At his blog Theology and Justice, Roman effectively dismantles Nabeel Qureshi’s appeal to Psalm 110:1 in his recent debate as showing (or suggesting? hinting?) that Jesus is God, or equal to God, or a member of the Trinity, or that there is plurality of personhood in God… or something trinitarian.
I would only add that I don’t think that Mr. Qureshi is being dishonest; I only think that he’s mistaken. I think he’s assuming something which is popular to assume, but which is neither self-evident nor supported by any scripture – that only a (fully) divine being, or a being with a divine nature, could be exalted to God’s right hand.
As far as I can see, no New Testament writer looks at Psalm 110:1 and says to himself that it’s almost as if there are two gods there. No, the one God is the one who does the exalting. The exalted one is someone else. The exalter is YHWH. The exaltee originally was the king, and in the NT re-application, is an even more important man.
Which Lord is being referred to in the following texts from Acts 2. The LORD or the Lord of Psalm 110?
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Peter ascribes to Jesus the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in fulfilment of the OT prophecy:
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Therefore Peter is identifying Jesus with God who is pouring out his Spirit upon all flesh in fulfilment of the prophecy in Joel.
“the Lord” in v. 19-20 was YHWH in the original, and Peter (and Luke) may mean it either way – as referring to God, or to Jesus. (This latter would be less awkard because they were using the LXX, in which YHWH just becomes “the Lord,” ho kurios.) But it is perverse to skip his explicit preaching that follows: “22 “You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— 23 this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24 But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power.” Paul, does that sound to you like someone preaching that Jesus is God? Why or why not?
About your argument from vv. 17 & 33. In 33 it is clearly presupposed that Jesus is different than the God who exalted him, and also that God and the Father are one and the same. This spirit which the exalted Jesus received from God, he distributed. Yes, this counts as YHWH fulfilling his promise, but by way of Jesus, his agent. It’s doesn’t so much as hint that Jesus is YHWH himself. This is a case of what I call the fulfillment fallacy, which has become distressingly common, I find, among evangelical apologists and others. Here are three posts on this sort of interpretive mistake: https://trinities.org/blog/proving-that-bush-sgt-speedo/
https://trinities.org/blog/the-bible-teaches-that-david-is-god/
https://trinities.org/blog/the-bible-on-another-previous-life-of-jesus/ (see my comment below this)
Sometimes you just have to read the whole passage, in it’s whole context, and it clears itself up. It’s unfortunate that the fulfillment fallacy is being used all the time, since if one applied it equally, Moses would be YHWH, David would be YHWH, and who knows how many other YHWH’s we would have.
“This spirit which the exalted Jesus received from God, he distributed. Yes, this counts as YHWH fulfilling his promise, but by way of Jesus, his agent.”
The text doesn’t say that Jesus received the Spirit. It says that he received the promise of the Spirit. I don’t believe that he could have poured out the Spirit without being God himself. I don’t believe that created things can be the co-effective cause of any divine action. This seems to be the unitarian leap of faith for which I see no evidence in scripture.
Paul,
When Peter spoke of Jesus Christ receiving the “promise of holy spirit” (Acts 2:33), he was talking about a “man” who was raised out of the grave (Acts 2:22-24). There is no reason to think he didn’t receive the same “promise of holy spirit” that was given to all his disciples (Galatians 3:14; Ephesians 1:3).
It’s also evident that God the Father used human mediators too confer the promised holy spirit to other people. This is how the Samaritans (Acts 8:15-17) and Paul (Acts 9:17), and John’s disciples, (Acts 19:7) and Timothy received it (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6). Neither God the Father, nor Jesus Christ had to impart holy spirit directly.
Thus, there is no reason to think the Jesus Christ had to be “God” in order to receive the promise of holy spirit or to give it to other people.
Rivers,
“Neither God the Father, nor Jesus Christ had to impart holy spirit directly.”
How do you know this?
What is the efficient or moving cause of the spirit being conferred?
“It’s also evident that God the Father used human mediators to confer the promised holy spirit to other people”
We can all agree on this depending on what you mean by the word “mediator”. It doesn’t explain why I do not believe what you believe does it?
Paul,
We know this because we have the evidence. For example, in Acts 2:4 and Acts 10:42-44, holy spirit falls upon some people from heaven. However, in other cases like Acts 8:15-17 and Acts 19:6, people didn’t receive holy spirit until someone laid hands on them.
Dale,
Yes in this section you quote Peter is describing the man Jesus. At the end though we find that this man is exalted to be Lord:
” Therefore
let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that
same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
There is only one Lord according to the OT, the Bible for Peter and the Jews he preached to:
5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
This excludes the possibility of two separate entities both being Lords in the same class of beings worthy of religious worship. God alone exists in this class by himself and he excludes all others.
My trinitarian understanding of this would be that Jesus, as a man, goes through a process of exaltation from cradle to throne. The end result is that as a human being he simply reaches his divine starting point. This being his glorious pre-existent state of glory as the Son of God who is the same Lord as the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Hi Paul, yes the OT (also the NT) strongly affirms the uniqueness of YHWH; there is only one Lord in that sense – there is only one YHWH. One eternal god, the creator and ruler of all else. This one is called the Father in the NT. But this monotheistic claim is not equivalent to: there is only one being who is properly called “Lord.” Do you see the difference? It is consistent to affirm the first, and deny the second. Do you think the Bible teaches that any being properly called “Lord” is YHWH himself? (Which is the same as saying that only YHWH is called “the Lord,” ho kurios.)
This is the old Kyrios confusion … I suggest you read the posts I made on my blog responding to Dr. Qureshi :), This is exactly what the post is you are commenting on is explaining. Kyrios DOES NOT mean Yahweh when refrencing Jesus, and we know this because the scripture most attributed to him, Calls him Kyrios, but not Kyrios as a Divine name replacement, rather Kyrios as a replacement for the Hebrew Word Adoni (my lord).
Just read the post itself, then see what you think ;).
Paul,
Probably the easiest way to discern that Jesus isn’t “Lord” the exact same way that YHWH is “Lord” is to note that Jesus as Lord has one who is God to him, whereas YHWH as LORD has no one who is God to Him.
2 Cor 1:3: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (ASV)
Eph 1:3: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (ASV)
1 Pet 1:3: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (ASV)
This common salutation formula reveals very clearly how the early Church conceived of Jesus’ lordship. If they had felt that Jesus as Lord = Jesus as YHWH, then this common salutation formula would have caused controversy, as no Jew at that time could have tolerated a salutation that included a phrase that was logically equivalent to “the God and Father of our Yahweh Jesus Christ”!
~Sean
Sean,
Good points. 🙂
Sean,
As a modern trinitarian I don’t have a problem with the salutation.
Yes the Father is the God of the Son through his assumed human nature. But surely this was the purpose of the incarnation?
” “the God and Father of our Yahweh Jesus Christ”! ”
In a sense this statement is true in my view. But I think that not all true statements are the most wise statements. The bible is a book that shows the wisdom of God in the things that it does not say as well as the things that it does.
I’d say that if LORD = Yahweh, then that’s not a reference to Jesus “as to his human nature,” whatever that’s assumed to mean. Trinitarianism involves too much equivocation, IMO.
To see why I find such arguments improbable, see:
http://kazesland.blogspot.com/2013/09/those-who-are-familiar-with-work-of.html
~Sean
But you’re assuming that, with no justification, btw, some of the scriptures talking about the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, are referencing the post ressurected, ascended and exhauted Jesus Christ.
“no Jew at that time could have tolerated a salutation that included a phrase that was logically equivalent to “the God and Father of our Yahweh Jesus Christ”!”
Yes but Yahweh in what sense? If Yahweh is Father, Son and Holy Spirit then the phrase “God and Father of our Yahweh Jesus Christ becomes “God and Father of our Father, Son and Holy Spirit Jesus Christ” which doesn’t make sense.
If John Smith is a member of a cricket team can we say “the cricket team John Smith”.
So the phrase “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” is formulated to express the fact that Jesus is LORD because he is Lord and that the Father is God. Thereby making both identical to Yahweh or Jehovah, as I prefer.
No, there is not only one Lord, there is only one Yahweh, that’s what the writers wrote in Hebrew, later on in the LXX the translators into greek translated YHWH into Kyrios, and even later than that we have certain scribes replacing YHWH with Adonai.
But there are plenty of Lords, (King David, the future messiah, Abraham and so on and so forth), but one Yahweh.
What you’re doing is drawing conclusions from a translation issue, and then making equivocation fallacies from it.
Jesus is described MOST as the Adoni (translated as kyrios, but definately not a reference to Yahweh as my post points out) in psalm 110:1 when he’s being described using an OT text, this should tell us how to read the other times Jesus is called Yahweh, you can’t just simply assume it.
But again, there is not only one Lord, there are plenty, who are rightly called lords, including King David and the greater David Jesus, but there is only one Yahweh.
The only Lord that David knew was Jehovah.
The Son wasn’t the Lord in any human sense at the time that David wrote Psalm 110. He was David’s Lord at the time that David wrote Psalm 110. So he could only have been Lord as LORD at the time that David wrote these words. The Spirit was inspiring him to write about somebody who was unknown to him in the form of the Son but known to him as LORD Jehovah.
“The exaltee originally was the king,”
But the Lord who is exalted is not the king himself but the Lord of the king ( David ).
I don’t give a monkeys for the LXX. I don’t believe it was pre-Christian. I believe it is a back-translation from the NT greek text where the OT is “quoted”. Maybe Origen and his followers translated it?
Acts 4 v 26:
The kings of the earth stood up and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord ( Father ), and against his Christ.
Obviously the same Lord is referred to here as in the other texts scattered throughout Acts but in this place it can only mean the Father. For the disciples to call Jesus the same Lord is proof that they also understood him to be God.
v 24 from the same chapter in Acts:
And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is.
I think you are the ones who are “kicking against the pricks.”
Hi Paul,
I don’t think your argument is convincing for two reasons. First, the implication of Psalms 110:1 is that David had two “lords.” This doesn’t have to be the same “God” being called “lord” in two different ways. Second, just because the term “lord” could be used of both the Father and Jesus Christ, it doesn’t logically follow that they are the same God.
Paul, I really don’t know what to say, I mean did you even read my article? Pslams wasn’t written in English, David knew one Jehovah, Jehovah wasn’t called “LORD” that’s a much later translation of the divine name based on a tradition. David wrote the song to be sung as a royal praise song, so the singers would say “Jehovah says to my lord,” the “Lord” being the king.
BTW, David used Adoni, a term never used for Jehovah, it’s rediculous to think he was using that term for Jehovah saying Jehovah said to Adoni, and then argue that Adoni was actually Jehovah. BTW, David was writing the song as a royal Psalm to be sung by court singers. But the prophesy was to one who would be his lord ultimately, the messiah was going to be the lord of the world, but he would be made that by …. Jehovah.
So yes, David did have another Lord, the future messiah, that would be appointed by Jehovah, who was never conceived of being Jehovah himself.
As far as the LXX, we have BCE manuscripts of the LXX, it’s cited and spoken of in Josephus, and quoted by Philo … so … no … it’s not post Christian, and it’s definately not a back-translation by Origen. Also if you’re throwing out the LXX, on what basis are you claiming that Kyrios is a divine title? I mean seriously? Are you thinking this through? In the Hebrew bible the divine name is not LORD (Kyrios), it’s YHWH.
The ONLY way your argument that Kyrios is a divine title can even begin to have a chance is if you argue from the LXX, even then it fails.
As far as the rest of your interpretation of verses in Acts, for goodness sakes, please read my 2 posts on Nabeel Kereshi’s arguments, Kyrios is used both as a divine name replacement and for the Kyrios Christos,
https://theologyandjustice.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/nabeel-qureshi-and-psalm-1101/
https://theologyandjustice.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/1-corinthians-86-splitting-the-shema-with-dr-nabeel-qureshi-and-n-t-wright/
You’re just ignoring all the arguments I’ve already made.
Roman,
Being KJV only it would be illogical for me to use the argument that Kyrios is a divine title based on it’s use in previous translations. I haven’t looked at all the video so I don’t know if Qureshi used this argument. If you say so then that’s good enough for me. I don’t remember using this argument on this thread. The idea that I have to go back to the original greek to know what the bible is saying is absurd to me.
The use of the word in it’s immediate and local context in the text of the KJV tells me what is meant by it. The use of the definite article to denote Jesus and the Father in Acts both as “the Lord” is proof to me that they are both the same Lord and God.
You said : ” David wrote the song to be sung as a royal praise song, so the singers would say “Jehovah says to my lord,” the “Lord” being the king.”
This can’t be true because David would never describe himself as in the following way:
“4The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Being KJV only would kind of put a damper on how much we can actually discuss, to be honest I don’t really understand the reasoning behind KJV onlyism, I mean does that mean one has to learn English in order to have the bible? Before the 1600s did anyone have the bible?
Qureshi was arguing based on the origional Language. But yes, if you are arguing that in Psalms 110:1 the appearence of two “lords” means there are 2 People called Yahweh, you have to look at the origional Language. If you’re argument is based on the Language used, you have to based it on the origional Language, not a translation of the Language.
If I Write a book in English and it’s translated into Spanish and someone wants to make a linguistic or semantic argument based on Spanish Words, it isn’t valid unless the argument Works With the English Words that I actually wrote. Otherwise it’s a translation issue, not an actual exegesis of the text.
If you refuse to recognize that there is a difference between Jehovah or Yahweh and Adoni only because they are both translated as “Lord” in the KJV then I don’t know what to tell you.
In vrs 4, the origional text doesn’t say “The Lord hath sworn” it says “Jehovah has sworn.”
I’m interested in what the bible actually says, what God inspired to be written, not what the KJV translators translated using the small textual evidence available.
LORD = Jehovah or the divine name in the KJV, Lord = Adoni / Kyrios.
“So yes, David did have another Lord, the future messiah, that would be appointed by Jehovah, who was never conceived of being Jehovah himself.”
He did have another Lord? When? At the time he wrote Psalm 110? But according to you at that time the Messiah didn’t exist and he wasn’t yet exalted. However Jesus claims to be the Lord of David at the time he wrote the Psalm:
Mark 12 v 37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
The Unitarian exegesis doesn’t fit the text.
Did David have another Lord? Yes, the future messiah, btw, I believe that Jesus existed as a person in heaven With Jehovah prior to his being born on Earth, so yes, at that time Jesus was the Lord of David.
But ultimately all of this is completely nonsensicle, the song was written by David to be sung, not by David himself, but by the royal Court singers, and the Adoni they were singing of would be the King, i.e. King David or King Solomon, but the verse has a second meaning being a messianic prophesy.
The point in Mark 12:37 was that Jesus was not only Davids Son, but also the Son of God himself … which is why he could be called David’s lord.
That doesn’t give you a trinitarian exegesis, not at all. Unless you believe that there cannot be a second person higher in the universe than David.
“I believe that Jesus existed as a person in heaven With Jehovah prior to his being born on Earth, so yes, at that time Jesus was the Lord of David.”
You seem to be a classical Jehovah’s witness.
It may be off-topic but from your perspective what was the genre of this person Jesus during his pre-existence? To describe him simply as a person seems to me to be an abstract and vague formulation.
Good point.
I don’t know what you mean by “genre of this person” … it may be vague or abstract, but we have to go With what the bible tells us.
I am a Jehovah’s Witness.
I mean to what class of beings does he belong to according to JWs?
“I believe that Jesus existed as a person in heaven With Jehovah prior to his being born on Earth”
The only persons in the bible who are called such that I know about are human beings. Do you know of any others? But this can’t be true of Jesus can it? Or does the JW Jesus go through this strange metamorphosis?
Is the notion that a spirit being miraculously became a human being more
strange than the notion that one person of a tri-personal spirit being
becoming a human being? If anything, the latter strikes me as considerably more strange.
Sean,
I think both ideas are “strange.” I’m not sure that whatever one seems “more strange” really matters. 🙂
It matters a great deal. One can easily imagine a miracle in which a spirit being becomes a human being, but one will be driven mad trying to imagine one person of a tri-personal being becoming a human being while remaining a spirit being and while two other persons of that same spirit being remain as they were. The notion that a spirit being becomes a human being is not attended with the logical absurdities that attend the notion that the second person of the Trinity became human yet remained divine.
It seems to me that the classical Trinitarian incarnation would yield a Jesus who is all knowing yet limited in knowledge, all powerful yet limited in power, omnipresent yet limited in location, the creator of all yet part of creation, etc. To get around the difficulties some have argued that Jesus gave up some of his divine attributes as “unnecessary for divinity”, while others have been driven to suggest things like a Jesus who has two centers of consciousness, yet is still one person. It’s gobbledygook.
I don’t think Paul made a “Good point” as you congratulated.
Sean,
Actually, there are a lot more people who “imagine” the Trinitarian version of Jesus than the “spirit being becomes a human being” version. I don’t think “imagining” either one is a good idea.
I agree with your critique of the Trinitarian Jesus, but I also think that any kind of “preexistence” or “incarnation” idea has exegetical and logical problems.
For example, to speak of something “preexisting” makes no sense. Either something exists at a certain point in time, or it doesn’t exist. There’s no reason to imagine that something exists before (pre-) it actually exists.
To be fair, I think a lot of biblical unitarians are making up nonsensical jargon as well when they speak of things like “the preexistent LOGOS” or “notional preexistence.”
It makes perfect sense to say that a spirit being existed in heaven and then became a man via a divine miracle. More importantly, it also happens to be what the Bible teaches, rather clearly IMO. Happily, it’s a teaching that one can eagerly embrace without having his mind made a wreck by logical absurdities.
Sean,
I don’t think we should be “imagining” things when doing biblical exegesis. Some people “imagine” that there are pink elephants too, but we don’t believe in them because there is no evidence that they exist.
LIkewise, the idea that “a spirit being existed in heaven and became a man” isn’t something that can be derived from the biblical evidence. It’s not much different than Trinitarians “imagining” that “one being = three persons” in order to make their theory work.
Obviously by “imagine” I’m referring to conceptualizing that which is clearly taught in scripture.
The notion that a spirit being became a man via a miracle is a great deal different than the notion that one spirit person of a tri-spirit-peronal being became a person who is fully human and fully divine while the other two remained as they were. If you can’t appreciate that then there’s nothing I can do for you.
Sean,
I understand what you are saying. I just don’t think it’s good to “conceptualize” things that weren’t explicitly described by the biblical writers. If we had evidence that anyone identified Jesus Christ as a “spirit being” prior to his human birth, it might be a plausible idea.
We agree that the idea of a “one being = three persons” has no exegetical or logical basis either. Perhaps you just think that concept is more complicated than the “spirit being transforms into a human being” theory.
Where do you find evidence that Jesus Christ was known as a “spirit being” before his human birth? If he was a “spirit being” before his birth, why would you call it “preexistence”? Does “existing” only apply to an human being?
” I just don’t think it’s good to “conceptualize” things that weren’t explicitly described by the biblical writers.”
On the contrary, it’s an excellent idea to conceptualize what the Bible clearly teaches.
Sean,
Where you do see that the Bible “clearly teaches” that Jesus Christ was a “spirit being who became human”? Do you think the “spirit being” was called something else before he was named “Jesus” when he was born
(Matthew 1:21, 25)?
“If your view is so ‘clear’, then why do you think 99.9% of the people who claim to be ‘Christians’ don’t agree with it?”
You have it almost completely backwards. 99.99999% of Christians past and present have believed for good reasons that the Son of God existed in heaven as a spirit person before he became a man or “human”. The difference between myself and “orthodox” folks is that I don’t make the additional unbiblical leap of asserting that said spirit person is God the Son, second person of the Trinity.
Sean,
I’m glad you don’t believe in the Trinity doctrine. 🙂
It’s the little things in life;-)
Socinians do as much imagnining as so-called “Arians” for example, you have to add in “new” creation, when some scriptures talk about creation, you have to assume Jesus having glory before the creation of the universe doesn’t mean he existed and had the glory, but it was rather an idea, you have to imagine that the logos is either just an idea or the prologue of John is not actually a prologue.
We are not “imagining” things that are not in the scripture, we are reading the scripture on it’s own terms.
Roman,
I’m not a “Socinian” (they’ve all been dead for over 400 years), but I do agree that some of the things that other biblical unitarians have proposed to explain their perspective on the interpretation of the Prologue are neither persuasive nor coherent.
For example, I certainly don’t buy into the “preexistent LOGOS / plan / wisdom / idea / purpose” explanation of the Prologue espoused by Anthony Buzzard. I think de-personalizing O LOGOS in that context is the wrong approach.
I would argue grammatically and contextually that O LOGOS in John 1:1-3 refers to the same human being, Jesus Christ, as we all agree it does in John 1:14 and Revelation 19:13.
I use the term Socinian and Arian not becuase I consider myself a follower of Arius or you a follower of Scocinus, but because there is no other shorthand way I know of to distinguish Your view from mine … “biblical unitarian” doesn’t work becuase I consider myself a biblical unitarian, I could just say “biblical Unitarian who believes Jesus did not exist prior to his Virgin birth” and “biblical Unitarian who believes Jesus did exist prior to his Virgin birth,” but that’s a mouthfull, so I just hold my nose and Use the term Socinian and Arian, (I use Arian for myself, when distinguishing my view With Yours, even though I’ve never read Arius and frankly don’t care what his ideas were).
We agree on the John thing, which suprised me when we discussed it before, as I’d never heard that position before, that the logos is personal, but only refering to a post ressurection situation.
But any position one takes needs to be argued for, and there are difficult verses for both mine and Your position, the question is which one explains the New testament text the best.
Roman,
Agreed. I just try to avoid using the “labels” since they can be misleading. I also don’t think appealing to “Socinianism” would add any credibility to any particular interpretation of the biblical text so I wouldn’t bother associating myself with that label.
The complaint against the use of Pre-existing, is nothing more than a semantic complaint, there’s no objection of substance there.
When we say “pre-existed” we don’t mean that Jesus the individual pre-existed himself, we mean he existed prior to his being on earth as a human being.
Just as Jesus in heaven can be said to have pre-existed his heavenly self.
Lets get serious here, semantic arguments are NOT arguments.
Roman,
Where I would agree about “semantics” is that “preexistence” is a nonsensical term in any context other than biblical theology.
Since the term has no literal or conceptual counterpart in the biblical languages, I think inventing the term in order to try to validate the bizarre idea is it not an argument either.
It’s not much different than how Trinitarians conceptualize the idea that a “being” can be composed of “multiple persons” and then invent theological terminology like “hyptostatic union” or “trinity” to represent it.
Then we don’t need to use that term … but arguing against use of a term isn’t an argument against the teaching it describes.
Well, angels are also persons, so there are a class, or series of class of non human persons who are also not God.
I don’t see why there is a problem?
“Well, angels are also persons”
How do you know this? Just out of curiosity.
I know this because the bible describes them as such, will individual wills, who can rebel or obey God, and who instruct People, help them, send Messages and so on. There is no reason to assume they are not as the bible describes them.
Assuming that your angel being has to have the necessary properties to mediate between God and sinful man then I don’t see that the JW teachings have proven that he has any qualifications to assume the office of mediator or great high priest as described in the book of hebrews for example.
The qualifiqations are that God appointed him … plain and simple, God has the right to choose who does and does not mediate between himself and man.
Paul,
Why would it be necessary to conclude that Jesus was speaking of David having a “lord” at the time he wrote Psalms 110 when he quotes it in Mark 12:37? It’s just as reasonable to think that Jesus was simply interpreting David’s statement and applying it to his himself (at the time he was speaking to the Jews). Thus, Mark 12:37 isn’t conclusive either way.
Lets read the whole thing in context.
16 No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:
17 ‘In the last days it will be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams.
18 Even upon my slaves, both men and women,
in those days I will pour out my Spirit;
and they shall prophesy.
19 And I will show portents in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood, and fire, and smoky mist.
20 The sun shall be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood,
before the coming of the Lord’s (YHWH) great and glorious day.
21 Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (YHWH) shall be saved.’
Ok so here we obviously have Yahweh, lets continue.
22 “You that are Israelites,[a] listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth,[b] a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— 23 this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24 But God raised him up, having freed him from death,[c] because it was impossible for him to be held in its power. 25 For David says concerning him,
‘I saw the Lord (YHWH) always before me,
for he is at my (Jesus) right hand so that I will not be shaken;
26 therefore my (Jesus) heart was glad, and my (Jesus) tongue rejoiced;
moreover my (Jesus) flesh will live in hope.
27 For you will not abandon my (Jesus) soul to Hades,
or let your Holy One experience corruption. (Jesus)
28 You have made known to me (Jesus) the ways of life;
you will make me (Jesus) full of gladness with your presence.’
See obviously he is talking here about God, YHWH, ressurecting Jesus, clear distinction, Jesus is the new David. Lets continue.
29 “Fellow Israelites,[d] I may say to you confidently of our ancestor David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Foreseeing this, David[e] spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah,[f] saying,
‘He was not abandoned to Hades,
nor did his flesh experience corruption.’
32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at[g] the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you both see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,
‘The Lord (YWHW) said to my Lord (Jesus),
“Sit at my right hand,
35 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
36 Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah,[h] this Jesus whom you crucified.”
You see what happens when you read the whole thing in context? It fits together, and you don’t have to do wonky stuff like trying to make it seam like Peter is calling Jesus God in some sort of coded way, he isn’t, it’s very clear what he’s saying. Yahwah gave promises of what he will do in Joel, and Peter is saying now that prophesy is coming true, why? Because of what Jesus did, that he died and God ressurected him, and now he is fulfilling the will of his father. And no, the fact that Jesus is pouring out the holy spirit doesn’t mean he’s Yahweh since he receives the holy spirit from Yahweh, this is how Yahweh does things throughout the bible, he acts through mediators, he freed the Israelites through Moses, he established the law through Moses, he gave the promised land to Israel through Joshua, and later others including David and so on and so forth.
If you just follow Peter’s point, from the begining to end you’ll see what he’s saying, there’s no need to try and pretend that Peter is doing some wink wink nodge nodge coded language here, he’s pretty clear in what he’s trying to say.
Roman … excellent. 🙂
Maybe I was a little too harsh saying that Dr. Qureshi was being dishonest, :), sometimes I get the feeling though that trinitarians are willing to say anything. Thanks for posting my Blog post Dale :).
If anyone is interested, I wrote another post about Dr. Qureshi taking N.T. Wrights lead in splitting the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
https://theologyandjustice.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/1-corinthians-86-splitting-the-shema-with-dr-nabeel-qureshi-and-n-t-wright/
That scripture has been discussed by Unitarians and Trinitarians all over, including on this blog/podcast, but my hopefully my thoughts on the issue might be helpful for some.
🙂
Hi Roman,
I think it might be a little too harsh to judge certain Trinitarians (e.g. Qureshi) as being “dishonest.” Sometimes people have good intentions but are misinformed. This is especially understandable when most of the academic influence and accountability imposed upon an Evangelical “scholar” like Dr. Qureshi is so heavily in favor of the Trinity doctrine.
I think this particular debate was rather superficial (compared to the many others I’ve heard) because Dr. Qureshi seemed to focus on some of the issues related to Islam and there wasn’t much discussion of exegesis or the interpretation of some of the more significant passages. I don’t think Ally was at his best either because he didn’t have much to work with.
I think you’re right, maybe using the word dishonest, and sneaky trick, was a little too harsh. I suppose I underestimate academic bias.
Hi Roman,
I know what you mean. It seems that Trinitarians can “say anything” in response to logical rebuttals of their position because they can appeal to the “multiple persons = one being” and “multiple natures = one person” presuppositions that are inherent to their paradigm. Thus, it’s imperative to start by pointing out that those presuppositional criteria are not consistent with the concept being expressed by the biblical writers.
Comments are closed.