Does Julie think Jesus is God? How will Evangelicals react?

[JasonPratt]

2 THESS 1:12

Biblicaunitarian.com punts on the grammatic argument by stating that they have proved elsewhere that the so-called Granville Sharp Rule (of which this is a variant) “is not a valid proof of the Trinity”. The reader is referred to a discussion on Eph 5:5, which is taken as an example for discussing the critiquing the principles of the ostensible rule.

The article shows well enough that the rule only functions insofar as readers already understand the same descriptives being applying to the noun in question, or not; consequently it is impossible to read out an identification of terms, or an exclusion of them for that matter, in such a grammatic condition. The reader is expected to read the meaning of identity, or not, into the grammar.

The discussion does not however address the particular type of phraseology under consideration here and in other relevant examples of my list, which (unlike at Eph 5:5 not incidentally) is a standardized form for describing a person in multiple ways; and which can be easily contrasted to different but related standardized forms for describing two different persons. This well-known standardization is simply grouped as a lump under Granville Sharp and then thrown out with it (possibly because it has no name that I know of. All of which, by the way, explains why I never once tried to claim “Granville Sharp Rule”.)

Their rebuttal, although to the point on Eph 5:5, thus misses on a partial category error. As I demonstrated in detail, there is in fact a normal standard expectation about what the grammar of a particular form (within minor variations) is supposed to mean (even though the broader category of examples under Granville Sharp has no such intrinsic expectations): “the description and description, name”. It is not the grammatic form that is disputed, but the application of a particular noun within that form.

As I also acknowledged, that doesn’t mean the grammatic form has to trump the interpretation of the offending noun. But it does mean that the noun ({theos} with a {ho}) is what offends and calls for a different interpretation over-against the standard expectation of the grammar. (Ironically, the form is so standardized that {theos} without a {ho} in otherwise the same form is commonly recognized without dispute as signaling a reference to a different person than whoever is named after the second description!–namely {ho theos}! But the form of such address is uniformly though subtly different, as I also demonstrated.)

Their second rebuttal is that both God and Jesus Christ give grace, which of course trinitarians do not deny. This is no rebuttal to the grammar per se, although by comparing this verse to others with a uniformly (if subtly) different grammatic structure, they imply that there is no difference meant here, and so there is no reason to “remove the Father from the verse”.

Sean Finnegan, in the second link provided by AaronR (which is a brief pdf commenting on the issue of translation here), quotes the late super-exegete Raymond Brown, who at least gets closer to the argument I made, although missing details I provided.

RB doesn’t bother appealing to the G-S Rule per se, probably for the same reason I didn’t: the Rule as set up recognizes that meanings are read into the text inclusively or exclusively either way according to the expectation of the reader. On the other hand, neither does he call that against the interpretation here. Consequently he tacitly acknowledges that something more standardized in the form is applicable which would create expectations about the two terms applying to Jesus, except that one of the terms is {ho theos}. His sole argument against the interpretation is on this ground, that the “exact three-word Greek combination” (actually four words in Greek {ho theos kai kurios}, with suffix modification of course) applied here in the form, is found nowhere else in the Bible; but since he refers to 2 Peter 1:1, he knows that a very similar form, “the God and savior” does appear at least once (actually twice) in relation to Jesus Christ.

RB is also aware that one evidence in favor of the other translation is supposedly the “of us” separating the two titles; but as in my own argument he affirms that this is of no weight (since a substantially similar example will have that “our” for Lord instead.)

RB’s sole argument in favor of the other interpretation is that “our God” appears four other times in 1 and 2 Thess in reference to God the Father. I found six times the phrase “our God” was used, three of which explicitly say “our God and Father”, the other three of which are not overtly clear in a similar way. Since he didn’t list them I can’t tell for sure which four he means, but if he means the ones referencing “our God and Father” not only does the phraseology explicitly spell it out (all three times in comparison to “our Lord Jesus Christ” where one might have expected there was no special need for distinguishing Who was being referred to as “the-God of us”), but insofar as it goes it also shows that “the-god” “our” and “x” in that order would all be expected to refer to one person.

RB is also aware that the alternate interpretation requires interpolating a distinct “the” for “Lord Jesus Christ” along with “the God of us”; and is also aware that this is a definite difficulty for the theory, despite the fact that normally the lack of an article tells us nothing about whether one is implied or not, or refers to something we would normally think of as being “the X” even though an article was not specifically in mind to the writer. If a tacit article can be so easily supplied, why is there a serious difficulty?–requiring a supposition that “perhaps ‘Lord Jesus Christ’ was so
common a phrase that it would automatically be thought of as a separate entity and could be used without the article”?–a supposition quite opposite from the expected defense which would be something like “’the god’ was so commonly understood to refer to the Father that it would automatically be thought of as a separate entity”?!

Raymond Brown doesn’t say why this is such an unexpected difficulty with such an unexpected line of defense. But the fact that he recognizes a difficulty requiring, he thinks, this kind of defense, fits what I have been saying about the standardized expectation of this form: when it reads “the blah and (no the) blah name”, the normal expected interpretation is for “the blah” and “blah” both to refer to “name”. The expectation is so strong that the learned doctor’s inclination is to find some reason to suggest why another “the” would be understood although not printed there: because having both nouns at articular par, both with or both without articles, is by contrast a normal way of distinguishing a two person reference compared to this form instead.

The short of it is that even Raymond Brown’s report of arguments against “the god” referring to Jesus, hang altogether on the problem of “the god” being used unexpectedly in that grammatic form.

But that’s a problem with the term, not with the grammar per se. It would be an undisputed grammatic lock except then “the god” would refer to Jesus.

That’s the problem to be reconciled.

[auggybendoggy]

Jason, (this is from Bob Wilson)

I really appreciate your patient (and consistent) clarification as to why you think other renderings are grammatically impossible. You confirmed my impressions that the examples of the same construction you had provided always confirm that rule of grammar. My assumption was that exegetes who dispute you conclusion (in ho theos passages about Christ) believe they can also cite other non-ho theos texts that similarly join two subjects with kai etc, but which do not follow the rule you cite. I take it that your understanding is that no such counter-examples can be successfully cited, right?

[Aaron]

Hi Justin,

You wrote (How should we feel about salvation?):

Well, I’ll admit that I haven’t read the book.

Ah, I see. So your remark about it being a “masterful work” is not so much your own opinion (derived from reading it yourself), but rather the opinion of others (such as that of reformed evangelical, Michael Heiser: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Heiser). I’m not saying Segal’s book is not a “masterful work,” of course, but it’s not like very intelligent people have never drawn erroneous or unwarranted conclusions from the data before (data which they, by virtue of being experts in their field, know much better than most). But I’m not even sure what exactly Segal’s conclusions are yet, and how his book would answer my questions concerning when exactly bintarian theology emerged among the Jewish people and how prevalent of a belief it was, especially in Jesus’ day. Based on what Heiser says (with whose work you are more familiar), is it your understanding that the majority of Jews during the Second Temple era were binitarian in their theology (and thus believed in two uncreated persons who each possessed all of the divine attributes by which a being could be categorized as “God”)? And was this a prevalent belief among the Jews in Jesus’ day?

Justin:
Heiser is a trustworthy scholar, though (who gives you the evidence to your face whenever possible, and tells you exactly where to look it up when not), who practices careful exegesis and he recommended the book as well as provided some material from it.

Well hopefully, then, Heiser provides some solid evidence for the following:

Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal [see @ Wikipedia] produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. [Two powers in heaven: early rabbinic reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, Brill, 313 pp., 1st ed. 1977, 2nd ed. 2002] Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. [Does he provide evidence for this ] He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3 [see @ NET Bible]. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship.

In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) [Mike Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature”, see footnotes 1,2,3 ] I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I suggest that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. [see @ Wikipedia > Ugarit > Ugaritic religion; Berith (god)] For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent—occupying both “slots” as it were at the head of the divine council. [Does he provide evidence for this ] The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated by this belief. [Does he provide evidence for this ] The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. [Does he provide evidence for this?] The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not. [Does he provide evidence for this ]

Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. [Does he provide evidence for this ] That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. [Does he provide evidence for this ] This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh. [Does he provide evidence for this ] In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy sometime in the second century A.D. [Does he provide evidence for this What is the date?]

– Mike Heiser, Two Powers in Heaven, Home (website, @ twopowersinheaven.com)

Notes and links for Mike Heiser’s Dissertation

[1] Dissertation Defense, 5 pp., May 3, 2004 (@ michaelsheiser.com)

[2] Abstract, 2004 (@ digitalcommons.liberty.edu)

[3] Dissertation, 271 pp., 2004 (@ digitalcommons.liberty.edu)

Justin:
Yes; in fact, it was apparently being confronted by the concepts in scripture which forced them to conclude that there must be two powers in heaven. The references are quite blatant and unavoidable. If push comes to shove I may just have to post them myself.

I watched Heiser’s presentation, and I’m actually familiar with the various passages and “concepts” of which you speak (which you claim forced the Jews [some/most/all?] to conclude that there must be two uncreated divine “powers” who each possess all the divine attributes by which a personal being can be considered “God”), since they are often brought up in discussions on the Trinity. But I remain wholly unconvinced that the best explanation of the texts which Heiser provides in his presentation is that there are two (or more) uncreated divine persons who each have the same name, “Yahweh.” I’m rather inclined to think that any Jews who used such passages as support for a “binitarian” understanding of God were simply exploiting certain Hebrew figures of speech and motifs in order to more easily import their pagan-derived/influenced (i.e., polytheistic) views of God into their own scriptures, just as many believers in ECT do with both the OT and the NT. In other words, I think certain more liberal-minded Jews may have been a little too eager to read into Scripture views concerning God that were derived more from the religious beliefs of the polytheistic pagans (whom they’d become more heavily influenced by since the first Temple era), and perhaps saw passages such as the ones Heiser uses in his presentation as an opportunity to promote their less conservative theological views.

As for the references to “two powers in heaven” that you call “quite blatant and unavoidable,” I decided I would create another thread for my response to Heiser’s position, so here’s the link: Response to Michael Heiser’s “Two Powers” View

I’m not sure if my response in this other thread means that “push” has come to “shove!” But if it has, I’ll let you have the last word. More could certainly be said, but I’ve said just about all I have time to say on this subject right now (if you or anyone else is interested in reading more of what I believe regarding this topic, please see the following thread and links provided: Trying to understand non-Trinitarians. (Present your cases?)).

[JasonPratt]

My assumption was that exegetes who dispute you conclusion (in ho theos passages about Christ) believe they can also cite other non-ho theos texts that similarly join two subjects with kai etc, but which do not follow the rule you cite. I take it that your understanding is that no such counter-examples can be successfully cited, right?

Within the form “the x and y name”, I have not yet found counter-examples, and enough examples to convince me that the form has a standard expectation of application: a form that is notably contrasted (even in the Thess epistles, including 2 Thess itself) by a similar repeated related form where the only difference is that x and y are at articular par (both have the same articles, or rather the lack of them).

Please note that I am being very specific about the form. I am not talking about the broader claim made by Granville Sharp (although I suspect this regularity is what inspired him to try to extend the standard expectation into a rule with too many exceptions and too wide a purview.)

My sense is also limited in that I don’t mean there is some grammatic rule, even on this limited form, so strong that it must/should outweigh all other considerations. I only mean that if there are exceptions to the rule (for want of a shorter word for the standard expectation), the exceptions come because of readers importing other expectations into conflict with what would otherwise be a normal grammatic expectation of the form. Whether readers have good reasons to do so is beside the point I’m trying to make.

I wish I could reference a study of all occurrences of this form in the NT canon. I have little doubt that one or more such studies exist somewhere–the back of my mind is pretty sure I’ve read reference to them. I should dig around in my reference books…

I am however willing to admit it is possible I have overfocused topically and created a mis-impression about normal expectation of results from the form, over-against which alternate translations would be acting in order to avoid associating an offending noun-article combination with a person.

(Although even then the data may indicate a standardization common to particular authors. If I learned that Paul was 100% in line with this usage outside of theologically contentious exceptions where the term would be a problem if otherwise normally applied, but Lucan or Johannine texts didn’t follow grammatic suit so cleanly, I would not be overly surprised. That would indicate an author’s or speaker’s stylistic habit.)

[Aaron]

Hi Jason,

I had hoped to respond to your posts sooner, but a lot’s been going on right now so I’ve had to keep postponing my response! While I don’t see anything “decisive” in my response or which could come close to settling the Trinitarian vs. Unitarian debate, this will be my last contribution to this discussion on the forum (at least, for a while). While I have by no means grown weary of discussing this subject with you or anyone else on the forum (if anything, I’m more zealous in my desire to participate in this important and ongoing discussion now more than ever before, especially as it seems to me that the Biblical Unitarian movement - alongside the Evangelical Universalism movement, interestingly enough - has been growing and gathering momentum in the past few years). But as I will be making known shortly in the announcements section, I’ve decided to take an extended break from the forum. So I guess you can view the following as just a “parting blow” from your stubborn Unitarian opponent! Thanks again for all of your thoughtful and challenging responses to my posts. You are a gracious and brilliant Christian thinker, and if I ever convert back to Trinitarianism in this lifetime it will undoubtedly be because of you (don’t hold your breath, though )!

Ok, so you wrote:

I would like to thank you for noting that I repeatedly bent over very far backward qualifying my examples so as not to make them seem like any kind of staunchly anti-Unitarian slam-dunk, or even to present them as “proof-texts” per se–but I can’t, because you didn’t.

Heh. Well, previously you’d written:

Part of the length, aside from trying to be thorough, was due to bending over backward as far as possible to qualify the limits of the analysis–which is a fancy way of saying I don’t treat the project as some kind of slam dunk against unitarian Christians, or other people (religious or otherwise), who like Julie consider the Trinity to be solidly bogus.

But right after your “bending over backward” comment you wrote,

Nevertheless: neither is it factually true that Jesus is never called “the God” in New Testament texts. It only happens rarely, but it happens; and across a broad range of texts within the canon, too.

You also say:

So even if Jesus is called “the god” or {ho theos} in New Testament texts, that doesn’t by itself settle the question of what the various New Testament authors are saying about the honor, attributes, names, deeds and throne of Jesus, in relation to “the God” Who is the Father. Much less does it settle whether all or any claims in the NT about Jesus (or even about “God”, if there’s a distinction) are true!

But then add:

Be that as it may: the grammatic facts about the New Testament texts on this topic, so far as I have been able to find (and within the range of textual reconstruction where appropriate), are that Jesus is called “the god”, {ho theos} (or grammatic variants thereof like {tou theou} and {ton theon}), several pretty straightforward times, and several more less obvious or only probable times, in the New Testament.

While you seem to want to approach this topic in a way that at least seems fair to Unitarians (and some Trinitarians who have differing views on the text), it seems like you are, in fact, trying to “slam-dunk” those Christians (both Unitarian and Trinitarian) who would disagree with your understanding that Jesus is, in fact, called ho theos “across a broad range of texts within the canon.” You seem to want to give the Unitarian a “fighting chance” so to speak, but only after they are forced to concede that the texts in view are basically a part of your arsenal, or at least well within reach for you to employ in your defense of ortho-trin. So while you are adamant that you are “NOT arguing that orth-trin must be true if Jesus is called ‘the God’ in the NT,” demonstrating that Jesus is beyond a reasonable doubt called “the God” not just once (e.g., in the book of Hebrews in a quote from Psalm 45 where elohim could easily be understood in a limited sense, as several Trinitarian commentators have acknowledged) but rather “across a broad range of texts within the canon” would, as I’m sure you’re well aware, go a long way in supporting the Trinitarian position!

You wrote:
Re 1 Peter 4:11 – I didn’t just stop in noting the topical ambiguity putting Jesus with the Father in sharing all power and glory due to {ho theos}, but extensively noted how the same author had been treating Jesus up to this point in the epistle, in ways explicitly identifying Jesus as YHWH. That lends a lot of weight toward understanding what the author means here at 4:11 by including Jesus in the power and glory that a devout monotheist would normally reserve religious praise only for {ho theos} and no lesser lord or god. (I still rated the application of the term itself to Jesus as being ambiguous, though.)

Ok, so you said (christiancadre.blogspot.com/2011 … ew_30.html):

This would fit rather well with the same author having said previously, back in his first chapter (1 Peter 1:11), that when the Jewish prophets were inquiring about the salvation to come, “the Spirit of Christ Who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories after these”. In the OT, it is YHWH or at least(?!?) the spirit of YHWH Who inspires the prophets about the coming of the Messiah and of the salvation of Israel from her sins.

The following is from the Biblical Unitarian website, which I consider a good response to the above:

The spirit that God places upon people takes on different names as it refers to different functions. This can be abundantly proven. Nevertheless, the spirit is the same. God always gives His spirit, and then it is named as it functions. When it is associated with wisdom, it is called the “spirit of wisdom” (Ex. 28:3; Deut. 34:9; Eph. 1:17). When it is associated with grace, it is called the “spirit of grace” (Zech.12:10; Heb. 10:29). When it is related to glory, it is called the “spirit of glory” (1 Pet. 4:14). It is called the “spirit of adoption” when it is associated with our everlasting life (Rom. 8:15, which is translated as “spirit of sonship” in some versions). It is called “the spirit of truth” when it is associated with the truth we learn by revelation (John 14:17; 16:13). When it came with the same power as it brought to Elijah, it was called “the spirit of Elijah” (2 Kings 2:15). These are not different spirits. All the names refer to the one gift of holy spirit that God gives. Ephesians 4:4 states clearly that there is “one spirit,” and that spirit is God’s gift of holy spirit given to some people in the Old Testament and to all believers today.

When Peter mentions that “the spirit of Christ” was upon prophets as they “predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glory that would follow,” it is easy to see that the spirit is called the “spirit of Christ” because it is associated with Christ and foretold of Christ, not because Christ was actually alive during the Old Testament.

Jason:
At 1 Peter 2:3, the author speaks of tasting the kindness of the lord, certainly referring to Christ by context; but he is citing Psalm 34:8-11 where the kindness of YHWH is what is being tasted.

Some things which were previously said of Yahweh could be appropriately applied to Jesus as well after he was highly exalted by Yahweh and made Lord of all. This need not be understood to imply that Jesus is Yahweh. Rather, Jesus relates to us as the gracious benefactor of spiritual blessings just as Yahweh alone did for the Israelites in the OT. But Jesus only holds this unique status and is only able to relate to us in this way because his God exalted him to his right hand.

Jason:
At 1 Peter 2:8, the author teaches that the rock of stumbling in citation of Isaiah 8:13-15 is Christ; but in Isaiah this rock of stumbling is YHWH.

In another thread (evangelicaluniversalist.com/ … 455#p32784) I wrote the following concerning this verse:

Aaron:
I think a better interpretation is that Isaiah’s prophecy in 8:13-15 simply had a dual application: In the days of king Ahaz (Isa 7:1), the “rock of stumbling” was YHWH of hosts, the “one God” of Israel (who is Jesus’ “Lord God”). In the days of Paul and Peter, however, the “stone” that YHWH said he was going to lay “as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation” (Isa 28:16) also became a “rock of stumbling” to the Jewish people. This “stone” laid by YHWH is his anointed, the Son of the Most High (i.e., Jesus). Thus, what was true of God in the days of Ahaz became true of God’s Son in the days of Paul and Peter, and thus that prophecy in which Israel’s God (Jesus’ God) is said to be a stone of stumbling is appropriately applied also to Jesus. It was, of course, on Jesus that God bestowed “the name that is above every name,” so that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord * may be saved” (Rom 10:9-13).*

Jason:
Later, at 1 Peter 3:10-12, the author quotes extensively from Psalm 34:12-16, which of course refers to YHWH (as “the lord” in Greek), and continues immediately afterward in calling Christ “the lord”, in a statement that also quotes directly again from Isaiah 8, replacing “the Lord Himself” (which in the OT original is none other than YHWH) with “Christ the Lord”.

Immediately thereafter, at 1 Peter 3:15, the author speaks of the lord Jesus again in allusion to Isaiah 10:3, where YHWH is the Lord being spoken of.

I think my comments above apply here as well. And was your reference to Isaiah 10:3 a typo?

Jason:
If an author goes to such lengths to speak of Jesus as “lord” in relation to scriptures speaking of YHWH Most High, even going so far as to make a direct substitution of “Christ the Lord” for a reference to “YHWH Himself” (“have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard ‘YHWH Himself’ replaced with] Christ the Lord as holy”!); then it should not be surprising if the same author references Jesus Christ at 1 Peter 4:11 in such a way that Jesus could be construed as being {ho theos} to Whom belongs all power and glory into the eons of the eons–even while at the same time distinguishing personally “the God” and “Jesus Christ”. The same author has already directly identified Christ as the same YHWH Most High Who most properly can be called {ho theos}.

Or, in v. 11 Peter is simply distinguishing Jesus from God as the one through whom God is being glorified, and then goes on to speak of “glory and dominion unto the ages of the ages” as belonging to Jesus - the ultimate Messianic king who functions as God’s “vice-regent” - as well to God, who anointed him and exalted him to his right hand.

Jason:
Things get far more bluntly direct at 2 Peter 1:1, however.

To help clarify the importance of the usage, we may observe common and stably transmitted stylistic habits of the author.

At 2 Peter 1:11, he calls Jesus {tou kuriou he_mo_n kai so_te_ros Ie_sou Xristou}, “the lord” “our” “and” “savior” “Jesus” “Christ”.

Putting it more clearly into English: “of our (the) lord and savior Jesus Christ”, with “lord” given a direct article and fronted for emphasis. (“Of” is implied in the grammatic suffixes.)

2 Peter 2:20, {tou kuriou he_mo_n kai so_te_ros Ie_sou Xristou}, “of our (the) lord and savior Jesus Christ” same format. (There are a number of variations in the text, omitting various words or shuffling them around, but this form is also well-attested and explains the others as being variants. Even if one of the others is original, it’s likely to be one with the same elements in an irrelevantly different configuration, or perhaps missing “our”.)

2 Peter 3:2, the author speaks of the command {tou kuriou kai so_te_ros} “of the lord and savior”.

2 Peter 3:18, the author exhorts his readers to be growing in grace and in the knowledge {tou kuriou he_mo_n kai so_te_ros Ie_sou Xristou} “of our (the) lord and savior Jesus Christ”.

We may also compare with 1 Peter 1:3, which is either by the same author or is in the same school (so to speak) of composition: {euloge_tos ho theos kai pate_r tou kuriou he_mo_n Ie_sou Xristou}, “blessed-one the god and father of our (the) lord Jesus Christ”.

Now, the wad of textual transmission variants at 2 Peter 1:2 (not verse 1!) might distract us from the stability of what is being said at verse 1. Most of the variants at verse 2 testify, one way or another, to that verse talking about {tou theou} “the God” and {Ie_sou tou kuriou he_mo_n} “Jesus our (the) lord”. That’s a distinction of persons, no doubt, with “the God” over here and “Jesus our lord” over there. Some variants include a “Christ” before or after “Jesus”, some variants include “savior” in regard to Jesus, some variants move “our the-lord” ahead of Jesus, a few read only “our the-lord”.

This is all very well, and despite the variants the understanding here is pretty straightforward: the author is distinguishing personally between “the God” and “the lord Jesus Christ”.

But the author has just gotten finished in verse 1 calling Jesus “the God”!

You’ve said that the Granville Sharp rule “has definite problems,” but it seems you’re implicitly appealing to it here (or at least to something that seems to me to be indistinguishable from it) when you somewhat confidently assert (emphasis yours), "But the author has just gotten finished in verse 1 calling Jesus “the God”!" But I’m not sure why it’s necessary to believe that the author has done any such thing. I agree with those who have argued that there would’ve been no need for the definite article to be used twice if the author didn’t think its repetition was necessary to prevent ambiguity. See, for example, the following note by Andrews Norton: books.google.com/books?id=9w_9hS … &q&f=false.

Concerning the Granville Sharp rule and Titus 2:13, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963) states: “The repetition of the article was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” Dr. Nigel Turner admits: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive.” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965) As to the Greek construction used, Professor Alexander Buttmann points out: “It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the NT, to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception…” (A Grammar of the New Testament Greek). In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Dr. N. J. D. White observes: “The grammatical argument…is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before “Savior” in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10.” And Dr. Alford stresses that in other passages where Paul uses expressions like “God our Savior” he definitely does not mean Jesus, for “the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another.” (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3-5) Thus, Dr. White concludes (concerning Titus 2:13): “On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” A number of modern translations agree. In the main text or in footnotes they render Titus 2:13 as speaking of two distinct persons, “the great God” (the Father, who is Jesus’ God), and his Son, “our Savior, Christ Jesus,” both of whom have glory (Luke 9:26; 2 Tim. 1:10). See The New American Bible, The Authentic New Testament, The Jerusalem Bible (footnote) and the translations by J. B. Phillips, James Moffatt and Charles K. Williams.

If Peter believed that “our God” referred to the Father then I think he could’ve written exactly what he did without fear that his words might be understood to mean that “our Savior Jesus Christ” was also “our God.” I think the grammatic form was flexible enough that the expectation would have been that, depending on other considerations, it could refer to either one or two persons. The exact words used - and not the form itself - is what determines what was meant. Thus, this verse may simply read, “by the righteousness of God and our Savior, Jesus Christ” (KJV), “in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ” (ASV), “through the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Weymouth) or “in the righteousness of our God, and the Savior, Jesus Christ” (CLV). After all, is it not true that those to whom Peter wrote had obtained a faith of equal standing with his by the righteousness of both Jesus and his/our God (the Father)? Certainly. And the fact that Peter goes on to distinguish between Jesus and the Father in v. 2 by calling the Father “the God” (cf. 1 Pet 1:21; 2:4-5; 3:21-22) seems to add weight to those translations which have Peter referring to the same person in v. 1 when he wrote “the God,” and to a different person when he wrote “savior Jesus Christ.”

Jason:
There isn’t any grammatic doubt about this; and the textual transmission (unlike verse 2) is quite stable. In fact, its stability actually helps explain some of the variation in verse 2!–since the phraseology is kind of similar and scribal copyists sometimes accidentally jumped a line when two similar phrases occurred one beneath the other. (There is a bit of textual transmission instability regarding the first word of verse 1, the opening address of the epistle, but this is of no importance to the phrase being examined here.)

Here is the phrase: the author is writing to those who are in the righteousness {tou theou he_mo_n kai so_te_ros Ie_sou Xristou}, “the god” “our” “and” “savior” “Jesus” “Christ”, “of our (the) god and savior Jesus Christ”.

The format is exactly the same as everywhere else the author speaks “of our (the) lord and savior Jesus Christ”. No one anywhere disputes that “lord” and “savior” both apply to Jesus Christ in those places; no one anywhere disputes that when the author writes of “our the-lord and savior” without further description he still means the same person (namely Jesus Christ, not Jesus and someone else); and no one anywhere disputes that the same author (or someone with his style) means the same person, namely God the Father, when speaking “our the-god and father” (“of our the-Lord Jesus Christ”) back in 1 Peter.

In other words, when the exact same phraseology is used for referring to Jesus as Lord, or for referring to someone as lord and savior, there is no debate that this does indeed mean Jesus. And when the exact same phraseology is used for referring to someone as {ho theos}, where this person is distinguished from Jesus, again there is no dispute from anyone. The grammar is clear in all cases, the contextual usage is clear in all cases–but neither is any contention of theology at stake (except for modalists perhaps).

By the exact same grammatic tokens, however, the same grammatic form with one “the” applying to both nouns must mean that the author is calling Jesus Christ “the God” at 2 Peter 1:1. We know what the author clearly means in other cases when he does just the same thing speaking of Jesus Christ.

The only significant difference here, is that the author calls Jesus {ho theos} (with a possessive form “of the god” {tou theou}), instead of {ho kurios} (in its possessive form “of the lord” {tou kuriou}).

Again though, I don’t think Peter had to use a second definite article if he did not anticipate any ambiguity in v. 1. If Peter did not anticipate that his readers would think that “the God” in v. 1 referred to anyone other than the Father, I don’t think he would’ve seen the need to use a second definite article to resolve any possible ambiguity.

Jason:
Still, your argument from Heb 1:1 seems quite appropriate when backed up by demonstrable examples everywhere else in EpistHeb that I can find, leaving my example the data point out. I’m willing to acknowledge a very solid refutation on that ground, and will adjust my article (and the subsequent entries) accordingly.

Thanks for your helpful critique of my arguments, Jason. I admit that I did write my “rebuttal” rather hastily and could’ve thought it out a little better. But I’m gladu found at least one of my arguments compelling enough to lead you to adjust your article! However, you referred to me in your edited artis actually my middle name (I regret that my email ais kinda confusing for those who don’t know this!). My last name is a(if you’re on Facebook, you can find me here

Jason:
Finishing up…

Re Rev 22:16 – your reference to Rev 1:1-2 per se doesn’t actually help, because the pronouns don’t actually indicate who or Who was dispatching the messenger to John, nor whose or Whose messenger was being dispatched. Whereas Rev 22:16 very explicitly says that Jesus was dispatching the messenger to John, or rather the angel says this while speaking for Jesus.

But then you agree that Jesus sent His angel to John to give the message, which is not only exactly what I said but is a crucial part of my argument. So referring back to 1:1-2 has added nothing against my argument. We both would look at Rev 22:16 to clarify what’s being talked about here, not vice versa.

(That “God” gives the revelation to “Jesus” to give to show to His and/or his slaves, is not something I dispute either and will be discussed in principle as I go.)

I have no disagreement about the angel belonging to the Son by virtue of having been given (like everything else) to the Son by the Father. But this is a concept that can obviously be understood both in a unitarian and a trinitarian way. Whether it counts as a plausible alternative depends on how other contexts add up there.
It should be noticed, though, that even that defense leaves the Son on the other side of a hard thick dividing line with the Father compared to anyone else.

Of course, and every Biblical Unitarian would agree. Jesus is, I believe, the only created being to have been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” and exalted to God’s right hand as “Lord of all.”

Jason:
We may be given all things in the Son, but we don’t get to send angels, identifying themselves as our angels, to speak for us personally (much less while the angels make claims originally attributed to YHWH in speaking for us personally!) Similarly, Christ may share the throne with us as the Father shares the throne with Him, but we don’t get to sit on the throne receiving the worship of all creation (or of any creation), or on the throne at all actually.

But as you know, the words translated “worship” in Scripture were used much more broadly than we typically use the word. “Worship” was not something that was thought appropriate for God alone. For example, in Rev 3:9 Jesus told the church in Philadelphia, “Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of satan who say they are Jews and are not, but lie - behold, I will make them come and bow down (proskuneo) at your feet…” This is the same exact word rendered “worship” or “worshiped” in Matt 2:2, 8, 11; 14:33; 15:25; 18:26; 28:9, 17. Or consider 1 Chron 29:20, where we are told that the people of Israel “bowed their heads and worshipped (shachah; LXX, proskuneo) Yahweh and the king.” Here, the Israelites were not bowing down and “worshipping” the king as Yahweh; as far as we know, no one was guilty of idolatry for doing this. Rather, they were rendering homage to the king as the king appointed by God (and thus as someone inferior to Yahweh) and to Yahweh as Yahweh (who was understood to be superior to the king he appointed). As Adam Clarke notes, “They did reverence to God as the supreme Ruler, and to the king as his deputy.” And if Israel could be said to bow down and worship David or Solomon without committing idolatry, then surely we can do the same with he who calls himself both David’s Lord as well as “the root and offspring of David” (and for those who might see this expression as supporting the idea that Christ existed before David, keep in mind that a plant grows both upwards and downwards, and the “root” is not older than the seed from which it grows!). So I would suggest that while the worship of Jesus in Revelation certainly points to Jesus’ being the ultimate Anointed King whose power and authority is second only to Yahweh’s, it does not mean he is Yahweh, the Supreme Being.

Aaron:
Moreover, when we read in Revelation of how an angel stops John from bowing down to him because he considered himself only a “fellow servant” (Rev. 22:9), we should not conclude that John mistakenly believed the angel to be God himself, or even Christ.

Jason:
This sounds like you’re basically agreeing we shouldn’t even respectfully worship not-God creatures that we know to be such out of politeness. So much for worshiping a not-God Jesus then!

Again, my view is that John was mistakenly rendering homage to the angel as the source of the revelation he had received. If John had simply been “worshipping” the angel in the same appropriate sense that Lot “worshipped” the two angels who came to Sodom (Gen. 19:1), in the sense that Moses “worshiped” his father in law (Ex. 18:7), in the sense that Joseph was “worshiped” by his family in a dream (Gen 37:5-10; cf. 42:6), or in the sense that Abigail or Nathan “worshipped” David (1 Sam 25:23; 1 Kings 1:23), then I don’t think he would’ve received any rebuke from the angel. But I believe that John was (twice) so caught up in the moment that, in his heightened emotional state, he mistakenly viewed the angel as the source of the awesome revelation he received rather than Jesus’ God, and thus tried to render homage to the angel for something of which only God was deserving. He was trying to honour the angel for being something the angel wasn’t, and so the angel corrects him and redirects him to the one who was the source of the revelation that the angel was sent to disclose.

Jason:
Nor by the same token are we supposed to worship not-God angels who show up with messages from God, even when they start speaking for God directly. So much less for worshiping a not-God Jesus then!

Well, we shouldn’t be “worshipping” angels in response to the mistaken idea that they are the source of the revelation which we’re explicitly told God gave to Jesus (Rev 1:1). It’s not the mere fact that we’re prostrating ourselves before someone other than God that would make this action right or wrong; it’s why we’re prostrating ourselves before them.

Jason:
Adam Clarke’s defense, which you quoted, leaves over exactly no reason to properly worship the Son either, as we can be under no obligation to the Son for information or anything else we receive from Him, all things having been given to the Son from God alone.

If we’re worshipping (rendering homage/bowing down to) Jesus because we believe he is the source of the revelation that God gave him, then our worship would be inappropriate and misplaced, and I have no doubt that he would say, “The Father is greater than I, and I too must learn what I know from God. Worship him!” However, if we’re worshipping Jesus as the ultimate Anointed King (rather than as the source of the revelation that came from his God alone), then I have no doubt he would accept our worship. Worshipping Jesus as the ultimate Messianic King/Son of the Most High God is a perfectly appropriate response to who he is. But worshipping Jesus as the uncreated and self-existent Supreme Being (Yahweh) is not. That, to me, would be similar to praying (even if one is completely sincere), “Lord Jesus, the Father is not greater than you. The Father is dependent on you; without you, the Father can do nothing. You - not the Father - are the one God and the only true God. You are the Father’s God.” Just reading these words makes me very uncomfortable.

Jason:
But your defenses for why it was not proper to worship the official messenger of God sent by God alone, when He comes bearing a message from God alone, speaking for God alone, even when the messenger speaks as though God is directly presently speaking, can even be extended in the same principles as a refutation in themselves for why the heck Jesus should be considered as having anything more than a merely technical place in this chain of transmission!–much moreso for sending an angel of God in Jesus own name to speak for Jesus! It seems like unitarians would be mistaken to attribute such things to Jesus at all in any personally authoritative way, even though that’s just how the texts present the situation. (And as I’m sure you know, some unitarians do in fact refuse to worship Jesus or treat him as having any more than a technical place in passing along this or that gift of God, just like any other mere messenger serving God.)

I don’t see anything inappropriate about me as, a Unitarian, worshipping Jesus as the man who died for my sins, as the man who was given all authority in heaven and on earth by God, as the man who is God’s ultimate representative and who perfectly reveals God’s heart to us, and as the man through whom God will one day abolish sin and death. It’s true that Jesus wouldn’t be who and what he is apart from the Father, but that doesn’t change who and what he is, and I still see Jesus as being deserving of more honor than any other created being. As a Unitarian, what I think would be inappropriate is if I worshipped Jesus because I thought that, rather than representing God, he was God, and that he wasn’t given his power and authority but rather possessed it by virtue of his being the Supreme Being, Yahweh. If Jesus personally appeared to me this instant and I bowed down to him out of reverence for both him and the God whom he represents and was sent by (i.e., his God), I would be honouring him as God’s representative as well as his God and my God, who sent him. Only if these distinctions became blurred in my mind (such that I ceased to see Jesus as God’s ultimate representative but rather understood him as God himself) would I be doing anything inappropriate or inconsistent with my present views.

I should also add that when (for example) Joshua prostrated himself before “the commander of Yahweh’s army” (Josh 5:14) I don’t think he did so because he believed that this being was Yahweh. When he prostrated himself before this supernatural being, he was most likely (as in 1 Chron 29:20) rendering homage both to the angel (as a being superior to himself) and to Yahweh (who was superior to both himself and the angel, and on whose behalf this angel had appeared to Joshua). If Joshua had believed this was not a representative of Yahweh who had been invested with authority from Yahweh, but was rather Yahweh himself (and was thus worshipping him as Yahweh himself), then I believe the angel would’ve rebuked him and said, “I am a servant of Yahweh.”

Jason:
My point regarding Rev 22:16 still stands. As I myself explicitly said in its argument, the angel should be sent from the God of spirits alone; and up until 22:16 there is no textual indication otherwise. Even at 22:16 Jesus does not say “I and My Father are sending His angel” or “our angel” or whatever. Just as God alone is to be worshiped, not the messengers God sends, God alone sends the angel; but Jesus sends the angel to speak for Himself, just as Jesus is to be worshiped–not as only a messenger of God, Who alone should be worshiped.

But why “should” the angel “be sent from the God of spirits alone?” I’m still not sure how this follows. The fact that the angel was sent by God doesn’t mean the angel cannot also be said to have been sent by Jesus, a not-God being who was exalted to God’s right hand. There is no logical contradiction here. The angel was sent by both Jesus’ God (“The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets”) and Jesus. How can this be? Is it because Jesus is God in the sense that his God is God? No, it’s because Jesus was made superior to the angels when God raised him from the dead. The angels are thus not only God’s servants, they are Jesus’ servants as well.

Jason:
HEB 1:8

Biblicalunitarian.com acknowledges that the Son is being called {ho theos} in the text here. Since that was what I was primarily arguing, and not (primarily) what it means for Jesus to be called {ho theos} here, there is no refutation but rather confirmation of my argument.

They somewhat obscure this acknowledgment, because they routinely treat the situation without referring to the presence of the direct article. The first part of their commentary implies, however, that they recognize {ho theos} is being used here, since they argue that the usage of the direct article doesn’t always refer to God Most High. Their counter-example, 2 Cor 4:4, does refer to Satan as {ho theos tou aio_nos), “the-god of this age”; although they don’t bother to mention that the immediate qualifier (“of this age”) is a clear limitation to the concept of “the-god”, and that the immediate topical context indicates that Paul intends a denying contrast to that title. Their exception doesn’t really prove that it’s easy, normal and expected for entities other than God Most High to be called {ho theos}.

But couldn’t it be argued that there is a “clear limitation to the concept of ‘the god’” in Heb 1:8 as well, and that the immediate context indicates that Jesus is not “the God” in the same sense that the Father is “the God?” It seems that verses such as vv. 1-5 (and especially v. 9) limit the concept of Jesus’ being “the god” in v. 8 in a similar way that “of this age” limits “the god” in 2 Cor 4:4. That is, in whatever sense Jesus may be called “the God” here, it should be understood in a limited sense. Moreover, in the LXX, is not Moses also called “ho theos?” Granted, this is only in regards to how Moses would function with Aaron before Pharaoh, but still, we have theos with the definite article being used in an obviously limited and inferior sense. Similarly, the judges of Israel are referred to as “God” (with the definite article) in Ex 21:5-6 and 22:8-9 (see the NET Bible, which renders “ho theos” as “the judges”). Couldn’t it be said that the Psalmist (who would’ve no doubt been familiar with the flexibility with which the word elohim could be used) chose to quickly add that the ideal Messianic king he has in view is not Yahweh because he (the Messianic king) himself has a God (i.e., Yahweh), so as to make it obvious to all reading that he was employing elohim in a limited, inferior sense?

Jason:
The site reports a second argument which, although they don’t subscribe to it, AaronR says he himself subscribes to. On this argument, the “and” or {kai} which begins verse 10 isn’t read as continuing the declaration of the Father to the Son with another declaration, first from this scripture, then from this new one; but rather as breaking off from the author’s rhetorical argument to praise God the Father for a while, before picking back up afterward with a final brief comparison of the Son to angels. The idea is that this is the kind of God Who has promised a throne to Jesus, so we can be sure the stability of the kingdom of that throne is proportionately secure.

There is nothing actually in the grammar to indicate this, of course.

I’m not sure there is anything in the grammar that “indicates” the other interpretation, though. I’d say the grammar allows for either interpretation. Also, you seem to think that vv. 11-12 would be somewhat disjointed from the rest of the author’s argument if interpreted as I believe it should be. But as noted by the authors of the article at BiblicalUnitarian, the passage quoted by the author of Hebrews was written by the Psalmist to show that the unchanging God can indeed fulfill his promises. Thus, it makes perfectly good sense (to me) for the author to make use of this passage to add strength and emphasis to the argument he’d been making. Since God created the heavens and the earth, and since he will not pass away, then it follows that he is fit to promise and then give his Son an aeonian throne/kingdom that was never promised or given to any of the angels.

The main rationale for the attempt is that otherwise the Father would be calling Jesus the original self-existent YHWH in comparison to any of the angels, which is how the grammar per se most naturally reads. And that would be binitarian theism (at least) which has to be wrong.

Again, even based on what you’ve said in defense of your view, I’m not as confident as you that the grammar “naturally reads” in a way that supports either trinitarian or binitarian theism. I’m more inclined to think that, ultimately, it is theological/contextual/thematic considerations (rather than merely grammatical) that must determine the meaning of this text, as well as the other texts you’ve proposed as supporting the deity of Christ. It seems to me that the grammatical considerations which you’ve emphasized in support of your position are considered by even scholars with a Trinitarian bias as being far less decisive, and somewhat more ambiguous (i.e., apart from theological and contextual considerations) than you have argued. And I believe when we approach this passage from Hebrews 1 with the following considerations in view, it is highly unlikely that the author’s quotation of Psalm 102 is to be read as if the divine being called “God” in all of the previous verses (i.e., the Father) was saying to Jesus,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”

Aside from the possibility that the author is re-applying a passage that was originally addressed by the Psalmist to Yahweh (who created the original creation) to Jesus (as the creator of the new creation or the “world to come,” of which the author speaks in Heb 2:5), understanding Jesus as the same divine person being addressed in Psalm102 (the one whom the Psalmist understood to be his God - v. 24) just doesn’t seem appropriate in light of what had been previously argued in this chapter. The author had been arguing all along that Jesus is superior to the angels, but who really needed to be convinced that the God of the Psalmist - Yahweh himself - was superior to his angels? And would not the author and those whom he addressed have understood the divine person who had spoken to their fathers by the prophets as being the same Lord who laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning? And if the author was trying to teach that it was not just the Father alone but also his Son, Jesus, then wouldn’t this mean that there were two Lords involved in the creation of the heavens and the earth rather than one (for Jesus’ God would’ve also been understood as possessing the title “Lord” - Heb 6:21)? So to quote Psalm 102 as if Jesus is the “Lord” who created the heavens and the earth would’ve been to either introduce two Lords as co-creators or to argue that Jesus’ God was not involved in creation, and I find it difficult to believe that the author would do so without explanation or argumentation. He would’ve essentially been altering the very creed recited by Jesus in Mark 12:29 to instead affirm, “The Lords (plural) your God (or rather, “Gods”), the Lords (plural) are one.” One would think the author would’ve had much more to say on this, for arguing that the Messiah is superior to the angels is not at all the same as arguing that the Messiah is the “one Lord” affirmed in the Shema (or another “Lord” in addition to the “Lord” already being referred to).

And not only this, but the author seemed to believe that Jesus’ superiority over the angels is a status he has not always possessed, but was rather acquired after he made “purification for sins” (v. 3). For the author wrote concerning Jesus: “…he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” It is only after the author has made this important point (i.e., that Jesus became superior to the angels and inherited a more excellent name than theirs) that he then goes on to argue this point further using the OT. Unless his quotation of Psalm 102 is his only attempt at arguing that Jesus was superior to the angels before God brought him into the world (v. 6) or before God invited him to sit at his right hand (v. 13), there is no indication that he believed this, but there is evidence against it. Unless the author was quoting Psalm 102 for the purpose of identifying Jesus (rather than Jesus’ God, the “Majesty on high”) as the “Lord” who created the heavens and the earth “in the beginning,” the superiority of Jesus over the angels would’ve been clearly understood as being inseparably tied to historical events that took place after Jesus’ life on earth began - not to something that was true when the angels were created. According to the author of Hebrews, Jesus was “crowned with glory and honor” not because he was superior to the angels before his conception, but rather “because of the suffering of death” (Heb 2:9), and because he was “made perfect through suffering” (v. 10) and “learned obedience through what he suffered” (5:7-9). But why would the author emphasize Jesus’ becoming superior to the angels after his death if Jesus is in fact Yahweh? Aside from the fact that, unlike Jesus, Yahweh was thought to be unable to die, unable to be tempted, and to have no need to pray to anyone or “learn obedience,” would it have been considered a necessary or reasonable revelation that Yahweh - the “one God” of those to whom the author wrote - needed to become superior to his own angels, and inherit a name that is more excellent than theirs? Would this not have been considered absurd, if not shockingly blasphemous to those to whom the author wrote? This would imply that Yahweh - the Lord who laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning - had in the past been inferior to his own angels, and to have possessed a “name” that was less excellent than theirs. But where is it ever mentioned or prophesied in the OT that Yahweh would ever become inferior to his angels? One would think that at least something would be said to prepare the Jewish people for such a shocking revelation. Instead, there is no indication that Yahweh would ever be in any sense inferior to his angels. The Messiah, on the other hand, is spoken of as one who would (initially at least) be just as mortal as every other descendent of Adam (Isaiah 53; cf. Acts 8:32-33), rather than immortal like an angelic being has always been.

Jason:
Still, while totally impossible to prove, I can’t think of any way to disprove it from the grammar either, although the theory does require breaking the flow of the author’s rhetorical structure–another advantage for the grammatic interpretation, which not only preserves but thus climaxes the structure (with verse 13 afterward, still in structure, neatly bookending the structure on either side with references to Psalm 110.

If it can’t be disproven from the grammar, then wouldn’t it be consistent with the grammar? Thus, to refer to your interpretation as the “grammatic interpretation” seems like a bit of an overstatement. Also, another point that seems to support Norton’s interpretation is that, when the author quotes any additional OT verses to support the same point being made by the first verse quoted, he seems to prefer linking the verses with “again” (palin) rather than “and” (kai) alone. See, for example, Heb 1:5 and 2:13 (cf. Romans 15:9-12). So it seems likely that the author would’ve used palin (or kai palin) and not merely kai alone if he’d intended his quotation of Psalm 102 to be understood as another example from the OT of how Christ is presented as superior to the angels.

Jason:
This, in other words, is how the author interprets the riddle of Psalm 110: is the ADNY there only adonei or Adonai? I find the author’s answer is “both”.)

I find this problematic for several reasons, one of which being that Jesus is spoken of as having been made Lord and as becoming superior to the angels. If Jesus has always been fully God, then he has always been Adonai (just as his God, the Father, has always been Adonai). To be “God” implies that one is necessarily and eternally “Adonai,” and not “only adonei.” But why then would Jesus need to be made “Lord” and become superior to the angels if he has always been Adonai? Does not Adonai denote a greater status than adonei? Certainly; it is human Lords - not Yahweh, the Most High God - who are referred to as “adonei” in the OT. He who is “Adonai” does not need to become or be made “adonei” by virtue of the fact that he is already (and, as God, has always been) “Adonai.”

Jason:
On the other hand I do admit that Norton (the author cited at the site as representative of this argument) does connect his theory topically to how the Psalmist applies the statement, which is definitely a point in its favor.

Indeed!

Jason:
The grammar in Greek is quite straightforward (and stable in textual transmission), and readers who slogged through my prior entries should recognize its format:

{kata} down-from, or in accord with

{te_n charin} the grace (in an accusative form, as the object of the preposition {kata})

{tou theou} (of) the god (in genitive form, so with an understood “of”)

{he_mo_n} our (relates to ‘the god’, so “our the-god”)

{kai} and

{kuriou} lord (in genitive form, parallels ‘the-god’)

{Ie_sou Xristou} Jesus Christ (in genitive form, parallels ‘the-god’ and ‘lord’)

“Lord” doesn’t have a direct article, but the grammatic construction indicates that it’s sharing a direct article with “god”, and both are intended to be describing “Jesus Christ”.

The grammatic form is so normal that if Paul had written…

the grace {tou kuriou he_mo_n kai so_te_ros Ie_sou Xristou}
instead of
the grace {tou theou he_mo_n kai kuriou Ie_sou Xristou}

…no one would be disputing about who Paul was talking about. He habitually calls Jesus Christ our lord elsewhere, he often calls Jesus our savior, case closed, the end, no doubt.

But by the exact same grammatic token, there can be no doubt he is calling Jesus Christ {tou theou} “the God” here.

I don’t see how this follows, though. The grammar in itself need not be understood as that which would lead a reader to understand tou kuriou he_mo_n kai so_te_ros Ie_sou Xristouas referring to Jesus alone. If so many translators can understand Paul to be referring to two different persons in 2 Thess 1:12 - with some translators allowing that it could be translated such that Jesus alone is being referred to (see, for example, the NIV and their footnote) - then apparently they consider the grammatic form flexible enough that the meaning must be decided by other considerations. You say that Paul “often calls Jesus our savior” (I counted only 4 times: 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6), but Paul seems to have referred to the Father as “Savior” or “our Savior” even more often (1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4). According to the NET Bible (see note for 1 Tim 1:1),

Use of the title “Savior” for God the Father is characteristic of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. It occurs six times in these letters, but only twice elsewhere in the NT. However, it occurs commonly in the OT, especially in Isaiah. It emphasizes the Father as the initiator and source of salvation.

But it is true that Paul “habitually calls Jesus Christ our lord elsewhere,” as you note. Referring to Jesus as “Lord” was certainly Paul’s preferred way of speaking. Thus, if the reader understood {tou kuriou he_mo_n kai so_te_ros Ie_sou Xristou} as referring to Jesus alone rather than to Jesus and the Father, it would be because the reader saw any possible grammatical ambiguity in the expression as being resolved by the fact that “Lord” is Paul’s preferred and “habitual” way of referring to Jesus, rather than the Father. And perhaps the context in which this expression was found might also suggest to the reader that Jesus - rather than the Father - is clearly the “Lord” being referred to. But does Paul often call Jesus Christ “our God” elsewhere? Does not Paul “habitually” refer to the Father - and not Jesus - as “God?” Of course. And arguably, in 2 Thess Paul refers to the Father as “our God” in the verse immediately preceding the one under consideration. As you note further down in your response, Paul certainly refers to the Father as “our God” several times elsewhere (1 Cor 6:11; Gal 1:4; Phil 4:20), and seemed especially inclined to refer to the Father as “our God” when writing to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:3; 2:2; 3:9, 11, 13). So while it would be standard for Paul to refer to Jesus rather than the Father as “Lord,” it would be quite uncharacteristic of Paul to refer to Jesus rather than the Father as “our God.” And since most translators apparently don’t think the grammar of 1 Thess 1:12 necessitates understanding Jesus alone as the referent, I think it would be preferable and most consistent with Paul’s manner of speaking to understand him to be referring to the Father and not Jesus as “our God” here. The grammar was apparently thought flexible enough for the translators of the NIV to include the standard translation of 2 Thess 1:12 in the text and to provide the one for which you argue in a footnote.

Jason:
Biblicaunitarian.com punts on the grammatic argument by stating that they have proved elsewhere that the so-called Granville Sharp Rule (of which this is a variant) “is not a valid proof of the Trinity”. The reader is referred to a discussion on Eph 5:5, which is taken as an example for discussing the critiquing the principles of the ostensible rule.

The article shows well enough that the rule only functions insofar as readers already understand the same descriptives being applying to the noun in question, or not; consequently it is impossible to read out an identification of terms, or an exclusion of them for that matter, in such a grammatic condition. The reader is expected to read the meaning of identity, or not, into the grammar.

The discussion does not however address the particular type of phraseology under consideration here and in other relevant examples of my list, which (unlike at Eph 5:5 not incidentally) is a standardized form for describing a person in multiple ways; and which can be easily contrasted to different but related standardized forms for describing two different persons. This well-known standardization is simply grouped as a lump under Granville Sharp and then thrown out with it (possibly because it has no name that I know of. All of which, by the way, explains why I never once tried to claim “Granville Sharp Rule”.)

I’m not sure why one couldn’t respond that what you call a “particular type of phraseology” that was “a standardized form for describing a person in multiple ways” was simply flexible enough that it could also be understood as describing two different persons, especially if other considerations warranted such an interpretation. Merely arguing that there were “different but related standardized forms for describing two different persons” doesn’t mean that the other phraseology (the one used in 2 Thess 1:12) was employed exclusively to refer to one person in multiple ways. Perhaps the former “standardized forms” of which you speak were employed exclusively to describe two different persons, but that doesn’t mean the latter form was used exclusively to refer to only one person. Again, the latter could simply be a more flexible type of phraseology than the former.

Jason:
Their rebuttal, although to the point on Eph 5:5, thus misses on a partial category error. As I demonstrated in detail, there is in fact a normal standard expectation about what the grammar of a particular form (within minor variations) is supposed to mean (even though the broader category of examples under Granville Sharp has no such intrinsic expectations): “the description and description, name”. It is not the grammatic form that is disputed, but the application of a particular noun within that form.

As I also acknowledged, that doesn’t mean the grammatic form has to trump the interpretation of the offending noun. But it does mean that the noun ({theos} with a {ho}) is what offends and calls for a different interpretation over-against the standard expectation of the grammar. (Ironically, the form is so standardized that {theos} without a {ho} in otherwise the same form is commonly recognized without dispute as signaling a reference to a different person than whoever is named after the second description!–namely {ho theos}! But the form of such address is uniformly though subtly different, as I also demonstrated.)

Their second rebuttal is that both God and Jesus Christ give grace, which of course trinitarians do not deny. This is no rebuttal to the grammar per se, although by comparing this verse to others with a uniformly (if subtly) different grammatic structure, they imply that there is no difference meant here, and so there is no reason to “remove the Father from the verse”.

Sean Finnegan, in the second link provided by AaronR (which is a brief pdf commenting on the issue of translation here), quotes the late super-exegete Raymond Brown, who at least gets closer to the argument I made, although missing details I provided.

RB doesn’t bother appealing to the G-S Rule per se, probably for the same reason I didn’t: the Rule as set up recognizes that meanings are read into the text inclusively or exclusively either way according to the expectation of the reader. On the other hand, neither does he call that against the interpretation here. Consequently he tacitly acknowledges that something more standardized in the form is applicable which would create expectations about the two terms applying to Jesus, except that one of the terms is {ho theos}. His sole argument against the interpretation is on this ground, that the “exact three-word Greek combination” (actually four words in Greek {ho theos kai kurios}, with suffix modification of course) applied here in the form, is found nowhere else in the Bible; but since he refers to 2 Peter 1:1, he knows that a very similar form, “the God and savior” does appear at least once (actually twice) in relation to Jesus Christ.

RB is also aware that one evidence in favor of the other translation is supposedly the “of us” separating the two titles; but as in my own argument he affirms that this is of no weight (since a substantially similar example will have that “our” for Lord instead.)

RB’s sole argument in favor of the other interpretation is that “our God” appears four other times in 1 and 2 Thess in reference to God the Father. I found six times the phrase “our God” was used, three of which explicitly say “our God and Father”, the other three of which are not overtly clear in a similar way. Since he didn’t list them I can’t tell for sure which four he means, but if he means the ones referencing “our God and Father” not only does the phraseology explicitly spell it out (all three times in comparison to “our Lord Jesus Christ” where one might have expected there was no special need for distinguishing Who was being referred to as “the-God of us”), but insofar as it goes it also shows that “the-god” “our” and “x” in that order would all be expected to refer to one person.

RB is also aware that the alternate interpretation requires interpolating a distinct “the” for “Lord Jesus Christ” along with “the God of us”; and is also aware that this is a definite difficulty for the theory, despite the fact that normally the lack of an article tells us nothing about whether one is implied or not, or refers to something we would normally think of as being “the X” even though an article was not specifically in mind to the writer. If a tacit article can be so easily supplied, why is there a serious difficulty?–requiring a supposition that “perhaps ‘Lord Jesus Christ’ was so common a phrase that it would automatically be thought of as a separate entity and could be used without the article”?–a supposition quite opposite from the expected defense which would be something like “’the god’ was so commonly understood to refer to the Father that it would automatically be thought of as a separate entity”?!

Raymond Brown doesn’t say why this is such an unexpected difficulty with such an unexpected line of defense. But the fact that he recognizes a difficulty requiring, he thinks, this kind of defense, fits what I have been saying about the standardized expectation of this form: when it reads “the blah and (no the) blah name”, the normal expected interpretation is for “the blah” and “blah” both to refer to “name”. The expectation is so strong that the learned doctor’s inclination is to find some reason to suggest why another “the” would be understood although not printed there: because having both nouns at articular par, both with or both without articles, is by contrast a normal way of distinguishing a two person reference compared to this form instead.

The short of it is that even Raymond Brown’s report of arguments against “the god” referring to Jesus, hang altogether on the problem of “the god” being used unexpectedly in that grammatic form.

But that’s a problem with the term, not with the grammar per se. It would be an undisputed grammatic lock except then “the god” would refer to Jesus.

That’s the problem to be reconciled.

But again, RB seemed to think the grammar was not so inflexible as to necessitate the translation for which you’re arguing, because if it was, there would be no “possible interpretations” for which to argue. Apparently, he (and a number of other scholars) view it as flexible enough that it can be legitimately understood to refer to more than one person. To merely argue, “But here, here and here the same form is used by Peter and it clearly refers to one person only!” does not mean the form was so inflexible as to require that the reader expect only one person to be in view every time the particular form appears in the NT, or in extra-biblical literature. Perhaps the “expectation” regarding this grammatic form should simply be that when this form appears it can be understood to refer to either one person or two separate persons, and that whether it refers to one person or two separate persons depends on other factors being taken into consideration. But in the end, I’m afraid the primary defense of my view in regards to this verse will have to simply be an appeal to all of the modern English translations that render it in such a way two distinct persons are in view:

NET
“…according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

ESV
“…according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

LEB
"… according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. "

NIV
“…according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

ASV
“…according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

RSV
“…according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

NKJV
“…according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

NAB
“…according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

NASB
“…according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

HCSB
“…according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Phillips
“…through the grace of our God and Jesus Christ the Lord.”

CLV
“…in accord with the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

I fully admit that all of these translations could be mistaken, and you could be right. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that the majority of translations got it wrong. But I just haven’t seen anything decisive in your defense of your understanding of 2 Thess 1:12 to overturn what seems to be the consensus that this verse can just as legitimately be translated and understood in a way that is consistent with what I believe to be the general tenor of Scripture.

[blackiebori]

thebereangroup

, Julie Ferwerda"]Is Jesus God?

Hey Westernlions,

I didn’t want to tackle this subject when all the other doctrines were crumbling, but God kept putting it in front of me. I ended up devoting about 2 months of daily study to the topic and looked at it from every angle I could (history, scripture, what other people have written). I came to the solid conclusion that the trinity is bogus and Jesus is not “the God.”

It’s so much to unravel but I’ll give you my conclusions and let you know of a resource or two that might be helpful. Beyond that, you can email me privately if you are interested and I will send you a compilation document of verses and thoughts I gathered during my study. Nothing official or even all that organized, but still worthwhile.

I have come to the conclusion that God is the Father from “out of” which the firstborn Son came (whenever I use quotes, this is literal translation from the Greek or Hebrew Scriptures). It is “out of” the Firstborn Son that all of the rest of mankind has been “generated.” Jesus never once claims to be “the God,” but only the “Son of God.” Paul says “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” (1 Cor. 8:6).

Divinity is spoken of Jesus as “a god,” but I believe this is a divinity based on His being “out of God.” In fact, Jesus includes others as “gods.” Gods can be rulers or express divinity, without being blasphemous of claiming to be “the God.” Articles are very important in the Greek studies. Definite articles “the” indicate supremacy in speaking of “the God.” Whereas all of the places referring to Jesus or others as “gods” have the indefinite article “a.” For instance look at the article usage in this passage:

The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be a god.” 34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? 35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world,You are blaspheming,’ because I said, `I am the Son of God’? John 10:33-36

Anyhow, a couple great resources are:

When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome by Richard E. Rubenstein

godandson.reslight.net/

When you look into it, pretty much every verse that is used to support the trinity can be debunked satisfactorily.

Julie

JulieFerwerda.com
OneMillionArrows.com

I’m all for asking difficult questions, especially of mainstream Christianity who have obviously made some huge mistakes in regards to the nature of hell, the love of God, etc! I’m also personally aware how when we have such a paradigm shift of thinking in taking up Christian Universalism, we naturally need to reevaluate everything else we’ve been taught.

However, it seems we’re holding now holding very different positions on the divinity of Christ? As we’re both keen on seeking the truth (like the Bereans ) and believe the Bible is an important primary source, I’m really hoping she will be interested in wrestling with this a bit more with Jason Pratt (an Evangelical Universalist & Trinitarian Theologian). I think it would make for a worthwhile discussion.

Just so you know, I’ve been friends with Julie for a few months on FaceBook & like the fact she’s keen to engage with difficult questions, even when she persecuted for it. I also appreciate her accessible book on UR called Raising Hell, however, if she takes on Arianism (?) she puts herself outside orthodox Christianity & Evangelicalism, as far as I know

Hey Alex,

First of all, I want to go over some Bible verses (John 10:33-36) that Julie quoted in her post; I will quote them from the Greek NT (Westcott/Hort with Diacritics) below:

33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομεν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι συ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν. 34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ] Ἰησοῦς· οὐκ ἐστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε; 35 εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή, 36 ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασεν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς, ὅτι εἶπον· υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι;

Note that Julie sees the Greek “ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν” in verse 33 as being translated as “make Yourself out to be a god.” Though most English translations don’t render the indefinite article “a” to be present in the verse, I cannot safely say that Julie’s rendering is incorrect. However, if the verse were actually saying “make Yourself out to be a god”, the Greek would be “ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν μίαν θεόν.” In all fairness, I’d be careful with interpreting verse 33 as either one or the other; maybe the “Jews” in this case were trying to “catch him [Jesus] in his words,” or put words in his mouth.

If Jesus was advocating a sort of henotheism (inclusive monotheism) in verses 34-36, as opposed to a strict monotheism, then this would be a good case for an assumption of Arianism. Indeed, Jesus did not assert that he was God Himself. Rather, he asserted his complete Oneness with God the Father (John 10:30) in his perfect knowledge of Him (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22), and submits his will to the Will of the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42; John 6:38). And indeed, this was the message, I believe, that Christ was trying to convey in saying, “ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασεν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς, ὅτι εἶπον· υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι;” (v. 36). The Jews were mistaken in thinking that Jesus was saying that he was God Himself (if this is the correct rendering of “ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν” in verse 33).

Does this mean that there were other “gods” at the time God (YHWH) created the heavens and the earth? He may have had angels to assist Him in creation ('Elohim; see Genesis 1 in the Hebrew), but they were certainly not His equals. But we know that God (YHWH) so desired to have a creature made in His (or “their”) likeness; a creature that can hold the divine image within a physical body created from the earth ('Adam). In light of this, we can say that God wants to make “little Gods” after Himself, but ones that are in the position to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule…” (Genesis 1:28 - NASB). In other words, God wants children after His own heart that He can put “into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15 - NASB).

Christ Jesus was the only begotten (μονογενῆ) Son (John 3:16) of God that could stand in place of the dead 'Adam (humanity) and subsequently bring him (them) back to life. Christ was in the form of God (“ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ”; Greek NT Philippians 2:6), or in “God’s form”, because he was born of a Godly lineage (Matt. 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38), and was determined (anointed) by God the Father to be His Christ (Isaiah 61:1-2; Luke 4:18-19). Since Christ Jesus justifies us through his death (Romans 5:8-11), we are no longer under the death (condemnation) of the Mosaic Law because Christ spiritually fulfilled it through his resurrection (Romans 5:10; 1 Cor. 15:44-49, 56-57).

That said, God sent Jesus as the Christ in order to purge and engraft the lost human lineage into the Godly lineage (Romans 11:11-23). However, as I explained in my previous post to Lefein ([Did Jesus die a Virgin- Serious Question)), Christ could only accomplish spiritual salvation through his death on the cross. Physical salvation, or the salvation of our bodies (Romans 8:23), was left undone due to the unfaithfulness of Israel toward their Messiah (John 1:11; Acts 7:51-53).

Anyway, getting back to the point of this discussion, I do not think Julie is wrong in being skeptical about the orthodox Trinitarian (homoousian) doctrine, which claims that Jesus Christ is an uncreated divinity and God Himself. Yet, it is still safe to say that Christ is both fully divine and fully human because he fulfilled the YHWH-'Adam connection, thereby becoming “[a] god” (θεὸς) after the God’s (τὸν θεόν) own heart.

Personally, I am inclined to take a Semi-Arian (homoiousian) position on the divinity of Jesus Christ. I oppose strict Arianism/Anomoeanism (heteroousianism), but acknowledge that God made Man (‘Adam; ἄνθρωπον) in His “image and likeness” ("κατ’ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν" [Septuagint - Genesis 1:26]). 'Adam is not made to be God Himself, but is made to bear His own image and likeness on earth. This is what Jesus Christ came to accomplish for humanity during his lifetime on earth, but we crucified him.

[Paidion]

…yet they usually still say Jesus is fully divine, whereas doesn’t Arianism say worshiping Jesus as God is idolatry??

There are a lot of ideas out there about Arianism. I’m inclined to think that a number of them is false. In the following letter to Eusebius, Arius himself wrote that the Son of God is fully God. That being the case, would he have considered the worship of Jesus as idolatry?

Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia ---- A.D. 321

To his dearest lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Pope Alexander on account of that all-conquering truth which you also champion, sends greetings in the Lord.

Since my father Ammonius is going into Nicomedia, I thought it my duty to salute you by him, and at the same time advise that naturally charitable disposition of yours, which you display towards the brethren for the sake of God and his Christ, how grievously the bishop attacks and persecutes us, and comes full tilt against us, so that he drives us from the city as atheists because we do not concur with him when he publicly preaches, “God always, the Son always; at the same time the Father, at the same time the Son; the Son co-exists with God, unbegotten; he is ever-begotten; he is not born-by-begetting; neither by thought nor by any moment of time does God precede the Son; God always, Son always; the Son exists from God himself.”

Eusebius, your brother, Bishop of Caesarea, Theodatus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregory, Aetius, and all the other bishops of the east, have been condemned for saying that God existed, without beginning, before the Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, men who are heretics and unlearned in the faith; some of whom say that the Son is an effluence, others a projection, others that he is co-unbegotten.

To these impieties we cannot even listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor part of the unbegotten in any way, nor is he derived from any substance; but that by his own will and counsel he existed before times and ages, fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable.

And before he was begotten, or created, or appointed, or established, he did not exist; for he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning. For that reason we are persecuted, and because we say that he is from what is not. And this we say because he is neither part of God nor derived from any essence. For this we are persecuted; the rest you know.

I trust, Eusebius, that you are strong in the Lord, mindful of our afflictions, a true fellow-disciple of Lucian.

[Stefcui]

There are a lot of ideas out there about Arianism. I’m inclined to think that a number of them is false. In the following letter to Eusebius, Arius himself wrote that the Son of God is fully God.

Nice find, Paidion. Arius’ letters are quite interesting. When I first read them I was quite surprised.

[Paidion]

Wow, Cindy! 18 below (-28ºC.) on Dec. 6 in South Dakota! Even wayyyy up here in the backwoods of North-Western Ontario, the low was only -24ºC. on that date. However, it did go down to a low of -33ºC. (27 below F.) on Sunday, Dec. 8. We didn’t even venture out to go to church. We kept the home fires burning.

In September I went out into the woods, cut down 3 cords (not “firewood cords” REAL cords) of wood and hauled it to the house in a small trailer attached to the quad. I needed 6 cords for the winter, but being nearly 76, I didn’t have the energy to get up the rest, and so I bought 2.4 cords of ash from a neighbour. I was hoping that would be enough, but the temperatures so far seem to indicate that we’ll be out of wood before the winter is over.

Just thought I’d share this photo from a few years back of me and my beloved wife, Jepne:

i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/Paidion9/Photos/DonandJeannie-J_zps23a9b02d.jpg

[anon12438761]

That’s a good picture, I always like to see the spouses of people I correspond with.
I’d be happy to cut 3 cords but at 65 would not find it easy.

[Cole]

youtu.be/_ecgkxevoYI

[Stefcui]

Great photo, Paidion. We ozzies, particularly in the far north, have nothing but blue skies and sunshine with calm tropical beaches.

[Paidion]

Thanks Stef.

Ozzies? Is that an alternate spelling of “Aussies”?

[Stefcui]

Yes. The land of Oz. I would put some photos up, but I don’t know how to.

[Paidion]

Here’s one way to post photos, Stef. Go to photobucket.com and join (free). Then you can upload photos to that site. After your photo is uploaded, click on that photo which is now in photobucket. At the right you will see “links to share the photo.” Click on “IMG URl=http:/s etc.” and the site will save the URL address to your clipboard. Go to the message in which you wish to post the picture and press “Shift-insert”. The URL will appear on your message. But when you post your message, only the photo will appear.

[Stefcui]

Thanks Paidion. I used to know all this stuff, but after an accident… I had cognitive and memory problems. I use the topics here to re-capture my memory, and to rehabilitate my brain. I haven’t yet started on my ‘IT’ memory… I used to work in IT, but knowing God get’s my attention first.

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

…yet they usually still say Jesus is fully divine, whereas doesn’t Arianism say worshiping Jesus as God is idolatry??

There are a lot of ideas out there about Arianism. I’m inclined to think that a number of them is false. In the following letter to Eusebius, Arius himself wrote that the Son of God is fully God. That being the case, would he have considered the worship of Jesus as idolatry?

To these impieties we cannot even listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor part of the unbegotten in any way, nor is he derived from any substance; but that by his own will and counsel he existed before times and ages, fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable.

Almost all translations add “full , God…”, following Opitz, HG who makes the emendation: not pleres theos, ‘fully God’, but pleres charitos kai aletheias, theos, ‘full of grace and truth, [a] god’ (in his seminal translation Werke III (1934); emendation referenced here: Williams, R (2001) ‘Arius: Heresy and Tradition’, p.309. Do we have any resident Germans who might be interested in translating his reasons for the correction? Werke III can be read here.

I strongly suspect that Arius considered Jesus to be fully divine. And even fully god. But not fully The God.

[Paidion]

I strongly suspect that Arius considered Jesus to be fully divine. And even fully god. But not fully The God.

Of course not. Only One in the New Testament is called “the God”, and that is the Father.

Jesus also called Him “the only true God” in His prayer to His Father:

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.(Joh 17:3)

Today only modalists (such as those in the United Pentecostal Church) would consider Jesus to be “the God” (and maybe Trinitarians who consider “the God” to be a compound God consisting of three divine Persons). But ins the New Testament the term “the God” where there are no other modifiers of “God” ALWAYS refers to the Father only.

[jeremiah]

JasonPratt wrote:

I do have to say that I am very jealous of his Greek pronunciation. (Although I don’t know why he’s omitting the rough breathing sound in front of {he_mon}. )

This is only for clarification, and you may have been kidding (if so, whoops). The reason he is omitting the breathing sound is because he is speaking with a modern Greek pronunciation. They don’t use it.

Grace and peace.

[Dondi]

Paidion (after looking at your picture):

Are you going to get me that iPad I asked for Christmas?

I know I’m very late in this game, but I do wish to comment on a couple of things in regards to this issue

1. One has to do with a comment made by AllenS way back near the beginning of this thread. Specifically:

In my judgment, a God who rests in heavenly bliss while his suffering servant dies on a cross is not worthy of my love. A good God would want the best for us. He would give himself for us and to us. He would not merely send a servant, not even a son. He himself would come. When human kings send others to suffer while they themselves sit in ease, when they demand much but do little, we are filled with contempt. Even more should we loathe such a God.

I’m Christian because I judge the God I see in Christ to be worthy of my love. Again, I believe the Bible inasmuch as it reveals this good God. If by some ill-chance the Unitarians are correct and the Biblical God did not come to suffer with us and save us, then I would leave the Biblical God behind, set off in the dark once more and seek the God worth loving.

But Jesus didn’t just die as a suffering servant, He died as God’s Son. And that is just as much as a sacrifice of love as it would be to give of yourself. even more so, since in most cases, a man would rather die than send his own loved one to die. I don’t know the dynamics of how the relationship changed in the process of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, if at all, between the Father and the Son (regardless of what view one might have of His Nature), but it appears to have had huge consequences regardless. Jesus was forsaken by God at one point on the Cross. How bad a schism was this? What eternal implications did it have in the Godhead?

And of course, we see this kind of sacrifice in the historical precident of Abraham and his son Isaac. The parallels are quite striking because the death of Isaac would destroy everything: Abraham’s legacy of blessing all the nations of the earth, as promised by God. Yet Abraham was willing to do so in obediance to the Divine command. How much more in the picture of Christ is God sacrificing His Son on the Cross, FOR THE SAME EXACT REASON??!! So that all the nations of the world would be blessed!!

So reasoning that God couldn’t show love by not sending Himself doesn’t wash when considering that He could just as well sent His Son.

Not that this proves unitariansm, but just saying.