Linkage: White vs. Navas – Does the New Testament teach “the deity of Christ”? (Dale)

May 112013
 

boxing-clip-artAbly reviewed by Sean Finnegan. I would add a few philosophical comments:

  • White, like many evangelicals, understands “the deity of Christ” as meaning that Jesus and God are numerically one, that is, numerically identical. He argues that various things the NT asserts about Jesus imply this. (e.g. He is worshiped, called “Lord.”) Conveniently, he ignores the many passages which assert or presuppose a qualitative difference between Jesus and God. He ignores these because it is self evident that things which ever (or even merely could) differ, can’t be numerically identical.
  • White emphasizes the charge of “rationalism” vs. Navas. It’s unclear quite what that is supposed to be. Perhaps his main idea is that a “rationalist” ignores elements of divine revelation which are inconsistent with his theology.
  • But if that’s what he means, then as I just observed – White is plainly a rationalist! Takes one to know one, evidently. :-) (Is he projecting his own double-think onto his opponent?)
  • Sean’s point about choice of passages should be emphasized. Navas here fights White, as it were, on White’s home turf. To be fair, White should debate him again, taking the negative side, and letting Navas pick the five passages.
  • White was sloppy on the topics of monotheism and worship. And he overuses the ad hominem and question-begging assertion that Navas is simply looking at the texts through unitarian blinders. Still, he is an able debater. As is Navas.
  • This sort of debate can get tedious because of the focus mainly on the exegesis of texts. Those texts are, of course, the main evidence. But I think that both sides could have spent more time making their overall case – actually making explicit arguments, not only showing how various texts allegedly fit their respective views, and then going, see! This is, after all, a battle of theologies. If only reading the texts was going to solve this, well, it would’ve been resolved a long time ago. And it is clear – or at least, it is clear to me – that the theoretical arguments are really the locus of disagreement. e.g. Jesus is rightly worshiped, and only God can be rightly worshiped, therefore, Jesus just is God and vice-versa. (Even though they differ!) But that second premise is false, according to the New Testament. On carefully thinking through White’s traditional catholic arguments, see this. They do get a bit more into such argument in part 2.
  • Relatedly, it strikes me that for White, focusing almost completely on (favorite) texts is a way of avoiding hard questions, like: isn’t White’s theology self-contradictory? (e.g. Jesus and the Father are both identical to God, but not to each other. God is and is not the ultimate source of the cosmos. God does and does not have a God above him.) If so, we can reject it as false. And we can see that there is a weighty reason to suspect his interpretations of the texts, on our assumption that what they teach is true, and so self-consistent. If he’s going to resist these inferences, he’ll need to say a lot more about how it can be rational to believe a clear, stable, apparent contradiction. It will not do to merely repeat that his view is (allegedly) based on all the texts.
  • In light of 2nd and 3rd century catholic theology, it is amazing that White thinks it absurd (and/or “Gnostic”) that the Son is an intermediary between God and humans, who is less great than God / the Father. More on that theme in a forthcoming screencast and paper, but for now, see this series.

trinitarian or unitarian? 6 – Origen’s Against Celsus – Part 2 (Dale)

Mar 112013
 

creationThe pagan polytheistic monotheist Celsus presses the attack we looked at last time.

If you [Christians] taught them that Jesus is not his [God's] Son, but that God is the father of all, all that we really ought to worship him [God] alone, they [Christians] would no longer be willing to listen to you unless you included Jesus as well, who is the author of their sedition. Indeed, when they call him Son of God, it is not because they are paying very great reverence to God, but because they are exalting Jesus greatly. [Origen answers:] We have learnt who the Son of God is, even that he is ‘an effulgence of his glory and the express image of his person’ …and we know that Jesus is the Son come from God and that God is his Father. There is nothing in the doctrine which is not fitting or appropriate to God, that He should cause the existence of an only-begotten Son of this nature. (Against Celsus 8.14, trans. Henry Chadwick, pp. 461-2, bold added)

Celsus pushes the point that a real monotheist would only worship God, and suggests that Christians exalt Jesus at God’s expense. (Never mind how he might reconcile this with his acceptance of traditional polytheism.)

Origen replies Continue reading »

trinitarian or unitarian? 5 – Origen’s Against Celsus – Part 1 (Dale)

Mar 092013
 

number-one-Celsus was a pagan philosopher, essentially a cultural and religious conservative, who wrote a book attacking Christianity, perhaps around 177-80 (though some have argued that it must be no later than 161).

Decades later, it is not clear exactly why, the great Christian scholar Origen (182-254) wrote a massive refutation of this book, quoting substantial portions of it. This is the eight-book Against Celsus, which was probably written aronud 246-8.

There are many, many interesting things in the book. Here’s a quotation relevant to our present series:

[Celsus writes:] If these men [Christians] worshiped no other God but one, perhaps they would have a valid argument against the others. But in fact they worship to an extravagant degree this man who appeared recently [Jesus], and yet think it is not inconsistent with monotheism if they worship His [God's] servant [Jesus]. [Origen responds:] Continue reading »

New Papers (Dale)

Feb 152013
 

paperI’ve just updated my homepage with a paper forthcoming in Faith and Philosophy, called “Hasker’s Quests for a Viable Social Theory.” My sincere thanks to editor Thomas Flint, and to that journal’s anonymous readers for their help.

The paper critically examines the various discussions of William Hasker, a very accomplished Christian philosopher, and former editor of F&P, from whom I have learned much. I think that more than anyone, he’s tried hard to make the “social” approach to the Trinity work – in which you say that the “Persons” of the Trinity really are persons, that is, selves, and then try to figure out how this is not going to be tritheism. In my judgment, Hasker does not succeed in coming up with a philosophically and theologically viable take on the Trinity. But judge for yourself, after you see the arguments.

Along the way I discuss Bill Craig’s (and J.P. Moreland’s?) social theory. This too seems like a dead end to me.

Social theorists’ most serious problem is not that they raise the hackles of many Christian philosophers, but rather that they contradict the New Testament. (e.g. Paul and John.) Maybe in a few days I’ll post a historical supplement to this paper – a part the journal compelled me to cut, which deals with Hasker’s misunderstandings of some patristic material.

I have other forthcoming papers which I’m not at liberty to publicly post yet. In “On Bauckham’s Bargain,” (forthcoming in Theology Today), I critically examine Richard Bauckham’s “christology of divine identity” – which has attracted so many evangelical apologists and theologians. I worked hard to make this paper communicate to non-philosophers, and I really hope it leads to some helpful discussion.

Another forthcoming publication is a slightly revised version of this talk, to be published here. I miss the pictures, but I think it is an important topic for all Christians to think carefully about.

Linkage: Is God Perfect? (Dale)

Jul 212012
 

(click for image credit)

Three Christian philosophers on perfect being theology, tradition in philosophy going back to the great medieval philosopher Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109), but really, as Leftow has shown, back to Augustine, Plato, and the Christian Bible.

First, a great interview (click the thin blue button) with Oxford philosopher Brian Leftow by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, for the PBS should Closer to Truth.

I did not know that Leftow was an open theist! As an open theist, he holds that God is not the all-determining puppet-master of the cosmos (or if you don’t like that metaphor, the novelist who writes every last word of her novel), but rather that he allows free creatures some leeway to control how things turn out. Consequently, when it comes to some aspects of “the future,” he must wait to see how things turn out, and then he freely responds to these new developments.

I wonder how this coheres with Leftow’s view that God is timeless?

One quibble: at the very end, he says that the concept of perfection is “presupposed in the attitude of worship.” I disagree. Worshiping is honoring. A person may worship God and it have never occurred to her whether or not God is perfect. But I agree with Leftow that the Bible implies that God is perfect, and that this is a fundamental truth on the basis of which we are to reason about how God must be.

In another interview, Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne explains why belief in a perfect God doesn’t imply that the cosmos God made is perfect. And why even though there can’t be a greatest possible cosmos, there can be a perfect being. And: isn’t it easier to believe in an imperfect God? (No.)

Note that at the very end he allows that it is coherent to worship a being who is less than perfect.

In a third interview, philosopher J.P. Moreland analyzes divine perfection as the greatest possible being – the greatest being there could possibly be. This does entail that we can do some things God can’t do. Can a perfect being be courageous? In one sense, Moreland argues, yes, but in another sense no. Does making good things make God better or greater? No. His life is enriched by having made good things, but he doesn’t need them, and they don’t make his life better. Moreland too believes in a temporal God (at least, given that he creates) who causally interacts with beings in his cosmos.

At the end Moreland gives an interesting argument God’s deserving our complete or full worship implies that God can’t improve. I don’t think this argument is sound, though I agree with his conclusion. Here’s why – suppose God were super-duper good, and worthy of more worship than all humans put together could ever give him – yet, suppose he were not perfect, as good as a being could possibly be. It would not follow that we should withhold part of our worship, giving say 90% rather than 100%. So, given that God deserves all we’ve got, as it were, with no reservations, it doesn’t follow from that, that he’s perfect.

Note that all three, so long as we’re in this sort of discussion, think of God as a perfect self – a who, a being which is the subject of mental states, who has a first person point of view – not a lifeless thing or even a group, gang, or family of selves.

Finally, a dissenting voice, theologian-philosopher Philip Clayton. He holds that this way of thinking is too limited. He urges that a more fundamental concept that applies to God is infinity, or being without limits of any sort, an “Infinite One” (aka “the Divine”) implying pantheism or monism, or both. Sort of the one inconceivable unity which somehow lies behind all (appearance of?) complexity – like Brahman or the Tao. Religion like this, I think, has always been a rival to any sort of monotheism, though it is often presented as a deeper version of it. One doesn’t properly approach such a thing with worship, which is a self-to-self attitude, but rather via philosophical reasoning, perhaps punctuated by some fleeting, ineffable, non-cognitive episodes of consciousness. On this view, the worshiper of God (the perfect self) is intellectually and spiritually shallow, stuck, as it were, in the kindergarden of theology, and ultimately mistaken.

It is an interesting question how both views, diametrically opposed, can be found within what we think of as a single tradition – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism – even Buddhism. I think a large part of the answer is that it is only small pockets of intellectuals who adopt the “infinite” sort of view, and that by accepting traditional language and practices, they sort of hide their disagreement from other people in the religion. But note that not all intellectuals do adopt it; our first three here are firmly in the perfect self camp.

A Tale of Three Kims – Part 2 (Dale)

May 282012
 


To continue:

Jun-suh had heard rumors that both Kim Il-Sung and then later Kim Jong-Il had died. Jun-suh reasoned that since the Great Leader could not die, some foolish people must have mistaken the economic Leader (Leader as manifested to North Koreans, i.e. Kim Jong-un) for the immanent Leader (which is incomprehensibly great). In himself, he is one Leader but is three men. He has manifested himself as such, and we can trust that the economic Leader is the immanent Leader, and vice-versa. He remembered reading this somewhere, and was firmly convinced of it.

His Leaderology was now highly developed. But his friend Seo-yun made one last try to convince him Continue reading »

A Tale of Three Kims – Part 1 (Dale)

May 272012
 

The news came by state radio, state newspaper, and state television. Great Leader Kim Il-Sung had make a startling announcement.

Hereforth, my beloved son Kim Jong-Il is also your Leader.

What did it mean?

“They are really one Leader” said Jun-suh. Look at their portraits. Are they not one man, photographed slightly differently?

“No,” argued Seo-yun; Kim Jong-Il is the son of Great Leader.

“Well, that would make him also a Great Leader, wouldn’t it?” And we all know that there is just Great Leader. We have been taught this all our lives.

Seo-yun countered, raising an eyebrow, “One can’t be one’s own son…”  She paused to let the point sink in.

But Jun-suh was unmoved. He pressed his case. “The Great Leader is one. This goes without saying. Our love and loyalty are for him, and him alone. It is him alone we praise at our festivals.”

“Wait… I was at that recent rally… the Great Leader and his son our Leader were both there!” Continue reading »

What is idolatry? (Dale)

May 102012
 

In a recent public presentation I tried to define two concepts of idolatry, but I wasn’t quite happy with either of them.

So here’s the 2.0 version, submitted to you for criticism and comment:

  • idolatry (def 1): the practice of honoring a representation or symbol as if it were a god or a person worthy of honor.

This is literal idolatry, which is the rule rather than the exception in the world’s religions – bowing, etc. to things like this Jain statue I photographed in Bombay. It was this sort of practice which was forbidden in the ten commandments:

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them… Exodus 20:4-5, ESV

“Serve” here, I think, clearly signifies religious worship specifically. It is not clear, I think, that it is against any sort of respect for images, e.g. saluting a flag. But it is against the sort of image honoring typical of ancient near eastern religions.

Apart from this command, it seems to me, it is by no means obvious that the one God shouldn’t be worshiped by means of some object, be it representational or abstract. After all, millions, probably billions of people do this, either for some god or for the one God.

But very often in the New Testament, it is not the above concept which is in view. Instead, they have in mind Continue reading »

Anthony Buzzard: That Jesus Should be Worshiped Does not Imply that He is God (Dale)

May 092012
 

(click for image credit)

Sir Anthony Buzzard is the author of a number of books, including the 2007  Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian.

Interesting title, no?

Some Christians will think it true but trivial.

Others, against the evidence, assert it to be false.

Others will urge that he is implicitly but not explicitly a trinitarian, i.e. that his beliefs entailed it, though he did not believe it.

I agree with with Buzzard, though, that it is both true and important. According to the gospels, Jesus’ beliefs included the numerical identity of the one true God with his heavenly Father, and we should assume him to be self-consistent on this subject, so he did not also think that the one true God is numerically identical to this: Father+Son+Spirit. (Things identical to the same thing must also be identical to each other.)

But isn’t Jesus worshiped in the New Testament? And doesn’t that show that he is God himself?

No – I agree with the substance of this recent video by Buzzard: Continue reading »

Speaking at 2012 Theological Conference in Atlanta, Georgia (Dale)

May 012012
 

I’m heading to Atlanta to give two presentations at the 2012 Theological Conference:

  • Who Should Christians Worship?
  • God and His Son: The Logic of the New Testament

Stay tuned for video links.

Seems it’s going to be hot there…

Update: Had a great time there. Folks who heard me talk may be interested in seeing some highlights from this blog, or misc. books. My thanks to the Buzzards for their organization and hospitality, and to the Gills for filming it all.

Francis David: Against Worshiping Jesus (Dale)

Mar 142012
 

(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 Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 9 – Song of the Lamb (Dale)

Mar 132012
 

When discussing Revelation 4-5 earlier in this series, I looked backwards and forwards through the book, to get a comprehensive view of this author’s theology and christology.

But I overlooked something, namely this interesting little tidbit, in another throne room scene, in an interlude between some smiting.

And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire—and also those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands. And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying “Great and amazing are your deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are your ways, O King of the nations! Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.” (Rev 15: 2-4, ESV, emphasis added)

Song of the Lamb? Why is that there? Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 8 – Objection: I Will Not Give My Glory to Another (Dale)

Mar 122012
 


The extraordinary early American minister Noah Worcester (1758-1837) fought in Battle of Bunker Hill, made shoes, taught school, served in the New Hampshire legislature, campaigned unsuccessfully for pacifism, and in his spare time, wrote some really interesting philosophical theology. (In my lingo, he’s a subordinationist unitarian.)

Here are some of his thoughts on the subject of worshiping Jesus.

That the Son of God is to regarded as an object of DIVINE HONORS, is so plain from the Scriptures, that it seems extraordinary that it should even have been denied by any one who has admitted the Bible as a rule of faith and practice. …We have express declarations of the will of God. “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men should HONOR the SON even as they honor the Father.” This is a sufficient warrant for men to give DIVINE HONORS to the SON of God. Angels have their warrant also; for “When he bringeth in his ONLY BEGOTTEN into the world, he saith, Let all the angels of God WORSHIP HIM.” (Noah Worcester, Bible News: Or, Sacred Truths Relating to the Living God, His Only Son, and Holy Spirit, p. 128, bold added)

I agree.

Worcester proceeds to carefully work through many arguments in this chapter with sure-footed common sense and deep familiarity with the Bible. I thought his answer to a common objection to worshiping the Son was especially interesting:

It may still be thought, that if the Son be not the self-existent God, but has been exalted by God as an object of Divine honors, then God has given his glory to another, contrary to his own word. …

[In reply,] Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 7 – Morgridge on Revelation 4-5 (Dale)

Mar 112012
 

19th c. American minister Charles Morgridge makes an apt comment about Revelation 4-5:

There is not in the Bible a clearer distinction between the only true God, and his only Son our Saviour, than is here expressed. GOD sat on the throne; the Son stood amidst the elders. GOD had in his right hand a book; the Son came and took the book out of his hand. GOD was worshiped as the Being who created all things; and who liveth forever and ever. The Son was honored as the Lamb that was slain, and redeemed us unto God by his blood. And as [in 1 Chronicles 29:20] the whole congregation of Israel bowed down their heads, and worshiped the LORD and the king, who was but a type of this Lamb; so, in verse 13, the whole universe is represented as ascribing Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, unto HIM that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever. (The True Believer’s Defence, p. 58, bold added)

A couple of other gems:

The word worship is now generally used to express the religious homage due to God. But this is not the only sense Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 6 – An interesting textual corruption (Dale)

Mar 102012
 

(click for image credit)

And we saw, at the climax of the heavenly scene in Rev 4-5, those present in God’s throne room fall down and worship. (5:14)

Whom do they worship? Both God, and the Lamb, as the songs said.  (4:11, 5:11-13)

But there’s an interesting textual variant. If you look in your old King James Version, which uses an inferior edition of the Greek New Testament, 5:14 reads:

And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. (emphasis added)

All modern textual scholars seem to agree that this is not the original reading,  in other words, that the words I just bolded were inserted into the book. Why?

This is evidently a deliberate change, and not a scribal mistake (e.g. accidentally mis-spelling, repeating a line, skipping a line, etc.). Why would someone make this insertion?

I can think of two reasons. Both depend on the assumption that only God himself should be worshiped. As we’ve seen, chapter 5 shows Jesus being worshiped. But this can’t stand!

  • Reason 1: So, we reason, the chapter should wrap up by clarifying – or rather “clarifying” – that it is really God who is being worshiped here, not Jesus. This is accomplished by inserting a Johannine phrase which denotes the Father, i.e. God, the one who sits on the throne in this scene. Clever! For his part, 18th c. unitarian Theophilus Lindsey loves it. ( p. 38)
  • Reason 2: This suggestion in ch. 5 that there are really two objects of worship can’t stand. So we end the episode by clarifying – that is, “clarifying” – that there is really just one object of worship: God. So, Jesus and God are one and the same. And isn’t this episode (ch. 5) sort of book-ended by other worship scenes where God alone is worshiped? (ch. 4, ch. 19) Don’t you get the hint? Don’t you? It’s like God has momentarily split apart to reveal his multi-personal nature.
Could there be other reasons for the insertion? What do you think?
What do you specialists in textual criticism out there say?
I don’t know which of my hypotheses is more likely; it might depend on when and where the corruption originated.
But I suspect it is one or the other, given the admittedly jarring nature of this worship of Jesus in chapter 5.

 

 

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 5 – An Objection (Dale)

Mar 082012
 

(click for image credit)

If we stick with objections arising from the text of Revelation itself, perhaps the most obvious one is that raised in a comment on previous post by my friend James Anderson. Reformulated by me, it goes:

The text itself (Rev 19:10, 22:9) asserts that we should worship only God. And yes, Revelation plainly implies that Jesus should be worshiped. And so it plainly implies that Jesus is God. 

One might look to one of my favorite translations, the New Living Translation, which has these two verses saying, in part: “Worship only God”.

When you look at the Greek, though, you see that it simply says “Worship God.” Not the same thing! And most translations get this right. (Even The Message and the Good News Bible get it right.)

Where does the “only” come from? From the theological agenda of the translators; they want the text to be making the argument above. So in the ESV Study Bible, which translates these phrases correctly (“Worship God.”) they feel the theological need to add this footnote:

Human beings must not worship even the angels… God alone must be worshiped. Since the Lamb is rightly worshiped (5:8-14), he is God. (p. 2497)

Interestingly, these evangelical commenters agree with those in the recent Jewish Annotated New Testament that Revelation asserts that only God should  be worshiped. In their comment on 19:7-10, they assert that

It is God, not the Lamb/Jesus, who is to be worshiped. (p. 493)

And bizarrely, in their notes on chapter 5, they ignore the obvious fact that Jesus is being worshiped together with God, although they correctly note that

The heavenly song makes a clear distinction between the enthroned one and the sacrificial lamb. (p. 474)

I’m reading between the lines here, and the commenters in this book are understandably very circumspect, but I think their assumption is Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 4 – Implications (Dale)

Mar 062012
 

Last time we carefully read through a heavenly scene in which Jesus is exalted to God’s side and worshiped alongside him.

We saw that it is indisputable that Revelation 4-5 holds forth Jesus as worthy of being worshiped.

But can this help us choose between the dueling arguments from the first post? Yes!

Given that we accept that Jesus ought to be worshiped, we must choose between Only God should be worshiped and Jesus isn’t God because we can’t consistently accept both of these, in addition to the claim that Jesus ought to be worshiped.

Based on our careful reading (Part 2, Part 3) of Revelation 4-5, let us ask which of these John would agree with?

Would John agree that only God should be worshiped?
Plainly not. 

  • Jesus is presented throughout as someone else. In these chapters, he comes into God’s throne room, receives the scroll of God’s secret plans from God, and is then honored alongside God.
  • God, the one on the throne, silently approves of all this. He lets Jesus take the scroll. It is his mission that Jesus accomplished, because of which Jesus is worthy to now be exalted. And he stands by while people worship both him and Jesus. And he does not thunder “You lousy idolaters” – worship only me!” And he, he tacitly approves of this exaltation of Jesus.
  • Smartly, the people present agree. (v. 14) No one calls out God Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 3 – Revelation 5 (Dale)

Mar 042012
 

(click for image credit)

Last time, in chapter 4, our author (a “John” – 1:1) was granted a vision of God in heaven, receiving worship in his throne room.

In chapter 5, God – the one on the throne – is holding a sealed up scroll – a scroll which we later find out (ch. 6-9) contains his future plans. This is what the author was promised at the start of chapter 4 – that he’d be shown the future (4:1), again, something we know from Isaiah is the prerogative of God alone.

No one is found worthy to open it, and John is bummed. Someone tells him,

“Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”

And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Lamb. Who? We’ve met him before – it is Jesus, the one through whom Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 2 – Revelation 4 (Dale)

Mar 022012
 

(click for image credit)

What does Revelation imply about God, Jesus, and worship?

In Revelation chapter 4, the author is granted a heavenly vision:

After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. (ESV, emphases throughout are added)

Awesome. Who could this be? There follows a description of the setting and the heavenly court. Featured are some wierd heavenly beings singing,

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

Right – this is Yahweh. All of this is very reminiscient of the vision in Isaiah chapter 6:

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.  Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

“LORD” here is the proper name Yahweh. So this is who Isaiah saw. And this, the author of Revelation is telling us, who he now sees in his vision. Much in the vision is similar to the visions in Ezekiel 1 and 10. There too, the prophet sees God himself.

If the point wasn’t clear enough in Revelation 4, some worship this one on the throne, saying,

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”

This recalls well-known passages later in Isaiah, were Yahweh asserts that he’s the only true God, and the only creator.

Note finally that the author here nowhere says the one on the throne is a man, although one imagines the character as humanoid – I mean, appearing to be similar to a man – he does sit enthtroned here, and in the next chapter he’s got a scroll in his right hand. Of course, he’s assumed to be a self here too. He has a will, he performs intentional actions like creating, and he can be addressed and worshiped.

He’s a glorious and powerful being here, but the author demurs from directly describing him. I think that’s why a good portrayal of this scene has a sort of non-descript person on the throne, e.g. with no articulated face, as in the picture here (which is really of Revelation 5, subject of my next post).

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 1 – setup (Dale)

Feb 292012
 

(click for image credit)

What, if anything, is wrong with this argument?

1. Only God should be worshiped.

2. Jesus should be worshiped.

3. Therefore, Jesus is God.     (1,2)

Before you answer, be sure you understand the claims fully. The “only” in 1 makes a claim of quantification, which we all understand in terms of identity. In standard logic, it would be analyzed as:

Wg & (x)(Wx -> x=g) That is: God should be worshiped, and for any x, x should be worshiped only if x is numerically the same as God.

Given 2 then (Wj) what follows logically is that Jesus is numerically the same as God. (j = g) Many evangelicals, it seems, endorse 3, and think the above to be a sound argument.

Interestingly, this conclusion 3 is not what most Christians trained in philosophy think – and I’m referring to almost all (various sorts of) trinitarians here. That’s because on anyone’s views (OK – just about anyone – I’m aware of the “oneness” folk) some things will be true of God that are not true of Jesus, and vice-versa. In short, it is obvious that they’ve differed.  So then, they can’t be numerically identical, however closely they’re related. Based on this, most of them would deny 1, interestingly enough. They would allow, consistently with this, that maybe Jesus “is God” in the sense of being divine – where this neither means nor implies being numerically identical to God.

Still, the above argument seems sound to many thoughtful Christians.

Here’s another such argument:

1.  Jesus isn’t God.

2. Jesus should be worshiped.

3. Therefore, it is false that only God should be worshiped. (1,2)

Both arguments are valid; they have the same structure – in both cases, IF 1 and 2 were true, then 3 would be true as well. But it can’t be that both are sound (valid with all true premises) since 3 in the first argument is inconsistent with 1 in the second argument. (Logically, they could both be unsound, if their common premise 2 is false.)

What to do? Accept the first argument, accept the second, or jettison both?

It seems to me that Revelation 4-5 should push us towards accepting the second argument. In the rest of this series, I’ll explain why.

 

 

Switch to our mobile site

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech