Are you curious how Michael Brown thinks he did on the Trinity debate last weekend? In this post-debate interview I ask him about his strongest points as well as what he thought Dale Tuggy’s strongest points were. We talk about his reticence to use traditional trinitarian language in light of his own unique heritage and ministry focus. I press him gently to explain his view of the Trinity in light of some of the confusion that arose during the debate. Next time, I’ll be interviewing Dr. Tuggy and getting his response and then after that Jerry Wierwille and I are planning on thoroughly reviewing and rebutting Dr. Brown’s opening statement, verse by verse.
Now, I realize that a number of you may not appreciate me giving Dr. Brown an opportunity to defend his view of the deity of Christ, but if you’ve listened to this podcast for any length of time, you know that I end every episode with the words “the truth has nothing to fear.” For me, that’s not just a tag line, it’s how I believe. I’m not afraid to hear arguments for the deity of Christ or the Trinity. It’s healthy for those of us who are biblical unitarians to be challenged by passionate defenders of opposing positions. If I’m wrong about Jesus, I want to be corrected and if I’m right then hearing another viewpoint shouldn’t be a threat.
—— Links ——
- Visit Michael Brown’s website and radio show at askdrbrown.org
- You can either listen to the entire debate on podcast 158 or watch it on YouTube
- Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
Dr. Brown where in the Bible does the word “God” refer to the triune God, not just Father or Son or Holy Spirit?
Mr. Buzzard,
Very good question for Dr. Brown which goes to heart of the matter, that the word “God” does not refer to a substance or essence, but exclusively to a personal being. However, where in the Bible does the word “God” refer to an abstract concept like a “Plan” (with no concrete existence) rather than being a concrete, personal noun, referring to a Personal (or supposed personal) being? According to John 1:1 “Logos was God.” In this statement, “Logos” is the subject (being articular) and “God” is the predicate nominative. The required meaning is that what God is Logos also was (See Wallace, GGBB. pp. 45-46, and pp. 266-269 re: Colwell’s Rule). What is your simple definition of the word “God” that can account for every usage in the Bible?
Tim –
(1). You appear to be assuming that the ‘Logos’ in John 1:1 is necessarily referring to a personal being (other than God, the Father (YWHW)). This is not so, as world leading Christologist, James Dunn explained in his penetrating study ‘Christology in the Making’; p.243 :
“It is only with [John 1] v. 14 that we can begin to speak of a personal Logos …..The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine Logos as ‘he’ throughout the poem [John 1:1-14]. But if we translated logos as ‘God’s utterance’ instead, it would become clearer that the poem did not necessarily intend the Logos in [John 1:] vv. 1-13 to be thought of as a personal divine being [other than the Father].”
(2). There is no simple definition of the word “God” that can account for every usage in the Bible. Sometimes the word “God” doesn’t refer to ‘the only true God’ ( = the Father; cf. John 17:1-3; 1 Cor. 8:6), but to beings that represent God, bear His credentials and speak on His behalf, e.g. The Angel of Yahweh, in Genesis 16:7-14; and of course, God’s Son, Jesus the Messiah (John chap.14).
John,
I appreciate your reply. But the reason that “Logos” must be a person is not because of the gender of the pronouns. They must be singular and masculine because Logos is a singular masculine noun. Pronouns must agree in gender and number with their referent. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether “Logos” is referring to a person or some abstract thing. Rather, it is the clause, “and Logos was God” that establishes that Logos is a person, because the word “God” (Theos) is a concrete, personal noun. The predicate nominative construction “Logos was God” requires that Logos must be what the word “God” means. Consequently, the word “God” must be defined accurately and biblically before one can deconstruct John 1:1.
The reason that Biblical Unitarians apologetics will never put a dent in Trinitarianism is because it presupposes the very same faulty reasoning. If the word “God” does not have a single essential meaning but can be bent and its meaning adjusted in various contexts in order to fit one’s preconceived beliefs, no progress can ever be made. How can you defend “one God” when you cannot even define what the word “God” means? Everything becomes circular reasoning. Unitarians are doing precisely what Trinitarians do, bend the word “God” to fit a preconceived paradigm. For Trinitarians, in some passages “God” is personal and concrete noun referring to a particular Person, such as the Father, or the Son. In other passages, they define “God” as impersonal and abstract, the divine essence or nature. This is their device for escaping all of the “one God” statements of Scriptures. “One God” becomes one common divine essence shared by three persons. Unitarians insist that “God” (in the one God statements) must be understood as a concrete and personal noun, which is correct. But in John 1, unitarians revert to the faulty Trinitarian flexible understanding of the word “God” so that they can escape the very clear fact Logos must be a person simply because He is called “God.”
Words are defined by etymology and usage. The fact is, there is a very good and narrow definition of the word “God” (Elohim, Theos) that fits every occurrence in the entire Bible. “God” means: the one who holds sole sovereignty within a particular sphere of dominion. This is why Revelation refers to God as “Pantocrator” (lit. “Sovereign over all”). That is, He is the ultimate sovereign. This is why the “one God” statements in Isaiah always base this on the fact that God created everything, which necessarily implies sole sovereignty. This is also why the Son is called “God” in Psalm 45:6-7 when His “God” anoints Him and gives Him the scepter of His Kingdom. He becomes “God” within the context of His kingdom, yet He still has “God” (Pantocrator – sovereign over all) above Him. The same is true of the pagan “gods” who both Moses and Paul said are “demons.” These false “gods” gain sovereignty over their subjects by deception, claiming to hold power over some particular aspect of nature, the sun, the Nile, fertility, et. al. The pagans worship them because they think they can control parts of nature. The same is true when God says to the rulers of the various nations around Israel, “I said you are gods,” because all human government is under God’s authority and delegated by Him. The same is true when Moses is made “god” to Pharoah, as God elevated him above all of the gods of Egypt. The word “God” is utterly meaningless without a dominion. It is a relational term in the same way as father, mother, king, ruler, etc., are relational, and are meaningless without their counterpart in that relationship. So also the word “God” is meaningless unless His dominion is identified from the context. The term “God” says absolutely nothing about ontological nature, or even any particular divine quality. It addresses sovereignty exclusively. And as such, it is always a concrete and personal noun, including in John 1:1.
The place to begin in Christian apologetics is Theology proper. And the place to begin in this category is defining term “God” by biblical usage, that which is common to every place the word is used. I do not place much stock in commentaries because all of them are created by fallible men who bring their own presuppositions to the text and interpret it in conformity with their own theology. So one can quote a Unitarian commentary, and one can quote a Trinitarian commentary. But this is not an objective process and therefore can never lead to truth. We must begin with our proven first foundational “fact” on which we can build, and this is defining the term “God.”
Mr. Buzzard was right to raise the issue, “where in the Bible does the word “God” refer to three persons.” That is an excellent question. But all a Trinitarian has to do to answer that is to point to the “one God” statements, and then claim that “God” in those statements is not a concrete personal noun but is abstract and refers to the “divine nature.” Unitarians cannot prove that Trinitarians are using circular reasoning on this point because they do exactly the same thing in John 1:1. The error of Biblical Unitarian apologetics is their starting presupposition, that Son had no preexistence. They then force Scripture to agree by using the same bad hermeneutic and circular reasoning that Trinitarians use. This process will go nowhere.
Many thanks for your comments, Tim.
I’ve just had a look at your interesting website, and before responding, I’ll first check out the :
Anthony Buzzard / Carlos Xavier v’s Andrew Perry / Bill Schlegal debate on John 1:1.
God bless you, Tim.
Hi Tim;
In response to your comments :
(1). If Tim Werner phoned me up, then the voice expressing itself on my telephone would be Tim Werner!
As ‘The Voice’ New Testament puts it, in John 1:1a :
“Before time itself was measured, the voice was speaking.”
That ‘logos’, or ‘uttered (creative) word’, or, ‘voice’ mentioned in John 1:1a is YHWH God’s voice (utterance), which was ultimately to find full expression to fallen humanity in the coming of the Messiah Jesus (cf. John 14:6-10; Hebrews 1:1-2). There is absolutely no exegetical necessity to see the Logos in John 1:1-5, as a separate, pre-existing being who was alongside YHWH God.
See also John 1:1-5, in Samuel Sharpe’s New Testament :
” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through it, and without it was not anything made that was made. In it was life, and the light was the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness perceived it not.”
(2). The Unitarian Christian argument utilizing the Jewish ‘Agent-Representative’ concept appears to be making some inroads into traditional Trinitarian thinking – as exemplified by the NIV Study Bible’s footnotes to Genesis 16:7-14, where the ‘Angel of Yahweh’ appears ‘prima facie,’ to be identified with ‘Yahweh’ God, Himself. The footnote reads :
” The angel of the LORD : Since the angel of the Lord speaks for God in the first person (v. 10), and Hagar is said to name the LORD who spoke to her : ‘You are the God Who sees me’ (v.13), the angel appears to be both distinguished from the Lord (in that he is called ‘messenger’ – the Hebrew for ‘angel’ means ‘messenger’) and identified with Him. Similar distinction and identification can be found in [Genesis] 19:1, 21; 31:11, 13; Ex. 3:2, 4; Jdg 2:1-5; 6:11-12, 14 ……. Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this ‘angel’ was a pre-incarnate manifestation of Christ as God’s Messenger-Servant . It may be, however, that as the Lord’s [YHWH’s] personal messenger who represented Him [YHWH] and bore His credentials, the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [YHWH] Who sent him…Whether this ‘angel’ was the second person of the Trinity remains therefore uncertain.”
(3). A final point about personal. religious philosophy, Tim. I see from your website that your underlying religious philosophy is very similar to that commonly held by the Christadelphians. The Christadelphians (as cessationists) do not claim to be inspired, but they nevertheless do claim to possess (via their method of rationalistic hermeneutics), a monopoly upon “objective biblical exegesis.” Whereas individual Christadelphians readily admit the possibility of personal moral fallibility, they nevertheless vehemently resist any notion that there is anything wrong with their mental perception of what constitutes ‘objective Biblical Truth’. For Christadelphians, all their detractors are biblically biased, and theologically biased, but certainly not they !
On your website, you mention your ten ‘interpretative principles’, and write :
“These ten principles are intended to remove personal bias and faulty presuppositions derived from tradition or an unbiblical world view. They are similar to the objective principles used in empirical scientific investigations and in the courtroom. Paul wrote that we must ‘test all things, hold fast to that which is good.’ Yet this can only be done honestly when we are completely unbiased.”
However, Paul here (cf. 1 Thess. 5:19-21), is probably talking about testing ‘prophetic utterances’, and not advocating some kind of ‘intellectual perfectionism’ regarding all things theological (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12; 2 Cor. 12:2-4).
John,
(1) RE: John 1:1, while the lexical meaning of “logos” indicates a specific “message” (either written or spoken), the thing you seem to be missing is that “Logos” can also be a proper name, just as “Sophia” (Wisdom) can be a proper name. John wrote about God’s Son, “His name is called the Logos of God” (Rev. 19:13). Thus “Logos” is indeed a proper name for God’s Son according to John Himself. As such, trying to make “Logos” in John 1:1 something abstract (a plan) based on the lexical meaning of the word is equivalent to claiming that Peter must be a “stone” and not a real person because that is the lexical meaning of his name (petros). The statement, “and Logos was God,” requires that Logos is a person (because the word “God” is always a person), and thus “Logos” is a proper name in this verse not an abstract concept. Facts are stubborn things.
(2) I agree that in the OT the “Angel [Messenger] of the LORD” was God’s personal representative, and bore His name (Ex. 23:20-23), being called both “Yahweh” and “God” repeatedly, and those who saw the “Angel [Messenger] of the LORD” were said to have seen God/Yahweh. This personal Agent was/is a second Person in the OT using God’s titles. This says nothing about His nature or essence, nor does it make Him co-equal or co-eternal with God. It merely shows that He carried the full authority of God in speaking as His representative as the “Mediator” between God and man. Scripture is quite clear that no one has ever seen God at any time, and that the “only-begotten Son” is the one who has made Him known (John 1:18), and Jesus is called the “one Mediator between God and man.” If we are going to stand on the “One God” part of this statement, shouldn’t we also stand on the “One Mediator” part as well rather than two “Mediators” who bore God’s name and spoke as His personal Agent with His full authority?
(3) Regarding interpretive principles, the purpose is to let Scripture interpret Scripture alone. We seek to eliminate as much bias as possible, which is why we reject the Greek mythological bias and presuppositions inherent in Trinitarianism. But we also reject the Jewish mythological bias inherent to Biblical Unitarianism which is imposed upon the Scriptures not exegetically derived from the Scriptures. The claim that one must view all of the preexistence language in the NT through this alleged Jewish mythological filter rather than just taking the language at face value, as used in the OT, is a heavily biased process which is why we reject it.
John,
I will be doing a live discussion with Anthony Buzzard this Saturday (Jan. 21) at 2:00pm on his “Focus on the Kingdom” YouTube channel.
Hi, Tim,
I’ll look forward seeing your discussion with Anthony Buzzard. Best wishes to both of you.
In response to your recent comments : :
(1). Revelation 19:13 utilizes the Gk. ‘anoma’, which can refer to a ‘title’, rather than to a personal name. Hence, the ‘Amplified Bible (Classic Edition)’ reads :
” …and the title by which he is called is The Word of God.” ;
and the Anglican, Dr. George Wade’s translation of Rev. 19:13, reads :
” ..and the Title by which He is called is ‘The Expression of God’s Purpose’ “.
To claim that Rev. 19:13 ‘proves’ that the logos in John 1:1 must be a pre-existent being, is a non sequitur.
(2). You mention the words of 1 Tim. 2:5, but the reference is to the new covenant – of which Jesus is the sole mediator (the mediator of the ‘Mosaic covenant’ was Moses; Gal. 3:19-20).
You also claim on your website that the pre-existent being (who later became the man, Jesus) spoke to Adam in Eden, appeared to Moses in the burning bush, and appeared to Abraham as ‘Melchizedek’. The major problem with these views is that they lack unambiguous, explicit Scriptural verification – and in the very places where we might have expected them, if true, viz. : Romans 5; 12-21; Acts 7:35; and Hebrews 7:1-28.
(3). You say we must let Scripture interpret Scripture – but this can only be fully successful if we first research Biblical cultures, languages (including idioms), and ancient Jewish methods of exegesis. This, however, is a constant ongoing activity.
John,
(1) Whether Logos is a name or a title is irrelevant, since it was applied to Christ by John in Rev. 19, and both names and titles are applied to persons, not to abstract things that have no real existence. Likewise John’s statement, “and Logos was God,” requires that Logos was a Person, and in his 1st epistle John wrote that the disciples had heard, seen, and handled “Logos of Life,” another reference to Jesus.
(2) Yes, Paul’s “one Mediator” statement certainly included the New Covenant. But don’t you find it at least interesting that the one Mediator of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants was the “Messenger of the Lord” (cf. Judges 2:1-4) and Jesus is called “the Messenger of the Covenant” in Mal. 3:1, and God’s “Messenger” in Rev. 1:1-3? Is it mere coincidence that those who saw the Messenger of the Lord claimed to have seen God and Jesus claimed exactly the same thing about Himself (John 14:9). John 1:18 states that “no one has seen God at any time” which necessarily includes since creation. He then stated that the only-begotten Son is the one who has made Him known. Since the negative statement must go back to creation, the inference is that the Son has been His agent since creation, not only since He was Man.
(3) You seem to be implying that the Bible cannot be properly understood simply with the help of God’s Spirit. Do we really need elaborate scholarly research into obscure Jewish sects and their peculiarities in order to filter God’s Word for us? Why is this alleged Jewish mystical way of speaking about preexistence not demonstrated in the OT? Why is preexistence language found mostly in Paul (Apostle to the Gentiles) and John (who took over supervision of the Gentile churches after Paul’s death)? Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John, tells us the reason why John wrote his Gospel, especially the prologue in Against Heresies, Bk. 3, ch. 11. It was to refute the Gnostics, Nicolaitans and Cerinthus, who claimed that the “Christ” and “Jesus” were 2 different persons, the one a divine being who came down from heaven, and the other just an ordinary man. Why didn’t John simply deny that any divine being came down from heaven? Problem solved. Instead, He did precisely the opposite affirming this point with many statements such as John 3:13: “No one has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man,” or Jesus’ statement in John 6:38, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” John countered the Platonic dualistic claims by simply insisted that the one who descended from heaven “became flesh,” which was anathema to the Gnostic/Platonic dualistic thinking. Did Paul in writing Colossians 1:15-20 or John in writing His prologue and many other statements in the Gospel even hint at the possibility that one needed an alleged Jewish mythological framework (which is completely absent from both the OT & NT) in order to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom among all nations? Were all those nations expected to research ancient obscure Jewish interpretations in order to “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?” I find this whole alleged Jewish mythological filter concept self-serving, to impose Biblical Unitarianism’s denial of preexistence upon the Scriptures. Of course, that is just my opinion. 🙂 I do appreciate your replies and taking the time to engage my points.
God Bless
John,
One final point I would like you to consider. Biblical Unitarians make good headway against Trinitarianism in proving that there is only one eternal God, and that Jesus is the Son of God, not God Himself. But the ground gained is mostly lost by the interpretation of the passages that teach preexistence. There is a very good reason why Biblical Unitarianism does not ring true for most Christians. It is simply because it is not a matter exclusively of the mind. It is a matter of the heart, what rings true in the heart. The belief that the divine Son of God was willing to empty Himself, to sacrifice His rightful place beside God in order to become dust like us, and then to die to purchase our pardon, cannot be matched in Biblical Unitarianism. This act of love on God’s part, who gave up His only-begotten Son whom He literally fathered to become “dust” like us, and then die as a man, and the Son’s act of self-debasement “emptying Himself” in order to become “in the likeness of men,” cannot be matched by anything Biblical Unitarianism has to offer. It creates a reciprocal response in the heart of love for God and His Son that moves people on a very deep level. There is a huge difference between “For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son,” vs. “For God so loved the world that He gave one of His creatures.” The average Christian who goes to a Trinitarian church has no concept of “hypostatic union” or what “one God in three persons” even means. But they know what the hymn “And Can it Be” means to them:
1. AND can it be that I should gain An interest in the Saviour’s blood? Died He for me, who caused His pain? For me, who Him to death pursued?
Chorus: Amazing love! how can it be That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me
2. ‘TIs mystery all! The Immortal dies: Who can explore His strange design? In vain the first-born seraph tries To sound the depths of love divine. ‘Tis mercy all! let earth adore, Let angel minds inquire no more.
3. He left His Father’s throne above So free, So infinite His grace, Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race. ‘Tis mercy all, immense and free; For, O my God, it found out me.
4. Long my imprisoned spirit lay Fast bound in sin and nature’s night; Thine eye diffused a quickening Ray— I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; My chains fell off, my heart was Free, I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
5. No condemnation now I dread; Jesus, and all in Him, is mine! Alive in Him, my living Head, And clothed in righteousness divine, Bold I approach the eternal throne, And claim the crown, through Christ, my own.
Hi, Tim.
Thanks for your recent comments posted on January 17th.
I’m very acquainted with Charles Wesley’s hymns, Tim, as I used to once worship with the Methodists, as a fanatical Trinitarian. However, through further studies I am convinced that early Christianity (as recorded in the Gospel of Luke, and in the ‘Acts of the Apostles’, et al) had no notion of a literal pre-existence view of Jesus. In response to your comments :
(1). Your comments on John 1:1 ‘beg the question’ (petitio principii) that the logos here, is a personal name, and a reference to a pre-human, pre-existent being. However, just as ‘Wisdom’ in Proverbs 8 is not an actual feminine person, but a poetic personification of God’s attribute of wisdom, so the logos in John 1:1 is probably likewise, a personification of God’s Reason, God’s Creative Word, and God’s Purpose. It is probably only In John 1:14 that the logos becomes a person. As regards Revelation 19:13 – it is part of an apocalyptic vision, and the title ‘Word of God’ is meant to symbolize the understanding that Jesus embodies God’s Word/Message/Purpose, and is God’s Representative on earth. You are indeed, fully allowed to hold your own opinions on John 1:1 (et al), Tim, but please bear in mind that they are not formulated via exegetical necessities, and other legitimate, exegetical options are open.
(2). All references to ‘mediator’ (Gk. mesites) in the Bible are to the man, Christ Jesus. (The Gk. ‘mesites’ occurs only once in the LXX, at Job 9:33.) ‘Angels’ and any pre-human messengers therefore, are not biblically referred to as covenant ‘mediators’. The messenger of Mal. 3:1a ( = ‘Elijah’ in Mal. 4:5) is a reference to John the Baptist (Matt. 11:10 -14). The ‘messenger of the covenant’ in Mal. 3:1b is a reference to Jesus, as the human Messiah.
The messenger/angel of Rev. 1:1-3 refers to Christ’s angel (cf. Rev. 22:16) who proclaimed the message from Jesus, and about Jesus, to John (see the footnotes in the ‘NET Bible’ for a very useful discussion of the Greek).
(3). You suggest, Tim, that the Bible can be totally understood with just the aid of the holy Spirit. But can not the holy Spirit be operative in continuing biblical studies concerning the background to the New Testament ? For example, this is what the ‘NIV Study Bible’ says regarding Heb. 7:3 (cf. Gen. 14:18-20) :
” Contrary to the practice elsewhere in the early chapters of Genesis, [Gen. 14:18-20] does not mention Melchizedek’s parentage and children, or his birth and death. That he was a real historical figure is clear, but the author of Hebrews (in accordance with Jewish interpretation) uses the silence of Scripture about Melchizedek’s genealogy to portray him as a prefiguration of Christ. Melchizedek’s priesthood anticipates Christ’s [now] eternal existence and his unending priesthood. Some believe that the appearance of Melchizedek to Abraham was a manifestation of Christ before his incarnation, but the comparison ‘like the Son of God’ argues against such an interpretation.”
(4). Charles Wesley’s hymn ‘And Can it Be That I Should Gain’ presupposes a pre-existence Christology behind the words of Phil. 2:5-11. That Phil. 2:5-8 employs an Adam-Christ parallel is widely accepted, but it is a matter of professional, scholastic debate as whether Jesus is really being portray here, as a pre-existent being.
Some auxiliary arguments against reading a pre-existence understanding into Phil. 2:5-8 would also include :
(i) The apostolic preaching accounts recorded in the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ contain no reference to Jesus as a pre-existent being, who once resided in heaven.
(ii) If Paul had believed in Jesus as a pre-existent being (as ‘God’, or ‘the angel of the Lord’ ) then the situation mentioned in Acts 14:11ff would have provided an ideal opportunity for Paul to declare this. Acts 14:11 reads :
” the God’s (or ‘gods’) have come down to us in human form “.
If Paul believed that Jesus was a pre-existent person who came down from heaven, then why didn’t Paul mention such a crucial doctrine to the Lycaonians, and at this perfect time ?
Best wishes to you, Tim, and God bless you.
Genesis 2:4 says “Yhwh- Elohiem” (Singular-Plural). What does this contradictory phrase mean if God is not Triune? I think Matthew 28:19 is Jesus ELABORATING on exactly what is the essence of God. It should not be rocket science. Isaiah 9:6 Jesus is the Mighty God and not King Hezekiah. Isaiah 10:20-21 Yhwh is the Mighty God. Amen? Amen!
Gracious interview, Sean. Dr. Brown : @26:09 “In my view, I do not understand how He (Christ Jesus) could fulfill the roles that Scripture gives Him, if in fact, He was JUST a ‘glorified man’.” This is very telling. It really all boils down to unbelief of His humanity, He verified in John 8:40. When attempting to exegete statements in the NT, we also hear Dr Brown parroting the emotional Trinitarian mantra and assumption “[This statement about Christ]… This cannot be said about a human being”. I am glad that Dr Tuggy responded to this specious claim in particular. But God DID choose the man, born, Jesus Christ, the Son Of God, to be our Mediator, King, Lord, Savior, and High Priest, who was foreordained BEFORE there was yet any creation. Was “God” foreordained? If Jesus was God from eternity, what exactly is the meaning of being ‘set apart’ or ‘anointed’ by God? I believe that our God passionately wants us to know who He is, and who Jesus Christ is, and Trinitarians seem to think that it’s just God’s way of camouflaging the texts mysteriously, so we have to make inferences, that go against clear personal pronouns and verbs, and set them as holy doctrine. Like Jesus said to Nicodemus….if we can’t understand earthly things {I, you, me, One, Two, Three, Father, Son, birth, firstborn from a virgin, death, life, law, road, way, path, door, anointed, savior, word, confession, truth, lie, set apart, unique, only one, dark, light, priests, prophets, kings, etc.} (clearly)…how can we understand the heavenly (as clear as possible, this side of glory)?
James,
You stated: “But God DID choose the man, born, Jesus Christ, the Son Of God, to be our Mediator, King, Lord, Savior, and High Priest, who was foreordained BEFORE there was yet any creation. Was “God” foreordained?”
I assume you are referring to 1 Pet. 1:20. But the verb “proginosko” does not mean “foreordained” as it is translated in some versions. “Pro-ginosko” means to know previously (not to determine previously). Other translations correctly have “foreknown.” Yet even this term is misunderstood due largely to Calvinistic bias. It is the same verb used by Paul in Acts 26:5 when he said of the Pharisees: “They knew me from the first,…” Here it clearly means they knew him in time past (before now), before He became a Christian. The Pharisees did not have “foreknowledge” of Paul before he existed, nor did they “foreordain” him in any sense.
Every time this word appears in the NT in reference to a person(s) it refers to knowing someone in the past, such as in Rom. 8:30 where it refers to those whom God formerly KNEW and called such as Abraham. In other words, the “fore” aspect of this term means before NOW, not before they existed in reality. 1 Pet. 1:20 should be translated: “20 having been known formerly, indeed even before the casting down of the world, yet made apparent in the last times for you.” (LGV https://4windsfellowships.net/LGV/LGV_1Peter.pdf).
Note that “made apparent” implies a previous concealment not a non-existence. Also, the clause “foundation of the world” is better translated “casting down of the world” (referring to the curse). The one who knew the Son of God “even before the casting down of the world” was Adam. He knew Him in reality and walked and talked with Him in the Garden of Eden. https://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/God/Foreknowledge.pdf This one has been “concealed” and hidden in mystery in Old Testament times, but has been revealed openly as Jesus Christ.
Tim –
Do you have any lexiconic, or even patristical evidence that ” katabolos” in 1 Peter 1:20 implies a possible reference to the consequences of Adamic sin ?
John,
I have a series of 4 articles that examines this point in detail. The link at the bottom of each article will take you to the next one.
https://www.4windsfellowships.net/blog/the-casting-down-of-the-world-pt-1/
Thanks, Tim.
Will do (Deo volente).
Tim – Do you have any lexiconic or patristical evidence that “KATABOLES” in 1Peter 1:20 can imply any possible reference to the consequences of Adamic sin?
Thank you Sean (and Dr. Brown) for recording this reflection on the debate. One of the benefits of an after action review like this, is to humanize the interlocutors, which helps us to act in love. Dr. Brown seems sincere, and courageous in sharing the gospel as he sees it.
As a reaction to the content of Dr. Brown’s clarification regarding his view of the Trinity, the starkness of his honest willingness to accept abnormal usage of language (single personal pronouns for more than one person) highlights his commitment to adhere to his reading of the texts, regardless if that reading makes them inscrutable, or mysterious. He may not be aware, but there are other Trinitarians who will not accept such explanations, and are actively working on theories and readings that avoid such difficulties.
This, in my view. is why Dr. Tuggy’s work on cataloguing and analyzing Trinity theories is so important. It makes clear the options, and that many of the options are contradictory. I think this internal striving for clarity among trinitarian thinkers should give us all pause about our prima face readings of critical passages. It (along with church history regarding the doctrine) is what led me to reopening the scriptures to consider, and eventually hold to, biblical unitarianism.
I hope he can reply to my videos:
https://youtu.be/e-rKAdtzLGI
Sean, thanks for ONCE AGAIN exposing the sheer contradiction between most trinis and their “doctrine,” i.e., the use of SINGULAR personal pronouns to describe a PLURALITY!
The “HIS” in the phrase “They will see HIS face, and HIS name will be on their foreheads” [Rev 22.4] Jesus identifies as his God in Rev 3.12!
“The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God…
I will write on him the name of My God…
the name of the city of My God…
the new Jerusalem, which comes down from My God out of heaven…”
Mr. Brown consistently cites context. Context and objectivity with respect to the Scriptures do not lead me to believe in the trinity. Herein lies the difficulty. It’s the difference between eisegesis and exegesis.
I thought he was surprisingly very kind and gracious.
Thank so much for supporting reformation in the church Sean!
I heard the whole thing. And he seems to pick and choose and define language. Which is unfair. He fails to acknowledge that the Singular personal pronouns to any English teacher means a single individual. And never to a group of individuals. He has yet to go to Matthew, Mark, And Luke as much as he and trinitarians love to got to John’s Account of the Gospel. Apparantly, he does believe that the word “Only” in John 17:3, means nothing else except for what is being discussed. Then he accuses us of having 2 Gods because we Unitarians point out that a son of David was called God. And now Jesus, who is the son of David, of the tribe of Judah, now enjoys the same title. And only so as the NIV translator footnote says, “Here, the King id addressed as God’s REPRESENTATIVE. He says that the Father is God. Okay, that’s 1. Then he says the son is God. Okay, that is 2. Oh wait, that is 1 according to him. luckily trinitarians don’t think like this in school. They would fail English and Math. We say that Jesus is not God, but the son of God. And we say that the Father is the only true God. And yet, Dr. Michael Brown in all his wisdom says “You believe in 2 Gods”.
One of Brown’s fundamental problems, is that he conflated scripture with his interpretation of scripture, and further, that he like many cultists are not open to the most fundamental counter-evidence of contradictions or logically necessary falsehoods. Indeed, he treats them as evidence *for* his position appealing to God’s transcendence, and our limited knowledge at one moment, while arbitrarily advocating for logic when he self-congratulatorily states Tuggy’s position is self-refuting.
I think we need to exegete the word “clear.”
If an entire group of people doesn’t interpret something the way you do, then it’s not really “clear,” is it?
Greetings all of you. Basically I’m a Restorationist or a Biblical Unitarian looking to the words of the Scriptures through Judaic eyes to establish a true creed that mirrors that of Jesus’ (made known in Mark 12 that Yahweh is one i.e. single, individual; him and the scribe, a Jewish Unitarian, come to agreement). This was a very long debate for sure!
Glory be to Yahweh, the Father and God of Jesus Christ! Praise be to Jesus Christ for having made Him known!
Is the Father in the Bible God alone? Is He an individual, or part of a compound-unity?
I view this as important because God’s plan for restoring this world and for salvation is so important that it is personified as being with God as God’s “word” (Greek word “logos”) in John 1:1 at the beginning of the New Creation as the lady Wisdom is in Proverbs in the Former Creation. Because God’s word is by definition God’s expression, I believe the most accurate term is “revelation” because by definition it is God’s disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.
“In the beginning was the revelation, and the revelation was with God, and the revelation was God. It was in the beginning with God…and the revelation became flesh…No one had ever seen God; the unique Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known” (John 1:1-2, 14, 18). It could even be possible to believe that God’s “word” is actually being used to substitute “love.” He is certainly love and deserves all of ours.
Here is my case:
* In Biblical terminology, to borrow from Professor Dale Tuggy, a person who is subject to God can be referred to and/or addressed as a ‘god.’ No more than eight times in the whole New Testament is the term ‘god’ used towards the Son, including Hebrews quoting Psalm 45. A human can be referred to with the title “god” and Jesus makes that point in Psalm 82 about God calling human judges gods via John 10:34! His point was Son of God was a term equivalently of being a god i.e. God’s representative, a messianic term that he would inherit the world (Psalm 2:7-8). [People in the time and culture of the Bible knew that children often carried the authority of the family – John 5:18]
* A requirement to be saved one must confess Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:9). “Lord” in Greek is translated ‘kurios’ for both God and others in the New Testament. In the Old Testament it says in Psalm 110:1 distinguishing between the Lord Messiah and the Lord God “The Lord (‘Adonai’) said to my Lord (‘Adoni’) sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” ‘Adonai’ in Hebrew is strictly used for the authority of God (approximately 450 times) whereas ‘Adoni’ is a term used 145 times towards a superior who is not God.
* To be born again we must accept Jesus as the Christ (1 John 5:1), meaning God’s appointed king to be lord over our lives. Christ literally means the anointed one. It says God anointed Jesus with holy spirit and power (Acts 10:38). God’s personal anointing is the delegation of authority to Jesus as God’s chosen human king, not such that he himself reduced himself to the faculties and being of a human. Jesus was given power to do miracles because he was one with God. Jesus did not do the miracles on his own but he had the authority from God for God to work through him (Acts 2:22). As it is written, “God has made him – this Jesus whom you crucified – both Lord and Christ” (Acts2:31-42).
* Many wonder if Jesus was glorified how could he not be God? 1 Corinthians says 10:31 says “do everything to the glory of God.” I argue glory comes from God himself. After all, “…the glory of the heavenly is one kind, and the glory of the earthly is another (1 Corinthians 15:40b).” Glory comes from God which is why God can glorify Jesus following his resurrection and God can give us glorified bodies after our sleep in the ground when Jesus comes back and we will be part of the new creation. Jesus even says in response to the first time he is persecuted in the book of John “I do not accept glory from people…How are you able to believe, you who are accepting glory from one another and are not seeking the glory that comes from the one and only God” (John 5:41-44). He would most definitely have proven he is not God because he rejected glory from man! His point though is that he doesn’t seek glory from man but from Yahweh, an example we should all follow! Most importantly though, he says “I do not seek my own glory; there is one who seeks and judges,” and continues “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me” (John 8:50,54). Jesus is the first born from many brothers (Romans 8:29), so most certainly if God made us in glory, we will have glory in the new creation. I believe we are created in glory to connect with Yahweh on a deeper level.
* The anointed one as defined in Psalm 2 was about the Messiah (Acts 4:25-26, 13:33; Hebrews 1:5, 5:5). Not only that, in verse 7, it says of Yahweh saying to Jesus Christ “You are my son, today I have become your father.” With plain eloquence, it is easy to see that It says “today” the Messiah is begotten of Yahweh, which means he is not eternal like Yahweh is. This is in direct contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine that the Messiah is “eternally begotten.” Matthew 1:1 says “A scroll of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.“ The Greek word translated into genealogy is “genesis,” which means origin, creation, generation, meaning, that Jesus had an origin on that day!
Lastly Revelation 3:9 uses the term for worship “proskyneo” towards the Congregation at Philadelphia, that is also used in Matthew 2:11; 14:33; and 28:9 towards Jesus. Worship is even used towards both towards King David and Yahweh in 1 Chronicles 29:20.
If you any of you disagree with anything in here feel free to comment!
Got to listen to this today. In short I agree that Brown seemingly “won” the debate topic by trying to prove that there are others called “G/god” than the Father alone, yet at the same time is clearly equivocating when he claims he worships one God…. while at the same time trying to falsely accuse others who admit to clearly defining their terms like Dale did as believing in 2 Gods.
I personally interacted with Brown online the other day and he took offense that I pointed out while he quoted Justin Martyr, it’s clear Justin believed that there is one Maker and another god(Jesus) whom is subject to that Maker(Chapter LVI(56) in ‘Dialogue with Trypho’). He responded with 2 online articles/PDFs which both ignored the text from the ‘Dialogue’ by trying to quote other phrases from Justin to attempt to anachronistically prove Trinitarian views. I claimed Justin Martyr was being honest with his words, while Brown was seemingly fallacious. I have no problem calling out his fallacious wording and equivocation of the term God. It isn’t meant to be an insult, it’s meant to be corrective in forcing definitions for clarity.
It was good to hear yet, sad to hear at the same time that I was correct with regards to Brown’s view on Tuggy’s arguments. Dale was being a bit too philosophical and not sticking to Scripture enough to argue his points. Brown had no clue what “one-self” Trinitarianism meant and it’s very likely the rest of the audience didn’t either. Tuggy would have been better off breaking it down further asking “Is Jesus a “He”?”(biblical reference if answered “no”), then “Is the Father a “He”?”(biblical reference if answered “no”), then “Is the one God a “He”?”(biblical reference is answered “no”). Then pointing out the problem of saying 2/3 He’s = 1 He. That’s clearly equivocation or contradiction. This is why no matter what Brown says, he sounds like a modalist. Trinitarians would attempt to avoid this trap by claiming the “Being” isn’t a “He.” Brown seems to believe as long as he further explains without dealing with *that* contradiction/equivocation it’s okay. Because yes, as Carlos pointed out in the Q&A and I have a video detailing—Brown wrote that God(“Father” contextually) is “complex in His unity”–that’s oneness. Trinitarians would say the “Being” is complex in unity.
Here is Brown’s own words from his book with my added [brackets]. If he wants to reply and clarify his meaning further by explaining how he’s okay with changing the meaning of “God” midway through this paragraph, he’s more than welcome. This below sound VERY modalistic even as others on the video affirmed it sounded while defending Brown.
“This is one of the central reasons why God[Father] sent his[Father] Son into the world, that through Jesus the Messiah people in every nation and land would forsake their idols and dead religious traditions and turn to the living and true God[Father]. The New Testament is most definitely monotheistic, and it further clarifies the monotheism of the Hebrew Bible. The only true God[Father, see page 11] is one, and yet his[Father] oneness is complex and unique, beyond human understanding.” – pg. 12, “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections” Michael Brown, Brackets my own addition.
The next lines in his book don’t seem to do justification to explain away the equivocation here yet I believe he’ll try like he did in the debate and interview. This is why I questioned Brown online if he believes it’s okay to claim he’s using “biblical language” even if his views lead to logical fallacies.
As for the debate as a whole, I think it was too short of format to deal with many of these verses Brown brought up in good detail. Tuggy mainly brought up many candid points that are factually agreed upon between many scholars that exist between both Trinitarians and Unitarians, but that candidness was more or less taken advantage of by Brown without Dale explaining well the accusations against his position. Brown also stuck more to the debate question than I believe Dale did. This is just my one listen judgment though–I’ve not taken the time to lay out point by point whether it furthered the debate positive/negative affirmation. Probably won’t just to be honest.. it takes time.
Great interview overall though. Thanks for doing that and thanks to Dr. Brown for taking part in the debate and interview.
Thanks, Sean.
That was a great question about Jews’ sensitivity to the name of God. It’s a shame that Dr Brown didn’t answer it at all, as that could have led to an interesting discussion.
In all honesty, I thought you let Dr Brown get away with quite a lot, and it would have been nice to hear you challenge him a bit more; though I appreciate that having got him to accept to come on a Unitarian podcast, you couldn’t be too hard on him, and you did very well, tactfully and subtly trying to get him to defend his position, notably with regard to singular personal pronouns. I still don’t know if Dr Brown thinks that God is singular or plural. Both, I suppose; unlike pronouns which have to be one or the other.
The Trinitarians repeat mantra-like that God is one being in three persons (though I’m not sure if Dr Brown ever said “three persons.” I think he said “one being: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”) And by doing so, they have blinded themselves to the fact that what they are saying makes no sense at all.
Apart from being totally wrong about everything, Dr Brown has got quite a cheek saying that Dale Tuggy, and other Unitarians believe in two gods. That really is something! Like the prophets, Messiah and apostles, we believe in the one singular God of the Bible, whereas he and his fellow Trinitarians are presenting us with a triune God. He is also quite offensive, calling Unitarians a cult. By Dr Brown’s view, Jesus and the apostles were cult members, as were the OT prophets.
But I’m thankful to Dr Brown for those insights into Jewish attitudes towards Jesus. That was interesting.
Revelation 22 says the Throne of God and of the Lamb. He must assume God is meaning the Father here which is the problem with their view. God never means a triune being. The scripture not only makes a distinction between Father and Son but it makes a distinction between God and Jesus.
Sean,
Indeed, this outcome is why we really need to be exegetically-focused, since the only way we’ll make real headway is alleviating peoples’ doubts or destroying their strongholds regarding certain passages and ideas associated with them.
Thanks for the work you do!
Okay so I have a question for anyone who wants to answer that knows. Does Dr. Michael Brown’s argument falls apart that the body of the son died but the spirit never did in 1 Peter 3:18? It says “For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but MADE ALIVE in the spirit.”
The word translated “spirit” is “pneuma” in Greek. This is the literal word “breath”. In English we have 2 words for “pneuma”, which are “breath” and “spirit”. But if we were speaking Greek we would only have 1 word: “breath”. Translators decide which English word they prefer, often based on their assumptions, which are based on their theology (not that this is necessarily wrong – we all have to make a choice based on something).
Whenever you read the word “spirit” you should also back up and read it as “breath”. This will give you a fuller scope of the original meaning. In this case, if you read it as “breath” you can see that this involves the resurrection of Jesus.
In 1 Peter 3:18 it is God, the Father of Jesus who gives Jesus new breath, thereby making Jesus to be MADE alive.
I believe Dr. Brown is mistaken regarding Luke 23:46. “And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last.”
Again, the word for “spirit” here is “pneuma” in Greek, literally “breath”. Struggling on the cross, death is normally by slow asphyxiation. Every breath is a desperate gasp for life, especially as the body is losing strength. At last He can breathe no longer and has to give up trying. He gives His last breath to God, the one who granted it. The verse probably has nothing to do with a ghost/spirit leaving his body.
Mark 15:37 records it this way, “Now Jesus, letting out a loud sound, expires.” (Concordant Literal Version).
“if you read it as “breath” you can see that this involves the resurrection of Jesus…The Father of Jesus gives him new breath, thereby making Jesus to be MADE alive.”
This makes sense since man by definition was made a living soul with body and breath together by God. And you’re right Mark 15:37 gives context.
Thank you so much for the clarification, this means a lot to me!
Hi Kevin,
Try going back to the Hebrew for spirit, e.g. NESHAMA, and NEFESH. One is ours, the other goes back to G-d when we die. Translated, it also leads to inhaling (Linshom in Hebrew), and Neshef (exhale in Hebrew) ..as in breathing, hence the link to the Greek for “pneuma”. Another archaeological fact, the god statues in the old days (early Chalcolithic in the Levant) were always depicted with large noses..spirits.
Have a great day.
Regards,
Adam
Sadly, post Enlightenment materialism will be read back onto the scriptures because we sit in a position of knowing what air is and what respiration is. For the ancients, the cosmos was much more spiritual than material. Pneuma wasn’t sometimes breath, sometimes, air, and sometimes spirit. It was all three at the same time. The beauty of this concept for the ancients can never be appreciated by us moderns.
Also, I find it borderline absurd that anyone should care what God does with their breath when they die. When Stephen was about to die in Acts 7:59, he cries, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Try putting breath for spirit in that verse and try to make it a coherent idea. I think it is clear he was asking Jesus to receive his very immaterial self.
I could be wrong and I am trying to give Dr. Brown the benefit of the doubt, but as I listened to him speak,he seemed to be more intent on preaching then debating.It sounded as if his purpose was not respond to Dr. Tuggy’s points ,but to save his soul. I also think that “machine gunning texts” was a very appropriate reply.
,
Would really like to see Bill schlegel debate with Michael Brown, even if its over the phone/internet. Any way to make this happen?