Why Do You Call Me Good? An OT Answer for a NT Question
https://youtu.be/JO2luTJp1uc
Monday, May 31, 2021
Monday, May 24, 2021
How To Find Jesus in the Old Testament [Video Playlist] by Mike Winger
Even though Mike Winger isn't a trained scholar like the kind of experts I usually like to link to in this blog, the following playlist of videos has pastor Mike Winger showing the places in the Old Testament where he believes Jesus is found in prophecies, types, shadows, emblems etc. I don't agree with everything he says, but most of what he does say are things most Trinitarians like myself would say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWlpQauXiTU&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHsHyvMtfgOgSPU6zEnCvxUO
Saturday, May 22, 2021
A H.A.N.D.S. Approach to Showing Jesus is God
The following link is to an article that briefly explains Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski's acronym H.A.N.D.S. which they used in their EXCELLENT book Putting Jesus in His Place:The Case for the Deity of Christ to defend the fully Deity of Jesus Christ.
A H.A.N.D.S. Approach to Showing Jesus is God
I highly recommend reading Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski's book Putting Jesus in His Place:The Case for the Deity of Christ. If you can, get the revised edition.
"Yes, Bart Ehrman, Jesus is Yahweh" by Jonathan McLatchie
Here's an excellent article by Jonathan McLatchie where he responds to Bart Ehrman on Jesus being Yahweh
Yes, Bart Ehrman, Jesus is Yahweh by Jonathan McLatchie
An Argument That Paul's Usual Greeting "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" Might Be A Christianized Form of the Shema
It is now commonly recognized by scholars that 1 Cor. 8:6 is a Christianized version of the Shema. It has become a central plank of the Early High Christology thesis held by many prominent scholars. Interestingly, the following article I've linked to below offers an argument for why the Apostle Paul's usual greeting "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" might be a Christianized form of the Jewish Shema of Deut. 6:4 as translated from the Hebrew to the Greek of the Septuagint/LXX.
SEE ALSO:
Apostolic Salutations (Part One); Q&A
by Anthony Rogers
https://youtu.be/uml7b9lReyk
Apostolic Salutations (Part Two); Live Q&A
by Anthony Rogers
https://youtu.be/FDT0hf8stLg
Friday, May 21, 2021
Does Mark 13:32 Disprove Jesus' Omniscience?
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.- Mark 13:32 ESV
Mark 13:32 is the number one verse used by atheists and anti-Trinitarians to argue that Jesus wasn't omniscient. There are a number of passages in the New Testament that appear to show that Jesus wasn't omniscient. As a Trinitarian I usually explain them by appealing to the two minds view of Christ [popularized by Thomas V. Morris' book The Logic of God Incarnate] whereby Christ's divine mind is omniscient while His human mind is not omniscient. However, that explanation doesn't fully work in responding to Mark 13:32 because it doesn't address the problem that the Holy Spirit isn't accounted for. It would still leave the Holy Spirit not omniscient, contrary to 1 Cor. 2:10 which states, "For the [Holy] Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God." One could get around that by saying that the Lord Jesus didn't intend to include the Holy Spirit in the equation. While that works, it probably won't satisfy most atheists and anti-Trinitarian theists. The following videos answer the problem of Mark 13:32 in a way that does overcome all the problems. All three videos describe in varying depth the solution that I initially resisted when I first encountered it. However, it makes a lot more sense to me nowadays. See also my blogpost Jesus' Omniscience where I present the positive Biblical evidence for Jesus' omniscience. I've linked to it a second time at the very bottom of this blogpost.
How Can Jesus Be God if He Did Not Know the Day and Hour of the Final Judgment
by Anthony Rogers
by Anthony Rogers
The a longer clip of the above video is on another YouTube channel here:
https://youtu.be/6Y3qf1aRTkA
Why Didn't Jesus & the Holy Spirit Know the Hour?
by Michael Jones
by Michael Jones
The Importance of Theology: Defending the Deity of Christ
by Tony Costa
by Tony Costa
The above video has been cued to address the topic directly at 13 minutes and 27 seconds. However, the entire video is very good in defending the omniscience of Jesus. So, I also recommending watching the whole video.
SEE ALSO MY BLOGPOST: Jesus' Omniscience
Excerpts from a Conversation I had on Facebook [2021 05]
Unitarian: //I think the Bible is clear on how many true gods are there, don't you?//
If you understood what Trinitarianism teaches, then you'd know that Trinitarians believe there is one true God, and that Jesus as well as the Father and the Spirit are the one true God. There are different formulations/conceptions of the Trinity. My default position is the standard Evangelical one where God is one in being and three in person. Rocks have being. They have or are stuff. But rocks aren't persons. While humans also have being but are also persons. A contradiction is defined as saying X and non-X are true at the same time and/or in the same sense. It WOULD be a contradiction to say that God is one in person and three in person. Just as it would be a contradiction to say that God is one in being and three in being. But most Trinitarians say that God is one in being and three in person. Therefore there is no contradiction since being and person are two distinct categories. God is one "what" and three "whos". Meaning three persons [some would even say centers of consciousnesses] share the one being [i.e. stuff] of God.
A case could be made that 1 John 5:20 teaches Jesus is also the "true God". Seem my blogpost here:
//Don't you think it is possible that God could have easily said that He is also three in an unequivocal manner as He did declare His unitary existence in the Shema?//
The Bible teaches the concept of Progressive Revelation where He reveals truth fuller and fuller, clearer and clearer down through Redemptive History. So, the Trinity is clearer in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. Yet, it's in the OT as well too. Some Trinitarians think it's only hinted at in the OT. While other Trinitarians think it's clearly and explicitly taught. I'm somewhere in between. I recommend Anthony Rogers debates and videos [some of which are at his channel] where he argues that the Trinity is explicitly taught in the OT. I think Rogers is the best living defender of the Trinity. Start with his debates on the Angel of the Lord where he argues for Jesus being the Angel of the Lord [links below].
Messianic Jews themselves point to the fact that the Shema mentions God three times as a remez [i.e. hint] of the Trinity [see David H. Stern's "Jewish New Testament Commentary".
//(2) Remez ("hint") — wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p'shat. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware.// Stern page 12
Regarding Mark 12:29 and Jesus' recitation of the Shema, Stern wrote:
//...Likewise, here in the Sh'ma (Deuteronomy 6:4) there are two such r'mazim: (1) the triple reference to God, and (2) the use of the word "echad," which often means a multiple unity (such as "one" cluster of grapes or "one" bundle of sticks) instead of "yachid," which nearly always excludes multiple oneness.// Stern page 97
I disagree with the latter part of what Stern says. He should have phrased it this way: "echad" only MEANS "one", but it can REFER to a complex unity or oneness. He's wrong in saying it can MEAN complex one.
Moreover, as I said above in another thread, a number of scholars are in agreement that because of the grammar, vocabulary, wording, phraseology and syntax, in 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul is adapting the Greek Septuagint's [i.e. the LXX] translation of the Shema and including Jesus within it. What's interesting is that Paul uses the phrase "one Lord" not for the Father, but for the Son. One would expect that given the Hebrew context that it refers to the tetragrammaton [i.e. Yahweh/Yehovah], that Paul would apply "one Lord" to the Father. While applying the Greek phrase "one God" to the Son since the Hebrew elohim is commonly also used for beings other than Almighty God. Yet, counter-intuitively Paul predicates Jesus as being the "one Lord/Yehovah" of the Shema. That Paul is also affirming the equality of the Father and the Son can be seen by how Paul uses "gods" and "lords" in the previous verse.
1 Cor. 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth---as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"---
Notice that Paul refers to the pagan gods and lords as if the two terms are equvalent and interchangeable. He doesn't imply that pagan gods are higher or greater than pagan lords. If he had, then a Unitarian could argue that by using "God" for the Father and "Lord" for the Son, he was indicating that the Father is greater than the Son. Instead, just as pagan gods and lords are equivalents/interchangeable terms, so Paul is implying and equality between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
There are many other arguments for the Trinity, but those are just some. I've argued for the Trinity at my blog TrinityNotes.blogspot.com. Though, sometimes when one clicks on the link FROM FACEBOOK it is said to be a website that's not safe. I don't know why that is. Maybe I need to format my blog differently.
The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Robert Bowman
The Trinity in Jewish and Christian Scripture by Anthony Rogers
Anthony Rogers' Youtube channel:
A Playlist of SOME of Anthony Rogers' Debates in Video:
Anthony Rogers' Articles at Answering Islam on the Trinity and Islam:
ALL of Anthony Rogers' Debates in MP3:
//My question is why this doctrine wasn't enunciated clearly if it's essential for one to understand Christology or soteriology in the first place.//
The New Testament isn't a systematic theology book. The Gospels record biographies of Jesus when the disciples were still growing in their understanding of the Gospel and all its implications. They didn't even know [or were fully convinced] that the Gospel was supposed to go to the Gentiles. They had to grow in their understanding of in what sense the Law was and wasn't binding on believers [both Jew and Gentile]. They had to grow in their understanding of the place of the ceremonial laws. They had to grow in their understanding theologically in other ways. Moreover, most of the NT is composed of occassional letters written on the occasion of addressing specific topics X, Y, Z. For example, as important as the Lord's Supper is, there's only one post Ascension passage that covers it with any depth. That's why for example, Paul doesn't mention many historical nuggets and saying of Jesus even though there is indication that he was aware of some. This absence is something many atheists like to point out to argue for Mythicism [cf. Richard Carrier]. Much of the epistle's teaching presupposes prior instruction in the faith. That's why it presupposes things like the fully deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit.
In fact, non-Messianic Jewish scholars [like Alan Segal, Daniel Boyarin et al.] admit that prior to the birth of Christ and lasting till past the 1st century CE when Jews were threatened by the growth of Christianity, it was within Jewish orthodoxy to believe in the "Two Power in Heaven" doctrine during the time of the lives of the Apostles. It's within that milieu that we must read the NT. Not in post 2nd Temple Period rabbinic Judaism that was self-consciously mono-personal strict monotheistic in opposition to Christianity. To the point where by the time of Maimonides, he started describing God as yachid instead of echad.
There's a general consensus among scholars now [including Bauckham, Wright, Fee et al.] that 1 Cor. 8:6 has Paul Christianizing the Shema and in some way including Jesus in the Shema. I've briefly argued this in some of the other threads in this post.
See also this eye-opening article which strongly suggests that the Paul's common opening for his letters which say, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" is an articulation of that Christianized Shema.
Regarding the personality and full Deity of the Holy Spirit, see my blogpost here:
Regarding the threeness within the Godhead see my blogpost here:
When one does an exhaustive study of the NT, one sees this presupposition of the Trinity. I've documented much of this in my blog: https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/ Or better yet, watch Anthony Rogers videos.
The pluritarian nature of God is also seen in the OT in many ways, for example 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.
When all is said and done, the Old Testament uses plural nouns, plural pronouns, plural verbs, plural adverbs, and plural adjectives for God. An all wise God would not inspire His revelation to use such language if Unitarianism were true. However, if some form of pluritarian monotheism is true [as in Trinitarianism], then such language makes perfect sense
////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.////
Even non-Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Benjamin Sommer, a professor in Bible and ancient Near Eastern languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary (that’s right, the Jewish Theological Seminary) wrote in his recent book, The Bodies of God:
“Some Jews regard Christianity’s claim to be a monotheistic religion with grave suspicion, both because of the doctrine of the trinity (how can three equal one?) and because of Christianity’s core belief that God took bodily form. . . . No Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one. A religion whose scripture contains the fluidity traditions [[[referring to God appearing in bodily form in the Tanakh]]], whose teachings emphasize the multiplicity of the shekhinah, and whose thinkers speak of the sephirot does not differ in its theological essentials from a religion that adores the triune God.”
That statement by Sommer is more consistent with Modalism rather than Trinitarianism. But I quote it to show that even Jewish scholars recognize how in the OT God revealed Himself in a plurality of ways that opens the door to options like Trinitarianism.
Even the pre-Christian Jewish Aramaic Targumim often personified the Word of the Lord. See:
Word of the Lord in the Targums
Given all this background and more [I've only scratched the surface], one should be reading the New Testament in that light. IF one does, then the implicit Trinitarianism of the NT will be seen in every nook and cranny.
//Where in the Bible does God define himself/itself as a "what" being which has "whos"?//
It doesn't. That's a post Biblical way of articulating what the New Testament logically requires. Admittedly, it's not the only Trinitarian formulation. There are others as I admitted earlier. You have to remember that the NT was mostly written by Jews that were influenced by Greek thought, but not so much that they were Hellenized. The Greeks were very much into the philosophy of ontology and metaphysics. The Jews, and the Semitic mindset were not. That's why the NT doesn't delve into the metaphysics of how EXACTLY/PRECISELY God is three-in-one. Yet, humans and theologians can't help but ask metaphysical questions and give some answers. Both Trinitarians AND Unitarians ask metaphysical questions and give answers regarding who/what is Jesus and the Holy Spirit and what is their relation to the Father. When one factors in all the Biblical data and uses the philosophical tool of logic, I'm convinced that something like the Trinity must be true. Otherwise the Bible cannot be a consistent infallible book.
See The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Robert Bowman
//1 John 5:20 need not mean that Jesus is the true God. It's still ambiguous which is the very substance of my question to you.//
But that's just one data point out of hundreds that point to a Trinity. People have this false conception of evidence that in order to be evidence for a proposition it needs to "carry the day," as it were, on this evidence. It needs to be able to fully support and fully justify the conclusion. That's simply incorrect. A piece of evidence can raise the probability for a proposition being true, without by itself being sufficient to justify that proposition. All the evidence must be weighed together cumulatively. When done so, something like Trinitarianism MUST be true. [bolded part is a quote from Jonathan McLatchie HERE].
//You reading a Trinity into the Shema is a bit of a stretch.//
It's the general consensus among NT scholars precisely because of the grammar, syntax, vocabulary and phraseology of 1 Cor. 8:6 corresponds so well with the Shema as found in the LXX. Again, this is one of many data points that point to the Trinity.
//Now are we going to ignore the fact that Jesus was made Lord and Christ?//
Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Jesus was Lord and Christ prior to Acts 2:36. The word "made" there means to make evident. We Trinitarians argue that Jesus is one of the YHVH of the OT. Many Trinitarians also argue Jesus was the "Angel of the LORD" in the OT. Since the Angel of the LORD was also YHVH [see Rogers' evidence], therefore Jesus was kurios even prior to His incarnation. Even Phil. 2:6-11 teaches a personal preexistence of Jesus where He was in the form of God [i.e. God by nature].
//Paul in the same book v 15:28 says that Jesus isn't equal to God in the sense you are implying.//
That passage is perfectly consistent with Trinitarianism given post-incarnational functional subordination of the Son to the Father. While some modern Christians reject pre-incarnational [as well as pre-creational] subordination of the Son to the Father, I don't. It was a standard view of earlier Trinitarians. BTW, this is part of the recent debate among my fellow Evangelicals regarding EFS/ESS/ERAS. I do lean toward ERAS [Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission] among the persons of the Trinity sans [apart from/"before"] creation. Eternal Functional Subordination is the more common term.
What's more "problematic" would be verse 24 which states, "He delivers the kingdom to God the Father". But that delivery cannot be thorough and complete. Otherwise it contradicts Dan. 7 which states that the Son of Man's [i.e. the Messiah's] Kingdom would be everlasting. The most obvious way to resolve the apparent contradiction is to say that this "delivery" is a presentation of the Kingdom by the Son to the Father as having completed His given task to subdue all creation and all of God's enemies. Also that as to his office as the human messiah Christ delievers the Kingdom to the Father. But as to His essential Divinity, the Son retains Kingdom authority.
Thursday, May 20, 2021
What's Wrong with the Messianic Movement? The Trinity Dr. Tony Costa and Dr. Igal German
Dr. Tony Costa interviews Dr. Igal German on how some in the Messianic Jewish movement are teaching heresies that deny the doctrine of the Trinity.
A Question to Ask Unitarians Regarding Jesus' Self Identification as"first and last"
The following is a question I asked a Unitarian on Facebook, and which I think every Trinitarian should ask Unitarians about:
[Mr. Unitarian], I'm curious, do you believe that Rev. 22:12-13 is Jesus or the Father? The person there is referred to with three titles, "the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
I believe it's the Son, as I argued here:
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/revelation-2212-13-and-deity-of-christ.html
If it is the Son, then it seems to me that the book of Revelation is clearly teaching the full Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. But I don't even have to appeal to Rev. 22:12-13. Since Rev. 1:17 and 2:8 have Jesus referring to Himself as "first and the last". That's a title for Almighty God found in the book of Isaiah. Moreover, it's a title that should uniquely apply to the one true God since it's a claim to be the source and author of all created things. It's equivalent to "Alpha and Omega" as well as "Beginning and End". Because just as an author creates and controls all the letters in his literary work from the beginning to end of the work, including every use of every letter in that book or literary corpus [from Alpha to Omega (in Greek); Aleph to Tav (in Hebrew); A to Z (in English)], SO IN THE SAME WAY Almighty God is the source and sovereign over His creation. Jesus referring to Himself as the "first and last" [if not also "alpha and omega" & "beginning and end" in Rev. 22:12-13] is a clear claim to being Yahweh/Yehovah given the FAMOUS passages in Isaiah.
Isa. 41:4 Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
Isa. 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.
Isa. 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last.
The author of Revelation expects his readers to be well acquainted with the Old Testament.
As E.W. Bullinger wrote in his Commentary on Revelation:
//////////The Hebrew character of the book [of Revelation] is shown in its use of idioms, expressions, words and phrases, which cannot be called Greek; and indeed is called by many "bad Greek."
Professor Godet in his Studies on the New Testament, says, p. 331: "The only serious objection that can be urged against the authenticity of the Apocalypse, lies in the difference which is observable between its style, and that of the fourth Gospel. The latter is free from Aramaic expressions, the former is saturated with them." And again (p. 351), "the Apocalypse bears, from one end of it to the other, the character of a Hebrew prophecy."................Though the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew; and this links it on, not to the Pauline epistles, but to the Old Testament,...............It is not only Hebrew in character as to its linguistic peculiarities, but especially in its use of the Old Testament. Only those who have most intimate acquaintance with the Old Testament can properly understand the Apocalypse. But all who know anything of old Testament history cannot fail to detect the almost constant reference to it.................But it is when we come to look at the literary connection between the Old Testament and the Apocalypse that we find evidences of the most striking kind.
If we count up the number of Old Testament passages quoted or alluded to in the New Testament,* we find that the gospel of Matthew has a very large number, amounting in all to 92. The Epistle to the Hebrews comes higher still with 102. Now both these books are connected in a special manner with Israel. Matthew, it is universally admitted, stands out among the four Gospels as being specially Jewish in its character. And the Epistle to the Hebrews was specially written to Hebrews, and they are addressed as such.................Now, when we turn to the Apocalypse, what do we find? The result which to our mind is overwhelming. No less than 285 references to the Old Testament. More than three times as many as Matthew, and nearly three times as many as the Epistle to the Hebrews.//////////
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
Evidence that the Holy Spirit is Divine from the Story of Pentecost
As a Protestant I would obviously not agree with everything said/taught/written in Catholic scholar Brant Pitre's materials. Nevertheless, some of his arguments are worth sharing. In this video Pitre provides evidence that the Holy Spirit is Divine from the story of Pentecost
Brant Pitre on the Divinity of Jesus Revealed When He Walked On Water
As a Protestant I would obviously not agree with everything said/taught/written in Catholic scholar Brant Pitre's materials. Nevertheless, some of his arguments are worth sharing. There was a really good video on YouTube where Pitre defended Jesus' full Deity based on His walking on water after having fed the 5000, but the video was taken down. The following videos by Brant aren't as good as that original video, but they include some of his arguments.
Note, Jesus says "ego eimi" (I am or I AM) in all three Gospels that record this incident (Mark 6:50, Matt. 14:27 & John 6:20). In the following videos Pitre shows why the incident is meant to be understood to be a theophany. The coincidences are wayyyyy too many.
The first video comes close to addressing everything in the original video that I referred to above. The discussion of Jesus walking on water begins at 7 minutes and 20 seconds. But I recommend listening to the entire video.
The Case for Jesus Course Introduction: Is Jesus Divine in the Synoptic Gospels?
https://youtu.be/PCDXj3uaDC0
The next two videos are supplementary. The first video above expresses most of what I wanted to posted in this blogpost. This second video adds the point about how Jesus' statement "ego eimi" in response to the disciples' fear parallels Old Testament times when Almighty God would say "fear not." As well as how in the Old Testament the common human response to theophanies was for the humans encountering them to be afraid.
This third video does better in explaining how Jesus meaning to "passing by" the boat is reminiscent of Yahweh passing by Elijah in the Old Testament.
Monday, May 17, 2021
The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Robert M. Bowman Jr.
The following is Robert Bowman's classic defense for the Biblical basis for the Trinity. It's a foundational work that every one should read to get an understanding of why Trinitarians think the doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical.
The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Robert M. Bowman Jr.
http://irr.org/biblical-basis-of-doctrine-of-trinity
Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Monday, May 3, 2021
Does the New Testament Require Belief in the Full Deity of Jesus For the Reception of Salvation?
(last updated 2021-11-04)
In a facebook group a Unitarian argued, “Nowhere in the New Testament do the Apostles command that one must confess the deity of Jesus to be saved.”
The following is adapted from my quick response [with minor changes]:
I disagree. I think it's normative for the reception of salvation to affirm the fully deity of Jesus according to the New Testament. Though, I don't believe it's an absolutely necessary requirement to believe it or of the full and true Deity of the Holy Spirit in order for one to be saved. There are many extenuating circumstances. For example, one becomes a Christian moments before his death and doesn't have time to study the issue. Maybe the person doesn't have the free time, mental aptitude or opportunity to study the issue for financial, geographic or historical reasons. Many Christians in the Middle Ages, for example, didn't have a copy of the Bible nearby and were illiterate. Hypothetical examples could be multiplied. But back to the issue....
The description says "deity" which is a lower standard than FULL deity [or as being Yahweh/Yehovah], but I'll defend the higher claim. The lower claim is too simple to demonstrate [e.g. John 1:1; 20:28]. I can immediately think of at least 5 places [among many more] where the New Testament implicitly or explicitly requires a belief in the full Deity of Jesus for salvation.
In no particular order.
#1
Romans 10:13 and context quotes and applies Joel 2:32 to Jesus. The original OT context is that of calling upon the name of Yehovah/Yahweh. Therefore, the NT predicates that Jesus is Yahweh. Compare 1 Cor. 1:2 where Christians are described as those who "in every place CALL ON the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."
#2
1 Cor. 8:6 has Paul adjusting the Shema of the Greek Septuagint and including Jesus into it as the "one Lord". One would think that he would have reserved the phrase "one Lord" for the Father. Apparently, Paul applied it to Jesus to affirm Jesus is Yahweh along with the Father. If Unitarianism were true, one would expect "one Lord" [with the background of tetragrammaton in the Hebrew] to be used of the Father and "one God" to be used to refer to Jesus since in the Hebrew understanding "elohim" could be used of lesser deities or supernatural entities other than Yehovah/Yahweh. Instead "one Lord" is used of Jesus. Therefore Jesus is as fully Yahweh as the Father.
#3
Philippians 2:10-11 adjusts and applies Isa. 45:23 to Jesus. When Isa. 45:23 is arguably the most monotheistic VERSE in the most monotheistic CHAPTER in the entire Tanakh [Old Testament]. It would be idolatry for Paul to do that if Jesus isn't also Yahweh along with the Father. Notice that Isa. 45:23 says people would 1. bow to and 2. pledge allegiance to Yahweh, yet in Phil. 2:10-11 it's a 1. bowing to and 2. a pledge of allegiance to Jesus [to the glory of God the Father].
#4
Jesus' statements of being "I am/Am" in John 8:24, 28, and 58 best fits with an affirmation and self-identification of being Yahweh.
John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." [The "he" in "that I am he" is not in the Greek].
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
See James White's article "Purpose and Meaning of “Ego Eimi” in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ"
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/1990/01/01/purpose-and-meaning-of-ego-eimi-in-the-gospel-of-john/
James White's articles makes it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus is predicating Himself to be Yahweh. Virtually all Unitarian objections I've encountered to the Trinitarian interpretation of John 8:58 are cases of quibbling over possibilities rather than probabilities.
#5
Christian baptism is an act of worship and invocation of God. Yet in Matt. 28:19 Jesus teaches baptism in the [singular] Name of THE Father and of THE Son and of THE Holy Spirit. The definite article is before each person, so that rules out Modalism because it affirms the genuine distinctions between the persons. But it also rules out Unitarianism because it's NOT in the NameS [plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Nor is it, "in the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the holy spirit". If the Holy Spirit weren't a person, why include the Holy Spirit anyway? The inclusion of the Holy Spirit in the singular Name bespeaks of His genuine personality and full divinity.
Remember that GMatthew was written specifically and primarily with a Jewish audience in mind. The word "name" in Hebrew has the connotation of nature, character, attributes, essence and the usual way one acts or behaves. That's why in Semitic cultures naming an infant with a specific meaning was so important. And that's why, for example, Prov. 18:20 says, "The name [i.e. nature & character] of the LORD is a strong tower; The righteous run to it and are safe." Also why Ps. 9:10 says, "And those who know Your name [i.e. nature & character] will put their trust in You; For You, LORD, have not forsaken those who seek You."
Moreover, the Old Testament has reverence for "The Name" which represented Yahweh Himself [e.g. Lev. 24:11].
Lev. 24:11 and the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. Then they brought him to Moses. His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.
Therefore, in all likelihood the author of Matthew is self-consciously including the Son and the Holy Spirit in "THE Name", and therefore as being part of the true God. This is why Jesus could be greater than the temple where YHVH Himself dwells [Matt. 12:6] and why the author records Jesus saying what He did in Matt. 18:20. Something which is an allusion to the well known Jewish saying, "Where two sit together to study the Torah, the Shekinah glory [i.e. the Divine Presence] rests between them." (Mishnah, Pirke Aboth 3:2)
Matt. 12:6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.
How could Jesus be greater than the Temple where God Himself dwells, unless Jesus is God in the flesh? Remember that John 1:14 says "the Word became flesh and dwelt [literally "tabernacled"] among us".
Matt. 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."
See also the other blogposts I've posted in this Blog that argue for the Full Deity of Christ. The above are meant to be representative, not exhaustive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)