6 thoughts on “Episode 111: Jesus, Sweet Saviour Divine”

1. Pingback: Chris Tilling Interviewed on Theopologetics | Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

2. Enjoyed it immensely!

3. I also listened to the interview on Chris Date’s Theopologetics podcast. Though I appreciate Dr. Tilling’s research efforts, and the obvious reverence he holds in his heart for Jesus, I found the arguments for Jesus being “homousious” with the Father to be extremely weak. I always find it remarkable when, for example, Trinitarian apologists discuss texts like 1 Cor. 8:6 yet simply fail to recognize the most outstanding point in the debate, namely, that, in this text, the Lord Jesus Christ is plainly and transparently portrayed as someone other than the “one God,” who, for Paul, was “the Father.” It makes no difference if Paul was alluding to the shema or not, because nothing changes the fact that Paul is presenting (as Scripture does so consistently elsewhere) Jesus as a distinct figure from the one God (i.e., the God of the shema) as the “one Lord” whom we know, biblically speaking, has been exalted to God’s right hand and who has received his Lordship (i.e., authority/exalted status) from the “one God.”

   In a debate/discussion like this, the use of this “fully divine” language comes across as rather foggy/slippery/ambiguous to me. I don’t find it very useful because I myself (a Christian who does not subscribe to the Trinitarian creed) have no problem with Jesus being described as “fully divine.” He is fully divine. He is fully “God’s Son,” fully “immortal,” “fully” filled with the Spirit of God, “fully” sitting at the right hand of God in heaven, and “fully” possessing all authority in heaven and on earth. Even the more nuanced/subtle/sophisticated “divine identity” language that has become widely used among more scholarly Trinitarians. I can agree that Jesus is included in the “divine identity” in so far as God has given him his own name (John 17:11) and in so far as Jesus is God’s perfect image/representation (Col. 1:15), so much that to “see him” is to “see the Father”—yet Jesus is not in the “divine identity,” strictly speaking, if by that we mean to say he actually is “the one God, the Father.” Even Trinitarians, of course, recognize that Jesus is not God the Father. In this sense I assume they would have to agree that the Father has his own distinct “identity,” i.e, the “Father” is one person; the “Son” is another. In other words, Jesus and the Father do not have the same divine “identity” if by that we mean “same person,” even in Trinitarianism. But Jesus is not placed in the category (divine identity) of the “one God/only true God” in the Scriptures, but is clearly and consistently portrayed as a figure distinct from the “one God/only true God” (1 Cor. 8:6; Jn. 17:3). However, in the Scriptures, Jesus is most certainly placed into the category of the unique Son of his Father whom the Father loves and whom the Father has glorified exceedingly.

   Either way, the main problem I have with Trinitarian theology is that, at the end of the day, it seeks to impose a very precise and very particular definition of what God is (and the ‘Father-Son’ relationship) that goes beyond what the Scriptures themselves actually say. Why is so much emphasis placed on the notion that Jesus is ontologically “same being” as the Father? The Scriptures themselves don’t say nothing about it, so why should we? On the one occasion I’m aware of where a biblical writer said something about God’s “being” and Jesus’ relationship to it, it is said that Jesus is a “perfect representation/copy” (charakter) of God’s being, so why not place emphasis on that language and why not let stand unaltered as the true Christian “creed”? From a Christian perspective, it is not necessary to erect or formulate a creed that the biblical writers didn’t. Their creedal statements are clear and sufficient and none of them are Trinitarian. Therefore, neither do our creeds have to be (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29-34; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jn. 17:3, Heb. 1:3; etc.).

   Jesus the Messiah is fittingly honored/worshiped/glorified in Scripture because he is fully deserving of it as the beloved Son of God who was faithful/obedient to God, even to the point of a humiliating and agonizing death. Paul explicitly says so….i.e., “it was for this reason that God has so highly exalted him…” That is, for Paul, Jesus is a figure who has been greatly exalted by God for what he is done. Notice that Paul does not merely say that God “exalted” Jesus but that God has “highly exalted” (ὑπερύψωσεν) him. The phrase might also be rendered as something like “exalted him exceedingly” or “super-exalted him” or the like. Doesn’t that explain it all?

   According to Scripture Jesus is so exalted that he sits at the very right hand of God in heaven and exercises dominion over everything because God has gladly, fittingly and graciously bestowed it upon him. The author of Hebrews makes the same basic point, namely, that Jesus has been “crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death…” (Heb. 2:9) In other words, the Scriptures themselves precisely spell out who Jesus is and why exactly he should receive the honor/praise/glory/worship that he rightfully deserves as God’s faithful Son, as God’s Messiah, and as our blessed Lord and Savior. Post-biblical, Trinitarian language and theology is not needed to explain any of this.

   Best wishes to all…

4. Sorry. There were a few flaws in my post. Here is the revised version:

   I also listened to the interview on Chris Date’s Theopologetics podcast. Though I appreciate Dr. Tilling’s research efforts, and the obvious reverence he holds in his heart for Jesus, I found the arguments for Jesus being “homousious” with the Father to be extremely weak. I always find it remarkable when, for example, Trinitarian apologists discuss texts like 1 Cor. 8:6 yet fail to recognize, or to fully appreciate, the most outstanding point in the debate, namely, that, in this text, the Lord Jesus Christ is plainly and transparently portrayed as someone other than the “one God,” who, for Paul, was “the Father.” It makes no difference if Paul was alluding to the shema or not, because nothing changes the fact that Paul is presenting (as Scripture does so consistently elsewhere) Jesus as a distinct figure from the “one God” (i.e., the God of the shema) and as the “one Lord” whom we know, biblically speaking, has been exalted to God’s right hand and who has received his Lordship (i.e., authority/exalted status) from the “one God.”

   In a debate/discussion like this, the use of this “fully divine” language comes across as rather foggy/slippery/ambiguous to me. I don’t find it very useful because I myself (a Christian who does not subscribe to the Trinitarian creed) have no problem with Jesus being described as “fully divine.” He is fully divine. He is fully “God’s Son,” fully “immortal,” “fully” filled with the Spirit of God, “fully” sitting at the right hand of God in heaven, and “fully” possessing all authority in heaven and on earth. Even the more nuanced/subtle/sophisticated “divine identity” language that has become widely used among more scholarly Trinitarians. I can agree that Jesus is included in the “divine identity” in so far as God has given him his own name (John 17:11) and in so far as Jesus is God’s perfect image/representation (Col. 1:15), so much that to “see him” is to “see the Father”—yet Jesus is not in the “divine identity,” strictly speaking, if by that we mean to say he actually is “the one God, the Father.” Even Trinitarians, of course, recognize that Jesus is not God the Father. In this sense I assume they would have to agree that the Father has his own distinct “identity,” i.e, the “Father” is one person; the “Son” is another. In other words, Jesus and the Father do not have the same divine “identity” if by that we mean to say that they are the “same person,” even in Trinitarianism. But Jesus is not placed within the category of the “one God/only true God” (i.e., ‘divine identity’ in a strict sense) in the Scriptures, but is clearly and consistently portrayed as a figure distinct from the “one God/only true God” (1 Cor. 8:6; Jn. 17:3). However, in the Scriptures, Jesus is most certainly placed into the category of the unique Son of his Father whom the Father loves and whom the Father has glorified exceedingly.

   Either way, the main problem I have with Trinitarian theology is that, at the end of the day, it seeks to impose a very precise and very particular definition of what God is (and the ‘Father-Son’ relationship) that goes beyond what the Scriptures themselves actually say. Why is so much emphasis placed on the notion that Jesus is ontologically the “same being” as the Father? The Scriptures themselves don’t say anything about it, so why should we? On the one occasion I’m aware of where a biblical writer said something about God’s “being” and Jesus’ relationship to it, it is said that Jesus is a “perfect representation/copy” (charakter) of God’s being, so why not place emphasis on that language and why not let that stand unaltered as the true Christian “creed”? From a Christian perspective, it is not necessary to erect or formulate a creed that the biblical writers didn’t. Their creedal statements are clear and sufficient and none of them are Trinitarian. Therefore, neither do our creeds have to be (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29-34; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jn. 17:3, Heb. 1:3; etc.).

   Jesus the Messiah is fittingly honored/worshiped/glorified in Scripture because he is fully deserving of it as the beloved Son of God who was faithful/obedient to God, even to the point of a humiliating and agonizing death. Paul explicitly says so….i.e., “it was for this reason that God has so highly exalted him…” That is, for Paul, Jesus is a figure who has been greatly exalted by God for what he is done, and all of creation should honor and submit to him as such. Notice that Paul does not merely say that God “exalted” Jesus but that God has “highly exalted” (ὑπερύψωσεν) him. The phrase might also be rendered as something like “exalted him exceedingly” or “super-exalted him” or the like. Doesn’t that explain it all?

   According to Scripture Jesus is so exalted that he sits at the very right hand of God in heaven and exercises dominion over everything because God has gladly, fittingly and graciously bestowed it upon him. The author of Hebrews makes the same basic point, namely, that Jesus has been “crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death…” (Heb. 2:9) In other words, the Scriptures themselves precisely spell out who Jesus is and why exactly he should receive the honor/praise/glory/worship that he rightfully deserves as God’s faithful Son, as God’s Messiah, and as our blessed Lord and Savior. Post-biblical, Trinitarian language and theology is not needed to explain any of this.

   Best wishes to all…

5. Pingback: Episode 113: You Are God Alone (Not A God) | Theopologetics

6. Trinity doctrine must say he is a third I am. Or we are! Either way nothing they say makes sense. He must be god jr. animating a flesh suit that is the logical conclusion of trinity doctrine.. They have some mix hybrid spirit that they cannot explain. To the guy above who says he was a “modalist” That is a guarantee you do not know what you are talking about.