Cross examination of the debate "what does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus 'G/god'?": questions for Dave (the non-Trinitarian position)

This section is the cross-examination where Mike (the Trinitarian position) has the opportunity of asking Dave (the non-Trinitarian position) questions. The questioner also has an opportunity to give a 200 word rebuttal at the end of each answer.

1. If all of creation can bow before a creature, praising (or as I would argue, "worshiping," as done in Hebrews 1:6 by all angels) him with honor, glory, blessing and dominion forever and ever (Rev. 5:12-13); then how can we recognize idolatry?

Idolatry is identifiable by answering a simple question: Is that which is given based upon God's will or not? Your question cited Hebrews 1:6 where this is most pronounced with not an observation but a command. The angels are commanded to proskunew Jesus.

The Bible defines more than once that what Jesus is given is based upon the Father's will. So in John 5:22-23 when Jesus relates how he will be honored as the Father is, he does so with a Greek purpose clause. Jehovah has given Jesus judgment "so that" meaning, 'for the purpose of,' being honored just as him. Similarly in Philippians 2:5-11 Jesus is exalted because of his obedience and faithfulness as God's son and this is done "so that" or 'for the purpose of' having every knee bow to him.

When one receives something based upon God's will expressed through either action or words it is not idolatry. All other cases would be.

Rebuttal May I suggest a better definition for idolatry? "That which is given to someone or something that is due to God alone." It is important to note a few things that my opponent is suggesting here:

1. That we should honor a creature just as we honor God (John 5:23).
2. That worship is not to be given to God alone.
3. It is God’s will that we should involve ourselves with creature worship (though limited to Christ, who is still a creature according to my opponent).

It is not my intention to misrepresent my opponent with this, but to take His points to their logical conclusion. And it is my position that these points are in complete opposition to the Biblical worldview, especially in light of the following passages:

“Then Jesus said to him, ‘Go, Satan! For it is written, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.”’ (Matthew 4:10)

To suggest that these words are limited to a particular period of time is to ignore the reason for which God gives such a command; namely, that YHWH is a jealous God who cannot and will not share His glory with another.

2. You stated in your rebuttal that because Jesus didn’t specifically include Himself into the category of “the only true God” that He doesn’t fit into this category. Of course, you were quick to point out that because Jesus doesn’t fall into this category, that this doesn’t necessarily make Him false. It seems that your emphasis is more on the word “only” rather than “true” (thus making all other gods ontologically “false,” with which you seemingly disagree), thus placing everything outside of this category except YHWH Himself. If “only true God” places Christ outside of this category, does not “only Master and Lord” (Jude 4) place YHWH outside of this category according to your reasoning since we don't see YHWH specifically described as "only Master and Lord"?

Response: Jesus not only failed to identify himself as “the only true God,” so did everyone else in scripture. He did identify the Father as this one and in fact distinguished himself from the category by including another in it while identifying himself as one only “sent forth” by him. Further, while many Trinitarians limit Jesus’ words to his humanity, this is insufficient because he spoke in this context as one who existed “before the world was” (John 17:5). Had the New Testament authors understood Jesus’ to be either the “true God” or the “one God” I believe they would have so identified him.

John 17:3 and Jude 4 are substantially different with the inclusion of type in the former. So Jesus defined the Father as “the only true God” while Jude’s statement lacked a specific qualification. This is noteworthy considering the men recognized as “masters” over certain other Christians (1Ti. 6:1). Thus the way Jesus is the “master” of a Christian is different than how these men where “masters” over their Christian servants. One could then suggest that God be identified both as “Master” and “Lord” in some way distinct from Jesus (similarly, Jehovah is the “one Father” of the Jews while also recognizing Abraham as their father – John 8:39, 41).

Jesus is properly termed our “only Master and Lord” to the exclusion of the Father for the text says he is! It is the Trinitarian position that generally rejects this identification, including the Father and the Holy Spirit in this category. These words can be understood in light of Jesus’ own words in John 17. According to him we “were” the Father’s and yet he gave us to Jesus (John 17:6). As our God we obviously still belong to Jehovah, but in some sense he gave us up to Christ for him to be our “only Master and Lord.” Thus it is to Christ we are directly accountable as the one who mediates between us and God (1Ti. 2:5).

Rebuttal: This is an interesting admission by my opponent, for he is asserting that the focus is on the word “true,” hence, only the Father is the true God. Through this, he introduces a category of “type.” Thus, the Father is the only “type” in the category of “true,” rendering all others as false or gods of a different type?

Let’s apply this line reasoning to another text. In John 1:9, Jesus is identified as the “true light.” Are we to exclude the Father from the type of “true light?” Certainly so (according to Dave’s reasoning), for nowhere is the Father described as “the true light,” but merely “my light” (Psalm 27:1) Therefore, if my opponent assumes that Jesus is not YHWH, it must follow that YHWH is not the true light but a reflection or representation of the true one. And using his reasoning, Jesus as the “one true light” is the one reality and source from which others can only reflect or represent, but never possess. I submit that the way to resolve this problem is to affirm that Jesus is YHWH, since what is true of YHWH is true of Jesus.

3. In my opening statement, I suggested three categories of “gods.” It seems that you are focusing primarily on identification when discussing this topic. I can assure you that when it comes to identification, I agree with your position. Judges, angels, and even men can be called “god” as long as we are careful to qualify. As I also mentioned in my opening statement, my primary focus is the ontological category of true/false gods and not the figurative category in which practically anything can be “god” with qualification. Assuming you agree that there is a unique ontological distinction between YHWH and everything else, how do you explain the ontological distinction between YHWH as “Almighty God” and Christ as “God” or “a god?” Is deity (as I define as “that which makes God God") not a unique attribute to the Creator alone? Is it not the case that the Biblical authors are trying to communicate to us that only YHWH could be ontologically described as “God” whereas everything else would be deemed “ontologically false” as compared to God Himself?

Response: That you feel we must be “careful to qualify” the sense various ones are termed gods strikes me as theologically motivated as the Bible and other early Jewish writers did not feel the need to do as much. Obviously each identified as a god was one in his own sense, but it was not necessary for early writers to qualify it with each occurrence. Further, you are in error to say “practically anything can be 'god' with qualification,” for such is entirely untrue unless one includes false gods, which I don't believe you are doing. If so then I apologize for the confusion. The appellation “god” is used in a very limited sense as I have argued, either of those having been given divine authority or who possess a nature higher than humans.

I would agree that Jehovah uniquely stands on his own. He is one of a kind, the only being uncreated and eternal from which all others derive their existence. Your definition of deity, however, is lacking, because it provides identification, telling what makes God who he is not what he is. This is because “God” has taken the semantic force of a proper name, meaning that through use when unqualified “God” has become no different than “Jehovah.”

It is important that we not redefine terms to form our own theological language, so we work with what words actually mean. To account for various early uses of “deity” the word is better defined as “that which makes a god a god.” With this broader definition I find no issue identifying angels as deities, though they are not worthy of worship and not deity/gods of themselves. This identification is limited to their possession of a nature higher than mans. If we restrict the definition to characteristics unique to Jehovah then they would be excluded.

The Bible does not speak of all other than Jehovah as “ontologically false” gods. You have apparently imported this idea entirely on your own out of theological necessity. There is the true God, there are those gods who are false, but then there are those as are 'types of the true,' to borrow from Origen, meaning that they are neither the true God nor false gods, but they are modeled after the prototype who stands alone as the true God.

RebuttalAllow me to clarify what I meant by “practically anything can be called ‘god’ with qualification.” Yes, this primarily is in reference to false gods. So the apology is mine if there was confusion.

My opponent suggests that my definition of “deity” is lacking. Interestingly, Thayer has no problem in defining theotes (as used in Colossians 2:9) as “deity, the state of being God.” Instead, my opponent asserts that a better definition is “that which makes a god a god.” I am unaware of a lexicon or dictionary that would define theotes in such a way, so the burden of proof is on him to substantiate his claim.

Assuming my definition is correct (and I believe it is), the fatal flaw comes when my opponent fails to acknowledge the infinite, unbridgeable gap between the deity and the creature. This is not only affirming who God is but what He is as well, for I submit that no creature, no matter how highly exalted, could ever be identified as deity. The reason being, deity is a distinction unique to the Creator alone that describes not only who He is, but also what He is (that which makes God God).

4. John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus as literally, “The Lord of Me and the God of me.” If someone came up to you and asked, “Dave, who is your Lord and God?” how would you respond in light of John 20:28 and texts such as Psalm 16:2, "I said to YHWH, 'You are my Lord.'" and 1 Kings 3:7 where Solomon says, "Now, YHWH my God, You have made Your servant king..." Can Psalm 16:2 and 1 Kings 3:7 not stand alone as establishing the full deity of YHWH in the same way that John 20:28 can in respect to Jesus?

Response: I embrace identifying Jesus as “my Lord and my God,” but I would not identify Jesus as God. As I have noted in my previous response, God through use when lacking qualifiers (such as an adjectival modifier or an English possessive pronoun) has become semantically equivalent to Jehovah.

I do not agree that the words “My Lord” or “My God” can “stand alone as establishing the full deity” of an individual without a context. For example, the apostle John did not object to addressing one of the 24 elders with the words, “My Lord” (kurie mou, the same words used of God and Christ. - Rev. 7:14), yet he was not attempting to establish deity. Further, David prophetically spoke of Jesus long before Thomas with the same words “my Lord,” (Psalm 109:1 LXX) while distinguishing him from Jehovah.

The apostle John did not offer any commentary on Thomas' words to define the intended meaning. He did, however, write his Gospel in a way that would present qualification for his readers much as the psalmist did in Psalm 45 as I have noted Murray Harris observing. Only several verses prior did Jesus speak of his own God (John 20:17), giving John's readers the notion of Jesus as one other than and less than God, just as would be the case if any other uttered his expression. Only if one assumes the Trinity or a similar doctrine is this qualification not apparent. Recognizing Jesus as one who has his own God, John's readers would come to Thomas' words in verse 28, understanding Jesus' position as one who is Thomas' god (or, God. The use of a capital is insignificant as only a matter of personal preference. Thomas' words would agree with the notion of Jesus being 'a god over Thomas' and so 'his god.') relative to the Almighty as Jesus' God.

RebuttalJohn 20:28 provides us with a contextual justification as to which “Lord” we are referring to (as did Psalm 16:2). And this is why these texts can “stand alone” in identifying which “Lord” and “God” they are referring to; because the verses themselves specifically tell us. And just because the divine name is not used in the New Testament, is that a reason to fail to identify YHWH when only the designation “Lord” or “God” is used?

Mark 12:29 is of interest because it identifies God without the use of the Tetragrammaton, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord.” Of course, there would be no doubt to the mind of any Jew that this is a quote from Deuteronomy 6:4. But why would this be so obvious to a Jew? Because “our Lord” and “our God” are sufficient in identifying which God is in reference (for it would be unthinkable for any Jew to refer to anyone but YHWH as “our God”). Similarly, Psalm 35:23 identifies YHWH as “My God and my Lord.” Would there be any question in the mind of a first century Jew as to who is being referenced, even if we didn’t have YHWH in the surrounding verses as qualifiers?

5. With regards to Colossians 2:9, you stated that “Jesus’ deity is not possessed from eternal existence as Almighty God but the Father chose to give it to him.” This is in the context in which you stated that Colossians 1:19 implies a “choosing” or “willing” for Christ to possess this deity; to which, I agree. But what you failed to mention is that 1:19 does not address the pre-incarnate state, thus making your statement of "Jesus deity is not possessed eternally" a moot point. Robert Morey argues, “The verb katoikei ‘dwells’ is in the present tense and indicates that Christ was, is, and always shall be the embodiment of Deity….[otherwise] he would have written the verb in the aorist tense. But the present tense clearly indicates that absolute deity resides bodily in Christ permanently.” (Dr. Robert Morey, Trinity-Evidence and Issues [Grand Rapids, MI; World Publishing Inc., 1996], pp. 359-360) If the Trinitarian incarnation is true (as well as the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11), then what else would you expect than for Christ's eternally possessed deity to be given to Him (as a man) so that He would be both fully God and fully man for the rest of eternity? Furthermore, if “deity” means “that which makes God God” then how could anyone other than YHWH possess this attribute?

Response: I cannot help but observe a distortion of what Trinitarianism actually teaches. The doctrine of the hypostatic union finds Christ to have always existed as God, never ceasing to be such and having only added humanity to himself while laying aside his divine prerogatives. The Athanasian Creed explains: “Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.”

Similarly Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology: “That it is so is the plain doctrine of Scripture, for the Son of God, a divine person, assumed a perfect human nature, and, nevertheless, remains one person.” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 [Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, org. pub. 1872], 390. Emphasis added.)

So too the Moody Handbook of Theology: “When Christ came, a Person came, not just a nature; He took on an additional nature, a human nature—He did not simply dwell in a human person.” (P. P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology [Chicago: Moody Press,1989], 227. Emphasis added.)

According to this doctrine Jesus never lacked deity, making Colossians 1:19/2:9 incompatible by necessitating that he did regardless of whether or not Colossians 1:19 addressed his preincarnate state. To say that his 'eternally possessed deity was given to Him as a man' is an oxymoron for either he eternally possessed it or gave it up, became a man and had it given back to him or never possessed it and had it newly given to him.

Understanding Colossians 2:9 by 1:19 proves then extremely difficult for Trinitarianism. It is hard to imagine that Paul had a different “fullness” in mind come 2:9, but as Peake confesses, what is taught from this connection is “an Arian view,” or more simply, a non-Trinitarian view. (A.S. Peake, “The Epistle to the Colossians,” The Expositor's Greek Testament, ed. by, W. Robertson Nicoll, vol. 3, Reprint from the edition originally published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pubishing Company, [Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002], 508.)

I am admittedly uncertain of your purpose in citing Morey. This may only be due to a lack of his words' context. If by saying that Christ “was... the embodiment of Deity” Morey means that it was eternally possessed, he is either displaying great creativity in his interpretation or woeful ignorance. In fact katoikei is used of both men (Rev. 2:13) and wicked spirits (Mat. 12:45). This does nothing to indicate eternal possession. If his intention was only to say that Christ possessed this prior to when Paul wrote his words, when he wrote them and after he wrote them, I do not object but fail to see the relevance.

RebuttalThere is no discrepancy between my position and the hypostatic union. My entire point was to stress that neither Colossians 2:9 or 1:19 address the nature of the Son prior to the incarnation. In order for the incarnation to be possible, God the Son had to enter into human flesh. Therefore, it could be viewed from two different angles.

1. The divine nature had to be “given” a human nature.
2. The human nature had to be “given” a divine nature.

Either way, the divine nature has always remained divine. Therefore, my statement that his “eternally possessed deity was given to Him as a man” remains correct in that Christ never “gave up” His full deity. Instead, He voluntarily gave up some of His divine privileges by “taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.”

But I suggest a much bigger problem for my opponent than my apparent lack of being able to explain something as infinitely magnificent as the incarnation. That being; theotes, “the state of being God,” as applied to Christ. As incompatible an idea that Colossians 1:19 might seem for a Trinitarian (according to my opponent), he has to admit to the fact that the “state of being God” dwelt bodily in Christ.

Correction on some videos.

Just to let anyone know, I took down two of my videos that contained a question regarding Romans 10:9 and ha ahdohn. After some consideration and thought, I felt that my question was answered adequately. Furthermore, the content on the video wasn't accurate enough for me to feel comfortable in leaving it up. I still have massive problems with the insertion of the divine name in the New Testament as well as problems with the inconsistent use of the "J" documents by the New World Translation. So until I state my case concerning this issue, i'm going to hold of on it for the time being.

Shawn sheds some light on the issue.

Shawn left a very well thought-out comment on my last blog. I felt that it shed so much light on this issue that I had to include it here for everyone to read:


Here's the context... and you won't get it simply by having both articles in their entirety. In 1984, JWs believed that the people who witnessed the events of 1914 would not die before Armageddon occurred. The age of a person who was able to comprehend the events of 1914 was eventually lowered to 10 years old, born in 1904. These people would have to be 104 now.... oops. So, to save themselves from yet another failed prophecy ( they have said that 'the end' would happen in 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1975, before the 1914 generation dies, and the latest implication is 2034 ), the Watchtower society redefined the term "generation" from the literal generation that saw 1914 to something nebulous. The latest date was published in the December 15, 2003 Watchtower on pages 14-19. (quote from http://www.jwfiles.com/2034.htm )

Noah preached 120 years until the time of the flood, which was the time of the end to Noah and his generation. The December 15, 2003 Watchtower article is paralleling Noah's day to our present day. The Society is adding a 120 years to the 1914 date to come up with the hinted date of 2034.

Words such as "Similar, Similarly, Similarity, Similarities, Parallel, Corresponds, Characteristic, Compare, Arklike and more are all through the article to back up their subtle and hinted claims.

Page 15, Paragraph 6
"In Noah's day, Jehovah declared: 'My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely in that he is also flesh. Accordingly his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.' (Genesis 6:3) The issuance of this divine decree in 2490 B.C.E. marked the beginning of the end for that ungodly world. Just think what that meant for those then living! Only 120 years more and Jehovah would bring 'the deluge of waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force of life is active from under the heavens.' - Genesis 6:17"

Page 15, Paragraph 7
"Noah received the warning of the upcoming catastrophe decades in advance and he wisely used the time to prepare for survival.' After being given divine warning of things not yet beheld,' says the apostle Paul, '[Noah] showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household.' (Hebrews 11:7) What about us? Some 90 years have passed since the last days of this system of things began in 1914. We are certainly in 'the time of the end.' (Daniel 12:4) How should we respond to warnings we have been given? 'He that does the will of God remains forever,' states the Bible. (1 John 2:17) Now is therefore the time to do Jehovah's will with a keen sense of urgency."

Page 15, Paragraph 9
"Jehovah has kept these warnings in front of his people by means of timely reminders through the spiritual food provided by 'the faithful and discreet slave'".... (end of quote)

A footnote in the Feb 15th 2008 Watchtower study article states "Apparently, the period in which "this generation" lives seems to correspond to the period covered by the first vision of the book of Revelation. (Rev. 1:10-3:22) This aspect of the day of the Lord extends from 1914 until when the last of the faithful anointed dies and is resurrected - See Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand! page 24, paragraph 4."
The Watchtower society used to quote Psalms 90:10

"10 In themselves the days of our years are seventy years;
And if because of special mightiness they are eighty years,
Yet their insistence is on trouble and hurtful things;
For it must quickly pass by, and away we fly. "

and associate 70 or 80 years with the generation of 1914, but now that that time has come and gone, they need an extension and found it in the parallel of Noah's day. The JWs are a branch of Adventism and are eagerly awaiting the destruction of all human life on earth except for JWs, at which time the earth will, through the hard work of the survivors, be transformed into a global park where there will be no carnivorous animals. Oh, lions will still be around, they just won't eat meat anymore, so your children will be able to hug them. Take a look at http://www.watchtower.org/e/lmn/index.htm

The Watchtower society is constantly looking for clues as to when this catastrophic event will occur and every time one of the indicators (either a particular year or the passing of the 'generation') fails to ring in the destruction of almost all human life, the Watchtower society suddenly gets 'new light' from the Holy Spirit.

So it's entirely understandable that you are confused about this interpretation. You have to keep in mind that the JWs (meaning the governing body in Brooklyn) are constantly discovering "new light" and this new light gives way to "the current understanding" of the scriptures. So really, only the publications from the last few years are to be understood as "the truth". Also, keep in mind that any interpretation of the scriptures that does not come from the Watchtower society (referred to internally as 'the faithful and discreet slave') is coming from an apostate.

The preaching work of the JWs is fueled by the fear that the coming day of Jehovah's wrath is very near and that true Christians will be involved primarily in the preaching activity. For the rank and file adherents, that means that if they're not busy in the Lord's work when Armageddon happens, they will be destroyed with the rest of the pagans. This urgency is what drives JWs to engage in the door-to-door ministry to promote the Watchtower society's message. Therefore, anyone who claims that the scriptures do not indicate that the time we are living in is 'the time of the end', is working against God's spirit-directed organization (the Watchtower society's governing body)... an apostate.

In the mind of a JW, there is no conflict in the statements of 1984 and 2008. In the 1984 article, the Society is warning the faithful not to believe people who say the end is not near. That's because JW families might not want to go out knocking on doors every weekend and take their family to a real park without friendly lions and actually enjoy the life they are living instead of living for a life that the Watchtower society has promised them will come really, really soon. On the other hand, in the 2008 article the Society is disseminating 'new light' on the understanding of what the term 'generation' means.

This is typical Watchtower marketing spin. They present this new light in a you-heard-it-here-first-Aren't-you-special? kind of way to distract the rank and file from the fact that the society was just plain wrong about Armageddon arriving before the literal generation of 1914 dies ( or whatever else they were wrong about). There's a lot of excitement before some new light is published. Magazines leading up to the new light hint at it's arrival. Then, after the new light arrives there's a sort of mob mentality that pushes each individual to adapt their beliefs to this new light. Talks from the platform and Watchtower articles tell the congregations how the Society is a swift moving organization and that no member can 'stand still' - You're either moving forward with the faithful and discreet slave, or you're moving backwards into spiritual darkness. Members are also constantly reminded to 'look forward', discouraging them from looking critically at the failed prophecy of the organization they belong to. Combine this with...

* The shear volume of required study of the current Watchtower publications
* The hours each week spent at meetings and in the field ministry
* The fear that if one is not in-line with God's spirit-directed earthly organization, the Watchtower society, that person will be destroyed at Armageddon ( which is going to happen really soon)

...and you have a group of people that are so busy that they simply don't have time to sit and reflect on the very long list of failed predictions.

How do I know? I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness from infancy and was a member up to my late twenties when I could no longer stand how women are treated as second-class citizens along with some serious discrepancies between historical events and the dates used by the society to predict 1914 as the beginning of Christ's invisible presence, namely the Watchtower claim that the first destruction of the temple in Jerusalem occurred in 607 B.C.E. The one good thing that I got out of being a JW was extensive training in public speaking and debate... which I now use to shed, not 'new light' but the actual light of truth on this controlling and manipulative cult.

I would be happy to answer any other questions that anyone has about what JWs believe, what life as a JW is like, etc.

Are all Jehovah's Witnesses after 1984 apostate?

I am a bit perplexed by this and would like clarification by any Jehovah's Witness who might be reading this:

December 1, 1984 Watchtower:

"....Have apostates who claim that "the last days" began at Pentecost and cover the entire Christian Era promoted Christian alertness? Have they not, rather, induced spiritual sleepiness?...."

February 15, 2008 Watchtower:

".....Since Jesus did not use negative qualifiers when speaking to them about "this generation," the apostles would no doubt have understood that they and their fellow disciples were to be part of the "generation" that would not pass away "until all these things [would] occur....."

I don't have the full articles, which might make more sense given the fuller context. But what i'm seeing here seems to be saying that those who claimed that the last days began at pentecost are "apostates." This was said in 1984. But then in 2008 it was said that the apostles understood the last days as happening in their lifetime. Unless i'm mistaken, this seems to be an instance of careless stone-throwing by the Watchtower.

Rebuttal from David (non-Trinitarian response)

My opponent’s suggestion in the opening of his response I submit is the foundation of his error. In studying the scriptures it is our obligation to ascertain what they teach, yet he has sought to prove a teaching assumed a priori, namely, “absolute monotheism.” Undoubtedly one can “establish” this teaching in scripture, but doing this does not indicate such was the authors' intent and it is not without contradiction. Indeed, by seeking to “establish” a doctrine rather than to interpret the text almost any teaching can be argued as correct regardless of whether or not it really is.

Instead of taking an a priori position of “absolute monotheism” I propose a new look at the question, are we monotheists or henotheists? It is better to ask what early writers both of the Bible and extra-biblical monotheistic Jewish literature considered monotheism to be. It is that doctrine we should seek, not looking to “establish” anything determined a priori. Larry Hurtado is one to have commented on this issue in his work How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?:

“It is mistaken to assume that we can evaluate ancient Jewish texts and beliefs in terms of whether or how closely they meet our own preconceived idea of ‘pure’ monotheism… If we are to avoid a priori definitions and the imposition of our own theological judgments, we have no choice but to accept as monotheism the religion of those who profess to be monotheists, however much their religion carries and may seem ‘complicated’ with other beings in addition to the one God.” [Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? – Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 113-114.]

Deutero-Isaiah presents a specific attack against idols as I have highlighted, yet my opponent seeks to narrow the meaning above and beyond this when examining my position. Referencing the Babylonian captivity there were undoubtedly certain false gods in view within the text, but the text did not so narrowly define them, instead referring to the creation of idols generally (cf. Isa 40:19-20).

A second example of contextual qualification allows us to better understand how it here applies. A command in Exodus 20:4 forbade the making of carved images of things on the earth and in heaven. Some have understood this to prohibit the creation of any images at all, yet Calvin rightly calls this “foolishly imagined.” The context is addressing “gods” that they should not “bow down and serve” (Ex. 20:3, 5). With a narrow reading of this passage one could rightly “establish” a strict prohibition against the making of statues and forms of any type, yet even Solomon made these things in building of his temple (1Ki. 6:29).

Both Isaiah and Exodus are qualified by their context, yet did this mean that those that preexisted and were not formed into idols by men such as the sun, moon and stars could be recognized as gods? What of men such as emperors who claimed to be gods? While these may not have been formed through the casting of metal or the carving of wood it is the principle provided in these texts that extends to cover all those established by men as gods. In contrast those such as the judges of Israel, angels and even Jesus himself were/are gods in their own respective ways because Jehovah has so made them. They are gods because they have been given divine authority and as possessors of that which is divine they are so termed, or God has created them with an exalted nature so that the appellation is appropriate.

I will also comment on the ongoing misunderstanding of Isaiah 43:10. Not only are these false idol gods in view, but one must inquire of when there was a time “before” Jehovah and when there will ever be a time “after” him. There was not and there will not be, the text placing emphasis on God's eternity. Some ancient religions held to the notion of successive gods, where one group succeeded another and then another [Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament, Book 6, sec. 2, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005. Repr. from the 1847 ed. published by Blackie & Sons, London), 118.]. Jehovah was not among this order and in his eternity there would be no god before or after him.

The interpretation of Psalm 8:5 my opponent has presented ignores both my clear argument contradicting his view and the plain interpretation I have provided. Implicit by his admission of insufficiency in his first argument is the speculative nature of his position. Having offered two contradictory interpretations it would seem that his basis in these is his inability to accept the most straightforward reading and not because of something actually defined in the text. What I have advanced is directly from the text as understood by not only the LXX paraphrase and the author of Hebrews, but also the Targum and the Syriac. I submit that to claim man is only “a little lower” than an infinite Almighty God even as his “image” is the pinnacle of absurdity. God is vastly beyond man in every sense imaginable. Further, the psalmist had spoke to God directly with continual second person references throughout the chapter: “Your name... Your glory... You have ordained... Your heavens... You are mindful... You have made... You made him... Your hands... Your name...” In verse 5 elohim stands apart as a third person reference.

The idea that angels were so properly termed gods is noted in extra-biblical Jewish literature contemporary to the Bible. In the story of Joseph and Aseneth, a work likely dated between the 1st centuries B.C. and A.D., an angel who is “the chief of the house of the Lord,” is identified as “a god” (17:9). From the Dead Sea Scrolls another example too has reference to angels:

“And exalt his exaltation to the heights, gods of the august divinities, and the divinity of his glory above all the august heights. For he is God of the gods … Sing with joy those of you enjoying his knowledge, with rejoicing among the wonderful gods … Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the main vault of the heights … The spirits of the holy of the holy ones, the living gods, the spirits of everlasting holiness.” [4Q403, The Dead Sea Scrolls – The Qumran Texts in English, second edition, trans. by Wilfred G. E. Watson, ed. by Florentino Garcia Martinez (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996) 426-7.]

With respect to Psalm 8:5 there is no reason not to accept the appellation of elohim to angels in a true and proper sense other than theological predisposition. The author of Hebrews and the early translations did not shy from this understanding and it is consistent with early Jewish monotheism. These angels and the earthly temple were types of the true, the true God and the true temple in heaven, respectively.

Regarding John 17:3 it seems that my point was missed. The Bible identifies only the Father as the “true God” and the “one God.” It was not necessary for Jesus to expressly categorize the Father and then identify himself outside of that category, but he did. My opponent suggests we should not go about “assuming something the Bible doesn't say,” but this is the very thing he does in identifying Jesus as “the only true God.” Instead we should “read what the text is actually saying,” which is that it is the Father who falls into this category. To say then that Jesus is either “the only true God” or the “one God” necessitates reading one's theology into the Bible, the text lacking such identification. In John 17:3 Jesus had the opportunity to include himself within the category of “the only true God” as the one who existed “before the world was” (John 17:5). Rather than doing this he distinguished himself from this category, assigning only the Father to it. The prayer was that his disciples would know both him and his Father, yet he classified only his Father as “the only true God.” Had Jesus only used “us” instead of “you” the matter would have been resolved.

I must object to my opponent's claim that I “assume that if there is any difference between the Father and the Son, then the Son is not truly deity, which denies that a difference in function does not indicate an ontological inferiority in regards to the Son’s nature.” Never once do I make such a claim, nor would I. My arguments are generally based not on function but identification.

Finally the question is again raised of what kind of god Jesus is if not the true God. In my opening I noted that the Greek word translated “true” did not always mean the opposite is false, and such is the case with gods other than the true God that are so properly termed. This expression is not limited to “gods by nature” as my opponent must again import into the text. There is no problem with identifying Jesus as a god as in John 1:18 he is the “unique god.” He is “God” not without qualification, but in a relative sense with one who is 'his God” (Heb. 1:8-9). Hopefully the comments I have made on these texts and others will come to be responded to

Why theology matters

Check out this video. After you pick up your jaw off the ground, ask yourself the following question.



Does theology matter?

Rebuttal from Mike

The issue here is this; are we monotheists or henotheists? Do we believe that there is only one true God, or one “big G” God and a bunch of “little g” gods? In other words, can we establish absolute monotheism from the Scriptures?

My opponent attempts to refute my position on monotheism by asserting that I’m “ignoring the specific reference in view.” This view being that the gods mentioned are idols. And not just any idol—those “casted, molten, images”. I have a few problems with this approach.

If this were the case, that the only gods in view are the images of idols for that particular period of time, then the Bible would have to be continuously rewritten for every new idol that came along; whether it be Allah, Michael the Archangel, or Michael Jackson. The reason Israel should reject these gods is because they aren’t true gods at all (Galatians 4:8). And if someone comes along two thousand years later proclaiming a new god that can’t correlate directly to the idols referenced in Scripture, then we can’t learn anything at all.

If all YHWH is doing is denying the true divinity of the pagan idols of the time, and not the true divinity or existence of other gods, then the phrase “besides me there is no god” makes no sense. Otherwise, it might as well say, “besides me there is no idol.” But the point is, no idol can be considered a true God.

In Isaiah 43:10, YHWH is not only denying that idols are worthy of worship, He is denying anything in its fullest sense to the category of “the one true God” to anyone except Himself. This makes more sense considering the specific wording of the passage, “before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me.” Is Isaiah telling us that there were no idols formed before or after YHWH? The only rational possibility is that YHWH is trying to tell us that no god, idol or true divinity, can be formed before or after God.

Exodus 7:1 and Psalm 82:6 are quoted to portray an apparent contradiction between my interpretation of the Isaiah passages. I’m a bit perplexed as to how this might be considered a contradiction. Exodus 7:1 is referring to Moses as God. Obviously, Moses isn’t divine in any sense. He is simply acting as God’s representative. We could rightly place him into the category of “figurative gods,” which are not divine at all. And because ontology isn’t even an issue here, he doesn’t fit in the category of true or false. The same can be said of Psalm 82:6, which speaks of the judges of Israel who represented God in their judgments. Obviously, they were figurative as well, especially considering the fact that they will “die like men and fall like any of the princes.” (v. 7) So again, ontology isn’t even a question here.

Therefore, I must ask: is my opponent suggesting that Christ is a god in the same way that the sinful judges of Israel were gods? Is he suggesting that theos, as applied to Christ, is not portraying anything in regards to his ontology?

Allow me to address Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7. Translating the text as “a little lower than God” makes sense and parallels the fact that man was created “in the image of elohim.” (Genesis 1:26-27) This is much more reasonable than saying that man is made a little lower than angels. The question then arises, “why does Hebrews 2:7 say ‘angels’ rather than ‘God?’” As my opponent correctly points out, the author of Hebrews is quoting from the LXX. The fact that the writer of Hebrews quoted the LXX does not imply that the LXX rendering was a literal or word-for-word translation of the Hebrew. This is especially considering the fact that “angels” is certainly not a literal translation of “elohim.” Instead, Hebrews 2:7 is a paraphrase of Psalm 8:5 that gives us a new understanding of it, but doesn’t contradict it.

Let me provide a brief explanation behind this reasoning. Psalm 8 says that mankind (or “son of man”) was made a little lower than God; Hebrews 2 says that the “son of man” was made a little lower than the angels. The psalm speaks of man’s exalted status, while Hebrews speaks of Christ’s temporary humbling (see Phil. 2:5-7). Since angels are lower than God (obviously), and since Christ’s humbled status was that of a man, the Hebrews rendering goes beyond the Psalmist’s portrayal while not contradicting it.

If this explanation is not sufficient, let me provide another. It is possible that Hebrews 2:7 does implicitly understand Psalm 8;5 to be calling angels “gods.” If this were correct, it would not mean that angels were truly gods in the ontological sense. It might then mean that Psalm 8:5 was speaking of man being made just a little lower than the creatures that are so wrongly worshipped by men as gods. And this would place angels in the ontological category of true or false gods; which again, is in reference to their nature as gods. This would fit in the context of Hebrews 2:7, since from Hebrews 1:5 to the end of chapter 2 argues for the superiority of the Son over angels. That is, Hebrews might be taken to imply that even God’s angels can be idolized if they are wrongly exalted or worshipped as gods, which is exactly what happens in Revelation 19 when John wrongly bows down to an angel, who says, “do not do that…worship God.”

This interpretation would also fit Hebrews 1:6, which quotes Psalm 97:7 in saying that all of God’s angels should worship the Son. Psalm 97:7 in Hebrew is a command to the “gods” (or idols) to worship YHWH. Thus, Hebrews 1:6 testifies both to the fact that angels, if they are ontological gods at all (which they aren’t, of course), are false gods, and that Jesus Christ is worshipped by angels as YHWH, the true God.

Next, John 17:3 is raised to conclude that the Father is “the only true God,” and not the Son. This is an argument from silence and not an argument from the text. The text does not say anything in regards to the lesser ontological nature of the Son. Rather, it is a simple affirmation from the Son to the Father in praising Him as “the only true God.” And to see this as denying the deity of Christ, my opponent must assume Unitarianism and refuse to see that “God” can refer to the Father or could also be used generically of the triune God en toto.

Secondly, my opponent must assume that if there is any difference between the Father and the Son, then the Son is not truly deity, which denies that a difference in function does not indicate an ontological inferiority in regards to the Son’s nature. But rather assuming something the Bible doesn’t say, we should read what the text is actually saying: that to have eternal life, one must know both the one true God and Jesus Christ, who was sent by the Father.

But what about the phrase, “the only true God?” Does this mean that Jesus is not the only true God as well? No, for how else would Jesus categorize His Father? Would Jesus deny the deity of the Father by claiming He isn’t the only true God? As the God-man, Jesus shows us how the incarnate God Almighty, who created the universe, would behave and relate to the divine persons (the Father and/or Holy Spirit) who did not enter into human existence. So again, it is only through the assumption of Unitarianism that Jesus couldn’t, in fact, be the only true God along with the Father. They are both the only true God because they share the one divine nature, which is consistent with the Old Testament’s monotheism and the New Testament’s application of theos to Jesus.

If the Father is “the only true God” (granting Unitarianism), then what kind of god is Jesus? The problem comes with my opponent’s application of the word “true” in that he thinks that I’m implying that all gods other that YHWH are false Gods. As I’ve mentioned in my opening statement, this is not the case. When we are speaking of gods ontologically, yes, there is only one God. Period. But when addressing gods figuratively (or representationally, perhaps?), there are many gods—but not in the ontological sense.

There are many more issues I’d like to address, so hopefully I’ll be able to in a future segment.