Trinitarian Michael Bird is interviewed in the below video on the topic of how the earliest Christians believed in the full Divinity of Jesus. If I'm not mistaken, the interviewer is a Unitarian who denies the Trinity.
Michael Bird - The Divinity of Jesus in Early Christianity
https://youtu.be/vhur1PndRpY
Anthony Rogers quotes scholars [most of whom are not Christians] showing how Trinitarian-like views pre-dated Christianity in Second Temple Judaism, during the intertestamental period, and after the advent of Christianity even to the medieval period.
.
An objection that Unitarians have about these types of quotes is that they are more friendly to Modalism than to Trinitarianism. Here are some of my responses to that objection:
The quotes are useful for a number of reasons:
1. They refute the claim made by some Unitarians (especially in times past 20 years ago and since before the time of the Reformation) that Judaism has always been monolithic in their understanding and always taught strict monotheism of the kind we find in modern Judaism whereby God is uni-personal without qualification.
2. Even if some of these quotes and views by Jews were more akin to Modalism than Trinitarianism that doesn't mean all of them were more akin to Modalism. But EVEN IF ALL of them were more akin to Modalism, they show how Jews were struggling and grappling with the OT passages that seem to imply plurality and/or fluidity in God. It shows that they were in the process of hammering out a formula of how these things could be, and they tried to do this without the New Testament. Sometimes because the NT didn't yet exist [if they lived BCE/BC], other times because they rejected the NT consciously/intentionally [if they lived during CE/AD].
3. The fact that many of these Jewish views are closer to Modalism shows that they are farther away from Semi-Arianism and Arianism or similar formulations/models.
4. It seems to me that Trinitarianism does best in balancing the oneness of God found in some of these Jewish Modalistic views on the one hand, and on the other hand the proper genuine desire by views like Semi-Arianism and Arianism (and similar views) to affirm the New Testament's teaching of the genuine personal distinctions between the Father and the Son [and the Holy Spirit, though many Unitarians would not consider the HS a distinct person]. Trinitarianism sits comfortably in the middle of Modalism and Semi-Arianism-like views because it takes in ALL of the Biblical evidence that affirms both the real unity of God and the real plurality of God.
5. All the above shows how versions of Humanitarian Unitarianism are ahistorical, aberrant and unlikely correct.
Here are the quotes that Rogers posted on the screen. Note, I'm not sure I always accurately cited the source correctly:
"...it is at least possible to find a clear precedent [in Judaism-AR/Anthony Rogers] of hypostases within the Hebrew Godhead." (Alan Segal, "The Incarnation: The Jewish Milieu," p.116)
"The ideas of Trinity and incarnation, or certainly the germs of those ideas, were already present among Jewish believers well before Jesus came on the scene to incarnate in himself, as it were, those theological notions and take up his messianic calling." (Daniel Boyarkin, "The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ," p. xiii)
"Although the official rabbinic theology suppressed all talk of the Memra or Logos by naming it the heresy of "Two Powers in heaven," both before the Rabbis and contemporaneously with them there was a A MULTITUDE OF JEWS, in both Palestine and the Diaspora, who held onto this version of monotheistic theology." (Daniel Boyarkin, "The Gospel of the Memra," p. 254)
"There is no doubt that the Christianity of the New Testament and the early church fathers of the first centuries CE adopted Jewish monotheism–however, it was not 'pure' monotheism matured to eternal perfection but rather the 'monotheism' that had developed in the postexilic period in the later canonical literature of the Hebrew Bible and noncanonical writings, the so-called apocrypha and pseudopigrapha. The New Testament took up these traditions that existed in Judaism, and did not reinvent but instead expanded and deeped them. The elevation of Jesus of Nazareth as the first-born before all creation, the God incarnate, Son of God, Son of Man, the Messiah: all these basic Christological premises are not pagan or other kinds of aberrations; they are rooted in Second Temple Judaism, regardless of their specifically Christian character." (Peter Schรคfer, "Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity" pp. 4-5)
"It may be said that the Jewish mystics recovered the mythical dimension of a biblical motif regarding the appearance of God in the guise of the highest of angels, called 'angel of the Lord'...,'angel of God'..., or 'angel of the Presence"...which sometimes appeared in the form of a man. Evidence for the continuity of the exegetical tradition of an exalted angel that is in effect the manifestation of God is to be found in a wide variety of later sources." (Elliot R. Wolfson, "Through A Speculum That Shines," p. 225)
"In a tradition from the Sar-Torah material of the Hekhalot texts...Metatron is described as 'Metatron, Lord God of Israel, God of the heavens and the Earth.' In the Book of Illumination written by the first known Kabbalist in Castile, R. Ya'acov ben Ya'acov ha-Koken, Metatron is called...logos." (Daniel Abrams, "The Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron in the Godhead," Harvard Theological Review, 87:3 July 1994, ISSN 0017-8160, p. 296, fn17)
"This approach to the pardes account in general and the role of Metatron in particular can be found in the works of some kabbalists, beginning in the early thirteenth century. Although it may seem that we are reading a rabbinic text through the lenses of the kabbalistic worldview, the understanding of the continuous or organic being of the divine, which extends from the simple unity of the godhead to a hypostatic manifestation, predates much of the Talmud." (Daniel Abrams, "The Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron in the Godhead," Harvard Theological Review, 87:3 July 1994, ISSN 0017-8160, p. 296-297)
"In the passage from Nahmanides' Commentary to the Torah discussed by Pines, Nahmanides explicitly takes issue with Maimonides (and with the tenth-century sage Sa‘adia Ga’on by inference), and seeks to characterize the fundamental difference between his tradition and Maimonides' Aristotelian worldview. The difference centers around the inclusion or exclusion of the divine manifestation within the godhead. Nahmanides posits an organic or continuous relationship between God's being and that of the angel–that is, they are both immanent in the same divine substance." (Daniel Abrams, "The Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron in the Godhead," Harvard Theological Review, 87:3 July 1994, ISSN 0017-8160, p. 297)
"There can be little doubt however that early Jewish theologoumena related to such a [hypostatic, supernal] son existed, as the books dealing with Enoch - in particular the Ethiopian one - and Philo's views...concerning the Logos as Son or firstborn convincingly demonstrate, and likewise there can be little doubt that they informed the main developments in a great variety of the nascent Christologies. In the course of time, due to the ascent in Christianity of both the centrality and cruciality of sonship understood in diverse forms of incarnation, it seems that Jewish authors belonging to rabbinic circles attenuated and in some cases even obliterated the role of sons as cosmic mediators. Nevertheless, some of these earlier traditions apparently survived in traditional Jewish writings that were subsequently transmitted by rabbinic Judaism. Yet there is no reason to assume that only the literary corpora adopted by rabbinic Judaism mediated the late antiquity views of theophoric sonship to the more extensive corpora written in the Middles Ages, or that sonship survived only in the written documents..." (Moshe Idel, "Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism," pp. 49-50)
"In some instances, the Messiah has been conceived also as the representative of the divine into this world. The very fact that the phrase meshiyah YHWH recurs in the sources shows a special connection between him and God. This nexus could sometimes be stronger and richer, as it later became in Christian theology, in the ecstatic Kabbalah and Sabbateanism, or, less evidently, in some other cases in Jewish sources, though such a view is found also in the rabbinic literature, where the Messiah is described as one of the three entities designated by the Tetragrammaton." (Moshe Idel, "Messianic Mystics," p. 41)
"...earlier systems [of Judaism] resorted to the myth of the Messiah as savior and redeemer of Israel, a supernatural figure...even a God-man facing the crucial historical questions of Israel's life and resolving them: the Christ as king of the world, of the ages, of death itself." (Jacob Neusner, "Judaism and the Messiahs At the Turn of the Christian Era," p. 275)
"We shall find four basic messianic paradigms (king, priests, prophet, and heavenly messiah), and they were not equally widespread. (Admittedly, the "heavenly messiah" paradigm is somewhat different from the others, since it is not defined by function, and can overlap with the other paradigms.)" (John J. Collins, "The Scepter and the Star," p. 18)
"There were other paradigms of messianism besides the Davidic one, and some elements of these were found to be applicable to the Christian messiah...We shall find, also, texts that envisage exaltation and enthronement in heaven and texts that apply certain attributes of divinity to a messianic figure." (John J. Collins, "The Scepter and the Star," p. 19-20)
This blog is my Trinitarian response to two Unitarian blogs/articles on the topic of John 8:58 that was recommended to me by a Unitarian on Facebook. I'll post the first half on Facebook what I've posted here. But this blog version will have minor edits and grammatical corrections (etc.) as I discover them. The two Unitarian blogs are:
‘Before Abraham was, I’…what, exactly? (posted 2016)
John 8:58 – An Alternative Approach to Its Role in the Debate Over Christ’s Identity (posted 2020)
The following is my Trinitarian Response:
I did a running commentary starting with the 2016 blog, then continuing with the 2020 blog.
I have to say I REALLY enjoyed those two articles. Truly fun reads. Both were well written and thoroughly ENGAGING. As well as informative with respect to what some Unitarians think and how they reason. However, I think they both clearly fail to address things which make the traditional interpretation more likely.
This begins my running commentary on the FIRST blog:
With respect to your 2016 article titled, "‘Before Abraham was, I’…what, exactly?"
Since my Greek is rudimentary, I grant that McKay's translation is might be correct. Especially in isolation from the rest of GJohn.
But I still think the traditional interpretation of "I AM" makes most sense:
1. GIVEN what White has written in his article. Here's the link again:
2. GIVEN everything else the rest of the Johannine corpus says about the Word/Jesus [e.g. John 1:1ff; 5:18; 10:30; 17:5; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 2:23; 3:14; 5:13-14; 17:14; 19:16; 22:12-13]
3. GIVEN that there are other times they tried to kill Jesus in GJohn and more than once it was because they interpreted Him to be claiming to be God or equal to God [John 5:18; John 10:33; John 19:7] . McKay's interpretation/translation would be an unusual exception that doesn't conform to those other times under similar circumstances. Admittedly, there are other times when GJohn says the Jewish leaders wanted Him dead and either don't explain the reason why, or give a different reason. But when it's in CONJUNCTION to something that could be construed as a claim to deity, that IS the reason why according to the Jews themselves. And so, interpreting John 8:58 as a veiled claim to be "I AM" fits better with that PATTERN, than that He's a prophet or "God’s living, breathing power of attorney" (as you put it) who's telling a "preposterous lie."
4. I even think it's possible that a COMBINATION of both McKay's and the traditional interpretation could be true. At the spur of the moment some (or all) of the Jews could have interpreted Jesus to mean what McKay's translation says; but that Jesus and the author of GJohn intended/meant for later hearers and eventual readers of the story (who knew more of the complete life of Jesus, could stand back and could reflect more deeply on His life and sayings) to understand the deeper meaning was a claim to be Yahweh. This is especially true considering the other points in this list. Jesus and/or the author of GJohn could have been intentionally ambiguous so that both senses could and would be interpreted and translated, while expecting the deeper meaning would be caught by careful study and reflection. It's common for Jesus and the Bible in general to have layered and multivalent intended meanings. And different methods are used to do this. Sometimes in idioms, in puns, in figures of speech, in the meaning of names etc.
5. McKay's translation of the beginning of John 8:58 as "The truth is" is unfortunate. The repetition of "Truly, Truly" ("Verily, verily" in the KJV) is intentional on Jesus' part. It's His way of indicating a very solemn statement is about to be made. Translating it as "The truth is..." makes His statement more trivial and detracts from the intended seriousness of His statement. One that (IMO) better fits with Him saying "I AM."
//While that may be true generally speaking, offering such as a response to McKay’s argument is really rather silly. Jesus’ opponents wanted to stone him, not because a claim to be old was blasphemous, but because his claim to have been in existence since before Abraham was born could only have been viewed as a preposterous lie by them,//
If Enoch arrived, he could rightly say he ante-dated Abraham. If Jesus was merely claiming to be older than Abraham, they could have considered him crazy, and left Him alone; or considered Him a false prophet and stoned Him. They would have known about Jesus' childhood. They even insinuated that He was conceived under scandalous circumstances (John 8:41). So Jesus couldn't claim to come straight down from heaven. The Jewish leaders reacting irrationally and wanting to kill Him for no good reason is a possible scenario. However, a more reasonable reaction would have been to ask Him for clarification on what He meant. The fact that they understood Him to possibly be making a veiled claim to deity earlier in the Gospel (John 5:18) makes the traditional interpretation of "I AM" more likely. I mean, the very first verse of the book begins NOT with Yahweh at/in "the beginning" (harkening back to Gen. 1:1), but with the Word. It literally says, "In the beginning was the WORD." Not, "In the beginning was God and with Him was His Word." The fact that the "Word" is first mentioned (before even God [i.e. the Father]) makes sense if the author is trying to convey the full and true Deity of the Word on par with YHWH.
For more on why this IS an allusion to the opening verses of Genesis, see this excerpt of Robert Bowman I typed up here:
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-trinity-at-beginning-of-creation.html
Some Unitarians have denied a connection between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1. Robert M. Bowman gave 5 reasons why such a connection makes sense.
//1. The words en arche occur at the beginning of each book;
2. The name God (ho theos) occurs in the opening sentence in each book, and frequently thereafter as well;
3. Both passages speak about the creation of all things;
4. The name given to the preexistent Christ, "the Word," reminds us of the frequent statement in Genesis, "And God said, 'Let there be...'"—that is, in Genesis God creates by speaking the word, in John he creates through the person of the Word;
5. Both passages in Greek use the words egeneto ("came into existence"), phos ("light") and skotos or skotia ("darkness"), and both contrast light and darkness.
These point of similarity taken together constitute a powerful cumulative case for understanding en arche to be referring to the same beginning in John 1:1 as that of Genesis 1:1—the beginning of time itself. //
// “I am God’s name-bearing agent”//
Given my comprehensive theology of the Malak/Angel/Messenger of YHWH, I think that's a description of a divine figure.
Exo. 23:20 "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.
If this angel had no power to forgive sins, there'd be no point in saying "he will not pardon your sin." YHWH saying His Name is IN this angel implies the divinity of the a/Angel. There are other reasons to think the Angel is divine. See Rogers articles and debates. But specifically in the context of the Name, names in Semitic cultures was very important. They were connected to the actual or hoped for nature of the person named. This was why naming babies were so important. Because Semitic names have meaning. The Name of God refers to the character, nature, attributes and predictable wonted behavior of YHWH.
Prov. 18:10 The name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe.
Psa. 9:10 And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.
These passages are not saying the NAME of YHWH is a place one can literally enter. Rather, it saying that God's nature and character is such that you can rely on Him.
Prov. 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!
Literally asking what's God's name was was simple for a Jew to answer. It's obviously "YHWH." But it's not ultimately and literally asking that. It's cryptically asking, "What is God's nature?" The answer to that rhetorical question is that it is incomprehensible. The secondary question of "what is His s/Son's name?" hints at the Son's incomprehensibility as well, because both are divine. Being YHWH's agent with His name residing within is therefore a way of saying He's divine. Inanimate objects and cities were named for YHWH. Many OT names are theophoric and have YHWH's name in them. For example, Yirme-๐๐ฎ๐ต๐ (Jeremiah), ๐ฌ๐ฒ๐ต๐ผ-natan (Jonathan). Jerusalem will be called Yahweh Tsidkenu (Jer. 33:16) [cf. where I think Jesus is prophetically named the same in Jer. 23:6]. The way YHWH's name is IN the Angel in a special and unique way, and how he is described throughout the OT clearly suggests divinity and ontology on par with YHWH. Again, see Rogers' materials. His debates on numerous YouTube channels, and his own channel. Also his articles here:
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers.html
This begins my running commentary on the SECOND blog:
With respect to your second blog which was a Guest Post by a friend of your who goes by the online handle/nickname HeKS. My comments here should be read in light of what I said about the first blog. They build on those former comments.
//After a lengthy discussion with Jesus, the Jewish religious leaders suddenly decide in John 8:59 to kill Jesus by stoning him. //
That's a strawman. It's not "all of a sudden." It occured previously in 5:18 when they thought Jesus was claiming to be equal with God. It happens again later in 10:33 and (I would argue in) 19:7. John 8:58 would be just one of a number of instances when the Jews wanted Him dead because He ostensibly claimed to be Deity or equal with Deity.
//The only thing it could possibly be was his use of ego eimi (I am). //
In all three Gospels that record Jesus walking on water, Jesus uses "ego eimi" with divine connotations (Mark 6:50, Matt. 14:27 & John 6:20). When He walked on the sea it's clearly meant to be understood as a theophany for a number of reasons. The coincidences are WAYYYYYY too many. See my blog, "Brant Pitre on the Divinity of Jesus Revealed When He Walked On Water"
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2021/05/brant-pitre-on-divinity-of-jesus.html
//The notion that the Jewish religious leaders suddenly decided to kill Jesus in John 8:59 because of his comment in the prior verse can be dispensed with quickly. After all, it is explicitly contradicted multiple times in the text.//
Yes, that's exactly my point. I'm typing up this response as I'm reading this Unitarian blog. So, I'm glad that the author acknowledges that the Jews were wanting Him dead prior. But why he strawman's the Trinitarian argument instead of steelmanning it is unfortunate. That some Trinitarians think they JUST THEN suddenly wanted to kill Jesus, doesn't mean that all Trinitarians argue that way. Rather than attacking the weaker versions ("weak-manning" so to speak), he should have steelmanned it before critiquing it.
//The desire of the Jewish religious leaders to kill Jesus long predated his discussion with them in John 8.//
HeKS also cites GMark where the religious leaders wanted to kill Jesus. That's fine. But, so far, as I'm reading this blog, there's no acknowledgement of the PATTERNED THEME of (specifically) GJohn of them wanting to kill Jesus when He make apparently veiled divine claims. Sufficiently clear enough that they think they know He is claiming deity, but sufficiently vague that they aren't absolutely certain. Jesus even uses dissembling and prevarication (in a sinless way) to be subtle with His claims to deity (see my blog here: https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/god-gods-and-jesus-in-john-1030-39.html).
//The simple fact that the Jewish religious leaders were seeking to kill Jesus long before the discussion in John 8 deals a serious blow to the Verse 59 Argument.//
This bypasses the fact of 1. in THIS Gospel (i.e. John) they wanted to kill Him for claiming to be equal with God or God both before and after John chapter 8. But also 2. it bypasses the fact that in this context of John chapter 8 prior to v. 59, and the verses he mentions the Jews wanted to kill Him (vss. 40 and 37), Jesus may have already made other veiled claims to deity in verses 8:24 and 8:28. So that weakens HeKS's claim that it couldn't have been because Jesus was implicitly claiming deity since they were trying to kill Him before v. 58. In other words, his citation of vss. 40, and 37 are STILL AFTER verses 24 and 28. In which case, their intention to kill Him in 40 and 37 could still be due to His veiled claim to Deity.
Notice Jesus' statements:
24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he [ego eimi] you will die in your sins."
28 So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he [ego eimi], and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.
IF Jesus is making a veiled claim to deity in His use of ego eimi in both verses, then it should and/or could be translated "I am" or "I AM". I said, "and/or" because, as I said above, I could combine the traditional translation and interpretation with something like McKay's.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ, ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ผ๐น๐น๐ผ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ถ๐น๐:
//The simple fact that the Jewish religious leaders were seeking to kill Jesus long before the discussion in John 8 deals a serious blow to the Verse 59 Argument. To the extent that it relies on the claim that Jesus must have said something so shockingly blasphemous that it ignited in the Jewish religious leaders a spontaneous and novel desire to kill him, it fails utterly. //
I'm glad HeKS makes the following concession:
//With regard to the more basic claim that Jesus must have said something blasphemous within the confines of this conversation for the Jews to now attempt to publicly stone him, it is hard to say with certainty whether or not this is true. It’s certainly possible, but...........//
//...........but it must be remembered that these religious leaders had been seeking to kill Jesus since he healed the man on the Sabbath. On that occasion, Jesus exposed “the insensibility of their hearts”, but they apparently believed that he had broken the Sabbath. Sabbath-breaking was a capital crime under the Law and so, in the eyes of the religious leaders, they would have already had their justification for stoning him. //
It's ironic that he mentions sabbath breaking. Since, earlier the Jews wanted to kill Jesus in THIS Gospel for "breaking" the Sabbath by healing on that day and thus making Himself equal with God, in that He claimed to be able to work on the Sabbath like God does.
John 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."
Jesus Is Equal with God
18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
See my blog "Jesus' "Breaking" the Sabbath as Evidence of His Equality with the Father"
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/jesus-breaking-sabbath-as-evidence-of.html
//Second, the specific claim Jesus was making would have been considered blasphemous because he would have appeared to be appropriating for himself the prerogatives of God in the same way as he was earlier accused of doing when he healed a paralytic by saying, “your sins are forgiven.” On that occasion, he was accused of blasphemy, and the same charge would apply here.//
That's ironic for HeKS to say because Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sin IS a veiled claim to deity. Presumably HeKS would prefer citing the Markan version of Jesus forgiving sin. Well, I've argued that GMark has a VERY HIGH Christology and when seen in light of the OT clearly portrays Jesus as Yahweh. See my blogpost titled, "Markan Christology":
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/markan-christology.html
//This single claim, then, if untrue, would represent two separate capital offences. //
It should be noted that HeKS's claims of different capital offenses don't conflict with the Trinitarian interpretation of John 8:58. They could just be added to the charge of the blasphemy of claiming to be God. Proving that the Jews had other offenses in mind does nothing to disprove they *also* had in mind the offense Trinitarians who hold to the traditional view think they had in mind at v. 59.
//On this reading, any basis for the Verse 59 Argument evaporates.//
Not at all, since I said that there can be a combination of 1. "Prior Existence Rendering" & 2. " ‘I AM’ Rendering."
//The interpretation that the Jews tried to stone Jesus in verse 59 because they rightly understood him to be claiming the identity of their God is not and cannot be the simplest interpretation for one reason: It is not a plausible interpretation at all.//
My comments above shows why it's not implausible at all. Because in other locations in GJohn, but before and after John 8, there were attempts and intentions to kill Jesus on account of their impression that Jesus was claiming to be God (John 5:18; 10:33; 19:7).
John 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God."
Regarding John 19:7, I concede to Unitarians that the phrase "Son of God" with reference to Jesus often (usually?) refers to Jesus as the Messianic Davidic heir (esp. in the Synoptics). However, that can't be the sense here in John 19:7 because it wasn't a capital offense according to the Law to claim to be the messiah. Therefore, in this instance (and in other places in John [though not necessarily all]) the phrase "Son of God" is being used as a title with the connotation of a claim to Deity.
Regarding John 10:33, see this excellent article by Jonathan McLatchie, ""I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE" (JOHN 10:30): A CLAIM TO DEITY?"
//However, given the Jews’ conception of God, this interpretation would simply not be possible for them given the content of Jesus’ own statements throughout the dispute.//
I disagree given the "Two Power in Heaven" view popular among many of the Jews prior to and during that time. A view also reflected in the Targums. Rabbinic Judaism is post-Christian. Second Temple Judaism [~500 BCE to ~100 CE] allowed for the orthodoxy of the Two Powers in Heaven doctrine whereby there was a Greater invisible Yahweh in heaven and a Lesser Yahweh who could visit earth and become visible. Some Jews held to it. Only with the popularity of Christianity was the doctrine deemed heretical by Jews in the 2nd century CE. When one examines the OT, the second Yahweh figure is attributed the same honor, worship, attributes, names, deeds & authority the first Yahweh figure does. Rogers makes a great arguments showing the 2nd Yahweh, the Angel of Yahweh is to be the Messiah.
Here's Segal's Two Powers in Heaven online in archive.org: https://archive.org/details/TwoPowersInHeavenEarlyRabSegal
Here's Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser's website where he introduces the Two Powers concept:
Word of the Lord in the Targums
http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm
//In all these statements, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his Father, making it plain that they are numerically distinct individuals. Given that the Trinitarian believes God to be one Being, but the Father and Son to be two Persons,...//
As I said, there are different Trinitarian models. Some flirt with nascent tritheism in that they, for all intents and purposes to the contrary, posit the persons of the Trinity as [or almost like] distinct entities with their own beings or substances. As I said, some of the church fathers expressed their Trinitarianism in ways kind of like this [with variations and permutations in both understanding and expression]. I'm open to those type of models, but like the quote says about [modern, usually Evangelical] Trinitarians, they believe the three distinct persons share one divine being [which is my default position]. That seems to better preserve monotheism without going in the other extreme of Modalism.
//While a modern Trinitarian might be able to sustain a belief that Jesus went on to identify himself as the One True God in spite of his explicit statement in this verse, the same could not be said for any ancient Jew. By explicitly identifying his Father, The Father, as the one whom these Jews said was their God, Jesus foreclosed on any possibility that they could then go on to understand him to be claiming the identity of that very same God when he used the utterly common words ego eimi just seconds later.//
ALSO
//It is not remotely plausible to think that an orthodox Jew of the 1st century, after hearing Jesus repeatedly and explicitly distinguish himself from the one he identified as God, would then go on to hear Jesus use the words ego eimi and suddenly place his comment into the context of a multi-personal Godhead, which would have been necessary in order to sustain the interpretation that Trinitarians allege here. Such a concept was simply not within the interpretive toolkit of 1st-century Jewish theology.//
Again, that's a non-sequitur given the Two Powers view. Genesis 19:24 is a classic passage that troubled and perplexed interestamental Jews, and upon which variations of the Two Powers view was grounded. Because it appears to describe two different persons named Yahweh/YHWH/Yehovah.
Gen. 19:24 Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.
Unitarians often claim this is a case of illeism. Michael R. Burgos Jr. wrote in chapter 2 of "Our God is Triune" regarding Gen. 19:24:
//Malone has attempted to explain the third person reference via illeism.[lxxxii] However, the explicit personal distinction in Genesis 19:24 annuls such a reading: “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.” The prepositional phrase ืֵืֵืช ืืืื ืִื־ืַืฉָּׁืָืִื (“from Yahweh from heaven”) indicates via spatial and functional distinction that two persons who are both Yahweh are in view, namely, Yahweh and the Angel of Yahweh.[lxxxiii] Aside from these examples, there are several other passages which indicate trinitarian plurality, if taken in tandem with the other biblical data.[lxxxiv]
ENDNOTES:
[lxxxii] Malone, Andrew S. 2009. “God the Illeist: Third Person Self-References and Trinitarian Hints in the Old Testament,” JETS, 52/3, 501. Elledge follows Malone here, and in his dissertation on the subject he completely neglects to assess the significance or impact of the divine Angel. Elledge, E. Roderick, The Illeism of Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of the Use of the Third-Person Self-Reference in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and its Implications for Christology, PhD Diss., 2015, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 4-5; 85-86.
//And if they couldn’t possibly have understood Jesus to be claiming the identity of the Father, then they could not possibly have understood him to be claiming the identity of God at all.//
But THAT'S EXACTLY what happens in the passages I cited and which are never brought up in the entire blog. Namely, John 5:18, 10:33, 19:7. In those passages the Jews see Jesus claiming to be both distinct from God/Father, yet also equal to the Father and in some sense God. It's a SERIOUS DEFECT in HeKS's analysis and interpretation to never bring up those passages. They are bright flashlights shedding much light on the interpretation of John 8:58. ONLY as HeKS interprets John 8 IN ISOLATION from the rest of GJohn, could he make his interpretation seem plausible. But when the rest of GJohn IS taken into consideration, the 'I AM' Rendering, or a combination of the 'I AM' Rendering with the Prior Existence Rendering makes more sense.
//The wholistic interpretation of John 8:58 that has been offered here, which includes the Prior Existence Rendering, shows that Jesus did not claim the identity of God in this verse and that it cannot reasonably be cited in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. However, it does not specifically contradict the Trinity doctrine either. When properly rendered and understood, this verse establishes that Jesus existed prior to his human birth and that his existence extended at least thousands of years into the past. This fact is certainly consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is also consistent with the position of those millions of unitarian Christians around the world who accept Jesus’ preexistence but deny that he is Almighty God or that the Trinity is a properly Biblical doctrine. As such, this verse is actually irrelevant to the disagreement between the two groups on the issue of Christ’s ultimate identity [2].//
I'm glad that he concedes that his interpretation is compatible with Trinitarianism. I said nearly as much before, but I didn't know he would grant it. So then, there are then three options for Trinitarians:
1. the 'I AM' Rendering Alone,
2. the Prior Existence Rendering Alone, and
3. the Combination of both.
I lean toward the 3rd option in the way I explained in point #4 above. I didn't explicitly say earlier that the Prior Existence Rendering Alone was compatible with Trinitarianism, but it's understood given that I think both renderings could be combined. Though, I don't think it's likely given the evidence for the 'I AM' Rendering.
With minor editing and corrections in grammar, the following are some responses I made to a friendly Unitarian on Facebook. His comments are within forward slashes.
//We are admonished to take care of widows and orphans, not to spend our time arguing ad infinitum about a doctrine that didn’t even exist at the time the New Testament was written.//
I'd say that it's not a debate about the Trinity per se, but about the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (all prominently mentioned in the NT). Discussing and defending the true nature of God is never a waste of time. Much of the NT is devoted to polemics on who/what Jesus is and why He is in some sense "divine" (e.g. Colossians, Hebrews, Phillipians). Even Agnostic Bart Ehrman has changed his mind and now thinks that all four canonical Gospels teach Jesus is divine in some differing senses. He says that here (already cued up):
https://youtu.be/CTgig9F782s?t=1960
I disagree with Ehrman's assumption that the Bible isn't internally consistent. So, assuming it is consistent, it's important to know in WHICH sense. Moreover, it's not like Trinitarianism is an obscure alternative that has virtually been reduced to an ash heap and then tossed into the dustbin of history.
While it's true that some professed Trinitarians and Trinitarian denominations have sometimes done terrible things, in general God seems to have blessed Trinitarianism. From my perspective, starting with the 4th century the greatest conservative Bible scholars have been Trinitarians. Along with the greatest theologians, apologists, evangelists, Bible exegetes/interpreters/commentators, missionaries, missionary agencies, philosophical theologians, church historians, etc. It has been the Trinitarians who have had the best (or at least the MOST POPULAR) Bible translations, have had the greatest impact in advancing the Kingdom of God, have had the greatest revivals (e.g. the Reformation, The Great Awakening, the Second Great Awakening, etc.). It's been Trinitarians who have had the greatest reports of signs and wonders/miracles throughout Church History (and at present). Trinitarians who have built hospitals, colleges, universities, orphanages (etc.).
When I was a Unitarian 30 years ago, this dawned on me. I asked myself questions like, "Why do the Unitarians I listen to often have to rely on the scholarly works written by Trinitarians?" I found that strange. "Why would God's providence guide history in such a way as to give it that kind of monopoly? Could it be that there's some truth to Trinitarianism? Could I be wrong about my Unitarian views?"
//According to the lexicographers, the word that is translated “begotten” in the older Bibles actually means “unique, one-of-a-kind.”//
The tide is shifting back in the scholarly community. Even Wayne Grudem has changed his mind. See this excerpt of his second edition of his Systematic Theology:
Even assuming that it merely means "unique," the NT's teaching does seem to say that Jesus is God's Son in a very unique way above and different from how humans and angels are sons of God. So special that it has divine-like connotations. Otherwise the Jews wouldn't have found the ways in which Jesus claimed His sonship offensive. Since, generally the term "Son of God" was a Messianic title. Yet, the Jews seemed to understand Jesus sometimes implied something much greater. Even as Jesus said "something greater" than the Temple and Solomon (a type of the messiah in wisdom as David was in piety) was "in their midst" (Matt. 12:6; Matt. 12:42//Luke 11:31). Notice John 19:7; 5:18.
John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God."
John 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Clearly in the mind of the author of GJohn the term "Son of God" sometimes meant more than a messianic title for a mere human.
//It assumes, without justification, that what is true of biological organisms must necessarily be true of spirit beings.//
It's the Semitic default position that like begets like. Given the uniqueness and reality of Christ's sonship as taught in the NT, it suggests actual sonship, not metaphorical one.
//only biblical example I’m aware of in which spirit beings procreate is when they took the form of men and mated with human females.//
I'm open to that interpretation. Assuming it (arguendo), it seems to prove my point. God dislikes hybrids (e.g. Lev. 19:19). God wants kinds to remain distinct. The Bible seems to place Jesus on the Divine side of the creature vs. Creator divide and distinction. Not only are OT passages of Yahweh applied to Jesus in the NT (see Link #1 below), but SHOCKINGLY passages regarding the worship of Yahweh are applied to Jesus (e.g. Isa. 45:23//Phil. 2:10-11; Joel 2:32//Rom. 10:13; Heb. 1:6//Ps. 97:7 & Deut. 32:43 ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐ซ; 1 Cor. 8:6 ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ผ ๐ฎ ๐ป๐๐บ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ฐ๐ต๐ผ๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐น ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐น๐๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฎ ๐๐ต๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ). That despite the OT's strict teaching of worshipping YHWH alone, and despite 2nd Temple Judaism's continued enforcement of it. I believe the NT normatively requires the belief in the full deity of Jesus for the reception of salvation (Link #3 where I briefly argue this).
//You’re reading later theology into the New Testament’s use of “Son of God” in reference to Jesus, which is anachronistic.//
As we Trinitarians see it, we're being forced to Trinitarian models due to the constraints of the full orbed teaching of Scripture (cf. again Bowman's article). Some Trin. models don't see or require Jesus as the literal eternally begotten and generated offspring (e.g. William Lane Craig, Adam Clarke, Walter Martin).
//when in reality they make any claim that there was anything even similar to Apostolic Trinitarianism so problematic as to be essentially impossible.//
The late non-Messianic Jewish scholar Alan F. Segal brought to the forefront the fact that it was only AFTER the Christian era (circa 2nd century) was the "Two Powers In Heaven" doctrine rejected as heresy among Jews. That prior to that it was considered within the pale of orthodoxy to believe, and was a relatively popular view, that there were at least two divine figures taught in the OT. See his book "Two Powers In Heaven." It's even reflected in the Aramaic Targums (๐๐ฒ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ธ #๐ฐ). So, we're doing much less reading into the NT as you think. It's the Unitarian position that seems to have historic amnesia and not reading the NT in its original cultural and theological milieu (Link #5).
//so also no one who is thinking clearly should assume that the application of a YHWH text to Jesus makes him YHWH.//
The problem with that is that Jesus is not only the fulfillment of the types, but equal to or greater than the types. Jesus cannot be greater than the Father, but He can be equal to Him. As various NT passage teach e.g. John 5:18, 23; and OT passages of the Angel/Word of Yahweh being regarded, worshipped as and simply referred to as Yahweh ๐จ๐๐ฃ๐จ the phrase "Angel/Word of..." as in Zech. 3:1-๐ฎ;Gen. 16:13; 1 Sam. 3:4; Judg. 6:14; Exo. 3. David is a human anointed one/messiah, and Jesus is that (i.e. equal) AND MORE. But your Unitarian interpretation makes Jesus less than equal to the Father. And *that* contrary to the VERY point the author of Hebrews is making. In Heb. 1:10-12 the application of Ps. 102 makes Jesus the eternal, immutable/unchanging Creator worthy to be worshipped (1:6). To claim it's about the New Creation as some Unitarians do, and not all of Creation itself is ad hoc. Verse 12 would then imply that Jesus could potentially "roll up" the New Creation which is promised to be eternal/unshakeable (Heb. 12:27).
//Interestingly, at 11QMelch a YHWH/ELOHIM text is applied to God’s agent, Melchizedek, and there’s no compelling evidence that Melchizedek was thought to be YHWH.//
That's the freak & infrequent minority report in the Intertestamental period. Never (or virtually so) are agents like Melchizedek, Enoch, Metatron (et al.) WORSHIPPED like Jesus is ubiquitously in the NT (passim). NEVER is there a warning to not overly worship Jesus. Nor even implied teaching to limit one's devotion, worship and prayers to Jesus to a certain degree lest it violate the 1st and 2nd commandments. Even the passages that at first glance seem to do so actually don't. And sometimes do the opposite (see Link #6).
//With respect to agency, that’s all over the Bible, so much so that even orthodox expositors recognize that Christ is God’s agent. //
I'm not denying that the NT presents Jesus as God's agent. Since I believe he's the Angel/Messenger of Yahweh in the OT. What I'm saying is that when passages of the OT regarding YHWH are applied to Jesus, it's never explained as merely being cases of the Law of Agency. Again, see Schumacher's article, Link #7.
No obligation to read the following. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ด๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ป ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ❜๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ.
Link #1 https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/07/identifying-jesus-with-yahwehjehovah.html
Link #2 to my blogs where I've linked to resources on "monogenes"
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/search?q=begotten
Link #3 https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2021/05/does-new-testament-require-belief-in.html
Link #4 Word of the Lord in the Targums http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm
Link #5 See Rogers' series of articles at: https://answeringislam.org/authors/rogers.html
The “Heavenly” and “Earthly” Yahweh: Interpreting Genesis 19:24
The Malak Yahweh: Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament
Link #6 https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-do-you-call-me-good-did-jesus-deny.html
The Following was posted the next day.
//I don't have much time to continue with this exchange, esp. since I already know that there is no chance of agreement. But a few brief points:...//
I won't take your not continuing the conversation as a sign of defeat. We're all busy and have limited time. NP.
//It's a long, paradoxical road from the two powers view to a tri-personal God. //
Yes, they were striving to understand God and this Divine-like Agent. Trying to understand how in one sense He's not God, yet in another sense is God. So much so that he's worshipped by Joshua with a command to take off his shoes (Joshua 5:13ff.) like Moses at the time of the Burning Bush. In fact, the Angel of Yahweh is in the Burning Bush episode. The point is that they were trying to hammer out some doctrine based on the OT that clearly didn't teach strict monotheism as modern rabbinic Judaism and Islam teach. Christian Unitarians (of all strips?) have the problem of implicit or explicit polytheism. They have a Great God and a Lesser god (explicit in e.g. Arian or Semi-Arian) or god-like human whom they sometimes acknowledge can be worshipped (implicit in Humanitarian Unitarianism). While the greater/lesser God is found in intertestamental 2nd Temple Judaism and some Christian Unitarians (CUs), those Jews didn't have the fuller revelation of the NT and so are less culpable. Moreover, they were willing to call the second person Yahweh, whereas it's only ever agentival among CUs. In a few senses the interestamental Jews had a higher view of the "divinity" of the second Yahweh, than many modern CHs.
//it involved two divine beings//
There are Trinitarian versions that amount to that. As in some of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers. I'm open to that view, but I lean toward and have as my default view the one where the 3 persons share the one being of God.
//the sloppy presentation by some scholars (e.g. Boyarin) and not the data that make some think that the two paradigms are friendly to each other.//
One can be friendly without being cousins or siblings. There's an affinity that makes CH less plausible than more. 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."
The fact that Sommer includes post Christian Jews suggests that the Tanakhian data has a tendancy to lead even Jews a kind of pluritarian conception of God. I grant that Sommer's quote is more friendly to Modalism than Trinitarianism. But not to CUs. Those post-Christian Jews (esp. Medieval) who went the other extreme in asserting the strict unity of God were often influenced by Islamic theologians. Admitttedly, some Jews affirming the sephirot were influenced by occultic Kabbalah.
//We know that Jesus isn't the creator because of the prepositions Paul used//
I can't really argue using the Greek because my Koine is very rudimentary. The use of "dia" and "eis" need not deny the deity of Christ. It's says of YHWH, "For from him and ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ค๐ช๐๐ [dia] him and ๐ฉ๐ค [eis] him are all things" (Rom. 11:36). It seems to me that the same words "dia" and "eis" in Col. 1:16 are also used of YHWH in Rom. 11:36. Suggesting full divinity. [[I meant consistent with full deity, not necessarily suggesting it.]]
//He Himself is never called the Creator.//
//but not แผฮพ (from). ‘From whom are all things’ (แผฮพ ฮฟแฝ ฯแฝฐ ฯฮฌฮฝฯฮฑ) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. //
He may not be "called" Creator, but He's predicated and described as being Creator (e.g. Heb. 1:10-12 in its citation and application of the YHWH of Ps. 102). Moreover, appeals to "through" and "ex" language to deny the full deity of Christ seems to be implausible given that they're also used in 1 Cor. 8:6 even though it ostensibly is a Christianized version of the Shema where Paul uses the LXX's kurios not for the Father [as one would expect], but suprisingly for the Son. One would think that it would be reversed since "god/theos/elohim" can be legitimately used of beings other than YHWH (e.g. the angels in Ps. 8:5; 82:1 passim). The language of "ONE God" and "ONE Lord" is one of the hints it's a "baptized" Shema. Verse 5 [which refers to many "gods" and many "lords" among pagans] doesn't imply that the pagan gods were higher than the pagan lords. Rather they are equivalent synonyms for deities. In the same way, the One GOD and One LORD are meant to be equivalents, not with Jesus as an ontologically inferior Lord. Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have been included in the baptized Shema and Paul would have excluded Him, or not used the word "One" in the phrase "One Lord," or would have reversed it and said Jesus was "One god" while the Father is the "One Lord" (with the LXX's background of translating the tetragrammaton as "kurios"). Instead "kurios" IS applied to Jesus. As in Phil. 2:10-11 with the background of Isa. 45:23 (etc.).
//The Father redeems ‘in’ or ‘by means of’ the Son. The Son is intermediate agent of the Father’s ransoming.//
Of course, if the application of Granville Sharp's Rule is correct in Titus 2:13-14, then Jesus is the Yahweh who is redeeming there in that passage that harkens back to the Exodus.
Titus 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
14 who gave himself for us to ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐ us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
//We have a passive verb, ‘was created.’ What is the subject of the verb? //
What's missing from this and Unitarian interpretations of John 1:1ff., Col. 1:15ff., 1 Cor. 8:6 is that in those passages ALL of creation is said to be through Jesus. If Jesus was created and is a creature, then Jesus was created through Jesus [sic]!!! That's logically impossible. Because one would have to first BE in order to be created THROUGH one's self. Once again showing how the NT places Jesus on the divine side of the Creator and creature distinction and divide. Either Jesus is created or not. Which is it? What's your answer? If he was created, then he was created through himself (per impossibile). If he was not created, then Jesus must be eternal and fully divine.
//The author of Hebrews applied Psalm 102:25 to Jesus because he wanted to make the point that the post resurrection Jesus was now immortal and his “years shall have no end.” (KJV)//
You're limiting the meaning of the passage which doesn't merely affirm continuing existence, but of Creatorship, immutability and not merely future eternality. Titus 1:2 refers to " before the ages began" (alternatively, "before time began" NKJV; "before times of ages" YLT). Implying time itself is a creation of God. In which case, in light of the rest of Scripture, Hebrews is saying Jesus exists outside of time and created time. The same YHWH in Ps. 102 is the same in in Ps. 90 who is "from everlasting to everlasting." Which has similarities to the OT Yahwist title "first and last" which Jesus appropriates for Himself (Rev. 1:17; 2:8, 22:12-13).
//Unlike all prior kings, Jesus isn’t a king who’s going to die and thereby potentially allow his kingdom....//
The author of Heb. could have prevented misunderstanding by limiting his allusions and quotations to persons other than Yahweh. Instead, on Unitarianism, he foolishly applies OT passage of creation, and worship (etc.) to Jesus. The Trinitarian position seems more likely to me. Why did God inspire the author to give a seemingly idolatrous teaching?
//Notice what happens when you omit Ps. 102:25 from the quote in Hebrews 1:...//
I find this kind of funny because you go on to quote the rest of Hebrews that calls the Son "God." It already says of "O God" (i.e. the person Jesus) "is forever and ever" (v. 8). Even if we take the preferred Unitarian translation of "God is your throne," it's forever and ever. Meaning, the messiah will have God as his throne (whatever that means) forever and ever. On that Unit. interpretation, it's already saying the messiah will live eternally forward in time. In which case, there would be no further need for the lengthy quote of Ps. 102 to teach Messiah's forward temporal eternality. Yet he does in a way that naturally implies Jesus' Creatorship, immutability, timelessness, and eternality.
//He was the ‘Wisdom’ or ‘LOGOS’ through whom God created the original heavens and the original earth.//
Yet, the OT teaches that Yahweh created by Himself ("by Myself") in Isa. 44:24. The Unit. interpretation produces a contradiction between the OT and NT. Whereas, a Trin. interpretation can say that there is a sense in which Yahweh created "by Himself" yet at the same time through Christ. Because Jesus is of the Godhead. Similarly, a contradiction is pruduced in Unitarianism when the NT say no one has seen God, even though the OT says God was seen (Ex. 24:10-11; Gen. 3:8; Gen. 17, Gen. 18; Isa. 6 passim). On Trin. it's easily explained because they saw the Son but not the Father.
Exo. 24:10 ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ช ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ข๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
When it comes to Prov. 8:22-31, that's compatible with either Trinitarianism/Binitarianism or Semi-Arianism/Arianism. Though, it need not be a reference to the pre-incarnate Jesus.
//GJohn bends over backwards to make clear that his development of the Father/Son relationship is defined by agency.//
I addressed this. I said, "I'm not denying that the NT presents Jesus as God's agent. Since I believe he's the Angel/Messenger of Yahweh in the OT. What I'm saying is that when passages of the OT regarding YHWH are applied to Jesus, it's never explained as merely being cases of the Law of Agency."
There are certain things agents can't do. Gotham lawyer Harvey Dent can do things for commissioner Gordon in his place as if he were Gordon, but Dent can't have sex with his wife. Similarly, idolatry (the worship of anything other than the true God) was considered spiritual adultery in the OT. Yet, Jesus receives the worship due to Yahweh alone. Despite the OT's clear and persistent teaching about the nature of Idolatry. Jesus in the NT stands in the place of YHWH in the OT. As YHWH was Israel's wife, so Jesus is the Church's Bridegroom even though the Church is merely Remnant Israel come out of & separated from unfaithful Israel. The same word "ecclesia" for the congregation of Israel in the LXX is used for the church/congregation of the NT (cf. Acts 7:38). Either Jesus is also Yahweh along with the Father, or there is a RADICAL discontinuity between the OT and NT such that Non-Messianic Jews would have to be right about Christianity being idolatrous in bring in a new god.
//...the fact that the answer must be qualified tells us that Jesus was not in fact worshipped as God, because our worship of God is unqualified.//
The distinction Dunn made is not in the NT. I agree that there was obeisance in the OT for human kings (1 Chron. 29:20). But it was not in religious context *toward* the king even if done in a larger religious context. But worship of Jesus is not qualified in the NT and yet it IS in a religious context toward Him and of a spiritual being who is more than merely human. With the exception of the Angel of YHWH who I believe to be the person later named Jesus, there is no worship or obeisance of angels in the OT (cf. Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9). Prayer is an act of worship and prayer is directed to Jesus (2Cor. 12:8; Acts 1:24; John 14:12-14). JC says in John 14:14 in the critical text "If you ask ๐ ๐ anything in my name, I will do it." Contrary to Dunn, Jesus says we ought to honor Him as we honor the Father (John 5:23). "Bowing the KNEE" in a religious context toward Baal or any spiritual entity was idolatrous. The prophets of YHWH refused to bow the KNEE to Baal (Rom. 11:4). Yet the KNEE is bowed to Jesus in Phil. 2:10-11 which applies to Jesus an OT passage about YHWH that's arguably the most monotheistic verse in the most monotheistic chapter in the entire Tanakh. Calling upon a deity was an act of worship, yet Christians are those "who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 1:2 cf. Rom. 10:13 w/ Joel 2:32). Religious invocation of a spiritual entity is worship, yet Father, Son and Holy Spirit are invoked in baptism (Matt. 28:19) and final benediction (2 Cor. 13:14). More could be said, but I must be brief. My blogs go deeper.
//Notice that in the Lord's Evening Meal, Jesus is not the God to whom sacrifice is offered, but the sacrifice itself.//
The "Lord" of 1 Cor. chapters 10 and 11 is Jesus.
1 Cor. 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the ๐ง๐๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ and the table of demons.
22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
Compare with:
Mal. 1:7 By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, 'How have we polluted you?' By saying that the LORD's ๐ง๐๐๐๐ may be despised.
12 But you profane it when you say that the Lord's ๐ง๐๐๐๐ is polluted, and its fruit, that is, its food may be despised.
//...Jesus isn't the God who people come to worship, but the 'place' they come to worship God the Father.//
There's no room for debate that when Thomas said, "My Lord and my God" that he was speaking to Jesus because it says, Thomas "answered HIM..." There's also no question that the GK there has "ho theos" with the definite article. Just as "ha adon," which is only ever used of YHWH in the OT, is used of Jesus in Mal. 3:1. The Father and Jesus are worshipped together without any explained distinction in Rev. 5:13-14.
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.
The very fact that Jesus refers to Himself as "first and last", [along with "Alpha and Omega" and "Beginning and End" (in Rev. 22:12-13)] is a claim to deity (Isa. 41:4, 44:6; 48:12). Because just as an author who controls how the letters of the alphabet will be used to create his novel and so has sovereign control over his story, so YHWH has SOVEREIGN Lordly providential control over history (or HIS-story).
//but about your typo correction, dia has both a causal and an intermediary sense. At Rom. 11:36 it's causal.//
Yes, I recognize that. I recall Greg Stafford making that great point in his debate with either James White or Robert Bowman. I don't think either sense requires the conclusion that Jesus isn't full divine [or said another way, that Jesus is ontologically inferior to the Father].
There are Trin. models that deny eternal generation and those that affirm it. I kind of lean toward its affirmation. In which case, due to the the ontology, there is a sense in which the Son is subordinate in order and rank, even if not in dignity, glory, essence, substance, ontology.
Generally, there are three types of subordination.
1. Ontological subordination
2. Functional Subordination
3. Incarnational Subordination.
Trins can affirm 2 & 3 or just 3. I lean toward both 2 & 3.
//It's not just that the Son isn't "called' creator, it's that the Son isn't the creator, the Father is. The Son was his Master Worker.//
I just disagree with your interpretation. Jesus is described as Creator in all those passages, esp. Heb. 1:10-12. See my comments in the two posts you haven't read yet about Jesus either being created or not, and my comments on it.
Moreover, I think the case for Jesus referring to Himself as "I AM" in the Yahwistic sense in passages like John 8:58 (24, 28) is eminently more likely than the ad hoc gymnastics Unitarians use to argue that it doesn't mean what it ostensibly means given background information. See:
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/
IF Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" in places like John 8:58, [as Jesus' claims to be the "first and last" appears to in light of the Yahwist background of Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12] then that settles the issue. Jesus IS Creator along with the Father.
