|
Listen to this post:
|
In my recent debate book with Chris Date, I start off by distinguishing the popular (and demonstrably confused) identification of Jesus with God (as in, these are numerically one, each just is the other) from traditional “two natures” speculations. (pp. 10-17)
Either can be meant by the abstract phrase “the deity of Christ” – which is why that phrase is none too helpful. One should also beware of theologians talking about “identifying” Jesus and God, for very often they simply mean that a writer is, in some unique way, closely associating together Jesus and God. Of course, we unitarian Christians are in favor of that!
I have pointed out this popular confusion that we see repeated ad nauseum in popular apologetics and preaching – and, by the way the only “good” answer to that argument is to endorse it as sound. I have pointed out that this confusion goes way back in Christian history, which is why we find Origen denouncing this error.
Happily, the late Dr. Hurtado denounced it as well. Despite his membership in “the early high christology club” and his emphasis on the early religious worship given to Jesus, Hurtado did not confuse together God and the Son of God. He correctly denies that in the New Testament Jesus is worshiped as God.
In this short clip put together by Restoration Fellowship, Dr. Hurtado explains that mainstream traditions do not, rightly understood, collapse Jesus with God.
I would add a caveat. I think he’s right about ancient, 4th-6th century traditions. They meant to rule out the modalistic monarchian mistake of collapsing Jesus and God together, thinking they are one and the same – the mistake Origen denounces. However, people who understand “the Trinity” in the incoherent way where all of the occurrences of “is” in ye olde Trinity shield here mean numerical identity (affirmations on the spokes, denials around the edges) – these people do confuse Jesus with God, though they are, in some sense, in the mainstream. While they identify Jesus with God, of course, they also implicitly distinguish them! Since the Son isn’t the Father, and the Father just is God, then it follows that the Son isn’t God. The position is manifestly incoherent. But, they are collapsing together Jesus with God (and then undoing it). Is this a “popular” misreading of tradition? Maybe. But some positive mysterians are PhDs in theology who are emphatic that “the Trinity” should be apparently incoherent, in just this way.
At any rate, apologists who collapse together Jesus and God as numerically one thereby show that they are not careful thinkers. For surely, even in their view, the two of them have simultaneously differed – which shows that they can’t be one and the same, not according to me, but according to the views of that apologist. And, of course, according to the New Testament, which seems to reveal many differences between Jesus and his God. Don’t believe me? Well, maybe you’ll listen to Jesus?
