Here’s a sermon by my friend Pastor J. Dan Gill, expounding the important New Testament theme of the exaltation of Jesus. He discusses texts including Psalm 110 and Acts 2. You can download the audio of this sermon here.
Dan and his wife Sharon run the 21st Century Reformation website, an important resource for biblical unitarians (aka unitarian Christians, one God believers, non-trinitarian Christians). Their site has a great collection of sermons, lectures, articles, and book reviews. Based in Tennessee, the site also features some gospel music.
Related posts:
the "Functional Polytheism" accusation
"What can a 'mere man' do?" at Pine Grove Bible Church
podcast 188 – Dr. Paul W. Newman’s Spirit Christology – Part 2
podcast 38 - Dr. Craig Evans on the burial and empty tomb traditions
Jude 4, John 17:1-3, and "only" arguments
podcast 224 - Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 1 - God and “God” in the Bible
"Identifying Jesus as Yahweh" as heresy
Is the doctrine of the Incarnation prior to & the source of trinitarian doctrine? - Part 2
"Only God can forgive sins." False.
podcast 99 - Dr. Larry Hurtado on early high christology
Hey, John!
In sunny South Africa – where the country is as beautiful as its politics are ugly! LOL!
I’ll pop you a mail…
Blessings!
Jaco
Re post 2 – You mentioned that you too live in Africa!
Where do you live?
I really appreciate your comments in post 11 !!!
Blessings
John
Hi Jeff
I’m not sure what you’re driving at here. Cognitive dissonance is only experienced when a misfit or disconnect is subceptively perceived between a cherished belief and equally cherished sources for one’s confessed belief. I see therefore greater reason (and occurance) of cognitive dissonance among trinitarians than unitarians. The tension between cherished belief and the bible is not there among unitarians, and some of the best NT theologians have confirmed unitarian sentiments many times over.
i) John 1:18–”No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, that one has declared [Him].” The sense of “God” used with “only begotten” has to be different from the sense of ‘gods’ used in John 10:34-35 as there is only one.
There is great textual uncertainty aroundnJn. 1:18. Even though the oldest witnesses, P75 and P66 testify to the theos reading, it is significant that the later witnesses changed the reading to huios. Margaret Davies has shown that the original was most likely just monogenes which later got elaborated upon by adding theos and huios. P75 and P66 also have several inferior readings in other areas, so as a whole their early attestation does not improve their superiority. Even with the unlikely original of “only-begotten God,” however, in the Jewish mind the human or angelic representative of God could be addressed as God himself. (Thinking of the semiotic demonstration by Faucoult’s Ceci n’est pas une pipe).
None of these titles and designations make Jesus ontologically identical to God Himself. In fact, it was understood that Jesus was made these by someone else who was God (Ac. 5:31). THe ancient Jews could immediately recall Ps. 110:1 which necessitates the recipient of the oracle to be not-Yahweh and therefore not-God by identity. As the means by which humans can gain life, salvation and purpose of faith, Jesus could rightly deserve all those titles (cp. Ac. 2:22, 17:31).
iii) How is it that Christians “have become sharers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4)”? If Jesus only has “the fullness of the divinity” (Col. 2:9) dwelling in him because he fully accepted and worked the will of his Father (enabling us access to do so as well), then wouldn’t we only become sharer of the divine will rather than the “divine nature”?
Jesus has become the first to embody true divinity (cp. Jn. 3:34) – something Adam failed to achieve. So as the first of many, Jesus achieved glory-as-man (2 Cor. 4:6) which we also have the hope of achieving (Ro. 8:29, 2 Cor. 3:18, Eph. 3:19).
Jesus fully embodied God’s original purpose for mankind – not Adam. His pre-eminence and superiority is conveyed by the title monogenes. That title does not change his category from man to anything else.
Your reference to the inadequacy of Ac. 2:22 is not that clear, though. What that text shows is that no reference to Jesus’ words and deeds on earth can identify him as ontologically identical to God or as being inherently divine. That text explains that Jesus was the means of God’s greatness, not the origin of it himself.
Thanks for your commendable spirit.
Jaco
In Zimbabwe.
jabrien@africaonline.co.zw
Blessings
John
Jeff
Regarding (iii)
2 Peter 1v 4 and Colossians 2 v 9 have a common ‘thread’.
We have a descending line from God, through Christ ,to man
Colossians 2 v 9 ” in him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily”
Then look at Ephesians 3 v 19 ‘ and you share this fullness with him”
2 Corinthians 9 v 19 “God was in Christ
Then look at 2 Corinthians 9 v 19 “for this reason I labour, striving according to his power, which works mightily in me”
Regarding (iv)
John 3 v 18 ‘ the only Son of God”
(a) If you look back at Christs genealogy you will notice that it goes back to ” Adam, son of God”
(b) Christ was first-born of Mary , by God’s Holy Spirit
(c) Following his resurrection and exaltation
(i) First born from the dead
(ii) First born of a new creation – with millions of brothers and sisters to follow.
JSP
In post, (2) above I quoted some verses which are particularly meaningful to me.
I measure all other scriptures against them and find that none can ‘over-ride’ their import.
Trinitarians bombard us with ‘gymnastics ‘,and verses which are capable of multiple meaning or have textual problems. Their ‘gymnastics’ reek of desperation.!
The truth is so simple. Too simple for some it seems!
It will be painful but it will set you free!
Blessings
John
Hey, John
I’m also living in Africa. Whereabouts are you at?
Jaco
JSP
About 5 years ago I decided that there were a lot of doctrinal issues which were incomprehensible to me – and that I should endeavour to get to the ‘truth’ before I leave this life on earth.
What I found shocked me – I felt that I was having bucket after bucket of cold water thrown over me.
I began to regret that I had ever ‘opened this box’.
There was however a constant. Every ‘stone I turned over’ demolished Trinitarian thinking and I must say that this is still a daily occurrance.
I can honestly say that I have heard or read no material which has caused me to stop and re-consider the Trinitarian position.
What astonished me was that on investigation, there are NO trinitarian proof texts.
Dale Tuggy has added another dimension to my thinking. There are no philosophical models which support the trinity.
I am not an expert , but here are my poor attemps to cast some light on the matters you raised.
(i) John 1 v18. There is some textual variation here and people tend to favour those texts which favour their doctrinal point of view.
The footnote to the NAB Bible states ” While the vast majority of texts of later txtual witness have another reading the ‘only one’ or ‘the only Son’ the translation in the NAB Bible follows the best and earliest M.S.”
You are absolutely correct that the sense of ‘the only begotten Son of God differs from the ‘gods’ mentioned in John 10v34
Glad to see you picked up the absence of the definite article!!
Christ was begotten when the spirit of the Most High came into Mary.
Christ was also the ‘firstborn of a new creation’ and the ‘firstborn from the dead” on his ascension into heaven.
In this regard he now has millions of brothers and sisters in the heavenly realm.
(ii)Yes, but Unitarians regard Christ as God’s divine agent – and not God. All his powers were delegated .
Without doubt Chrish has made God known to us and shown usthe way- but in an agential manner.
I’m afraid that I must go now – back with answers to your other questions presently.
Every Blessing
John
Hi John, Dale and others,
I am aware of the perceived “impossible chasm” of which John speaks regarding the verses he quoted, and I am also one with Dale—although from a different perspective—regarding his faith in God’s providence, specifically God’s ability to bring his people “into the unity of the faith and the full knowledge of the Son of God” (Eph 3:21). I started to experience an “enormous concern” for the future of the Christian faith when I was in graduate school about 13 years ago; it was then that I started to think about Unitarian vs.Trinitarian issues. Honestly, I believe we all have to acknowledge that there is some level of cognitive dissonance experienced when attempting to reconcile a systematic view of either vision of God with the whole of Scripture. How is it that you deal with the following Scriptures:
i) John 1:18–“No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, that one has declared [Him].” The sense of “God” used with “only begotten” has to be different from the sense of ‘gods’ used in John 10:34-35 as there is only one.
ii) Jesus is called “the Author of the life” (Acts 3:15), “the Author of the salvation” (Heb. 2:10) and “the Author and the Perfecter of the faith” (Heb. 12:2) One would think that God would be the “Author” (and “Perfecter”) of these . . . would he or she not?
iii) How is it that Christians “have become sharers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4)”? If Jesus only has “the fullness of the divinity” (Col. 2:9) dwelling in him because he fully accepted and worked the will of his Father (enabling us access to do so as well), then wouldn’t we only become sharer of the divine will rather than the “divine nature”?
iv) How is it that Jesus is called “the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18), when it is said that Adam was a “son of God” (Lk 3:37). If Jesus was merely another “son of God,” then it seems he would not be called “the only begotten.”
I have heard Unitarian responses to some of these Scriptures—although I have found the one’s I heard rather wanting—and I am open to God revealing the truth of this Word to help me formulate my thoughts about these verses, as well as the verses John mentioned. Like Dale, I don’t want to “ignore counter evidence.” I would like to hear from you as both of you seem to be far more convinced of the “truth” of Unitarianism than I am of what God-given light is still breaking into my mind. I pray the God and Father of the LORD Jesus Christ will give both of you and I the Spirit of understanding and wisdom to see further into these issues.
Blessings in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
Jeff
Dale
Thanks for that!
The good news is that many people over here are terrified of being suckered into a faith that it rooted in the 8th century.
The Wahabbi idea appeals to very few-but the true fanatics.
Every Blessing
John
“I am noticing a trend whereby the Muslims are steadily making inroads into Christian areas – and their success is due largely to their ability to attack the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Fortunately their ‘anti-trinity ‘propoganda is fairly crude – but they are gradualy becoming more and more knowledgable and skilled in their attacks and I am noticing a trend even among Christians to question the doctrine.
It’s only a matter of time before this ‘time-bomb’ explodes – and people will start asking the Christian Churches for explanations . “If the Trinity is nonsense , what about the rest of your faith”?
The old ‘Christ= God’ model will just not work in an increasingly questioning world, and what worked as a powerful ‘branding’ tool (unique selling proposition) for Christianity will become a weapon in the hands of the Muslims.
I am enormously concerned for the future!”
You should be – and yet, God is provident. There will indeed be increasingly sophisticated arguments between Muslims and Christians – there is no hiding this information from them. And they are quite skilled, some of them, in textual arguments. They will not be persuaded by the typical apologetic moves, e.g. endlessly pounding the “Jesus is God” proof-texts, and ignoring all the counter-evidence. The Trinity is just not a pet theory for them – they aren’t going to cut it the slack that so many do. But, it’s equally not for many of the people they’re converting, including a good number of nominal and, I am sad to say, real Christians.
One of their greatest apologetic weapons is the clarity of their theology, as opposed to the unclarity of Trinity theories. Converts to Islam very commonly cite this, as do their apologists. The truth of biblical unitarianism, though, takes this weapon from their hands.
Jeff
In your post you noted that in the scriptures ‘LORD’ and ‘Lord’ in some sense synonymous.
Not really – you will find that in most cases ‘LORD’ is referring to YHWH and it reflects ‘status’
-i.e. the one s.upreme being.
The word ‘Lord’ reflects function… as do words like ‘master’ etc.
Thus we have in Isaiah 1 v 24 ” Now therefore says the Lord, the LORD of Hosts”
‘YAHWEH, HaShem”
He is the LORD , the Lord of hosts
“YAHWEH HaShem”
When we refer to the “Lord God ” we are referring to the same being by his Status and by his ‘religious name’
HaShem.
You will note that Christ was called ‘Lord Jesus’ after his resurrection and exaltation -and this gives Unitarians no problem.
Some scriptures, particularly those which have been ‘cut and pasted’ from the Old Testament sometimes refer to Lord – and this is always YAHWEH being referred to.
Hope this makes sense!
Every Blessing
John
As always CONTEXT is always crucial in determining meaning.
Jeff
I guess that we are so convinced of the power of our case that we tend to get a bit sloppy!
The case you present seems to be ‘stretching it’ for me – you have got an impossible ‘chasm ‘ to cross –
(i) Corinthians 8 vs 4-6
‘There is but no God but ONE
There is but ONE GOD the Father’
(ii)John 17v3
‘FATHER the only true God”
(iii)John 20 v 17
” I am going to my FATHER and your FATHER
To my GOD and your GOD”
(iv) Who did Christ ask us to pray to?
“Our FATHER in heaven”
Jeff. I live in Africa – a continent where Christian churches are growing rapidly.
I am noticing a trend whereby the Muslims are steadily making inroads into Christian areas – and their success is due largely to their ability to attack the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Fortunately their ‘anti-trinity ‘propoganda is fairly crude – but they are gradualy becoming more and more knowledgable and skilled in their attacks and I am noticing a trend even among Christians to question the doctrine.
It’s only a matter of time before this ‘time-bomb’ explodes – and people will start asking the Christian Churches
for explanations . “If the Trinity is nonsense , what about the rest of your faith”?
The old ‘Christ= God’ model will just not work in an increasingly questioning world, and what worked as a powerful ‘branding’ tool (unique selling proposition) for Christianity will become a weapon in the hands of the Muslims.
I am enormously concerned for the future!
WORSHIP NO OTHER GOD THAN THE ONE JESUS WORSHIPPED!
Best Wishes
John
Dale and others,
I realize this presenter is merely “expounding” his views of the “real” Jesus, but his presentation does nothing to convince even an agnostic, yet seeking, Christian theist (agnostic with respect to whether God is a uni-personal, bi-personal, tri-personal or other-personal individual) of Jesus’ true identity.
Yes, Acts 2:22 says Jesus was a man, but no Trinitarian would deny this. In fact, any non-unitarian could use scripture to debate his distinction between LORD and lord.
First, Acts 2:22 (quoting Joel 2:32) is speaking about those “who call on the name of the LORD.” And yet Peter goes on to speak about the man Jesus.
Second, there are numerous places throughout the Old Testament where the Hebrew words for LORD and lord are used in some sense as synonyms [See Neh. 10:29; Ps. 8:9, 97:5, 24:1 (compare this with Josh. 3:11,13); Ps 147:5; Isa 1:24, 3:1, 10:16, 51:22; Mal. 3:1; not to mention many more].
Anyway, my point isn’t to convince anyone hold a particular position, but it seems this presenter’s textual proofing is glaringly inadequate. If anything he seems to be more of a Kripkain Dogmatist who is unwilling to view, or just carelessly dismisses, any textual evidence from another perspective. This is only sure to increase polarization not bring unity—or except for Unitarian unity as he preaches to the choir.
Blessings in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
Jeff
Comments are closed.