Paul's Christology of Divine Identity by Richard Bauckham

I highly recommend reading Paul's Christology of Divine Identity by Richard Bauckham
(Read it here or here, or here, or here, or here)

see also my blogpost:

Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah

My Last Remarks to Dale Tuggy on Triablogue's blogpost "God over all, forever blessed"

I had a long discussion with Dale Tuggy on Triablogue's blogpost "God over all, forever blessed." Dale posted his closing remarks and I wanted to leave closing remarks as well. However, by then the combox was closed so that I couldn't post my closing comments. So, I've decide to post them here. Dale's comments are in blue italics.

[Update: My comments on Triablogue were approved. The following is a reproduction of those comments with only minor changes and additions. I've tried to indicate the changes and additions using the color purple. Though, I don't think I've completely tracked all the changes]

---

Just a few last points:

Thanks for taking time to interact with me and my arguments. Dialoguing with you has always been intellectually stimulating. These next posts will also be my last. I wish God's blessing be upon you too.

The "two minds" approach to the incarnation is relatively new, is not what was meant by the catholic tradition...

My allegiance is to Scripture and truth, not to Catholic tradition. I go along with Catholic, Protestant (et al.) tradition only to the degree that it's Scriptural.

If you want to cast that as one of Jesus's minds, the human one, being subject to the Father....

My appeal to the two minds view was not specifically to deal with how Jesus could have a God over Him since I don't even think it's necessary to appeal to the incarnation in order to field that objection. Rather, I appealed to the two minds view to anticipate the possible objection that if all three persons of the Trinity are God, then the human Jesus would have to have each person of the Trinity over Him and be obedient to each of the three INCLUDING HIMSELF!

If you want to cast that as one of Jesus's minds, the human one, being subject to the Father, the problem is the God-subject relation is an I-Thou one, a person to person one.

I'm open to William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland's neo-Apollinarian Christology. They make an interesting case that the traditional view is itself Nestorian in that it posits the person the Son having a human soul. If I understand them correctly, it's the human soul itself what makes a human a person. By replacing the human soul with the mind of the Logos that safeguards against Nestorianism.

Thus the bizarre claim that the incarnate Jesus is "man" but not "a man."

I have no problem calling Jesus "a man." Just not "a MERE man."

BTW, your exegesis of John 17:1-3 simply ignores that an identity claim is being made, not a mere description.

But what of the apparent identity claim of 1 John 5:20? Though, admittedly, it's not clear that Jesus is there called the "true God." But a good (not great) case could be made he is.

In brief, John never says that the eternal Logos is Jesus, and 1:14 doesn't say or imply that they are the same person.

True, John never EXPLICITLY states the Logos is Jesus. Though, I think 1:18 [typo corrected] does imply it in light of John 17:5 and the other verses I cited (e.g. John 1:14; 3:13, 31; 6:38, 62; 8:14, 23, 42; 10:36; 13:3; 16:28; 17:4-5 etc. [cf. 1 John 4:9-10, 14]). These verses don't explicitly state that Jesus was personally preexistent, but I think it's a fair (even strong) inference since there are so many such passages, and because the context often wouldn't make sense if Jesus' wasn't claiming personal preexistence. As you know, my theology is very abductive. Also, scholars in Greek have said that the word "pros" in John 1:1 implies a personal and intimate relationship that's "face to face" (so to speak). While John 1:18 doesn't specifically refer to a preincarnate relationship, it might include it. Christ being in the "bosom" of the Father also implies intimacy and relationship. Think of how the beloved disciple was leaning on Jesus' bosom (John 13:23). Jesus' statement in John 8:56-58 that "Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad" better makes sense if Abraham actually did see/interact with the preexistent personal Christ (probably in reference to the incident in Gen. 18). Otherwise, it wouldn't make much sense for Jesus to say before Abraham was I am (or however you'd translate it)" in response to the Jews'  question "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" If "Jesus" was only the plan of God conceived in God's mind when Abraham rejoiced to see his day, then there would have been no sense in a before and after. Abraham's very knowledge of a coming messiah would itself be his seeing it. Yet, Jesus distinguishes Abraham's past expectation and his latter experience.

The many "I have come" statements of Jesus in the Synoptics suggests a personal preexistence. The fact that 1. so many passages in the NT (from the Synoptics, John, Pauline corpus, Hebrews) suggest a personal preexistence and 2. that no NT passage tells us that Jesus was NOT personally preexistent should lead us to favor a personal preexistence (it's the natural reading of those passages). In what other instance in the the Bible is there a preexistence that's not personal? And especially since a strong case could be made that one of the angels of the Yahweh was a very special Angel (messenger) who is probably Christ Himself. This Angel is treated like Yahweh (if not as actually Yahweh) in the OT in a similar fashion as Christ is in the NT. See for example this excerpt of E.W. Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament on the topic of the Angel of Yahweh

The Word is something like God's plan or wisdom, by which, the OT says in a couple of places, God created.

I'm not sure where those places in the OT that state that Wisdom was created other than Prov. 8. Prov. 8 BTW, was one of the major obstacles in my becoming a Trinitarian over 20 years ago. It's not clear that the impersonal "Jesus" is being referred to in Prov. 8. And even if it has Christological significance, wisdom is personified in a way that would suggest an actual personal preexistence as Prov. 30:4. Also, the NT comes on the heels of the intertestamental apocrypha and pseudepigrapha that many times implies the eternality of personified Wisdom, and so counts against a created Wisdom. Scholars dispute whether Micah 5:2 implies an eternal past preexistence of Christ (personal or impersonal). Nevertheless, at the very least the words are consistent with an eternal past. Also, earlier you seemed to agree that John presents the impersonal Logos as eternally with (pros) God. At least that's how many Greek scholars interpret the word "en" in "en arche en o logos." As one scholar put it, "...as far back as you wish to push 'in the beginning,' the Word is already in existence. The Word does not come into existence at the 'beginning,' but is already in existence when the 'beginning' takes place."

The "form of God" needn't be having the divine essence, but can be read as a paraphrase of "made in God's image and likeness."

You seem to be saying that the phrases "form of God" and "form of a servant" are both postpartum. However, it's only after Paul uses the phrase "form of a servant" that he says, "being born in the likeness of men." Paul seems to be making a contrast of the two phrases with "being born" the transition point.

Whereas Adam tried to grab at equality with God, Jesus declined to. Remember the ethical thrust of the whole thing (see the start of the chapter); Jesus is being held up as our example based on his actions during his human life.

In context Paul is talking about humility before equals, not humility before a superior. He's talking to Christians in general and how they should treat each other. Christ not grabbing/grasping for God's position which He doesn't inherently possess isn't an act of humility. Refraining from doing that is an act of obedience and submission, not of humility. Only if Jesus actually was equal with God would it be an act of humility. Paul wrote in verse 3, "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." He didn't say, acknowledge others more significant than yourself. To make Paul's analogy work, either 1. Jesus and God are equals, just as fellow Christians are equals; OR 2.God is superior to Jesus, just as some Christians are superior to other Christians.

No doctrine is *essential* in the sense of you must believe it to be saved unless it is preached to unbelievers in Acts....

I don't believe that one must believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. However, I think as Christians grow in their understanding of the Gospel and Scripture that the truly regenerate among professing believers will naturally tend to accept the Trinity.

That you accepting this reading of "homoousios" is why, I think, you go along with the confused evangelical tradition of identifying Jesus with his God (i.e. asserting them to be numerically identical).

I identify Jesus with God because of both NT and OT reasons. If it weren't for the OT evidences for a plurality in Yahweh, I wouldn't hold to (the meaning) of monoousios. I've collected the OT evidences in my blogpost:

Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God    [cf. also my blogposts HERE and HERE. Though, now I suspect the "watchers" in Daniel are members of the Divine Council along with the "us" [in "Let US make man in OUR image"] in the opening chapters of Genesis.

No, these writers assumed that somehow some angels can influence a wide area.

Agreed. However, influencing others by broadcasting subliminal thoughts, temptations, fears etc. is one thing. Reading thoughts, hearing silent prayers, answering such prayers simultaneously, upholding the universe by the Word of His power (as Christ does in Heb. 1:3) is something else. Moreover, "in [Christ] all things hold together" (Col. 1:17) and "through [Christ] we exist" (1 Cor. 8:6). The exploits of demons in the book of Daniel, Job, Colossians, Ephesians and the Gospels pale in comparison.

So Satan is the "god of this world," and they held that angels were put over countries.

Agreed. But Satan works through his demonic cohorts in military or gang-like hierarchical fashion. I don't find Scripture to teach he's globally omnipresent. On the contrary, when asked "From where have you come?," Satan replied, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it" (Job 1:7).

So Jesus, exalted to a higher position than any angel, must also have such powers. Presumably the upgrade in position came with the needed abilities. We may be curious quite how this works, but I guess they were not.

I agree that God can give extraordinary powers to creatures. My citation of Jesus' ability to do the things He does isn't meant to directly prove He's God. I cite them as indirect evidence since everywhere else in the OT and NT such powers are reserved for Almighty God Himself. They are used as a means of identifying and describing God. Often directly or indirectly saying ONLY God can do those things. In which case, when the NT applies such powers, characteristics, attributes to Jesus, it's only natural for the original recipients of the books (who presumably were steeped in OT theology) to infer Jesus' full divinity. Otherwise that would confuse the original recipients since it would result in a contradiction between OT & NT explicit statements and theology.

It's interesting that Unitarians will cite the express and explicit statement in the Old Testament that "God is not a man" and insist that we stick by the exact words of Num. 23:19 and 1 Sam. 15:29. Yet, when the Bible specifically states only God can "know the hearts of all the children of mankind" (1 Kings 8:39) Unitarians change their tune and say (without New Testament justification) that Jesus can share this attribute of God without being God contrary to the express and explicit statement of the Old Testament. Whereas there's no contradiction in saying God can incarnate as a human being. Since that would involve an extrinsic change and not an intrinsic change. The doctrine of the incarnation doesn't teach Christ's divine nature was somehow transubstantiated into human flesh. Rather, that Christ took on human nature without ceasing to be God, and without His divine nature in anyway changing from a divine nature to a human nature. Thus preserving the doctrine of Divine Immutability and Infinity.

God, gods and Jesus in John 10:30-39

 (last updated 2018-02-25)

Update: This blogpost should be read in conjunction with (the more important?) blogpost HERE

30 I and the Father are one."
31    The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"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."34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came---and Scripture cannot be broken---36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.- John 10:33-39 ESV

This passage has always been a point of contention between Trinitarians and Unitarians. Unitarians claiming the passage clearly has Jesus denying he is fully God. While Trinitarians disagreeing among themselves as to whether the Old Testament passage Jesus quotes and alludes to (Ps. 82) refers to human judges (e.g. James White) or to divine beings or lesser "gods" in Yahweh/Jehovah's Divine Council (e.g. Michael S. Heiser).

Regarding Psalm 82, I don't see why it can't be the case that verse 1 refers to lesser "gods" (i.e. highest species in the angelic hierarchy) in Jehovah's Council, while the rest of the psalm refers to human judges. In other words, both Trinitarian groups are right (e.g. both James White and Michael Heiser). The fact that there is a divine council has (IMO) been proven by Michael Heiser in his materials. His books, articles, videos and various websites (e.g. http://www.thedivinecouncil.com, or The Naked Bible podcast #109). At the same time, it seems verses 3 and 4 refer to judgments dealing with very mundane/earthly subjects.

3    Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
        maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4    Rescue the weak and the needy;
        deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

It's difficult to believe that these are the proper duties of the highest of the angelic host. As far as I can tell, everywhere else in the Bible such duties were that of human judges. Though, that's not to deny that angels can assist the needy. That's clearly taught elsewhere in the Bible.

Also, it seems to me that Jesus interprets some or all of Psalm 82 as referring to human judges by His phrase, "to whom the word of God came." Where in the Old Testament did "the word of God" come to the angelic host or (specifically) to the divine council? Does "word of God" refer to a revelation or to the Logos who approaches the divine council? Jesus' next words seems to settle the issue. Jesus says, "and Scripture cannot be broken." So, it appears that Jesus is referring to Scriptural Revelation as opposed to Oral Revelation, or to Himself the personal Logos of John 1:1. However, it doesn't make sense for a written Revelation to be given to angels. That's not to say there are no "books" (or their spiritual equivalents) in the angelic realm. There probably are (cf. Ex. 32:32-33; Ps. 40:7; 56:8; 69:28; 139:16; Rev. 20:12; 3:5; 5:1-9; 10:2ff.; 13:8; 17:8; 21:7). But Jesus seems to be referring to the very Scripture (Psalm 82) He just alluded to and of which He said, "Is it not WRITTEN in YOUR Law." So, it makes most sense that Jesus is referring to the Scriptures given to the Jews.

Therefore, while I do believe in a divine council and that Ps. 82:1 refers to it, I think the rest (or most of) of the chapter deals with corrupt human judges. In light of Michael Heiser's understanding of the divine council, it seems to me Psalm 82 is saying that as the divine council ought to judge or rule justly over the people groups of the world generally (irrespective of whether they did/do so or not), so Israel's human judges ought to have done so over their individual peoples particularly. It takes an understanding of Heiser's views to get the full import of my interpretation. Though, I don't agree with Heiser on every particular (as is the case with Ps. 82, since I partially disagree with his interpretation).

Having said all that, how are we to interpret John 10:33-39? Unitarians interpret Jesus' statements as a denial to a claim of full divinity. That Jesus was essentially saying the following. "My claim to being the Son of God is really no different than how the "gods" of Ps. 82 are called gods. Whether you take it as referring to human judges or (a fortiori) spiritual beings below Almighty God. Unitarians like Greg Stafford interprets it in the latter sense. That Jesus was merely say he's one of the lesser gods under the authority of Almighty God. Such types of Unitarians believe that Jesus is the first, greatest and only direct creation of Almighty God; through whom Almighty God created everything else.

However, is this the only or even the best possible interpretation? I think not. The following quote sums up my interpretation of the passage which I came to independently.

Reading through Daniel Waterland's book A Vindication of Christ's Divinity [page 54] I came across the following passage that confirmed my interpretation.

From hence you [Waterland's theological opponent] endeavor to prove, that Christ is God in the subordinate Sense only; that is, as I have said, not properly or truly God. But I can see no manner of ground for this Inference from the Words before us. Our Blessed Lord had insinuated that He was really and truly God; but had not asserted it in plain and express Terms: Upon this bare innuendo, the Jews charge Him with direct Blasphemy: He to evade their Malice and to keep to the Truth, neither affirms, nor denies that He meant it in the Sense which they apprehended. However, his Discourse being in general Terms, and not explicite enough to found a charge of Blasphemy upon, He appeals to their Law, in order to show, that it is not always Blasphemy, to make one's Self God, or to apply the Title of God, even to mortal Men, and Men inferior to Himself, considered only as Man. This was answer sufficient to Them; who could not from his own Expressions clearly convict Him of meaning more, than that He was God in the improper Sense of the Word, as it had been used, Psal. 82.6. Nevertheless, He leaves the point of his Divinity undecided; or rather, still goes on to insinuate, in Words which they could not directly lay hold on, the very Thing which they charged Him with. This enraged them so much the more: and therefore they again sought to take Him, v. 39. But He escaped out of their Hand. This Interpretation may suffice to take of the force of your Argument. Yet, the Words may admit of other, and perhaps better Interpretations, consistent with the Principles which I here maintain.

Jesus was prevaricating. I think Jesus was hinting at His being YHVH along with the Father, but He didn't given a direct statement to that effect. What He said was true enough, even though it wasn't the full truth. While they did attempt to arrest Him (v. 39), they would have been more aggressive and probably successful [sans Divine intervention] if Jesus had been more explicit about His claims. He said what He said to prevent Himself from being persecuted to death (by stoning) too early in the timetable of God's Redemptive Plan. A reason why John 10:33-39 shouldn't be interpreted in a Unitarian way is because this is the third time in the Gospel of John where it records the details of WHY the Jews wanted to kill Jesus. It makes sense and fits together with each other and the rest of the Gospel of John that in all three instances it was because the Jews interpreted Jesus' statements as a claim to full deity.

The three passages are John 5:17-18; John 8:56-59; and here in John 10:33-39.

1. Some assert that John 5:17-18 cannot be interpreted to mean that Jesus really is equal to God. Since by parity of argument, it would also mean that Jesus was a Sabbath breaker even though the New Testament clearly teaches Jesus never sinned. I've addressed this objection and showed why the objection actually strengthens the case for the full deity of Jesus Christ. 

See the following blogposts for proof.

Jesus' "Breaking" the Sabbath as Evidence of His Equality with the Father

and

Jesus the True and Proper SON of God

2. Regarding John 8:56-59, most Unitarians and Trinitarians/Modalists know the significance of John 8:58. Trinitarians (and others like Modalists/Sabellians who affirm the full deity of Jesus) interpret Jesus statement, "Before Abraham was I am," as a claim to full deity. That Jesus was alluding to Ex. 3:14.

See James White's article for a classic exposition.

Purpose and Meaning of "Ego Eimi"in the Gospel of JohnIn Reference to the Deity of Christ by James White

3. Regarding John 10:30-39, the key verse is verse 30.

Jesus' statement, "I and the Father are one" was interpreted by the Jews to mean Jesus was making himself God.

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 10:33

 This was the same reason in 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 5:18

Regarding John 8:58, it hardly make sense for the Jews to want to stone Jesus (presumably killing him for blasphemy) if Jesus was merely saying "I am [the one, viz. the messiah]" (as many Unitarians interpret "I am"). I'm not going to address the proper translation of John 8:58 since I'm not a Greek scholar. As far as I know, Greg Stafford is the best Unitarian defender of a translation other than the traditional, "before Abraham was, I am." [See all three editions of his book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended] Nevertheless, If Jesus was merely saying he preexisted Abraham, why would the Jews want to throw stones at Jesus for that? How was that blasphemy since he was not claiming to be God? From the context it makes sense to me that Jesus was identifying Himself with the I AM of Exodus 3:14 and therefore claiming full deity (i.e. Jehovah/Yahweh).

 Is it a coincidence that the author of John records these three detailed reasons why the Jews wanted to kill Jesus on account of His claiming to be God? If Jesus weren't claiming to be fully God in these passages why doesn't the author specifically state Jesus isn't God in these passages? Or that the Jews were wrong in their interpretation of Jesus' statements? Or that they were misunderstanding Him? On the contrary, not only does the author not do so, but elsewhere refers to Jesus as "God" in John 1:1 and even "the God" (ho theos) in John 10:28. From these and other evidences, it seems to me that the preponderance of the evidence is that the author's intention was to teach Jesus' full deity/divinity and equality with the Father in the Gospel of John. Also, if it's true that the book of Revelation was written by the same person (as most conservative scholars do), then that conclusion that John's author intended to teach the full deity of Christ is even more solidified on account of various passages in Revelation that also imply Christ is fully God.

For more on this see my blogpost:

Revelation 22:12-13 and the Deity of Christ

For evidence for the full deity/divinity of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John see the following blogposts:

The Holy Spirit Contradicts the Accidence of Personality

The Full Deity of the Holy Spirit

The Witness of the Holy Spirit

 Praying to and Worshipping the Holy Spirit

The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah by John Pye Smith

In the early 1990s Edward Henry Bickersteth's book The Trinity introduced me to the basic Biblical evidences for the doctrine of the Trinity. Soon after reading the book I realized some of its weaknesses. For example, he cites verses as evidence where better manuscripts (of which he may not have been aware of) may not necessarily support the doctrine of the Trinity due to a textual variant. Nevertheless, Bickersteth's book is still a good basic introductory text in defense of the doctrine of the Trinity.There is another book in defense of the Trinity on the internet titled, "The Rock of Ages." I'm not certain whether they are the same book under two different titles (which I suspect and assume for the meantime), or two different books that are very similar. Both books can be downloaded at my main Trinity Resources blog HERE. According to Bickersteth, one of the main resources he referred to repeatedly in writing The Trinity was John Pye Smith's book, "The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah." So, I've hunted down links to copies freely downloadable online.

See also Bickersteth's other recommendations HERE.


Like all older defenses of the doctrine of the Trinity, the following works by Smith have some deficiencies and problems which I point out in my blog:

Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity

 In Three Volumes (3rd edition 1837):

The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah by John Pye Smith VOLUME ONE

The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah by John Pye Smith VOLUME TWO

The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah by John Pye Smith VOLUME THREE

In Two Volumes (5th edition 1859):

The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah by John Pye Smith VOLUME ONE

The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah by John Pye Smith VOLUME TWO

---

MORE LINKS


volume 1 of 3 (3rd edition)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Hec_AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false


volume 1 of 3 (3rd edition)
http://books.google.com/books?id=v1cEAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

volume 1 of 3 (3rd edition)
http://books.google.com/books?id=7tgUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

volume 1 of 3 (3rd edition)
http://books.google.com/books?id=9ORJAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

volume 1 of 3 (2nd edition)
http://books.google.com/books?id=cXwrAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false


volume 2 of 3 (3rd edition)

http://books.google.com/books?id=QOVJAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

volume 2 of 3 (3rd edition)
http://books.google.com/books?id=QOVJAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

volume 2 of 3 (3rd edition)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Kuc_AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false


volume 3 of 3 (3rd edition)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Quc_AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

volume 3 of 3 (3rd edition)

http://books.google.com/books?id=pVMEAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

volume 3 of 3 (3rd edition)

http://books.google.com/books?id=HdUtAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false


volume 3 of 3 (3rd edition)

http://books.google.com/books?id=x-VJAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

volume 3 of 3 (2nd edition)

http://books.google.com/books?id=N3wrAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

---

volume 1 of 2 (5th edition)

http://books.google.com/books?id=-cYUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false


volume 2 of 2 (5th edition)

http://books.google.com/books?id=KccUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

volume 2 of 2 (4th edition)
http://books.google.com/books?id=3c0tAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

volume 2 of 2
http://books.google.com/books?id=gAE3AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Daniel Waterland on Christ's Divinity & the Holy Trinity

Daniel Waterland (14 February 1683 – 23 December 1740) was an English theologian who defended the the full divinity of Christ against the Arians, Semi-Arians and Socinians of his day (e.g. Samuel Clarke). The following are links to some of his works on the subject. For many of the works there are multiple versions (of differing editions, dates, and scan quality) in Google Books.

The Moyer Lectures were (annual?) lectures dedicated to defending the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Daniel Waterland was the first lecturer in 1719. See his lectures are the "Eight Sermons" linked below.

Though Waterland is one of my favorite defenders of the Trinity, like all older defenses of the doctrine of the Trinity, the following works by Dr. Waterland have some deficiencies and problems which I point out in my blog:

Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity

Vindication of Christ's Divinity by Dr. Waterland
http://books.google.com/books?id=G1UAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

A Second Vindication of Christ's Divinity
http://books.google.com/books?id=OkEVAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

A Farther Vindication of Christ's Divinity
http://books.google.com/books?id=UkIVAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Eight sermons preach'd at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, in defense of the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ
https://archive.org/details/eightsermonsprea00wate
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Eight_Sermons_Preach_d_at_the_Cathedral/bZxhAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0


The importance of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity asserted, inreply to some late pamphlets
https://archive.org/details/hasidicprayer00jacouoft


An Answer to Dr. Whitby's Reply : being a vindication of the charge of fallacies, misquotations, misconstructions, misrepresentations, etc., respecting his book intituled Disquisitiones modestae, in a letter to Dr. Whitby (1720)
https://archive.org/details/answertodrwhitby00wate

A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed by Daniel Waterland
https://archive.org/details/acriticalhistory00wateuoft    VERSION 1
https://archive.org/details/criticalhistoryo01wate VERSION 2
https://archive.org/details/criticalhistoryo00wate VERSION 3

 

The two following works are contained in the Works of Waterland linked below.

 -The case of Arian Subscription Considered

-A Supplement To The Case Of Arian Subscription Considered: In Answer To A Late Pamphlet: Entitled, The Case Of Subscription To The XXXIX Articles Considered

 

The works of the Rev. Daniel Waterland, D.D. : to which is prefixed a review of the author's life and writings VERSION 1
https://archive.org/details/worksrevdanielw00unkngoog


The works of the Rev. Daniel Waterland, D.D. : to which is prefixed a review of the author's life and writings VERSION 2
https://archive.org/details/worksrevdanielw03mildgoog

The Wings of Christ Are God's Wings

(originally posted 11/30/14)

In this blogpost three New Testament passages are compared with each other and with other Old Testament passages to conclude that Christ is fully God.

46 And he said, "Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.47 Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed.48 So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs.49 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,'50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation,51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering."- Luke 11:46-52

 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!35 Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'"- Luke 13:34-35

29    "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous,30 saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town,35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Lament over Jerusalem
37    "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!38 See, your house is left to you desolate.39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"- Matt. 23:29-39

In these passages we have Christ being described as having the prerogatives and performing the activities of the one true God (Yahweh or Jehovah).

1. Notice that in Luke 11:49 it says "the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send...prophets" whereas in Matt. 23:34 Jesus says He HIMSELF sends prophets. This is something the Old Testament says God did and does (as the verses below will demonstrate). Christ didn't reserve the sending of prophets to God the Father. Jesus seems to be identifying Himself with the Wisdom personified in the Old Testament wisdom literature along with intertestamental apocryphal literature and the Aramaic targumim paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures. The targumim also seem to personify the Old Testament "Word of YHWH" by attributing to it (or him) characteristics of personhood like mind, will and actions. Additionally, in this passage of Luke 11:49, Jesus also seems to be implying His own personal (conscious) preexistence prior to His incarnation. Admittedly, this passage doesn't explicitly teach personal preexistence. Nevertheless, I think the passage is best made sense of with the assumption of preexistence.

2. Notice how Christ speaks like Jehovah in the Old Testament when He uses the imagery of a hen gathering her brood under her wings. Christ didn't reserve this imagery to the Father alone but includes Himself in it. There are also many passages in the Old Testament where God calls Israel to repentance that parallels Christ's statements above, but they are so numerous that I decided not to include them below. Anyone familiar with the Tanakh will instantly recall them on their own.


Now compare those three New Testament passages with the following Old Testament passages.

Regarding the imagery of a bird and its use of its wings.

11    Like an eagle that stirs up its nest,
        that flutters over its young,
    spreading out its wings, catching them,
        bearing them on its pinions,
12    the LORD alone guided him,
        no foreign god was with him.- Deut. 32:11-12

 The LORD repay you for what you have done, and a full reward be given you by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge!"- Ruth 2:12

7    Wondrously show your steadfast love,
        O Savior of those who seek refuge
        from their adversaries at your right hand.
8    Keep me as the apple of your eye;
        hide me in the shadow of your wings,
9    from the wicked who do me violence,
        my deadly enemies who surround me.- Ps. 17:7-9

7    How precious is your steadfast love, O God!
        The children of mankind take refuge in the shadow of your wings.- Ps. 36:7

Be merciful to me, O God, be merciful to me,
        for in you my soul takes refuge;
    in the shadow of your wings I will take refuge,
        till the storms of destruction pass by.- Ps. 57:1

Let me dwell in your tent forever!
        Let me take refuge under the shelter of your wings! Selah- Ps. 61:4


    for you have been my help,
        and in the shadow of your wings I will sing for joy.- Ps. 63:7

He will cover you with his pinions,
        and under his wings you will find refuge;
        his faithfulness is a shield and buckler.- Ps. 91:4

Regarding the sending and/or rejection/killing of God's prophets.

 "Nevertheless, they were disobedient and rebelled against you and cast your law behind their back and killed your prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to you, and they committed great blasphemies.- Neh. 9:26

In vain have I struck your children;
        they took no correction;
    your own sword devoured your prophets
        like a ravening lion.- Jer. 2:30

15    The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place.16 But they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD rose against his people, until there was no remedy.- 2 Chron. 36:15-16

3 "For twenty-three years, from the thirteenth year of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, to this day, the word of the LORD has come to me, and I have spoken persistently to you, but you have not listened.4 You have neither listened nor inclined your ears to hear, although the LORD persistently sent to you all his servants the prophets,- Jer. 25:3-4

 I have sent to you all my servants the prophets, sending them persistently, saying, 'Turn now every one of you from his evil way, and amend your deeds, and do not go after other gods to serve them, and then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to you and your fathers.' But you did not incline your ear or listen to me.- Jer. 35:15



Yet I persistently sent to you all my servants the prophets, saying, 'Oh, do not do this abomination that I hate!'- Jer. 44:4

Do not be like your fathers, to whom the former prophets cried out, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, Return from your evil ways and from your evil deeds.' But they did not hear or pay attention to me, declares the LORD.- Zech. 1:4

What mere human prophet, or even an exalted angel, could declare, imply and teach the things Christ says in these passages without committing blasphemy? Yet Christ does so without committing blasphemy. This is another example of how the Lord Jesus Christ hinted at His full divinity without explicitly saying so in so many words.

Doxologies to Christ

posted 10/14/14

The following are seven apparent New Testament doxologies to Jesus Christ according to Robert Morey in his book The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (pages 384-389). I've rearranged their order for my own purposes. Morey said he listed six doxologies, but I counted seven in his list. I'm not sure why that is. Nevertheless, the fact is that if doxologies to Jesus are recorded in the New Testament, then that would demonstrate that (at least some of) the New Testament writers believed in the full deity of Christ. I refer you to Morey's book for a fuller defense of why these doxologies (some more certain than others) are to Christ.

In  this blogpost I'll rate each of them myself and decide one way or the other whether I think it is or isn't a doxology to Christ. Since I'm a Trinitarian, and for the sake of being as objective as possible, if the evidence doesn't seem to favor a doxology to both the Father and the Son I will be rating the doxology on the side of the Father if I think the evidence is equally balanced . I do this to make the case for Trinitarianism harder because I want to demonstrate to non-Trinitarians that I'm trying to be as objective as possible in my arguments for Trinitarianism. And because I want to show them that I can see things from their non-Trinitarian's perspective. Since I too was once a non-Trinitarian 20 years ago. That way, if I present an argument that I think favors Trinitarianism, it may make the non-Trinitarians who read this blog consider that much more carefully and seriously whether Trinitarianism may possibly true. Paradigm shifts often require a lot of weighty evidence for them to occur. Oftentimes the case for a true position is watered down and weakened by including bad or weak subarguments or evidences. So, often it's best to trim off weak bad subarguments/evidences when presenting a cumulative case for a position. Or at least saving them for last.

Not being a Greek scholar, I can only interpret the passages in English. For all I know, the evidence from the grammar of the Greek strongly favors a doxology to Christ even though to me (personally) it favors the Father as I read it in English (or vice versa). I'll be quoting the ESV.

For the sake of reference, I've numbered the doxologies according how they are listed in Morey's book. I've also quoted more of the surrounding verses in order to get a better view of the context.

---

#5

But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.- 2 Pet. 3:18

This is such a clear doxology to Jesus Christ that Robert Morey states he couldn't find a single commentary that said otherwise. I completely agree. In fact, I think this is the clearest doxology to Christ in the entire New Testament. If we are to assume that the book of 2nd Peter is both inspired of God and belongs in the New Testament canon, then this strongly suggests the full deity of Christ.

My personal verdict: This is a doxology to Jesus Christ

---

#2

The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.- 2 Tim. 4:18

The context strongly suggests that the "Lord" here is Jesus because of the previous verse.

But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion's mouth.- 2 Tim. 4:17

Morey states that every commentary his people could find interpreted it to refer to Jesus. I have to agree. It makes most sense that it was the Lord Jesus who "stood by [Paul] and strengthened [him].

My personal verdict: This is a doxology to Jesus Christ

---

#3

 20    Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,21 equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.- Heb. 13:20-21

Morey states that the vast majority of commentators are certain this refers to Christ. That the context and grammar demonstrates that the words "to whom" refers to the immediate antecedent "Jesus Christ." Only a few interpret the doxology to refer to the Father. With only two interpreting it to refer to both the Father and Jesus.

For myself, I'm slightly on the side of this being a doxology to the Father rather than to Christ.

My personal verdict: This is a doxology to the Father

---

#4

10 As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace:11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies---in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.- 1 Pet. 4:10-11

Regarding this doxology, Morey states that commentators are divided. I refer you to Morey's book. Citing J. Hart in the Expositor's Greek Testament he brings up a grammatical issue which he thinks tips the scales in favor of it being a doxology to Christ. But to whet your appetite, I'll quote Morey's quotation of Greek scholar A.T. Robertson. Robertson states:

"To whom (dative) is," that is to Jesus Christ the immediate antecedent.

I'm on the fence on this one. Because of that, I'm choosing conservatively. So, I'll count this on the side of it being a doxology to the Father.

My personal verdict: This is a doxology to the Father

---

#6

4    John to the seven churches that are in Asia:
    Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne,5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.
    To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.- Rev. 1:4-6

This does seem more plausibly to be a doxology to Christ because all the pronouns seem to refer back to Christ.

My personal verdict: This is a doxology to Jesus Christ

---

#1

4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.- Rom. 9:4-5

I think in all likelihood this verse does present a doxology to Christ because of the reasons I gave on a different blogpost which I've linked to below:

 Romans 9:5 and Christ's Full Deity

I also recommend Murray J. Harris' book on this verse to see some of the better pros and cons regarding this verse.

My personal verdict: This is a doxology to Jesus Christ

---

#7

11    Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,12 saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!"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.-Rev. 5:11-14

There are no chapter divisions in the original Greek. But even in this chapter alone I think there are more than the two doxologies in this immediate passage. But I'll be treating the ones in verses 13-14 as if they are one. The statement in verse 12 does seem to be a doxology to Christ. The statement in verse 13 seems to be a doxology to both the Father and Christ.

The apparent fact that the doxology in verse 13 is both to the Father and the Son seems to me to clearly imply the full deity of both. If I were still a Unitarian, I would find this passage very disturbing. I would naturally have wanted the accolades to the Father and Son to always be distinct and separate. And preferably using different words. Yet, that's not the case. I have to therefore make the same conclusions that James White did in his debate with Greg Stafford. Stafford gives reasons why it's not clear that Jesus Christ is being worshipped in the highest sense along with the Father. While Stafford's facts are true, namely that the passage doesn't specifically state that the worship is directed to at either the Father alone, the Son alone or the Father and Son jointly; I think it's clear that if Jesus Christ isn't fully divine, then this text is really deceptive and gives the wrong impression to its readers.

Also, as Rob Bowman said in his debate with Greg Stafford, Stafford's view has been defined in such a way that it's nearly unfalsifiable. And as James White states in the debate with Stafford, the accolades given to Christ in the book of Revelation, if interpreted in a Unitarian way, would make it impossible to determine how to and what kind of worship is due to God alone. And so would also undermine the clarity of and call into question the inspiration of Holy Scripture.

Is Jesus "God" or "a god"?

Debate between Greg Stafford and James White

LINK

The Debate between Greg Stafford and Robert Bowman can be ordered at the Institute for Religious Research website.

My personal verdict: This is a doxology to both the Father and Jesus Christ the Son

---

Of the 7 doxologies to Christ offered by Robert Morey, I've made the following verdict.

4 of the 7 doxologies are to Christ.

2 of the 7 doxologies are to the Father.

1 of the 7 doxologies are to both the Father and the Son.

Which means that I personally find at least 5 doxologies to Christ (if not also the Father) in the New Testament. That, to me, suggests that Christ really and truly is fully God.

The Names of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit by Elmer L. Towns

The following two books by Elmer L. Towns weren't written to prove the Divinity of Christ or of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, these books provide additional supplementary evidence by collecting the names, titles and descriptions of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Some of which imply their full deity. In these books Towns includes some names which I personally think should be reserved for God the Father alone. Also, some of the names gleaned from the text of the Bible are kind of a stretch. While others do seem to be Old Testament r'mazim hinting at Christ or the Holy Spirit respectively. Having given those caveats, I recommend them as resources that can lead to further supporting evidence for the full deity of both Christ and the Holy Spirit.


The Names of Jesus by Elmer L. Towns [ over 700 names]
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/The_Names_Of_Jesus%5BETowns%5D.pdf

The Names of the Holy Spirit by Elmer L. Towns
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/The_Names_Of_Jesus%5BETowns%5D.pdf