(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].
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment