(click for image credit)
There was a famous dispute between the famous unitarian Socinus and a Hungarian unitarian leader Francis David (a.k.a. Ferenc Dávid, Franciscus Davidis; 1510-79) about whether Christians should worship or pray to Jesus. Both were what I call humanitarian unitarians (Jesus did not exist before his conception, and does not have a divine nature.)
This dispute went on for some time both in person and in print. Sadly, it became politicized and personalized, I take it, through no fault of Socinus, and turned into an attempt by George Blandrata (a.k.a. Giorgio Biandrata, 1515-88) to slander and destroy David.
While David was deathly ill, he was dragged before a prince to answer blasphemy charges.
Here’s how Rees represents David’s position, as expressed by his son in law on his behalf at the trial:
… no divine worship which was not prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures could be agreeable to God. The invocation of Christ was not there prescribed or commanded; – therefore it could not be agreeable to God. …if, quitting the Scriptures, and following human comments and our own fancies, we seek for grounds for the invocation of Christ, we may also, on the same reasons, invoke saints both living and dead. (Rees, “Historical Introduction” in his Racovian Catechism, p. lvii-lviii)
If this is accurate, it is interesting, for unlike most who object to the worship of Jesus, it doesn’t rely on the supposedly obviously true but undefended assumptions that no one other than God himself may be given religious worship.
Rather, the arguments seem to be:
- Any religious worship not commanded in the Bible is inappropriate.
- Religious worship of Jesus is not commanded in the Bible.
- Therefore, religious worship of Jesus is not appropriate. (1, 2)
And,
- Any good reason for worshiping Jesus would also be a good reason for our worshiping Mary and traditional catholic “saints.”
- There is no good reason to worship Mary or other traditional catholic “saints.”
- Therefore, there is no good reason for worshiping Jesus. (1,2)
Both arguments are valid; but in my view neither is sound.
- About the first argument, I would say that premise 2 is false, based on Revelation 5.
- About the second argument, I would say that premise 1 is false. Here’s a good reason for worshiping Jesus which doesn’t also justify the worship of Mary etc.: God has exalted Jesus to his right hand! Sorry, Mary!
In conclusion, I note that I can’t really do David’s full position justice; his writings are very hard to get, and I think have never been translated into English. But if Rees’s summary is accurate, it seems to me that his reasons are weak.
In the end, according the Rees, the presiding prince denounced David for his “atheistical, execrable, and unheard-of blasphemy” and vowed to “make an example” of him. ( p. lxi) But before he had a chance, David died in prison from his illness. With David gone, supposedly Blandrata was very influential in the unitarian churches of the area, but soon had a falling out with them. He died, it is said, by being strangled by a relation he’d made an heir to his property. (Rees, pp. lxii-lxiii)
Print 
PDF
Dale,
You are pleasingly prolific at the moment!
Happily, to imagine that this post is a response to my query the other day would be a fanciful conceit on my part. Hence I need not assume that you’re putting up Rees’ representation of David as a straw man representing objections on the worship of Christ issue
I agree the arguments could be better (particularly the second!) but on the other hand I was surprised at your reasons for suggesting the arguments are weak!
First argument: you knock out (2) on the basis of Rev 4-5. This surprised me as you’re usually so precise – and there is no such commandment in Rev 4-5. I had expected you to call out (1) for needing proof.
Second argument: you knock out (1) which I agree is false, and I agree with your reason. A more obvious reason to me though: Mary and the others are dead, unlike the risen Jesus.
Thanks,
M
Hello Matt,
No, I wrote this post days ago.
No, not offering a straw man. If David makes a weak case that doesn’t show a strong case can’t be made.
About worship being commanded in the Bible, a command need not be explicit. What is clear from numerous parts of the new testament is that Jesus has been exalted to a position of leadership over us, and that implies that we owe him honor. For example, consider Hebrews 1-2. If someone clarified that “commanded” in this argument means explicitly commanded, then I would say: why should we believe premise one. We can of course challenge both premises, if the case calls for it.
One should bear in mind that when Jesus is worshiped this also honors God – honoring Jesus is a means of honoring God, the God sent and raised him.
When you say they are dead, I take it you assume this implies that either they don’t exist or they are not conscious. If that’s right, that would make it pointless to worship them because they could not be aware of it. But suppose they now exist as conscious, disembodied souls. Even if that were so, it seems they should not be worshiped, because god has not authorized this.
It is worth remarking again that David’s arguments are unusual. Usually, the assumption is that either the first or the second commandment rules out any one ever worshiping anyone but Yahweh.
Dale
Something you came up with or..? I prefer Biblical unitarians.
Just to add to this topic here are some emphatic comments FOR prayer to Jesus:
This is from James Dunn’s latest book, Did the First Christians Worship?:
Good references – thanks. I’ve read that short book by Dunn and an interesting critical book review by Hurtado (it’s on his website). I need to review them – I remember that they were disagreeing, but I think I wasn’t too clear about the exact nature of their disagreement. I’m sure that both agree that 1st. c. believers didn’t worship Jesus “as God” in the sense that they thought he was God himself, confusing him with the Father. I want to see how they define “worship” and if they make any precise distinctions as to kinds of worship.
About “humanitarian unitarian” – no, I didn’t coin this. I don’t know who did, but I find it used, e.g. in late 18thc – early 19th c. unitarian writings. It is used in opposition to subordinationist unitarians, who believe in pre-existence, and are more likely to describe Jesus has having a sort of divinity. “Biblical unitarian” is useful insofar as we’re anxious to distinguish ourselves from Unitarian Universalists, and I have no real objection to it, though it may annoy others. (Every Christian sect thinks it is biblical.)
Dale
Recently they had an interesting “dialogue” where they again discussed “the splitting the Shema” and “Christian Monotheism” coinage used by many scholars like Wright, Bauckham and Hurtado himself. Here’s Hurtado’s take of the events:
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/the-dunnhurtado-dialogue-on-jesus-veneration/
It seems Dunn has had a running “dialogue” with them objecting to the phraseology. And if you read his last book Dunn actually offers a sound “alternative” to the traditional view that Paul splits the Shema at 1Cor 8.4-6:
This apparently is being reported as a “major issue” that sprang up in their “dialogue”. And in private conversation with Dunn himself he verified that “Larry did not agree. Not as lively as I had expected.”
Dale
I have read most of their books and most of the other ones involved in these Christological debates and I must say that they would say Jesus was worshipped “as God” but obviously not the Father [since thay would break with their own creed not to "confound the Persons"]. But what is interesting is that most of these people, except Dunn now, would agree that Jesus is somehow “included but not added to the Shema”. In other words, in the earliest worship of the “one God” Jesus is somehow included as well. That is, Jesus is IDENTIFIED as YHWH as is the Father and the Spirit. Basically it seems that as with the meaning of the word “God”, the Divine Name of YHWH has now also been changed to mean “triune”.
Anthony and I made a series of videos countering this very fundamental point made more publicly by “Dr” James White:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAAMBNhxZfQ&feature=plcp&context=C41b9c20VDvjVQa1PpcFM7rhXLkTrZZiokZBO79jt8jXwQu7wTr8o%3D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-EY0L0ElwM&feature=plcp&context=C4c4e564VDvjVQa1PpcFM7rhXLkTrZZpHznslcAjANbzPgBI4nLJw=
All this abstract talk of the man Jesus “being added to the Shema” (cheif offenders, I think: Bauckham, Wright) I think is just a way of unclearly saying that the NT somehow includes him within God, or at least within the sphere of deity, or anyhow, in some sort of trinitarian way. I’ve read quite a lot of Hurtado and Dunn too, and highly respect both. But it is remarkable how little clear theology they ever commit to. There’s a vague hope that somehow this all supports the 4th c. creeds, or at least some sort of “high” (non- or anti-liberal??) christology. And in Hurtado’s case, I think there is at least of hope that this meshes well with some sort of “social” theory. I plan on reading his 2010 book on God in NT theology to see just what the theological payoff of all this historical work is, in his view. I’ve been suprised and disappointed that none of these seem to have engaged with unitarian theology; but I guess this is a function of its having few defenders in the academic realm in recent times. Slap me and call me old-fashioned, but I think one has to read the old guys in order to break free, to some extent, of the prejudices and blind spots of one’s own time. Reading people like Clarke or Lindsey or Belsham or Lardner, I realize that they are in many ways the peers of our best biblical and theological scholars now, though each too is limited by his own time.