarian framework, especially when understood as distinguishing between the eternal, necessary relationships within the Godhead and the temporal, contingent relationships that govern created beings. It avoids contradictions by carefully navigating the distinction between the temporal language of "giving" life and the eternal, necessary self-existence of the Son. However, it may seem mysterious or even contradictory to those who do not accept the metaphysical foundations of traditional Trinitarianism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)