Trinity Notes

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah

[[Update: Given the Great Point William Lane Craig makes in this Video HERE, I think this blogpost would probably be better titled "Predicating Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah". In the video Craig makes clear the distinction between "identifying" and "predicating". I HIGHLY recommend watching the video]].

Here are some classic New Testament passages that either imply or seem to directly identify Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah/Yehovah by their seeming allusion to or parallels to Old Testament passages. There are more, but this is just a sample. If Jesus is identified with Jehovah, then Jesus really is fully God, viz. Almighty God. Ps. 83:18 states, "That they may know that thou alone, whose name is JEHOVAH, Art the Most High over all the earth." (ASV). From this verse it's clear that Jehovah is the Most High God, or Almighty God. There's no possibility that any person can be or have the name Jehovah and not be the Most High God. Now, some would like to say that Jesus "is" Jehovah in a representival or agentival sense. That is, Jesus represents Jehovah. However, if one really examines the passages below, it's clear that the New Testament goes way beyond Jesus merely representing Jehovah. Also, in none of the passages does it explicitly state that Jesus is "Jehovah" in a representival sense. That's eisegetically read into the texts by Unitarians. A plain reading of the following passages naturally leads to the interpretation that the New Testament writers believed Jesus was/is Jehovah. It also must be understood that to identify Jesus with Jehovah is NOT necessarily to identify Jesus with the Father (as in Sabellian modalism). Trinitarianism identifies Jesus with Jehovah without denying that the Father is also Jehovah and yet that the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father. In Trinitarianism each person of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) eternally shares the full being (or substance/essence) of God.

I haven't verified it myself, but I've heard that there are 45 times Paul quotes/cites OT passages referring to YHWH, and 33 times he uses it in conjunction with Jesus. While only 12 times for the Father. If true, then that's approximately 75%. Three (3) times more often than for the Father.

Unitarians often point out the fact that Jesus is very infrequently called "God" in the New Testament and that therefore it's evidence against Jesus being fully Divine as the Father is. But that argument is weakened or even demolished by the apparent fact that Jesus is predicated to be Yahweh/Jehovah in the New Testament numerous times. The infrequent use of "God" in reference to Jesus might merely be the New Testament Christians' usual way of distinguishing between the Father and Son within the Godhead. And therefore the "infrequency" tells us nothing of Jesus' status. What seems to be more telling is the repeated New Testament predication of Jesus with Yahweh (both directly and indirectly). Besides, Jesus is called "ho theos" (the God) in John 20:28 and in Matt. 1:23. The later verse (i.e. Matt. 1:23) being the first part of the inclusio of the Gospel [i.e. literary bookends]. So that the "God WITH us" in Matt. 1:23 (at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew) is the same God who says "I am WITH you always, to the end of the age" in Matt. 28:20 (at the ending of the Gospel of Matthew). With all the divine implications of the Great Commission. For example, Jesus commanding His church to [virtually or literally] conquer the world with the Gospel going outward from the Holy Land, just as Yahweh told Joshua and the Israelites to conquer the Holy Land going inward 40 years after the Exodus. In both instances the one giving the command promised to be "WITH" the army of God and not leave them. In both instances there's the command to follow previous instructions [Joshua 1:8; Matt. 28:20a]. More parallels could be mentioned, but that'll suffice.

[Note: In most instances the default translation is the ESV. I've sometimes used the ASV for the Old Testament because it translates the tetragrammaton as "Jehovah" and so makes the connection to Almighty God much clearer than a translation that uses LORD in all caps.]

See also my other blogposts (including):
Romans 9:5 and Christ's Full Deity

Markan Christology

Now for the evidences......

John 12:41 COMPARE WITH Isa. 6:1
Here the author of John seems to be implying that Jesus is the "Lord" described in Isaiah chapter 6. This "Lord" is clearly "YHWH" because of verses 3, 5 and the entire context. Moreover, verse 1 is one of the 134 places the Sopherim altered "YHWH" to "Adonai."

Rev. 2:23 COMPARE WITH Jer. 17:10; Ps. 62:12; 1 Kings 8:39
In Rev. 2:23 Jesus is described as doing what ONLY YHWH is said to do in Jer. 17:10. To, search the heart and test the mind, and to give every to man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds. Notice, Jesus doesn't say, "I [merely] represent the one who searches and judges hearts." Rather, Jesus says, "I am he" who does it. Jesus is referring to his own person.

"I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds."- Jer. 17:10

and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he [i.e. Jesus] who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.- Rev. 2:23

then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind),- 1 Kings 8:39

Rev. 3:19 COMPARE WITH Prov. 3:12

As many as I love, I reprove and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.- Rev. 3:19 ASV [Jesus speaking]

For whom JEHOVAH loveth he reproveth; Even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.- Prov. 3:12 ASV

In Rev. 3:19 Jesus states,

"As many as I love, I reprove and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent."- Rev. 3:19 ASV

This is clearly reminiscent of what Jehovah/Yahweh states in the Old Testament He does to His believers. Jesus' statement therefore is suggestive of a claim to being Jehovah.

And thou shalt consider in thy heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so JEHOVAH thy God chasteneth thee.- Deut. 8:5 ASV

For whom JEHOVAH loveth he reproveth; Even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.- Prov. 3:12 ASV

Hebrews 12:6 quotes Prov. 3:12 and may be referring to Jesus as "the Lord." If so, then it is another example of an Old Testament passage that originally referred to Jehovah that is applied to Jesus in the New Testament.

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.- Heb. 12:6 ASV

Also, 1 Cor. 11:32 clearly alludes to Prov. 3:12. In all likelihood it is referring to Jesus when it uses the phrase "the Lord." If so, then this is another example of Jesus possessing the prerogatives of Jehovah.

But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.- 1 Cor. 11:32 ASV

Rev. 7:17 COMPARE WITH Ps. 23:1-2

For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."- Rev. 7:17

1 JEHOVAH is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside still waters.- Ps. 23:1-2

Rom. 10:13 COMPARE WITH Joel 2:32;

For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."- Rom. 10:13

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of JEHOVAH shall be delivered;- Joel 2:32a ASV

Here Paul clearly alludes to and quotes to Joel 2:32. In the original context it is referring to YHWH. Yet Paul directly applies it to Jesus. The passages also seems to teach that one may "call upon" Jesus in a way reserved only for God. Compare that with 1 Cor. 1:2 where people are encouraged to "call upon the name of the Lord Jesus." Also, with passages in the book of Acts where Jesus is called upon. Similarly, Paul seems to pray to Jesus in 2 Corinthians chapter 12. Admittedly, not all kinds of invocation are acts of worship. However, the frequency and uninhibited way in which Jesus is invoked and petitioned in the New Testament is best consistent with Jesus' full deity. See also the following passages: Acts 9:14, 21; 22:16 etc., compare with 1 Cor. 1:2

Phil. 2:10-11 COMPARE WITH Isa. 45:23;

10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.- Phil. 2:10-11

By myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.- Isa. 45:23 ASV

Here Paul again clearly alludes to and quotes Isa. 45:23. In the original context it is referring to YHWH. Isaiah chapters 40 to 48 is commonly understood to be the "trial of the false gods." Yet Paul directly applies Isa. 45:23 to Jesus when the whole point of that verse and surrounding chapters is to affirm, highlight and emphasize the unique and sole Godhood of Jehovah. Thus strongly suggesting that Jesus is fully God, Almighty God. Moreover, in this verse Paul seems to be saying that one can "bow down" to and worship Jesus as one would Almighty God in the Old Testament. Something which would seem to clearly violate monotheism if Jesus isn't true and full deity like the Father is true and full deity. We know this because the religious use of the phrase "bowing the knee" was a reference to an act of worship reserved for what one believed (rightly or wrongly) to be the true God. Baal worshippers "bowed the knee" to Baal as the one true God (Rom. 11:4; 1 Kings 19:18). Paul also says that Jesus has been given the name that is above every name. Even Unitarian Greg Stafford is willing to grant that that name may possibly be Jehovah. However, Stafford argues that since Jesus is given the name, it's not His intrinsically. He didn't have it previously, according to Stafford. Therefore, Jesus couldn't be Jehovah ontologically, but only representationally (or agentivally).

However, Stafford assumes a priori that Jesus never had it previously. Yet, Scripture does ascribe to Jesus things which were true and known to be true prior to their declaration.
For example, Acts 2:36 has Peter saying, "...God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" even though it was true that Jesus was Lord and Christ before Jesus' resurrection. Similarly, Paul wrote in Rom. 1:4 that Jesus "was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" even though Jesus was declared the Son of God prior to His resurrection (Mark 1:11). So, is there evidence that Jesus had the name of Jehovah prior to it being given to Him after His resurrection? There is. In Exodus 23:20-21 Jehovah tells the Israelites to heed the angel who will guard them on their way to the Promised Land because His (i.e. Jehovah's) name is in him (i.e. the angel). Who better than the preexistent and pre-incarnate Jesus to be that angel/Angel/messenger in whom the name of Jehovah resides? Hence, Phil. 2:10-11 is consistent with and is even best interpreted to imply that Jesus is Jehovah ontologically and worthy of the kind of worship Jehovah alone is due.

It should also be recognized and remembered that the Divine Name (YHWH) in the Old Testament (the tetragrammaton) is translated "kurios" (Lord) in the Septuagint. That translation is continued in the New Testament when it quotes the Septuagint and when it refer to Almighty God apart from an Old Testament quotation. The Greek word "kurios" merely means "lord" and can refer to various types of lords whether human, angelic or even of Almighty God. Context determines whether the Greek word "kurios" in the New Testament is to be understood to be a reference or translation of the Divine Name. It seems to me that there are many places in the New Testament where kurios should be understood to refer to the tetragrammaton. One of those places, indeed possibly the preeminent place, is Phil. 2:11 where Paul directly quotes an Old Testment passage that originally referred to Almighty God. The connection is so clear that many Hebrew translations of the New Testament make the connection clear by indicating the Divine Name should be inserted. Yet, interestingly, those same Hebrew translations upon which the New World Translation inserts the name Jehovah into their New Testament translation refused to insert "Jehovah" in Phil. 2:11. In my opinion, this is a clear case of bias in their translation. They don't consistently insert "Jehovah" into the text on theological grounds because it would clearly imply Jesus is Jehovah.

Acts 1:8 COMPARE WITH Isa. 43:10,12; 44:8;

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."- Acts 1:8

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith JEHOVAH, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am JEHOVAH; and besides me there is no saviour.12 I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith JEHOVAH, and I am God.- Isa. 43:10-12 ASV

Here the author of Acts seems to allude to passages in Isaiah and says Jesus is now the one to whom Christians are to provide a witness. Implying that either Jesus is YHWH or at the very least connecting Jesus with YHWH so closely that He's virtually God as God's representative. Even the book of Mark (Mark 13:9), which many scholars believe to be the first written Gospel, affirms Christians are to bear witness to Jesus.

"But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them.- Mark 13:9

Mark 1:2,3 [also Matt. 3:3; Luke 3:4; Matt. 11:10] COMPARE WITH Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1;

2    As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
    "Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
        who will prepare your way,
3    the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
        'Prepare the way of the Lord,
        make his paths straight,'"- Mark 1:2-3

The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of JEHOVAH; make level in the desert a highway for our God.- Isa. 40:3 ASV

Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye desire, behold, he cometh, saith JEHOVAH of hosts.- Mal. 3:1 ASV

Here the author of Mark cites two Old Testament passage that applied originally to the one true God (Yahweh/Jehovah) and surprisingly applies it to Jesus. Isaiah 40:3 actually uses the tetragrammaton (YHWH). In Mal. 3:1 the Hebrew phrase "ha adon" is used, meaning "the Lord" or "the [TRUE] Lord." It's the singular word for Lord with the definite article "the". In the Old Testament that phrase is used only in reference to the true God [i.e. Almighty God] as even an appendix acknowledges in older versions of the New World Translation of the Bible. That's a translation by an organization, the Jehovah's Witnesses, that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. So, it was in their interests to remove that appendix in later editions of their translation. Since it's not too difficult to connect Mal. 3:1 and Mark 1:3. By connecting the two passages the logical inference is that Jesus is Jehovah (i.e. Yahweh). The other six places in the Tanach in which "ha adon" is used are Ex. 23:17; Ex. 34:23; Isa 1:24; Isa. 3:1; Isa. 10:16; Isa. 10 33. All of them refer only to Almighty God.

John 8:58 COMPARE WITH Exo. 3:14; Isa. 43:10;

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."- John 8:58

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.- Exod. 3:14 ASV

Ye are my witnesses, saith JEHOVAH, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.- Isa. 43:10 ASV

Here it has been argued by Greek scholars that the author of John is applying the divine name in Exodus 3:14 to Jesus. There are various Unitarians that try to argue against that interpretation and translations of John 8:58 that make that connection clear, but their arguments aren't convincing in my opinion. See also the following passages using "I am" that might also hint at Jesus' claim to full deity: John 8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5-6. Some Unitarians point out that the blind man in John chapter 9 referred to himself as "I am" (ego eimi) and that therefore Jesus' multiple use of the phrase "I am" that Gospel has no special significance. But I think an honest reading of the Gospel of John would, at the very least, suggest some significance, even if not the high significance claimed by connecting John 8:58 with Exo. 3:14. Though, I personally think the connection is clear.

1 Cor. 2:8; Jam. 2:1 COMPARE WITH Ps. 24:10;

None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.- 1 Cor. 2:8

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.- James 2:1

Who is this King of glory? JEHOVAH of hosts, He is the King of glory. [[Selah- Ps. 24:10 ASV

In these New Testament passages Jesus is referred to as "the Lord of glory" or "glorious Lord" in a way that's reminiscent of "the King of glory" in Ps. 24:10. Ps. 24:10 asks, "Who is this King of glory? The LORD [YHWH] of hosts, he is the King of glory!"

Rev. 19:16; 17:14 COMPARE WITH 1 Tim. 6:16; Deut. 10:17; Ps. 136:2-3; Dan. 2:47; Dan. 11:36

While it is true that human rulers were often called "King of kings" in the Old Testament (Ezra. 7:12; Ezek. 26:7; Dan. 2:37), it was understood that Jehovah God was the true and absolute "God of gods and Lord of lords" (Deut. 10:17); "God of gods and Lord of kings" (Dan. 2:47); "God of gods" (Dan. 11:36); "God of gods" (Ps. 136:2); "Lord of lords" (Ps. 136:3).

In Rev. 17:14 the Lamb (Jesus) is referred to as, "Lord of lords and King of kings."

In Rev. 19:16 the Word of God (Jesus) is referred to as, "King of kings and Lord of lords."

The fact that there are many other passages in the book of Revelation that suggest Jesus' full deity should lead interpreters to consider these verses as also suggesting Christ's full deity.

Heb. 1:10-12 COMPARE WITH Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 51:6;

10    And,
    "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
        and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11    they will perish, but you remain;
        they will all wear out like a garment,
12    like a robe you will roll them up,
        like a garment they will be changed.
    But you are the same,
        and your years will have no end." - Heb. 1:10-12

25 Of old didst thou lay the foundation of the earth; And the heavens are the work of thy hands.26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; As a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:27 But thou art the same, And thy years shall have no end.- Ps. 102:25-27 ASV

Heb. 1:10-12 is quoting Ps. 102:25ff.. It would seem to imply that Jesus is both eternal and immutable. Eternality and Immutability is normally considered attributes that can only belong to Almighty God. Again, in the original context of the Psalm Jehovah is the one being spoken of. So, this is another passage in which an Old Testament passage about Jehovah is directly applied to Jesus. One can't help concluding that Jesus is Jehovah (even if Jesus isn't the Father). It must also be remembered that the passage is a prayer to Jehovah and not merely a description of Jehovah's attributes (see Psalm 102:24 which indicates it's a prayer). Hence, the author of Hebrews is sanctioning prayer to Jesus who possesses the attributes that alone belong to Almighty God (evidently because he believes Jesus is Almighty God).

1 Thess. 3:13 COMPARE WITH Zech 14:5;

so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.- 1 Thess. 3:13

And ye shall flee by the valley of my mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azel; yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah; and JEHOVAH my God shall come, and all the holy ones with thee.- Zech. 14:5 ASV

Paul describes Jesus' future coming with all his saints in a way reminiscent of how Zechariah says, "...Then the LORD [YHWH] my God will come, and all the holy ones with him."There seems to be clear parallel here. Again, implying Jesus is Jehovah.

Speaking of Zechariah chapter 14, the previous verses 3-4 might be alluded to in Acts 1:9-11 which recount Christ's Ascension. As Jehovah's feet are described as standing on the Mount of Olives, so Jesus is said to one day return in the same way He ascended to heaven.

3 Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle.4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward.5 And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.- Zech. 14:3-5

compare with:

9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them.11 They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.- Acts 1:9-12

Apparently, Luke connects Jesus ascending from the Mount of Olives with Jehovah's descending on the Mount of Olives. Hence, connecting Jesus with (or as) Jehovah.

1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Thess. 5:2 COMPARE WITH Amos 5:18

you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.- 1 Cor. 5:5

For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.- 1 Thess. 5:2

Woe unto you that desire the day of JEHOVAH! Wherefore would ye have the day of JEHOVAH? It is darkness, and not light.- Amos 5:18 ASV

Compare how these two passages refer to "the day of the Lord [Jesus]" in a way reminiscent of the many times in the Old Testament where there is a reference to the "Day of YHWH." Thus implying the Lord Jesus is Adonai or Jehovah of the Old Testament.

Acts 11:16; Luke 22:61 COMPARE WITH Isa. 2:3

By one count, the Old Testament uses the phrase "the word of Jehovah" 241 times. It's translated into the Septuagint as "the word of the Lord" (here translated into English). Yet, Luke wasn't afraid to use the term to refer to the sayings of Jesus. Therefore suggesting that Luke believed Jesus was Jehovah.

And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'- Acts 11:16

The Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, "Before a rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times."- Luke 22:61 NASB (see also NET, NKJV et al.)

And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of JEHOVAH, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of JEHOVAH from Jerusalem.- Isa. 2:3 ASV

Moreover, during the intertestamental period the Jews developed various theologies to explain how the Old Testament often associates the phrase "the word of the LORD" to a being who approaches people (sometimes appearing visibly) and actually speaks. For a fuller explanation see Michael Heiser's videos regarding the Jewish Trinity in the Old Testament.

Eph. 4:8 COMPARE WITH Ps. 68:18;

Therefore it says,
"When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men."- Eph. 4:8

Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led away captives; Thou hast received gifts among men, Yea, among the rebellious also, that JEHOVAH God might dwell with them.- Ps. 68:18 ASV

Here the author of Ephesians cites Ps. 68:18 and applies it to Jesus. In the former passage the subject is giving gifts. In the latter passage the subject is receiving gifts. This has been cited by some as an example of the New Testament misquoting and misapplying an Old Testament passage. However, Christian scholars have given various solutions to the apparent "problem." One of many ways is by appealing to the Jewish hermeneutical method of PaRDeS. Setting aside this difficulty for another discussion, the fact remains that this is another instance in which and Old Testament passage referring to Jehovah is applied to Jesus.

Heb. 13:8 COMPARE WITH Mal. 3:6;

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.- Heb. 13:8

For I, JEHOVAH, change not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.- Mal. 3:6 ASV

Here the author of Hebrews seems to attribute the divine attribute of immutability (i.e. changelessness) to Jesus similar to how Malachi did in reference to Almighty God.

Heb. 1:6 COMPARE WITH Ps. 97:7 (LXX), Deut. 32:43;

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him."- Heb. 1:6

Let all them be put to shame that serve graven images, That boast themselves of idols: Worship him, all ye gods.- Ps. 97:7 ASV

"Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries. He repays those who hate him and cleanses his people's land."- Deut. 32:43 ESV

Even Unitarians know and are hard pressed to explain how Heb. 1:6 quotes the Septuagint of Ps. 97:7 and alludes to Deut. 32:43 and applies it to Jesus. Since, the original context is that of giving worship to Almighty God. This application would suggest the absolute deity of Jesus.

1 Pet. 3:14-15 COMPARE WITH Isa. 8:12-14;

14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,- 1 Pet. 3:14-15

12 Say ye not, A conspiracy, concerning all whereof this people shall say, A conspiracy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be in dread thereof.13 JEHOVAH of hosts, him shall ye sanctify; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.- Isa. 8:12-14 ASV

Again, the author of 1 Peter seems to apply an Old Testament passage to Christ. Instead of fearing and being troubled by those who might persecute Christians on account of their righteousness (1 Pet. 3:14), Christians ought to fear and sanctify Christ (verse 15). Fearing YHWH in the Old Testament is either replaced or fulfilled or now shared with honoring the Lord Jesus since Peter is quoting Isa. 8:12-14. Notice what Isa. 8:13 specifically states, "But the LORD [i.e. Jehovah/Yahweh] of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread."This parallels exactly what Peter states in 1 Pet. 3:15, "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy..."

Interestingly, Isa. 8:14 also refers to a "a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling" and that passage is applied by the same author of 1 Peter to Jesus in the previous chapter (1 Pet. 2:8).

and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.- 1 Pet. 2:8

To repeat, we are commanded to sanctify (i.e. regard and treat as holy) Christ in the same way as (and in fulfillment of) Isa. 8:13. It therefore, makes most sense to conclude that Jesus is Jehovah or possesses the nature of Jehovah. For More See: The Reverence for Jesus is the Fear of Jehovah

1 Pet. 2:7-8 COMPARE WITH Isa. 8:14
See, the previous comments right above this one. ↑↑↑

1 Pet. 2:3 COMPARE WITH Ps. 34:8
This seems to be a direct allusion and application of an Old Testament verse about Jehovah to Jesus.

if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.- 1 Pet. 2:3

Oh taste and see that JEHOVAH is good: Blessed is the man that taketh refuge in him.- Ps. 34:8 ASV

Num. 16:5 COMPARE WITH 2 Tim. 2:19
2 Tim. 2:19 seems to allude to or echo Num. 16:5

and he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, In the morning JEHOVAH will show who are his, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he shall choose will he cause to come near unto him.- Num. 16:5 ASV

But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."- 2 Tim. 2:19

2 Cor. 5:11; Eph. 5:21; Col. 3:22ff. COMPARE WITH Prov. 1:7; Ps. 34:11 and many other Old Testament passages
In 2 Cor. 5:11 the phrase "the fear of the Lord" is evidently used to refer to Jesus. Yet, that same phrase is repeatedly used of Jehovah in the Old Testament many, many times.

Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of JEHOVAH.- Ps. 34:11 ASV

The fear of JEHOVAH is the beginning of knowledge; But the foolish despise wisdom and instruction.- Prov. 1:7 ASV

Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.- 2 Cor. 5:11 [verse 10 makes it clear that the "Lord" here is Christ]

and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.- Eph. 5:21 NASB

Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.- Col. 3:22

1 Pet. 3:14-15 and its allusion to Isa. 8:12-14 was already addressed above. Other possible relevant passages include Acts 9:31; 19:17. For More See: The Reverence for Jesus is the Fear of Jehovah

2 Cor. 5:10 COMPARE WITH Rom. 14:10-12; Isa. 45:23-24
In Romans 14:10-12 Paul refers to the "judgment seat of God" and quotes Isa. 45:23 which originally applied to Jehovah. Yet Paul also uses a similar phrase the "judgment seat of Christ" in a similar way in 2 Cor. 5:10. Moreover, as noted previously, in the book of Philippians Paul had no problem applying Isa. 45:23 to Christ (Phil. 2:10-11). These data clearly imply that in Paul's mind Christ is fully God since Paul had no problem using similar phrases, actions (i.e. judgment) and verses to Christ which he elsewhere uses to refer to God the Father. Also, as noted previously, the very next verse (i.e. 2 Cor. 5:11) talks about "the fear of the Lord" in reference to Christ in the same way the Old Testament did of Jehovah.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.- 2 Cor. 5:10

10    Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,
    "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
        and every tongue shall confess to God."
12    So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.- Rom. 14:10-12

By myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.24 Only in JEHOVAH, it is said of me, is righteousness and strength; even to him shall men come; and all they that were incensed against him shall be put to shame.- Isa. 45:23-24 ASV

Matt. 23:29-39; Luke 13:34-35; Luke 11:46-52 COMPARE WITH many Old Testament passages that sound similar to or parallel these New Testament passages. I wrote a blog describing how in these passages Jesus is identified with God because of Jesus' statement of sending prophets to Israel and of applying the imagery of a hen gathering her brood under her wings. Something which echos Old Testament imagery used of Jehovah. Here's the blog:

The Wings of Christ Are God's Wings

1 Cor. 10:9

We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,- 1 Cor. 10:9

See my blogpost:
The Tempting/Testing of Christ Is Evidence of Christ's Full Deity

In the above blogpost, I relate the prohibition of tempting/testing Jehovah and the tempting/testing of Christ.

1 Cor. 10:14-22
The phrase "Table of the Lord" and "Cup of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 and 11 suggest the fully deity of Christ because they imply Jesus is Jehovah.
See the arguments in my blogpost:
The "Cup and Table of the Lord" As Evidence for Christ's Full Deity

Ps. 8:1-2 COMPARE WITH Matt. 21:15-16
In Robert Morey's book The Trinity: Evidence and Issues he writes on pages 371-372

In Matthew 21:15-16, Jesus took a passage from the Old Testament and applied it to Himself. The context is the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. The multitudes shouted their praise to Jesus as He rode into the city on a colt in fulfillment of prophecy (vs. 1-9) [sic] While the crowds were receptive to Jesus, the priests and scribes were not:

But when the chief priest and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were crying out in the temple and saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became indignant, and said to Him, "Do You hear what these children are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read, 'OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABES THOU HAST PREPARED PRAISE FOR THYSELF'?" (Matt. 21:15-16)
The children were praising Jesus as the long awaited "Son of David," i.e., the Messiah. They used the word "Hosanna" ([GREEK]) which was an Aramaic word transliterated into Greek. By the first century it had become a Jewish liturgical term used in worship. It was derived from the Hebrew word [HEBREW] and is a prayer to God that He may save us (i.e., Ps. 3:8; 6:5; 7:2; 31:17; 54:3; 59:3; 69:2; 109:26; 119:94, 146.)
Since "Hosanna" was a liturgical term used for worship, the priests and scribes were naturally shocked that Jesus allowed the children to apply "Hosanna" directly to Him. The response of Jesus is significant. He justified what the children were doing by quoting the first part of Psalms 8:2 from the Septuagint.

O LORD, our Lord, How wonderful is thy name in all the earth! For Thy magnificence is exalted above the heavens. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise.
(Ps. 8:1-2 LXX)

Who has perfected praise for Himself? Whose praise comes forth from the mouth of these children? To whom is David speaking? A comparison of the Septuagint and the Hebrew text will tell us:

LXX [GREEK] (O LORD, our Lord)

Heb. [HEBREW] (Yahweh Adonai)

The Greek word [GREEK] (Lord) is the equivalent of the Hebrew [HEBREW] (Yahweh). Thus, the texts reveal that the Person to whom the words, "From the mouth of infants and nursing babes" are directed in Psalms 8 is God. Of this there can be no doubt.
What then is the only rational conclusion one can deduce from Jesus' use of Psalms 8:2? Since it was Jesus Himself who took an Old Testament passage addressed to YHWH and applied it to Himself, then the God to whom David prayed was Jesus.
The New Testament's use of the Old Testament to document the deity of Christ is quite extensive.[GREEK and HEBREW Words NOT Reproduced]

1 Cor. 2:16 COMPARE WITH Isa. 40:13

"For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.- 1 Cor. 2:16

Who hath directed the Spirit of JEHOVAH, or being his counsellor hath taught him?- Isa. 40:13 ASV

Paul connects Isa. 40:13 which originally referred to Jehovah to Christ. Thus, implying Jesus is Jehovah.
John Gill in his commentary on 1 Cor. 2:16 states,

"but we have the mind of Christ"; the same with "the mind of the Lord" which proves that Christ is the Lord, or Jehovah, and so truly and properly God; and which is to be understood, not only of the apostles and ministers of the Gospel, but of all true believers; and therefore want no instruction, as they can have none from the natural man; though chiefly of the former, whereby they were abundantly qualified for the further instruction even of spiritual men.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary states,

we have the mind of Christ — in our degree of capability to apprehend it. Isa_40:13, Isa_40:14 refers to Jehovah: therefore, as it is applied here to Christ, He is Jehovah.

Prov. 3:5-6 COMPARE WITH Phil. 2:24

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.- Prov. 3:5-6

and I trust in the Lord that shortly I myself will come also.- Phil. 2:24

The context of Phil. 2:24 makes it clear that the "Lord" being spoken of is Jesus. This is clear from just a few verses before verse 24 (i.e. verse 19).

I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be cheered by news of you.- Phil. 2:19

Paul in Phil. 2:24 seems to trust in Christ Jesus for providential guidance and opportunities in a way reminiscent of how Old Testament believers trusted in Jehovah. This is again in keeping with Jesus being Jehovah. Paul may in fact be intentionally identifying Jesus with Jehovah in this passage since earlier in the same chapter he applied Isa. 45:23 to Jesus in Phil. 2:10-11. When Isaiah 45 is arguably the most monotheistic chapter in the entire Hebrew Scriptures.

I wrote more on trusting Christ as evidence of Jesus being Jehovah in another blogpost:

Trust in Jesus Is Apparently Trust in Jehovah

3 John 1:7; Acts 5:41 COMPARE WITH Lev. 24:11,16
The book of Acts repeatedly uses phrases like "the name of Jesus," "the name of Jesus Christ" and other variations. Jesus' name is reverenced in a way reminiscent of how the name of Jehovah was and is to be reverenced. The disciples in Acts even "call on" (or invoked) the name of Jesus (Acts 9:14, 21; 22:16 etc., compare with 1 Cor. 1:2; Rom. 10:13). Jehovah is so identified with His name that many non-Messianic Jews, Messianic Jews and those in the Hebrew Roots Movement refer to Almighty God as "HaShem" meaning, "The Name." Yet, the early Christians weren't hesitant to refer to Jesus' name as "the name." This might suggest that they considered Jesus' name to be identified with Jehovah's because Jesus is Jehovah. See the comments above regarding Phil. 2:10-11 and its connection with Isa. 45:23.

Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.- Act 5:41

For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles.- 3 John 1:7

and the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.- Lev. 24:11 ASV

And he that blasphemeth the name of JEHOVAH, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the sojourner, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the name of JEHOVAH, shall be put to death.- Lev. 24:16 ASV

Phil. 4:4-5; 3:1-3 COMPARE WITH Hab. 3:18; Joel 2:23; Ps. 97:12; 40:16; Isa. 61:10; 41:16; 29:19; 25:9; Ps. 33:1

1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you. 2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh---- Phil. 3:1-3

NET: "...exult in Christ Jesus..."
NKJV: "...rejoice in Christ Jesus..."
ESV and NASB have "...glory in Christ Jesus..."

4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice.5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand;- Phil. 4:4-5

These passages seem to be saying Christians are to rejoice in the Lord Jesus. If Jesus is the Lord in the context rather than the Father, then that would entail Paul exhorting Christians to rejoice in Jesus in a way similar or equal to the way the Old Testament teaches we are to rejoice in Jehovah/Yahweh the one true God. This would be consistent if Jesus is Jehovah (along with the Father). Phil. 4:5 states that "The Lord is at hand (or "is near")." This may be a reference to Jesus' Second Coming.

Comparing the above apparent exhortations to rejoice in Jesus with the following Old Testament exhortations to rejoice in Jehovah suggests that Jesus is Jehovah. How could anyone other than God receive or deserve the kind of worship that is only due to God? One can't, therefore Jesus is fully God.

Yet I will rejoice in JEHOVAH, I will joy in the God of my salvation.- Hab. 3:13

See also: Joel 2:23; Ps. 97:12; 40:16; Isa. 61:10; 41:16; 29:19; 25:9; Ps. 33:1

Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13 COMPARE WITH Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12;

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last,- Rev. 1:17

"And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: 'The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.- Rev. 2:8

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."- Rev. 22:13

In these passages in the book of Revelation Jesus is referred to as the "first and last" similar to how Almighty God is referred to as "first and last" in the Old Testament passages.

Again, one way Unitarians (of various strips) try to get around these type of passages is by saying Christ is referred to as Jehovah in an agentival representation of Jehovah. But the problem is that some of these passages refer to attributes that one would think apply only to God unoriginate yet are applied to Jesus. For example, Heb. 1:10-12 quoting Ps. 102:25ff. as I described above. Similarly, God refers to Himself as the "first and last" in the Old Testament (Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12). When Jesus is described that way in Rev. 1:17, 2:8; and (probably) 22:13, it's only natural to infer that the author of Revelation was implying Jesus is in some way Almighty God Himself (either in a modalistic sense, or binitarian sense or trinitarian sense).

In the above list I didn't include Rev. 1:8 or Rev. 21:6 because it's not as clear that Christ is the subject. However, if Christ is the subject in one or both passages, as some apologists have argued, then that would be absolute proof the Jesus is identified as Almighty God in the book of Revelation.

If Rev. 22:12-13 is supposed to be Jesus speaking (which some scholars argue) then Jesus is referring to Himself not only as 1. "first and the last." but also as 2. "Alpha and Omega" and 3. "the beginning and the end." These last two designations (i.e. #2 and #3) are also used in Rev. 21:6 which most agree has Almighty God speaking. Taking both passages into consideration, it would seem to imply that Rev. 22:12-13 makes Jesus to be either 1. the same person as or 2. shares the same nature as the person speaking in Rev. 21:6 (either of which would be consistent with trinitarianism). Which therefore implies Jesus is Almighty God (again, assuming of course that Jesus is the one speaking in Rev. 22:12-13). It's not unlikely that Rev. 22:12-13 is meant by the author to be interpreted to be Jesus speaking since the speaker promises to repay everyone according to what he has done. Something which is attributed to Jesus earlier in the book (Rev. 2:23). But also something normally attributed to Almighty God in the Old Testament (Jer. 17:10; Psalm 62:12).

Some Unitarian sects argue that Jesus being referred to as "the first and the last" does not imply he is Almighty God. It merely means both the Father and Jesus are "the first and last." They believe there are two "firsts and lasts." Even though, the term "first and last" naturally implies full deity because it connotes eternal, exhaustive and all-encompassing Sovereignty and Creatorship. The source of all existence and being. It must be remembered that Isaiah used the phrase "first and last" to refer to Jehovah in contrast to all other claimed gods. It was a term he reserved for the one true God. How could the author of the book of Revelation write that Jesus is "the first and last" without realizing he's attributing a phrase reserved only for Jehovah to Jesus? It must have been consciously and intentionally written. If Jesus isn't "the first and last," to describe him as such would be blasphemous. With the assumption that the book of Revelation is inspired of God and belongs in the canon, then we have to acknowledge the additional fact it's not merely that the author of Revelation describes Jesus as "the first and last," but amazingly it's Jesus Himself who describes Himself with that title!!!

Regarding the phrase "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god" in Isa. 44:6, John Gill states in his commentary:

the first cause and last end, of all things in nature, and providence, and grace; all things are of him, through him, and from him; all things were made by him in creation, and for his pleasure they are and were created; and all things are disposed of in his providence for his own glory; and he is the first in reconciliation, justification, and salvation, and all are to the glory of his grace: or this is a periphrasis of his eternity, who is from everlasting to everlasting, without beginning or end, the Alpha and Omega; the same is said of Christ, Rev_1:8, and all the other characters before mentioned agree with him:

2 Tim. 4:14 COMPARE WITH 2 Sam. 3:39

Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.- 2 Tim. 4:14

And I was gentle today, though anointed king. These men, the sons of Zeruiah, are more severe than I. The LORD repay the evildoer according to his wickedness!"- 2 Sam. 3:39

The author of 2 Timothy seems to assign to Jesus, whom he terms the "Lord", the same divine Yahwistic prerogatives that the "Lord" in the Septuagint Old Testament does.

Finally, there are passages like Titus 2:13-14 which identify Jesus as the redeemer of the Church in the same way as Yahweh was the redeemer of Israel in the Old Testament. So it's not surprising that verse 13 might in fact (and probably does) call Jesus "the great God and Savior" (that is, if Granville Sharp's Rule applies). See the following Old Testament passages that parallel Titus 2:13-14: Ps. 130:8; 135:4; Mal. 3:3; Exo. 15:16; 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Ezek. 36:25; Num. 25:13; Gen. 48:16

And he will redeem Israel from all his iniquities- Ps. 130:8

Sharp Redivivus? - A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule by Daniel B. Wallace

Granville Sharp's Rule Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 by James White

Sharp’s Rules and Antitrinitarian Theologies: A Defense of Granville Sharp’s Argument for the Deity of Christ by Robert M. Bowman, Jr. [or Here]

A great book in defense of Jesus' full deity is Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ by Robert Bowman, J. Ed Komoszewski

For more evidence, see also this blog by someone else titled, Jesus Is Jehovah!

I'll Be Adding More Passages whenever I have time and inclination.

Ongoing Additional Evidences:
As I find time, I'll add more verses that identify Jesus with Jehovah which are either weakly suggestive, strongly suggestive or may even be explicit.

The following are typed up in a rough and ready manner.

The Old Testament Jehovah compound names seem to find their complete fulfillment in Jesus.

30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God --- and righteousness and sanctification and redemption ---31 that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the LORD."- 1 Cor. 1:30-31

Regarding this passage, I will comment on a number of things. They include "glorying in the Lord," "wisdom from God," "righteousness,", and "sanctification."

Glorying in the Lord (an allusion to glorying in Jehovah in Jer. 9:23-24) appears to have its New Testament equivalent to glorying in Jesus (cf. also 2 Cor. 10:17). Implying Jesus is Jehovah.

Compare 1 Cor. 1:30-31 with the following passages in the OT.

Paul wrote Jesus became for us righteousness. This seems to allude to Jer. 23:6 which refers to Jehovah Tsidkenu (i.e. "the LORD our Righteousness")

Paul wrote Jesus became for us sanctification. This seems to allude to passages like Exo. 31:12-13 and Lev. 20:7-8 which refer to Jehovah-Mekaddishkem (i.e. "the LORD our Santifier")

Paul wrote we are to glory/boast (only) in the LORD, alluding to Jer. 9:23-24. Paul may be applying that OT passage to Jesus, thus indicating Jesus is Jehovah/YHWH/Adonai.

Paul wrote Jesus became for us "wisdom from God." Wisdom in Jewish thought was associated with light. Jesus said He was the light of the world (John 8:12) even though one of the OT names of God is Jehovah Ori (The LORD is my Light - Ps. 27:1). The author of 1 John stated "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). If the author of this epistle was the same author of the Gospel of John, then the connection that Jesus is God is even stronger since he identifies both Jesus and God as "light." Additionally, if the same author wrote the book of Revelation, it's also interesting that the same theme is in that book.

22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.24 By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it,25 and its gates will never be shut by day---and there will be no night there.- Rev. 21:22-25

The author of Hebrews refers to Jesus as the "brightness" of God's glory. That's a clear allusion to the Shekinah glory of God. In the OT, the Shekinah was the very presence of God. So, this too suggests that Jesus is true and full deity.

Jesus refers to Himself as "the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6) even though the OT teaches that the one true God is the God of Amen (i.e. the God of Truth) in Isa. 65:16 (compare with Ps. 31:5). In Rev. 3:14 Jesus refers to Himself as "the Amen," a title reserved for God. Similarly, in Rev. 3:7 Jesus refers to Himself as "the True One."

Paul wrote Jesus became for us redemption when Isa. 49:26 give God the title Jehovah Goel ("the LORD, my Redeemer").

The fact remains that many "Jehovah compound names" in the Old Testament have a New Testament counterpart with Jesus. All one has to do is google "Jehovah compound names" to discover the correspondences. There are literally dozens of Jehovah compound names even though only around 8 are well known. I've mentioned a few of those already. Here are more.

Jehovah Jireh (i.e. "the LORD will provide"- Gen. 22:14). Compare that with 2 Cor. 8:9 which states, "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich."

Jehovah Rapha (i.e. "the LORD our healer"- Exo. 15:26) should be compared with James 5:14-16ff; Acts 3:16; Mark 1:41.

Jehovah-Raah/Roi/Rohi ("the LORD is my Shepherd"- Ps. 23:1) should be compared with John 10:11-14; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25; 1 Pet. 5:4. In these passages Jesus is described as the Good/Noble Shepherd, Great Shepherd of the sheep; Shepherd and Overseeer of your souls; and the Chief Shepherd.

Jehovah-Shammah ("The LORD is There [i.e. present, here and with us]" Ezek. 48:35), compare with Matt. 28:20; Eph. 2:13

Jehovah-Shalom ("the LORD is our Peace"- Judges 6:24), compare with John 14:27; Col. 1:20

Jehovah-Nissi ("...is our Banner [i.e. victory]"- Ex. 17:15) compare with Col. 2:14-15; 1Cor. 15:57

One could go on and on with many other Jehovah compound names which have a New Testament passage that corresponds to Jesus either directly or indirectly. The above are just a sampling.

All four Gospels (including Mark, in Mark 2:19-20) affirms Jesus as the bridegroom (Matt. 9:15; 25:1-10; Mark 2:19-20; Luke 5:34-35; John 3:29). I argued in another blog that the kind of love Christians are required to have for Jesus is evidence of Christ's full deity. In that blogpost I also argue more fully there that Jesus' status as the bridegroom has STRONG implications for His full deity. I wrote:

In light of the points I've made above, it isn't surprising therefore that many Christians have interpreted the Song of Songs (i.e. Song of Solomon, or Canticles) as an allegory not only of the mutual love between Jehovah/Yahweh and Israel, but also of the mutual love between Christ and His Bride the Church. Even non-Messianic Jews have interpreted the Canticles as an allegory of God's love for Israel. For those who believe in the New Testament, this buttresses the identification of Jesus with Almighty God. Because just as the Church is the eschatological embodiment and fulfillment of Remnant (i.e. faithful and true) Israel (Rom. 9:6, 27; 2:28-29; 11:5), so Christ is the eschatological Lord who parallels Old Testament Jehovah who was married to Israel. Christ and the Church are the "End Times" New Covenant fulfillment of Yahweh and (spiritual) Israel.

For as a young man marries a young woman,
        so shall your sons marry you,
    and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
        so shall your God rejoice over you.- Isa. 62:5

19 And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy.20 I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD.- Hos. 2:19-20

For thy Maker is thy husband; JEHOVAH of hosts is his name: and the Holy One of Israel is thy Redeemer; the God of the whole earth shall he be called.- Isa. 54:5 ASV

The book of Revelation seems to pick up on that theme.

Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, "Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."- Rev. 21:9

The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.- Rev. 22:17

2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."- Rev. 21:2-4

Regarding Heb. 13:5-6, if the "Lord in verse 6 refers to Jesus, then that identifies Jesus with Jehovah since both verses are quoting the Old Testament. Verse 6 paraphrases Ps. 118:6. While verse 5 alludes to many passages in which Jehovah promises never to forsake His saints. For example, Gen. 28:15; Deut. 31:6; Deut. 31:8; Jos. 1:5; 1 Sam. 12:22; 1 Chron. 28:20; Ps. 37:25, 28; Isa. 41:10; Isa. 41:17. Yet Jesus also promised similar things.

"I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.- John 14:18

... I am with you always, to the end of the age."- Matt. 28:20

For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."- Matt. 18:20

for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people."- Acts 18:10

Paul testified concerning the Lord (Jesus?):

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

If the "Lord" in 2 Pet. 3:9 is referring to Jesus, then this parallels Old Testament passages of Jehovah's slowness to anger.

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.- 2 Pet. 3:9

Friday, July 25, 2014

"Why Do You Call Me Good?" — Did Jesus Deny Being God in Mark 10:17-18?

originally posted 6/6/2015

The following is an excerpt of the blogpost: Makan Christology

Regarding Mark 10:17-18.

17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.- Mark 10:17-18

This passage has universally and perennially been used by skeptics, and Unitarians like Arians, Socinians, Muslims (et al.) to prove that Jesus claimed not to be God since Jesus says only God is good. However, in the same book demons are recorded to have referred to Jesus as the "Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24 cf. Isa. 49:7; 54:5 and 55:5) with the author's apparent endorsement. So, clearly Jesus was good. In light of that, here's a relevant quote from Richard N. Davies' book The Doctrine of the Trinity page 18-19

QUOTE: Christ said to a certain ruler: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark x, 17, 18.) Christ did not deny that he himself was "good," nor did he deny that he himself was God; but the ruler had not acknowledged him to be God, and our Lord's question to the ruler was based upon that fact. It was as much as to say, As you do not confess me to be God, why call me good? Our Lord said: "There is none good but one, that is, God." It would follow from this that whoever is perfectly good must be God; but our Lord is perfectly, infinitely good, hence must be God........The dilemma, as regards the Socinians, has been well put (see Stier II, 283, note), either, 'There is none good but God; Christ is good; therefore Christ is God;' or, 'There is none good but God; Christ is not God; therefore Christ is not good.' " (Alford, in loco) END QUOTE [bold and underline by me]

Unitarians must pick one of the horns of the dilemma. Either affirm that Jesus is Almighty God, or affirm that Jesus is not truly good and holy (and so contradict Mark 1:24 which has demons calling Jesus the Holy One of God, with Mark's apparent approval).

The Meaning of the Term "Son of Man"

Friday, June 20, 2014

The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser

Below is a link to a blogpost on one of my other blogs.

At one his websites (Two Powers in Heaven) Dr. Michael Heiser continues to argue rabbinical scholar Alan Segal's claim (nearly 30 years ago) that up until the 2nd century C.E., it was permissible in Judaism to believe in the concept of there being "two powers" in heaven without being heretical or pagan or polytheistic. It was a sort of Jewish Binitarianism. In the video lectures, Dr. Heiser makes his BIBICAL case. Then using ancient Jewish Binitarianism he bridges the gap from (strict/monistic) Monotheism to Trinitarianism.

The late Alan Segal's book is titled, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Though Segal regarded the "two powers" view as heretical, he adamantly argued that as a matter of historical fact that many Jews did believe such a doctrine in times past and that it was considered permissible back then.
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-jewish-trinity-how-old-testament.html

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

See also:

The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One?

by Christian William Henry Pauli

Thursday, June 19, 2014

The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One?

originally posted 7/15/15

by Christian William Henry Pauli

The following link is to a book that argues that the doctrine of the Trinity was not a complete theological novum invented by the Apostles or the Church Fathers but was strongly hinted at or even believed by Jews and taught in their writings before, during and (for some time) after the beginning of the Christian era. I'm convinced there's some truth to the claim, but not necessarily to the degree argued in the book. Caveat Lector.

https://books.google.com/books?id=2zYqAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Holy, Holy, Holy - Classic Hymn

Words: Reginald Heber, 1826. Heber wrote this hymn for Trinity Sunday while he was Vicar of Hodnet, Shropshire, England.

Music: Nicaea, John B. Dykes, in Hymns Ancient and Modern, 1861

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee;
Holy, holy, holy, merciful and mighty!
God in three Persons, blessèd Trinity!

Holy, holy, holy! All the saints adore Thee,
Casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea;
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Who was, and is, and evermore shall be.

Holy, holy, holy! though the darkness hide Thee,
Though the eye of sinful man Thy glory may not see;
Only Thou art holy; there is none beside Thee,
Perfect in power, in love, and purity.

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
All Thy works shall praise Thy Name, in earth, and sky, and sea;
Holy, holy, holy; merciful and mighty!
God in three Persons, blessèd Trinity!

source

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels

(last updated 6/23/14)

The following is a re-working of my comments to a review of Bart Ehrman's book How Jesus Become God. Here's a LINK to the actual review.

I wrote the comments (and this blog post) attempting to build a bridge that would help someone starting from a liberal and unbelieving scholarly position to a believing conservative scholarly position. That's why I'll make my case in very modest terms and admit to possible weaknesses in my argumentation.

An essential aspect in defense of the fully Deity of Christ is to provide evidence of Christ's pre-existence. It's often argued by skeptics that the deity of Christ and His pre-existence is something that developed in the early Church a long time after Christ's crucifixion. However, if Christ's pre-existence can be supported by the Synoptic Gospels, then that lends credence to the doctrine's early origins since they preserve the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth to some degree or another (depending on one's approach to the topic, whether liberal or conservative). Also, if it can be shown that some Jews, both before and after the time of Christ, expected the Messiah to be Pre-existent on the basis of Old Testament teaching, then that too would lend credence to the possible early origins of the doctrine of Christ's pre-existence. Since, it would not be a doctrine completely alien to Old Testament theology if even non-Christian Jews derived Messianic pre-existence from the Hebrew Scriptures.

The antiquity of the doctrine of the personal preexistence of Christ within the church can be documented as early as the first half of the 2nd century. Tim McGrew wrote:

The Apology of Aristides, discovered in 1889, was addressed to the Emperor Hadrian, who became emperor in 117 and died in 138. Aristides writes: “It is acknowledged that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God, and that by the Holy Ghost He came down from heaven for the salvation of men. And that having been conceived of a holy virgin without seed and incorruptibly, He took upon Him flesh, and was manifested to men.” Only John, of the four Gospel writers, uses the expression “... came down from heaven ...” in connection with the incarnation (John 3:13, 6:33, etc.); and only John speaks of Jesus’ human nature as “flesh,” a distinctive term in Greek.

Part 1

Simon Gathercole's three part Lectures on the Preexistence of Christ in the Synoptics can be downloaded HERE or HERE (or on YouTube HERE). He gives special emphasis on Jesus' oft repeated statement "I HAVE COME..." I highly recommend listening to all three lectures.

The following is a list of Gathercole texts which he says can imply or hint at Christs pre-existence in the Synoptic Gospels. I've included some of my own comments with Gathercole's comments.

Gathercole cites 10 sayings

Spoken by Demons

1. "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are---the Holy One of God."- Mark 1:24

2. And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"- Matt. 8:29

"I Have Come..." Sayings Proper

3. And he said to them, "Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out."- Mark 1:38
Compare with Luke 4:43; John 9:4-5; Luke 4:18

4. And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."- Mark 2:17
Compare with Matt. 9:13; Luke 5:32

5. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.- Matt. 5:17

6. "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled!- Luke 12:49

7. Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.- Luke 12:51
The parallel in Matthew uses the word "sword." It may allude to the Old Testament example of the Angel of the LORD with a sword (Num. 22; Josh. 5; 1 Chron. 21).

8. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.- Matt. 10:35

Jesus' Statement of the "Son of Man" Has Come

9. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."- Mark 10:45

even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."- Matt. 20:28

10. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."- Luke 19:10

An 11th one that I'm including in Gathercole's list is:

Matt. 11:19 & Luke 7:34-35

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."- Matt. 11:19

34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children."- Luke 7:34-35

Apologist Tony Costa has said that Mark 1:1ff (esp. v. 2) alludes to Exodus 23:20 which refers to "the angel". Specifically, Costa says Mark 1:1ff is likely a cluster of three (3) quotations/allusion, not merely two (2). That's because Mark 1:2 in the Greek most closely resembles Exodus 23:20 (in the Septuagint) which refers to an angel/Angel whom God promised He would send. If 1. Mark really is alluding to this passage in Exodus, and 2. if that angel is The Angel of YHVH, then Mark is likely connecting Jesus with the Angel of YHVH. If so, then that kills at least two birds with one stone. It undermines versions of Unitarianism that 1. deny Christ's Preexistence and 2. versions of Unitarianism which affirm Jesus is only/merely a human savior.

Tony Costa made the above claim in the following debate at 1:18:05 into the debate.
https://youtu.be/9km_KBw81DQ?t=1h18m5s

Part 2

The following is my modified comments at Triablogue with many additions.

[That was a] Good review by Kruger but I wish he included evidence for Jesus' pre-existence in the Synoptics. I've included his review to a collection of links to my blog Resources Responding to Bart Ehrman

Post Christian Jewish tradition includes the notion held by some Jews that the messiah would be pre-existent before his birth. If I recall correctly, some Jewish traditions prior to Christ do too. One of the reasons why both some Jews and Christians have believed in the pre-existence of the Messiah is that the Tanach hints at it often.

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. - Micah 5:2

The above is probably THE classic passage in the Hebrew Scriptures suggesting that the Messiah would be pre-existent.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. - Isa. 9:6

The phrase "a son is given" might suggest pre-existence. The phrase "Everlasting Father" has the meaning of "possessor of eternity" (i.e. possessing eternality), and hence suggests or at least is consistent with pre-existence. Though, one intepretation would be that it refers to eternality in the direction of future, but doesn't touch on the question of past eternality. In which case, it wouldn't be a prooftext of messianic pre-existence. The name "mighty God" is also used in the very next chapter (Isa. 10:21) in reference to YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh the most high God of Israel. Therefore, it's not inconsistent to possibly interpret the name "mighty God" in Isa. 9:6 as teaching the divinity of the Messiah. In which case, the Messiah would be pre-existent since that's an attribute of divinity.

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! - Prov. 30:4

The above passage describes the prerogatives of God and then asks whether the reader knows the name of God's son. It seems unlikely that God's son here is a reference to Israel since people did know Jacob and Israel's name. Rightly or wrongly, this understandably has been interpreted to be a Messianic passage by Christians (and presumably by some Jews too, even if only a minority). Notice it doesn't say, what SHALL his name be, but what IS his name. Thus, suggesting the son's current existence and therefore the pre-existence of the Messiah. Which is in keeping with the concept that the Messiah would be God's "son", if not in the ontological sense that Christians would latter believe, then as the Davidic king as even many Jews believe.

Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there." And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit. - Isa. 48:16

The passage above could be interpreted in such a way as to be limited to Isaiah's pronouncement of his own commissioning. However, another possibility here is that Isaiah is speaking not only of his own commissioning but also of the Messiah's commissioning in a sort of dual meaning as some commentators suggest. If so, then it also suggests the messiahs pre-existence.

Here's one example of a commentary interpreting it to have a dual meaning.

The prophet here speaks, claiming attention to his announcement as to Cyrus, on the ground of his mission from God and His Spirit. But he speaks not in his own person so much as in that of Messiah, to whom alone in the fullest sense the words apply (Isa_61:1; Joh_10:36). Plainly, Isa_49:1, which is the continuation of the forty-eighth chapter, from Isa_48:16, where the change of speaker from God (Isa_48:1, Isa_48:12-15) begins, is the language of Messiah. Luk_4:1, Luk_4:14, Luk_4:18, shows that the Spirit combined with the Father in sending the Son: therefore “His Spirit” is nominative to “sent,” not accusative, following it.- Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary

"The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.- Prov. 8:22ff.

Regardless of whether Prov. 8:22ff is actually prophetic of Messiah or not many Jewish and Christian interpreters have thought so (e.g. some of the church fathers like Athanasius, and possibly pre-Christian Jews). Which again supports the notion that the pre-existence of the Messiah didn't spring up in a vacuum without some justification from the Old Testament.

The classic 1906 Jewish encyclopedia states:

Preexistence of the Messiah:

This includes his existence before Creation; the existence of his name; his existence after the creation of the world. Two Biblical passages favor the view of the preexistence of the Messiah: Micah v. 1 (A. V. 2), speaking of the Bethlehemite ruler, says that his "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting"; Dan. vii. 13 speaks of "one like the Son of man," who "came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days." In the Messianic similitudes of Enoch (xxxvii.-lxxi.) the three preexistences are spoken of: "The Messiah was chosen of God before the creation of the world, and he shall be before Him to eternity" (xlviii. 6). Before the sun and the signs of the zodiac were created, or ever the stars of heaven were formed his name was uttered in the presence of the Lord of Spirits (= God; xlviii. 3). Apart from these passages, there are only general statements that the Messiah was hidden and preserved by God (lxii. 6-7, xlvi. 1-3), without any declaration as to when he began to be. His preexistence is affirmed also in II Esdras (about 90 C.E.), according to which he has been preserved and hidden by God "a great season"; nor shall man8kind see him save at the hour of his appointed day (xii. 32; xiii. 26, 52; xiv. 9), although no mention is made of the antemundane existence either of his person or of his name (comp. Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xxix. 3).

Thus also the Rabbis. Of the seven things fashioned before the creation of the world, the last was the name of the Messiah (comp. Ps. lxxii. 17; Pes. 54a; Tan., Naso, ed. Buber, No. 19; and parallels); and the Targum regards the preexistence of the Messiah's name as implied in Micah v. 1 (A. V. 2), Zech. iv. 7, and Ps. lxxii. 17.

The "Spirit of God" which "moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2) is the spirit of the Messiah (Gen. R. viii. 1; comp. Pesiḳ. R. 152b, which reads as follows, alluding to Isa. xi. 2: "The Messiah was born [created] when the world was made, although his existence had been contemplated before the Creation"). Referring to Ps. xxxvi. 10 and Gen. i. 4, Pesiḳta Rabba declares (161b): "God beheld the Messiah and his deeds before the Creation, but He hid him and his generation under His throne of glory." Seeing him, Satan said, "That is the Messiah who will dethrone me." God said to the Messiah, "Ephraim, anointed of My righteousness, thou hast taken upon thee the sufferings of the six days of Creation" (162a; comp. Yalḳ., Isa. 499). The preexistence of the Messiah in heaven and his high station there are often mentioned. Akiba interprets Dan. vii. 9 as referring to two heavenly thrones—the one occupied by God and the other by the Messiah (Ḥag. 14a; comp. Enoch, lv. 4, lxix. 29), with whom God converses (Pes. 118b; Suk. 52a)......

[more info omitted to fit blog post character limit]

If anyone is interested, here's my blog post Markan Christology

My additional comments here on this blog post

Matthew makes reference to Isa. 7:14 which he points out translates into "God with us" (Matt. 1:23). This is additional evidence that at least one the Synoptic authors believed in the pre-existence of the Messiah. Probably also in the Messiah's divinity, even though the Hebrew word "el" can be used to refer to spiritual beings other than the true God.

Moreover, Matthew's citation of Isa. 7:14 is also additional evidence that there is Old Testament data that could be construed to imply (rightly or wrongly) that the Messiah would pre-exist His birth (assuming that Isa. 7:14 has dual fulfillment, as many Christian commentators have argued). Thus undercutting the allegation that the concept of a pre-existing Messiah is theological innovation without some basis in the Tanach.

Finally, it should be stated that the evidence for Jesus' claimed pre-existence in the Gospel of John has been excluded because the Gospel clearly teaches it (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]). There are also the numerous times in the Gospel of John when Jesus said that He was sent by the Father (e.g. John 3:17, 34; 4:34; 5:23, 24, 30, 36, 37, 38; 6:29, 38, 39, 44, 57; 7:16, 18, 28, 29, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 9:4; 10:36; 11:42; 12:44, 45, 49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21). Then there are the verses in John where Jesus said He "came" or had "come" from the Father. However, it's generally agreed upon that it was the last canonical Gospel to be written and therefore [according to liberal scholarship] gives the least reliable account of Jesus' actions and sayings from a non-Christian HISTORICAL perspective. That is, from a non-Christian view of history. Presuppositional apologists would argue that there is a specifically Christian approach to history and that non-Christian historical approaches, methods and criteria aren't warranted or coherent. See for example the blogs at Ronald W. Di Giacomo's blog Reformed Apologist. There Ron applies the presuppostional insights of both Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark to the issue of the possibility of historical research from a non-Christian point of view. Having said that, I want to reiterate that I wrote this blog attempting to build a bridge that would help someone starting from a liberal and unbelieving scholarly position to a believing conservative scholarly position. That's why I made my case in very modest terms and admitted to possible weaknesses in my argumentation.

Even More Additional Notes

It should also be noted that there are references and allusions to Christ's pre-existence in the New Testament epistles. The primary focus of this blog was on Christ's pre-existence in the Synoptic Gospels. I'll be adding some passages in the epistles below as I have time to type them up; focusing on the undisputed Pauline epistles. Along with more passages from the Gospels.

Phil. 2:6-11 (esp. verses 6-7). Notice that the book of Philippians is one of the earliest books of the New Testament. It ante-dates any of the Gospels. Yet, even here Jesus' pre-existence (and that "in the form of God") is asserted and affirmed. He is said to have been distinct from the Father, conscious, thinking thoughts (taking consideration), having an attitude of humility, making decisions and taking action (i.e. "emptying Himself). See James White's book The Forgotten Trinity. He summarizes his interpretation of Philippians 2 in a sermon on The Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11. See also his Review of the Ehrman/Gathercole Unbelievable Exchange.

Galatians 4:4 implies (or positively teaches) Christ's pre-existence. Christ was God's Son who was, in the fulness of time, born of a woman.

Romans 8:3 also implies (or positively teaches) Christ's pre-existence. God sent His Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh (i.e. the incarnation of the pre-incarnate Christ).

In Mark 2:27 Jesus refers to Himself as the "Lord of the Sabbath." This is a subtle (or not so subtle) claim to full deity. As I've argued elsewhere, this suggests Christ pre-existence [even full deity].

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me;- Heb. 10:5

Hebrews 10:5 is so clear to me that I would have to excise it from the NT canon if I were to maintain a non-personal pre-existence of Christ.

In the Synoptic Gospels the title "Son of Man" is Jesus' favorite self-designation. Many of those passages include the idea of the Son of Man "coming." Sometimes the "coming" refers to some future or past time. The past times include Matt. 11:19; 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 7:34; 19:10. When these passages of the coming of the Son of Man in the past are coupled with Dan. 7:13, they imply (at the very least) the pre-existence of Christ. When those passages that refer to the future coming of the Son of Man are coupled with Dan. 7:13, they imply the full deity of Christ. See my argument for this in my blogpost titled,

Regarding Mark 14:62 and Daniel 7:13; Jesus Coming With the Clouds

The Most Plausible Anti-Trinitarian Complaint

(last updated 6/23/14)

Probably the most common comment, complaint, charge and challenge (yay for alliteration!) that anti-Trinitarians make and which also has (IMHO) the greatest plausibility to it is, "If the doctrine of the Trinity is true why doesn't the Bible directly teach it?" There are variations to the comment.

For example:

"Why doesn't Jesus teach it in the Gospels?"

"Where does the Bible state that God is one in being and three in person (or is one in essence/substance and three in subsistence)?"

"Nowhere in the Bible is the doctrine of the Trinity described in full."

"Jesus, as a 1st century Jew, assumes the standard strict monotheistic conception of God and never corrects it. For example, in Mark 10:17-18; Mark 12:28-31; John 17:3."

"Unitarianism should be the default position until you can prove Trinitarianism since the Bible explicitly teaches God is one and we are in agreement that every other personal being we can think of or discuss is always one in being and one in person."

Jesus affirmed the Jewish Shema in Mark 12:29 and would have naturally interpreted it in the strict monotheistic way the Jews did at the time. Why should we interpret it any other way?.

How should or how can Trinitarians respond to such statements if given or asked in sincerity?

In this blog post I want to answer the above complaint as it would be given by someone who believes in the inspiration of both the Old and New Testaments but nevertheless rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. That is, to Unitarians like Anthony Buzzard et al. Such people affirm the authority of the New Testament, but nevertheless reject the doctrine of the Trinity because they can't seem to find it there. This blog therefore assumes the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture and won't attempt to argue for it.

Three things must be distinguished and a fourth thing recognized.

1. Non-Inspired Doctrinal Development. [NDD]
2. The concept of inspired Progressive Revelation [PR]
3. Inspired Doctrinal Development [IDD]
4. Jesus Veiled Mission and Identity [JVMI]

1. Non-Inspired Doctrinal Development. [NDD]

1. Non-Inspired Doctrinal Development is the development of doctrine among the people of God in an uninspired non-revelatory way during times when full infallible inspiration has/had ceased (e.g. during the intertestamental period, then later after the closing of the Canon of Scripture).

[As a side note, I'm a continuationist. Specifically a Charismatic. However, I don't think continuationism negates Sola Scriptura (or what I prefer to term Summa Scriptura and which seems to be somewhat similar to what some people call Prima Scriptura).]

As a matter of fact, since the closing of the Old Testament Canon (both during the intertestamental period [as Christians would refer to it] and since the closing of the New Testament) Jews have developed doctrines that have similarities to the doctrine of the Trinity in various ways. Often by affirming a kind of plurality in God. Or by positing an intermediary that was God-like and, analogously, Christ-like. For evidence of this see the resources on this blog along with the link to another blog post of mine HERE. This fact itself would suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is not so completely alien to Old Testament theology that it must be rejected outright and without further consideration. Otherwise Jews would not have come to such conclusions. Conclusions which they often prooftext by quoting the Old Testament.

Non-inspired doctrinal development has also occurred in Christian history and theology as it did in Jewish history and theology. Such non-inspired development rightly cannot, should not and understandably does not bind the conscience of believers in the New Testament Scriptures. Anti-Trinitarians are therefore right in not accepting the doctrine of the Trinity merely on the basis of tradition or Tradition (with a capital "T").

2. The concept of inspired Progressive Revelation [PR]

The concept of Progressive Revelation is acknowledged by New Testament believing Unitarians like Anthony Buzzard. Otherwise they wouldn't accept Jesus' messiahship, mediatorship, atonement and a host of other New Testament teachings not explicitly found in the Old Testament. However, in my opinion, strict/simple Unitarians don't take the concept of progressive revelation seriously enough in all its implications. Naively appealing to Jesus' monotheism, as Unitarians like Anthony Buzzard do, doesn't do justice to the principle of Progressive Revelation. Revelation didn't stop with Jesus. As Jesus Himself instructed and prophesied. When taken seriously, progressive revelation would lead to the 3rd distinction. Namely......

3. Inspired Doctrinal Development [IDD]

Inspired Doctrinal Development happened during times when inspired Revelation was still being given either verbally or in written form. Or when verbal revelation was being recorded in written form.

This type of development occurs during a time when people could still receive inspired revelation from God, but sometimes made doctrinal inferences and decisions based on their limited understanding of the implications of already given revelation. During such times there's a kind of imprecision and growth in understanding while doctrine is still developing and being refined.

It should go without saying that not all inspired revelations were recorded in Scripture. Also, that because of the historical nature of the Bible, it's also the case that some inspired doctrinal developments have been recorded in Scripture itself (even if not all).

Here are some examples recorded in the New Testament Church:

The Gospel was ultimately also intended for the Gentiles

Circumcision is no longer necessary for full obedience to God

The Biblical kosher laws are no longer necessary for full obedience to God

Eating meat sacrificed to idols is permissible with proper understanding and practice contrary to the decree and teaching of the Apostles at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Contrast the seemingly contradictory teaching of Paul in 1 Cor. 8 and Acts 15.

There is some sense in which the Old Testament Law no longer applies or is binding. I'll leave the details of this aside and keep this point ambiguous because explaining it will take us away from the topic of this blog post. I mention this as a matter of fact based on Heb. 7:12, 18-19; 8:8, 13; Gal. 2:16, 19, 21: 3:10-13, 21, 23-24; Rom. 3:21; 7:4; 10:4; Acts 13:39 et cetera

For Evangelicals, another example is the doctrine of justification by faith alone

It took time for the apostolic Church to come to such conclusions. There were minor disagreements, disputes and doubts. The Church as a whole grew into these conclusions. Such inspired development was sometimes the result of a direct and explicit revelation AND/OR due to a logical inference drawn from the implications and ramifications of the Gospel and other sound teaching or revelation previously given.

Let's look at the specific example of eating meat sacrificed to idols. At first the Apostles in Acts 15 forbade the eating of such meat because it would violate their understanding of the Gospel at that time. However, Paul's further developed understanding of the implications of the Gospel allowed him to clarify in what sense it was permissible to eat such meat. This shows doctrinal development in the apostolic Church even though one would think that since apostles existed who could receive revelation from God, that therefore the Church would come to perfect and unified doctrinal truth immediately from the very start. But we don't see that in the history of the apostolic Church as recorded in inspired Scripture. Doctrines had to develop EVEN in the apostolic Church when (and while) the apostles were still living.

From these examples it's clearly evident that the apostolic Church was growing in it's understanding of truth and the Gospel during the lives of the Apostles. IT WAS NOT the case that AFTER Jesus died and rose again that the Apostles always and only preached what Jesus taught and preached. Jesus Himself said,

"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.- John 16:12-13

Then He said to them, "Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old."- Matt. 13:52

Paul wrote:

15 Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.16 Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind.- Phil. 3:15-16

12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.- Heb. 5:12-14

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.- 1 Cor. 13:9-10

12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.- 1 Cor. 13:12

Peter even acknowledged that angels were still learning things about the Gospel as the Church progressed in understanding.

12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven --- things which angels desire to look into.- 1 Pet. 1:12

This is just a sampling of the evidence that the Apostolic Church grew in it's understanding of the Gospel.

I belabored the point above to argue that the same thing is true of the nature and work of Jesus (i.e. of Christology). And the reason this is especially true is because of the this next point.

4. Jesus Veiled Mission and Identity [JVMI]

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus occasionally, and in private, made it clear that He was the Messiah. However, for most of His ministry He veiled His mission and identity. Sometimes to the point of veiling His healings and exorcisms. See THIS LINK for examples. It was not until the Triumphal Entry that Jesus publicly announced His Messiahship. Even then, it wasn't absolutely explicit.

Here's a sampling of the evidence Jesus veiled His mission and identity.

Jesus didn't specifically and explicitly tell John the Baptist He was the Messiah when asked. See. Matt. 11:4-6

The fact that Jesus had to ask His disciples, "...Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" (Matt. 16:13c) proves that Jesus didn't go about publicly claiming He was the Messiah. Otherwise, Peter's declaration three verses latter that Jesus was the Messiah wouldn't make any sense (Matt. 16:16). Peter wouldn't have had to present his opinion of who Jesus was since he would have already heard Jesus say, "I am the Messiah", or words to that effect. The text goes on to say,

Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.- Matt. 16:20

Then He strictly warned them that they should tell no one about Him.- Mark 8:30

Compare Matt. 16:13-20 to it's parallel in Mark 8:27-30.

After Christ's transfiguration Scripture says,

9 Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead."- Matt. 17:9 compare Mark 9:9

Much more evidence could be marshaled to prove that Jesus veiled His messianic identity. There are various reasons for why Jesus did so, but it must be realized that if Jesus veiled his Messiahship, how much more would He veil his Divinity IF He were Divine and God? Non-Trinitarians have got to think about that seriously as a hypothetical thought experiment. One of the reasons why Jesus veiled His Messiah was in order not to get stoned to death or crucified too early. It would have ruined God's planned timing of Jesus' crucifixion which was to be after Jesus gave all the teaching that He did give. God probably also timed Christ's crucifixion to fulfill the timing of the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah in Dan. 9:24-26.

Now if the premature unveiling of Jesus messiahship would ruin God's plan and timing, how much more would the Jews have prematurely crucified or (more likely) stoned Jesus for publicly claiming to be God? Such a claim by a human being would be completely outrageous in the eyes and ears of Jews. Yet that's precisely what almost happened in (presumably) private conversations in John 5:18 and John 10:31. In these two passage Jesus didn't explicitly claim to be God, even though the Jews rightly inferred Jesus implicit claim to deity and so were ready to stone Him.

Let's review all Four Points and put it all together:

1. Non-Inspired Doctrinal Development. [NDD]
2. The concept of inspired Progressive Revelation [PR]
3. Inspired Doctrinal Development [IDD]
4. Jesus Veiled Mission and Identity [JVMI]

When one takes into consideration all four points, it can be better understood, that if the doctrine of the Trinity were true, why Jesus never taught the doctrine of the Trinity. Along with why the New Testament doesn't explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity in the sense formulated by modern Trinitarians. Since the apostolic Church itself was still growing in its understanding of the person, nature and work of Christ and the implications of the Gospel. Inspired Doctrinal Development was necessary because 1. Christ veiled His identity and 2. intentionally didn't give the final/last word regarding who He was, regarding the fulness of the Gospel and regarding the person and work of the Holy Spirit.

Having said that, there is a plethora of statements and teachings in both the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament which support the Trinitarian position (which I'll call a "theory" or "hypothesis" for the sake of building a bridge for Unitarians to use to incrementally come to Trinitarian conclusions). The links I provided 1. above, 2. on this blog site, and 3. the articles in this blog site itself demonstrate that assertion that there are many passages in the Bible that supports a Trinitarian position. I've even written a rough and ready case for the Deity of Christ based solely on the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark of course is considered by most people to have been the earliest written and therefore the most primitive and pure (accurate) record of Christ's life and teachings. Here's the link:

Markan Christology

Returning to the topic of Non-Inspired Doctrinal Development, I would grant that Modern formulations of the Trinity are examples of Non-Inspired Doctrinal Development. However, I'm of the opinion that their various formulations are closer to the truth than the most (if not all) versions of Unitarianism out there because it does the best job of accounting for all the Biblical data using Abductive reasoning. Abduction, also called Inference to the Best Explanation, is reasoning/inferring to that theory or hypothesis that has 1. the greatest explanatory power and 2. the greatest explanatory scope. Different non-Trinitarian Christologies, Theologies and Pneumatologies can explain some aspects of the Biblical data well, but to the neglect of other data which the doctrine of the Trinity can account for and make sense of.

This is how I myself have come to Trinitarian conclusions even though I still have some questions and doubts. For example, I find some plausibility in the position of Nicene Monarchism held by the brilliant former Trinitarian David Waltz and the eccentric Drake Shelton.

Trinity Notes

Table Trinity Notes

-----> The Purpose of This Blog & My Other Blogs <-----

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah

Trust in Jesus Is Apparently Trust in Jehovah

Friday, July 25, 2014

"Why Do You Call Me Good?" — Did Jesus Deny Being God in Mark 10:17-18?

The Meaning of the Term "Son of Man"

Friday, June 20, 2014

The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser

The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One?

Thursday, June 19, 2014

The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One?

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Holy, Holy, Holy - Classic Hymn

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels

Regarding Mark 14:62 and Daniel 7:13; Jesus Coming With the Clouds

The Most Plausible Anti-Trinitarian Complaint