The debate ended several weeks back with my failure to provide further commentary.  It was interesting to read to the extent that both sides were able to present their own perspectives, but little new came from it.  Perhaps the most interesting points were in the rebuttals, especially with Burke’s extensive and proper use of agency in opposing Bowman’s arguments.  I walked away thinking as I had before, that Bowman does not understand how Jewish authors/readers viewed agency texts. 

From my own discussions elsewhere with a few individuals it is apparent that Trinitarians are struggling to address and even understand agency and the christological implications.  More than anything, I have found an attempt to dismiss the evidence as not inspired.  Such arguments fail to understand the point.  The issue is not whether the specific texts are inspired or whether the teachings they contain are accurate, but it is a matter of Jewish thinking and their use of scripture for exalted agents.  That this is significant to the Bible is evident in the parallels between Jewish literature and the Bible.  There are repeated parallelisms between the Bible and other Jewish literature in the language used of Christ and that of other exalted agents, respectively.  There are even clear examples of agency in the New Testament that lack christological significance.   As this information becomes more commonly available many will undoubtedly have their eyes opened to the truth.

Robert Bowman has posted his third portion of “The Great Trinity Debate.” The same issues I noted regarding his ignoring or ignorance of agency and the use of language generally in early Jewish literature fully besets this latest section. Due to the length of his post I will not make a point-by-point response, but instead provide some general comments on the basis of each argument. His post is available at http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/the-great-trinity-debate-part-3-rob-bowman-on-jesus-christ-continued/ for review.

Romans 10:8-13
Bowman must overlook how Lord in v. 12 cannot be understood as the divine name, either disconnecting it from the final instance wherein Lord is used as such, or indicating that the final instance should not be understood as the divine name (cf. 1Co. 1:2). Quite similarly, the Melchizedek scroll (11Q13) cites Psalm 7:7-8 wherein the divine name originally stood, with el used in its place, applied to Melchizedek. Regardless of the force in Paul’s words, the parallel with the Melchizedek scroll demonstrates how exalted agents could be assigned even divine name texts without equating them ontologically with Jehovah, or including them within the divine identity.

I will not get into whether or not Jesus should be prayed to, but Bowman presupposes limitations on Jesus’ exalted resurrection body which are baseless. Were Jesus prayed to, there is no reason to believe that through the Holy Spirit and his exalted nature he would be unable to manage as much. Bowman suggests prayer to Jesus would result in him being “functionally a second God,” though the result would at most find him to be functionally the same God, as Jehovah’s exalted agent, representing him, or simply one exalted so to be capable of and due to receive prayer.

1 Corinthians 8:4-6
Apparently missed by Bowman is the antithesis between the “many” and the “one.” While there are many lords, there is to us but “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” Paul does not present Lord in place of the divine name, but the use is titular so to be antithetical to the “many lords.” Paul may well have had the Shema in mind, but due to the allusion to Wisdom language (Pro. 3:19) with reference to the one God created by, there is every reason to see this as a modification of the Shema to include the one God exalted to being Lord (Acts 2:36).

Bowman craftily attempts connecting Jesus with God by identifying them both as “the instrumental cause” of creation, yet the contexts of the two cited passages (Rom. 11:36 and 1Co. 8:6) are vastly different. The cause (God) in Romans 11:36 works through his own agency, while in 1 Corinthians 8:6 the cause (the Father) works through another (the Son). These are not mutually exclusive, for working through your own agency does not preclude also working through the agency of another. That the Son was not the cause but the intermediate agent can be no more clearly attested to than in Hebrews 1:1-2 wherein ‘the God who spoke by the prophets’—Jehovah in the Old Testament—created through Jesus Christ.

Philippians 2:3-11
Bowman presupposes Paul is addressing Christ ontologically, when the text indicates just the opposite. The humility displayed by the Philippians was to be displayed in their behavior, and Christ displayed his quite similarly. Does “the form of God” refer to God’s nature as the NIV? Certainly not, for there is nothing that is “the form of a servant,” where servant is purely a functional expression. A servant can be a man, but also an angel (Rev. 22:9). Here “form” (morphe) must refer what it most literally does, outward appearance.

As God’s agent, Jesus appeared as God in Jehovah’s stead. He was as Jehovah himself in his perfect representation of him. This is traditional Jewish agency. Similarly, though God’s Son, he appeared “in the form of a servant,” no longer as God himself but “in the likeness of man,” he was outwardly a servant, functionally, what he was not (Gal. 4:7).  

The implications of Bowman’s comments on “the name above every name” are addressed in my post at http://www.scripturaltruths.com/blog/?p=36, so there is no need to reproduce the serious issues besetting his interpretation.

Hebrews 1:1-10
Bowman begins by arguing how Jesus must be called “god” in some way other than the angels, for the things said of Jesus were not said of the angels. The argument completely lacks merit, for when writing that the things are not said of angels the writer is addressing the specific quotations, including the wherein Christ is addressed as God (Heb. 1:8), not the manner in which a specific appellation is presented within one of the statements.

Bowman next argues: “Not one of the proof texts in the catena in Hebrews 1 applied in reality to the Davidic king.” This, again, completely lacks merit, for Bowman has plainly overlooked 2 Samuel 7:14, a text within the catena. Bowman denies certain passages had fulfillment in the kings, but goes on to argue that these were types of the Messiah. Yet, if the texts did not have some type of fulfillment in those kings there would have been no typification. I am not suggesting that none were purely Messianic (e.g. Psalm 110), but this is not the case across the board.

Bowman argues from Psalm 45 that none of the Davidic kings prior to Christ “ruled forever,” yet this ignores that it was the throne that was forever, so that the Davidic throne would endure for all time, not the individual king. This is ultimately fulfilled in Christ through eternity, but the text itself refers not to the king’s existence, only the throne’s. A consideration of this psalm reveals a straightforward application to an original human king.

With reference to texts that originally referred to God, Bowman misses this as an articulation of Jesus as God’s agent, as evident, for example, in the Melchizedek scroll. Further, in reference to Psalm 102, a variant in the LXX (which the author of Hebrews quotes) presents what is actually God’s response to another, not addressed to him.

Bowman makes a number of other comments worthy of addressing, but for which time will not allow. Significantly, Bowman entirely disregards Hebrews 1:1-2a, and instead focuses on what follows. This is not entirely surprising, however, as to consider this text would result in overturning his entire position, for such demands that it was the Father alone who was the God in the Old Testament as the one who spoke by the prophets, not the Son.

Reviewing the opening of “The Great Trinity Debate” I opted not to take the time to comment. The material is certainly worthy of consideration, but the amount of time I have available for reviewing this debate has proven more limited than anticipated, so I must select the material most valuable in reviewing.

This post will consider some of Robert Bowman’s comments in the 2^nd portion of the debate as they pertain to the interpretation of specific passages (found at http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/the-great-trinity-debate-part-2-rob-bowman-on-jesus-christ/). Thus, I will not be reviewing his comments outside of what he argues for these texts to mean or where he references a specific view view with which I would not agree. Without considering my comments most will likely observe how much of Bowman’s presentation is based not upon exegesis and historical or contextual arguments, but his own opinion. This is perhaps most apparent in the first passage he considered:

Matthew 28:16-20:

Jesus’ eleven apostles met Jesus after his resurrection on a mountain. “And when they saw him they worshipped him, but some doubted” (Matt. 28:17). Nothing in the context suggests that what some doubted was that Jesus had risen or that it was Jesus whom they saw. Rather, it seems that some doubted the propriety of worshipping Jesus. Their doubt makes no sense if this act was comparable to bowing before a human dignitary, as many anti-Trinitarians assert. Surely, Jesus’ disciples would have had no doubts about showing Jesus such courtesy and respect. No, apparently some doubted that Jesus was the proper object of religious worship, the act of humbling oneself toward a supernatural figure. Their doubt presupposes the biblical and conventional Jewish belief that the Lord God was the only proper recipient of such acts of religious devotion.

Bowman expresses his opinion that “some doubted” refers to doubts about worshipping him, but he utterly fails to present even the most basi evidence in support of this view. This is readily apparent in his appeal to weasel words, stating that “apparently” their doubt was in the acceptability to worship Jesus. While Bowman is correct in that the immediate context within Matthew does not present doubt on the part of the disciples respecting Jesus’ resurrection and identification, such is readily apparent within the other Gospels, removing doubt as to the meaning (Mark 16:11; Luke 24:10-11; John 20:25-29).

In the context of Matthew, the scene recalls the Temptation narrative that immediately precedes Jesus’ ministry (4:1-11). In the third, climactic temptation, the devil takes Jesus to a high mountain, shows him all the kingdoms of the world, and offers them to Jesus if he will worship him (4:8-9). Jesus rebuffs the temptation, quoting Deuteronomy 6:13, “You shall worship the Lord your God and serve only him” (4:10). Now, after Jesus? resurrection, he meets his disciples on a mountain and receives their act of worshipping him. The contrasting parallel is made complete by Jesus’ assurance to those who doubted that worshipping him was indeed appropriate: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (28:18). This is the authority that the devil claimed he could give to Jesus if Jesus would worship him. Now Jesus has that authority, not from the devil, but from God the Father. No higher validation of Jesus’ authority was possible. The evident parallels between Matthew 4:8-10 and 28:16-18 confirm that “worshipped” in 28:17 denotes the act of religious devotion that Jesus himself had stated should go to God alone.

Once again we find Bowman’s opinion, but his argument falls flat. His submission is that the authority given in Matthew 28:18 ‘is the authority that the devil claimed he could give to Jesus if Jesus would worship him,’ yet this is far from the case. The authority promised by the devil was entirely earthly, limited to the kingdoms of the earth (Mat. 4:8-9), while the authority given by God was found throughout all of heaven and earth. This was vastly superior to anything offered or that could be offered by the devil.

Further, whereas Satan, as the giver of authority, asked to be worshipped, here Jesus, as the receiver of authority is given it. Any parallelism would find the Father as the object of worship. With this said, we can consider the matter of worshipping Jesus and the lack of significance to the Trinitarian case. Considering the following from my debate with Mike Felker on why Jesus is given what he is given:

?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.?

Those who deny that Christ is God raise the objection that Jesus said his authority was “given” to him, and ask how anyone could give God authority (or why God would need to give God authority). They argue that this is a derived and therefore inferior authority to that of God. This objection ignores the orthodox explanation that the Lord Jesus, by choosing to come into the world “not to be served, but to serve” (Matt. 20:28), had placed himself in a position in which he depended on the Father to exalt him.

For the above to be true Jesus would have necessarily stopped being God. All authority is God’s by nature, so for Jesus not to have it would mean he lacked the authority. Similarly, he could not be omniscient, for if he had all power he would not be dependent upon anyone to grant him authority. The Bible plainly reveals that Jesus lacked authority so to be given it. As God possess such by nature this is a powerful attestation to the fact that Jesus is not ontologically God.

Jesus then commands his disciples to go make more disciples from people of all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (28:19). Jesus, the Son, identifies himself alongside the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Deity to whom each new disciple is to commit himself in the covenant rite of baptism. The Father clearly is God, and as we shall see in week 5, the Holy Spirit in this text must also be God; it follows that the Son in this text is also God. If we exclude the idea that these are three Gods, as we should, the conclusion that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God follows. In any case, Jesus is here explicitly making himself, as the Son, one of the persons toward whom disciples perform a religious act of devotion and covenant commitment. There is no precedent in biblical religion for performing such religious acts in devotion to a mere man, no matter how great a man.

The text demands little of what Bowman here argues. Provided above is assertion of what the text must mean, but not a demonstration. Much as the Israelites were baptized “into Moses” (and certainly into God, for they could not follow Moses without following God), we can well be baptized “into the name” of the Son? as our mediator, while also being baptized into “the Father” as our God and source of all things and “the Holy Spirit” as the deliverer of direction and teaching, which we are to accept.

After instructing his disciples to teach new disciples to observe everything he commanded them, Jesus concludes: “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (28:20). Here Jesus promises to be with all of his disciples, wherever they are in the world, as they make disciples of all nations, in every generation until the end of the age. Such a promise implies that Jesus has the capacity to be present in any and all parts of the world simultaneously. The statement recalls God’s promise to Jacob, “Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go” (Gen. 28:15). In short, Jesus’ promise presupposes that he possesses the divine attribute of omnipresence. Nor is this an isolated statement in the Gospel. Prior to his death, Jesus told his followers, “Where two or three have gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst” (18:20). Only someone who is omnipresent could deliver on a promise to be present in the midst of every gathering of believers anywhere in the world. Jewish rabbis taught that where two Jews sat together to hear the Torah, the Shekinah–the manifest glorious presence of God–would be with them. Jesus claims that his divine presence will be with any two disciples who meet together to honor him (see Putting Jesus in His Place, 117-18).

Bowman presupposes Jesus’ physical presence with his disciples. This is certainly possible and should not be presupposed as ruled out, but it is by no means demanded. Similar language is used elsewhere, such as by the apostle Paul (1Co. 5:4). I would not suggest Jesus’ meaning here parallels Paul’s, but there are other equally valuable interpretations. This is one I would suggest we can answer only upon understanding the biblical teaching on Jesus, though even this would not make the matter conclusive.

Barry Hofstetter has taken the opportunity to respond to my previous blog post concerning his comments on the “have been” reading of John 8:58. The response can be found at http://my.opera.com/BarryHofstetter/blog/2010/04/07/response-to-david-barron

Consider the key portions of this:

This was, of course, part of a continuing discussion, so that taking it out of the context of that discussion eliminates the points and counterpoints that were being made.

Hofstetter is correct in that his comments were part of a larger discussion, but this hardly excuses his error.  Any who care to review the discussion will find the person with whom he was having it even corrected him, so it is most surprising (or, perhaps not) that he continues to maintain it.  Hofstetter has simply misrepresented the position he was arguing against by providing a rendering that unambiguously failed to articulate what was argued for.

I have been involved with these discussions for a long time, and I would ask David what evidence I was ignoring? He seems to conflate disagreement with “not listening,” unaware of the fact that a person may know and understand, but still not agree. I staunchly disagree that ἐγὼ εἰμί is a “present of past action,” and I believe that if John had wanted to express what the JW’s claim, the Greek constructions that I suggested would be a good way of doing so.

The evidence Hofstetter has ignored is the interpretive, which is to say the meaning argued for by those who maintain the “have been” translation.  He is free to disagree with the translation, he is not free to suggest those who maintain it mean something contrary to what they articulate the meaning to be.

With this consider what he wrote for which the original response was made:

… he could have written… PRIN ABRAHAM GENESQAI, EGW HMHN, (Before Abraham was born, I was) which would express much more precisely what the way the JW wants to read the text…

The above does not come close to how JWs and those of us who maintain the “have been” rendering ‘want to read the text.’  This relates simple existence prior to Abraham, while we maintain eimi is durative, finding the action of existing, beginning in the past,  expressed as ongoing from commencement until Jesus spoke the words recorded at John 8:58.

I invite Hofstetter to explain how any alternate rendering he has provided expresses this notion.  In fact, duration is not expressed by any alternative rendering I have found Hofstetter suggest as ‘more precise’ to those holding the “have been” rendering with the notion of durative existence in view.

Reading the following I was shocked, and yet perhaps in another respect not so much.  I often wonder why some fail to realize the error in certain arguments, and it is perhaps because they do not listen to the points made against them.  Instead, it would seem as if they sometimes assume they know the counterpoint, assume they know the answer, but really have only created a straw man in their own mind.    Consider the following posted on one Yahoo group by Trinitarian Barry Hofstetter (ellipsis removes the Greek text as he also provided the transliteration):

Now, if John, as the author rendering Jesus semitic language into Greek, had wanted to express, “Before Abraham was born, I existed,” he could have written… PRIN ABRAHAM GENESQAI, EGW HMHN, (Before Abraham was born, I was) which would express much more precisely what the way the JW wants to read the text, and also accord much better with the usual sequence of tenses. Better yet, considering the JW theology that Jesus is the first created being.. PRIN ABRAHAM GENESQAI EGENOMHN, GEGONA, “Before Abraham was born, I came into existence…” These would be perfectly natural and expected ways of  saying it, but that’s not what we get. Instead we get that pesky present tense first person singular, used in an absolute way with no predicate.

I won’t bother to explain the error here, as it is well documented on this site and elsewhere, but being that I know Barry has been presented with the correct meaning, held by JWs and others, it is readily apparent that he simply does not listen.  Not only has he ignored those making the point in discussion, but also the Greek grammars and commentaries that have made the point as well.  One has to wonder if people only paid more attention how quickly many errors could be done away with.

The New Testament authors’ application of Old Testament passage about God or others to Christ is not uncommon.  I discussed this with moderate detail in God and Christ.  When the second edition is complete (this is still some time away) I intend to explore this in greater detail (as with most every topic discussed, along with a host of others not).   One early Jewish text highlighted in the book on a couple of occasions is 11Q13, The Coming of Melchizedek.

As I did not spend any significant time developing the concept of agency or focus on too many extra-biblical passages where others are granted the appellation “g/God” outside of the Bible, a couple of significant portions of 11Q13 deserve mention.  This is especially important for those who have not had the opportunity to read this document and consider the implications of early Jewish interpretation on the outlook the New Testament authors carried in writing about Jesus.  Consider the following, written about the heavenly Melchizedek, whom many scholars identify with Michael the archangel.

“as is written about him in the songs of David, who said: Elohim will stand up in the assem[bly of God,] in the midst of the gods he judges.” 11Q13 2:9-10

This portion of text, highlighted in God and Christ, is significant for demonstrating the acceptable nature of applying passages to certain key individuals when the text had originally referenced God.  Further demonstrated is the allowance of calling certain others God when they were exalted and appointed by the Almighty to be so termed.  Finally, we find God’s ability and willingness to assign certain divine prerogatives to his agents without contradicting the notion of their uniqueness to him.

“And about him he said: Above it return to the heights, God will judge the peoples.” 11Q13 2:10-11

There is no doubt that “God” in the above is Melchizedek.  Not only is he the God judging from Psalm 82:1, but this is something said “about him.”  Most significantly, “God” is here in place of the divine name Jehovah from Psalm 7:7-8.  Either the name is attributed to Melchizdek as God’s exalted agent in judgment, or the substituted “God” carries the term’s traditional meaning and is understood in that way apart from the original reference.  Either interpretation is significant to the Christology presented in the New Testament, for it demonstrates such application without equating Jehovah in the original text with the new referent.

Just as important is the following:

“in truth […] […] it has been turned away from Belial and it […] […] in the judgments of God, as is written about him: Saying to Zion, ‘your God rules’.  [Zi]on is [the congregation of all the sons of justice, those] who establish the covenant, those who avoid walking [on the pa]th of the people.  Your God is [… Melchizedek, who will fr]ee [them] from the hand of Belial.  And as for what he said: You shall blow the hor[n in every] land.”  11Q13 2:21-25

As Thomas could identify Jesus as ‘his God’ (John 20:28), Melchizedek was ‘their God.’  He stood appointed by God over them, he was his agent and so bore the identification.

This one document provides significant insight into the early Jewish mind when contemplating exalted agents and the application of Jehovah’s name, titles and prerogatives to them.  To simply appeal to Old Testament divine name texts in the New Testament with reference to Jesus is not persuasive.  Neither is the display Jesus carrying out God’s unique prerogatives.   As Jesus’ exalted name, position and authority are given to him by God, closely corresponding to early exalted divine agents and not Trinitarian theology.

Along with other encomiums, the author of Hebrew called ‘the land of the promise’ (11:9) ‘a heavenly [one].’  This does not mean it is not on earth any more than the ’shares in [the] heavenly calling’ (3:1) who had ‘tasted the heavenly gift’ were not those who lived on earth.  Indeed, it was the very land on which the patriarchs dwelt as ’strangers and wanderers’ (11:13), but the expression means that it is a divine land which God himself has promised.

The Anchor Bible, “To the Hebrews,” p 192.

‘Shares in [the] heavenly calling’ were member of the group.  This is another way of saying ‘brothers.’  ‘The heavenly calling’ (kleseos epouraniou) was the same as the ‘calling from God’ (klesis tou theou) (Rom 11:29).[2] A person who was called to segregate himself from the Gentiles and become a covenanter, a member of God’s holy people, joined the community.  This means that one who had been called was one who had been initiated into the sect and had become a brother and holy.  Therefore Paul could say, ‘Those whom he has previously set apart, these also he called, and those whom he called, these also he justified, and those whom he justified, these also he glorified’ (Rom 8:30).

---

[2] Contra Montefiore, p. 71, who said this was ‘not primarily in the sense that God calls from heaven, but inasmuch as Christian are called to heaven.”

The Anchor Bible, “To the Hebrews,” p 55.

Somebody recently asked me for the audio of my discussion of  “I AM” in John’s Gospel with Gene Cook of The Narrow Mind.  I managed to locate this and it can be heard here.  For reference, this was probably about 4-5 years ago.

The Son of God is a common expression in the New Testament for Jesus, rooted in, among other things, his position as the Davidic king (cf. 2Sam. 7:14).  He is also God’s Son in reference to his preexistence, and Trinitarians would argue as second person of the Trinity.  If this is the case, however, why is the Father never identified as “the Father of God”?