Refuting All Trinitarian ‘Proof-Texts’
Hebrews and the General Epistles
Hebrews 1:2: God the Father “established the ages” through His Son. This could be describing the original creation event; however, it could be describing the future ages during which Christ shall reign (Lk. 1:33), seeing as the context of the verse deals with the period following His resurrection and ascension (vv. 3-4).
This verse states that God “made the ages” (epoiesen tous aionas) through His Son. Many unitarians do understand this as describing the new creation, the future ages during which the Son will reign (this is a view that I held previously). However, the Hebraist uses the same language elsewhere to describe the original creation (Heb. 11:2; 12:27). Therefore, we could alternatively understand this passage to be referring to Wisdom, through which God created the universe (Psa. 104:24; Prov. 3:19; 8:30; Wis. 7.22; 8.6; 9.1-2), which is now embodied in Jesus (John 1:14; 1 Cor. 1:24, 30).
At first, this interpretation admittedly may seem strained. However, there are other clear allusions to wisdom literature in the first few verses of Hebrews. Most notably, the Hebraist describes Jesus as “the reflection [apaugasma] of God’s glory,” using a very rare noun that is only found elsewhere in Wisdom of Solomon 7.26, which describes Wisdom as “the reflection [apaugasma] of eternal light.” The Hebraist also says that Jesus “upholds all things by the power of his word” (cf. Wis. 1.6-7; 7.24, 27) and “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (cf. Wis. 9.4, 10). Because of these allusions, scholars now recognize that the first verses of Hebrews are an example of Wisdom Christology.
Whether this verse refers to the original creation using Wisdom typology, or to the new creation, it does not support the idea of Jesus’ conscious pre-existence. The Hebraist is clear that the Son is God’s final chosen means of communication, after the prophets (1:2), and that he is supreme because he is an exalted human, not because he’s a pre-existent divine being (1:3-5; 2:6-11).
Hebrews 1:6: The Hebraist quotes Deuteronomy 32:43 (LXX) as the Father saying, “Let all the angels of God worship Him [the Son].” Since the original context of the passage deals with the worship of Yahweh by all angels, the fact that the Hebraist applies this quote to Jesus destroys any view that Jesus is, Himself, an angel or lesser deity. Instead, Jesus (the Son) is fully Yahweh, not a derivative god or angel.
Yes, Jesus isn’t an angel, because he’s a human. The main point of Hebrews 1–2 is to show that Jesus is greater than the angels as an exalted human (Heb. 1:3-5; 2:6-11). Importantly, in Heb. 1:6, Jesus is worshipped not because he is God, but because he’s “the firstborn.” The title “firstborn” alludes to Psalm 89:27, in which God declares that he has made David his firstborn; this title marks Jesus out as the Messiah and ideal Davidic king, and therefore worthy of worship (1 Chron. 29:20; Psa. 72:11; Matt. 14:33). Thus, Jesus is worthy of worship because he’s God’s anointed king.
It’s true that Hebrews 1:6 applies a text which was originally about Yahweh (Deut. 32:43) to Jesus, but this was actually a common practice in ancient Judaism. In fact, in the Targum Onkelos — an early second-century Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible, read in the synagogue — this very same verse is re-interpreted to mean, “Let the nations worship His people.” So just because this Yahweh text is applied to Jesus doesn’t mean that the Hebraist thought that Jesus is Yahweh; elsewhere, the author is very clear to distinguish between God and Jesus (Heb. 1:1-3, 9; 2:8-13).
Hebrews 1:8-9: The Hebraist quotes Psalm 45:6-7 (LXX) as the Father saying to the Son, “Your throne, O God, is to the age of the age, and a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy beyond your companions.” Like in the original passage, this indicates two individuals Who are called “God” (Elohim), one of Whom is the Son, and the other of Whom is the Father (according to the Hebraist’s application). This shows that Jesus is directly called “the God” (ho theos).
The psalm which the Hebraist is quoting was originally written as a wedding song for an unnamed Davidic king (Psa. 45:1, 10-15). Some scholars suggest that it was written for the marriage of King Ahab and Jezebel, [1] because the wife in the psalm is Phoenician (Psa. 45:12-14 cf. 1 Kgs. 16:31) and the king lives in an ivory palace (Psa. 45:8 cf. 1 Kgs. 22:39; Amos 3:15). Regardless of specifically who it was written for, it’s clear that Psalm 45 was originally addressed to a human Davidic king and not to Yahweh Himself.
The representative usage of Elohim and Theos is applied to God’s appointed agents, such as judges and kings, throughout the rest of the Bible. [2] Therefore, it’s unsurprising that the same language would be applied to Jesus, who is the primary representative of God on earth. This isn’t evidence that Jesus is God, however, because as the Hebraist goes on to quote, “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness, therefore God, your God, has anointed you” (Heb. 1:9). Since God is the God of Jesus, it’s not possible that Jesus is himself the most supreme God.
Alternatively, it’s possible that this verse should be translated, “Your throne is God for the age of the age,” rather than, “Your throne, O God, is for the age of the age.” Both are grammatically possible, although the translation, “Your throne, O God,” seems more likely from the context.
Hebrews 1:10-12: The Hebraist quotes Psalm 102:25-27 (LXX) as the Father speaking to the Son about His (!!) work of creation and His eternality. The original passage is explicitly about Yahweh, and the Hebraist applies it to the Son, showing the Son to be Yahweh.
On the contrary, it’s unlikely that the Hebraist is applying Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son. Instead, it seems that the Hebraist is using Psa. 102:25-27 to highlight the transient nature of the angels as opposed to the Son. This passage states that the heaven and its host (the angels) are fleeting and will be destroyed in the end (cf. Psa. 33:6; Isa. 34:4; 40:26; 45:12) as opposed to the Son, who will reign forever at the right hand of God (Heb. 1:8, 13). This fits with the overall structure of Hebrews 1:
v. 5 “For” (gar) + passages from the Psalms applied to the angels
v. 6 “Yet” (de) + passages from the Psalms applied to the Son
v. 7 “And” (kai) + passages from the Psalms applied to the angels
vv. 8-9 “Yet” (de) + passages from the Psalms applied to the Son
vv. 10-12 “And” (kai) + passages from the Psalms applied to the angels
v. 13 “Yet” (de) + passages from the Psalms applied to the Son
It would break the poetic structure if the Hebraist were applying Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son. Therefore, the quote in Heb. 1:10-12 must be highlighting the transient nature of the angels, rather than stating that the heavens and earth were created by the Son, or that the Son is Yahweh. Furthermore, it would be inconsistent for the Hebraist to say that Jesus is the Creator, since in the very next chapter he distinguishes the Creator of the universe from “the pioneer of our salvation” (Heb. 2:10).
Hebrews 3:1-4: The Hebraist makes the argument that Jesus is far greater than Moses, “inasmuch as the builder of the house has more honor than the house,” for “the builder of all things is God.” The parallelism used here shows that Jesus is the One Who created Moses, and furthermore, it is very likely that the Hebraist is here calling Jesus “the God” (ho theos). However, although this is a very likely interpretation, there are certain ambiguities in the grammar of this passage which make it possible that the Father is the One being spoken of here.
In the verses immediately preceding this, the Hebraist states, “Jesus was faithful to the One who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all [God’s] house” (3:2). The fact that God appointed Jesus precludes the interpretation that Jesus is being referred to as God here. Two verses later, “the house” of which God is the builder is explicitly said to be the Father’s house (Heb. 3:6), so it is the Father, not Jesus, who is being referred to as ho theos in verse 4.
Hebrews 3:7-11: The Hebraist states that it was the Holy Spirit Who spoke the words of Psalm 95:7-11. Since, in the original OT context, it is Yahweh Who spoke these words, the Holy Spirit must be Yahweh.
Because God inspired the prophets by His spirit, it can be said that the holy spirit spoke through the prophets, even though it’s actually God speaking (e.g., 2 Sam. 23:2-3). See my response to the note on Acts 28:25-27.
Hebrews 13:20: In this verse, the Hebraist refers to Jesus as “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” a title which only properly belongs to Yahweh Himself (for which see note on Jn. 10:1-17).
Hebrews 13:21: The Hebraist gives a doxology to Jesus Christ in this verse, despite the fact that worship of any non-God creature (such as in a doxology) is absolutely forbidden; and furthermore, at Rom. 1:25, Paul condemns worshiping any created being apart from the Creator (such as in a doxology!)
1 Peter 2:8: See note on Romans 9:32-33.
1 Peter 3:14-16: Peter quotes Isaiah 8:12 which states, “Do not fear what they fear, and do not be in dread.” However, where the OT passage continues, “It is Yahweh of Hosts Whom you are to regard as holy,” Peter goes on to state instead, “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.” This is one of the clearest (albeit implicit) statements of Christ’s identity as Yahweh in the NT.
Peter is clearly alluding to Isaiah 8:12, but he is modifying its meaning. In the original context, God was comforting Isaiah and telling him not to fear what the people of Israel fear, referring to Assyria (Isa. 8:11-15). Here, Peter is telling his audience not to fear their persecutors — he isn’t saying “do not fear what they fear,” but “do not fear them.” Since Peter is alluding to Isa. 8:12, not quoting it, and is radically modifying its original meaning, there is no reason to see this as identifying Jesus with Yahweh.
1 Peter 4:11: Peter gives a doxology to Jesus Christ, despite the fact that worship of any non-God creature (especially in a doxology) is absolutely forbidden.
1 Peter 5:4: Peter refers to Jesus as the “Chief Shepherd,” for which see note on Jn. 10:1-17.
2 Peter 1:1: Peter speaks of “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” calling Jesus “the God” (ho theos) in a grammatically unambiguous fashion. The formulation of the address, in the original Greek, is exactly the same as elsewhere in the Petrine epistles where he refers to Jesus as “the Lord and Savior” (2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2; 3:18), and to the Father as “the God and Father” (1 Pet. 1:3). Because of the regularity of this type of address in the Petrine epistles, unitarians cannot argue that Peter is not referring to Jesus as “the God” in this verse without some sort of special pleading.
However, the very next verse says, “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the name of God and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Pet. 1:2). This shows that Peter understood “God” and Jesus to be two different individuals. Furthermore, nearly every epistle in the New Testament begins with an introduction from both the Father and Jesus. [3] Thus, it would be highly unusual for Peter to begin his epistle referring to only Jesus, when it could equally be translated as “the righteousness of our God and of the Savior Jesus the Messiah.” This is not special pleading, because there are very strong contextual reasons to think that Peter is not referring to Jesus as God in this verse.
2 Peter 3:18: See note on 1 Peter 4:11.
1 John 5:20: “We are in Him Who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ; this One is the true God and eonian life.” Based on the grammar of this verse, John could be referring to either the Father or Jesus as “the true God.” However, contextual indications demonstrate virtually beyond a doubt that it is, in fact, Jesus Who is being referred to in this way. This is because John never refers to the Father as “eonian life,” but repeatedly refers to Jesus as “the Life” (Jn. 11:25; 14:6) and “the Truth” (Jn. 14:6) or even “the True” (Rev. 3:7)! Furthermore, at the start of this epistle and even earlier in the same chapter, John calls Jesus the “eonian life” (1 Jn. 1:1-2; 5:11-12). So then, it is very likely that John is referring to Jesus as “the true God.”
On the contrary, the immediate context suggests that it’s the Father who John calls “the true God.” The full verse states, “And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the One who is true; and we are in the One who is true, in His Son Jesus the Messiah. This One is the true God and eonian life.” According to John, “the One who is true” is the Father of Jesus, whom Jesus has made it possible to know (cf. John 1:18; 14:8-10). Thus, “the true God” in the next sentence must refer to the Father.
Furthermore, John writes elsewhere that the Father is “the only true God,” and that Jesus is “the one whom [the only true God] has sent” (John 17:3). Since the Father is the only true God, it would be contradictory for John to say that Jesus is also the true God.
Jude 4: Jude refers to Jesus as “our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ.” The title “the Master/Owner” (ho despotes) emphasizes total authority, and is applied to Yahweh alone, the One Who created the heavens and the earth (Lk. 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10). If Jesus is “our only Master,” then Jesus must be Yahweh, creator of heaven and earth.
This is contradicted by the fact that Jesus did not believe himself to be the creator of heaven and earth, and referred to the Creator in the third person (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19). God as Creator is also distinguished from the man Jesus in the book of Acts (4:24, 30; 17:24, 31); and in the Old Testament, God claims to have created the heavens and earth by Himself, without the use of intermediaries (Isa. 44:24). Because of this, Jude 4 cannot be identifying Jesus with the “Master” of Acts 4:24 who created the heavens and earth.
Instead, the title of “Master” is applied to both God (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24) and Jesus (2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 4) throughout the New Testament. Furthermore, the title “master” (despotes) is applied to human slave owners as well (1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:9). This conflict can only be resolved if Jude 4 is saying that Jesus is the only human Master of believers, whereas God the Father is the only divine Master. This means that Jude 4 is not identifying Jesus as Yahweh.
Jude 5: After stating that Jesus is avowedly our only Master and Lord, Jude goes on to state “that Jesus/the Lord, after saving a people out of Egypt, then destroyed those who did not believe.” The textual evidence is split fairly evenly between the two readings “Jesus” and “the Lord,” although leaning slightly toward “Jesus.” However, even if the original reading is “the Lord,” Jude just stated that Jesus is “our only Lord”! This early Christian tradition that Jesus is the One who led the exodus from Egypt parallels the Old Testament teaching that it was ‘the Angel of the Presence’ Who saved Israel, and Who, though being sent by Yahweh, nevertheless carries the name of Yahweh (Exod. 23:20-21, Isa. 63:8-10).
Jesus is our only human Lord, but not our divine Lord, who is the Father (1 Cor. 8:4-6). In the Old Testament, it is explicitly the Father who saved Israel out of Egypt (Exod. 4:22-23; Hosea 11:1). In the New Testament as well, the God who led Israel out of Egypt is consistently distinguished from Jesus (Acts 3:13 [cf. Exod. 3:6]; Acts 13:17, 23, 30, 32-33). Thus, Jude can’t be saying that it was Jesus who saved Israel out of Egypt. Instead, “the Lord” here refers to our divine Lord, the Father.
The ‘angel of the presence’ in Exodus 23:20-23 is isn’t the pre-existent Messiah, but almost certainly refers to either Moses or Joshua; see my response to the note on Exodus 23:20-21. No one interpreted this ‘angel’ to be Jesus until Justin Martyr in the second century, so if this is what Jude was referring to, he certainly couldn’t have said that “you already know all this” (Jude 5).
Jude 25: “To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power, and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now, and for the ages, verily!” A straightforward reading of this passage indicates that God had glory through Jesus Christ before all ages, which of course requires Jesus to have existed before all ages.
This is a misreading of Jude 25, which actually says, “To the only God, our Savior through Jesus the Messiah our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all ages, now, and for the ages, verily!” This isn’t saying that God had glory through Jesus “before all ages,” but that God is our Savior through Jesus (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-19; Tit. 3:4-6). Therefore, it doesn't provide evidence for Jesus’ pre-existence.
Refuting All Trinitarian ‘Proof-Texts’
Hebrews and the General Epistles
______________________________
[1] Charles R. Krahmalkov, A Phoenician-Punic Grammar (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 2; Claude Mariottini, “Jezebel’s Wedding Song – Part 1,” Dr. Claude Mariottini — Professor of Old Testament (blog), 11 December 2007.
[2] Exod. 7:1; 22:8-9; Judg. 5:8; 1 Sam. 2:25; Psa. 82:1, 6-7; John 10:34-35.
[3] Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phlm. 1:3; Jas. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:2; 2 John 3; Jude 1; Rev. 1:4-5.
No comments:
Post a Comment