This is the final exchange with Daley about the Trinity.  Generally speaking though I have noticed that in all of my conversations with non-Trinitarians (and I’ve had hundreds if not thousands), the subject usually isn’t about the Trinity, but instead is about the deity of Christ or the Son’s relationship to the Father.  I can understand this as these were the first major concerns of the debates that shaped orthodoxy.   

 

Daley said: 

If the word god/God can have different meanings, it is also possible that 1) there is only one God when God means the Supreme Being; but there are other gods when it has a different meaning. 2) That the word God can have a diffent meaning when applied to Jesus than when it is applied to the Father, depending on the context of course. So calling Jesus another god would not compromise monotheism if the word God has a different meaning when applied to him. 

You say that at Ex 7:1 Moses is standing in the place of God. That is an interpretation, but not what the verse actually says. Jehovah says “I will make you a god to Pharoah,” not “I will make you like me/represent me before Pharoah.” If God tells someone they will be a god, then they will be a god. Obviously him being a god TO Pharoah did not imply the same relationship of the Father being a God to us; so too, Jesus can be a god/God to us, and not have the same meaning as the Father being God to us. As you rightly said, the word has no one single meaning.  

Various Heb and Gr words for God have been defined as meaning “mighty, strong, great, the plural of majesty and excellence, the Supreme Being, judges” etc. So there can be other legitimate gods who are not false, ie Moses, when the word carries some meanings, and not compromise monotheism. In this way, Jesus can be called God and not be the same as the Almighty God. 

The reason I asked you what “my God” means is because I believe the expression carries the idea of a relationship that exists between the one using it, and the one addressed. Whatever Thomas meant, he surely recognized Jesus as being in a class far above him, totally exalted above him. The fact that Jesus calls the Father “my God,” not only as a man on earth, but also in his heavenly glory Rev 3:12; John 20:17, tells me that Jesus has a God far above hi, who is in a class totally above him and separate from him. There just seems no way that an equal could refer to another equal as “my God,” which implies, in my opinion you are free to disagree with, full subordination. Even in his exalted position in heaven, haven been given all authority in heaven, Jesus is still in an inferior position to his God and Father. 1 COR 15:24-28. This one would not expect if he was fully on the same exact level as God the Father. 

I also don’t see how a false god could be a son of God, considering what it means to be a son of the Most High. Ps 82:6. Nor would Jesus quote a passage about false gods to prove that he could justifiably call himself God’s son. 

Anyway, I recognize you are a very busy person, so I won’t burden you with anymore emails. You’ve probably had this conversation a zillion times. All the best for 2008. Unless you invite me to respond to your next reply, I’d let you have the last word. Thanx. 

 I responded: 

Daley,  Thanks for your response. 

As a Trinitarian monotheist I certainly believe that there is only one God when God means the “Supreme Being” — of course I would argue that this Supreme Being is a Trinity of Persons.  The word God can certainly have a different meaning when applied to Jesus than when applied to the Father, the question is does it?  And I quite agree that calling Jesus “God” doesn’t compromise monotheism, but I would disagree in why this is so.  Obviously I don’t believe that Jesus is “another” God, separate from the Father.  I believe that they are one and the same, which is why monotheism isn’t violated. 

What Exodus 7:1 actually says is completely consistent with my interpretation.  Moses represented Yahweh and Aaron spoke on Moses’ behalf.  To say that “if God tells someone that they will be a god then they will be a god” is to say what?  In what sense was Moses a god?  Was some sort of divinity imparted to him?  Does the text hint at any such idea?  The difference between comparing Moses and Jesus to the Father is that in the NT the same devotional practices previously reserved for Yahweh alone were all of a sudden accorded to Jesus.  Larry Hurtado has done some wonderful work in this area and I would highly recommend his Lord Jesus: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003) for a very detailed treatment on this subject. 

Concerning subordination, I do believe that the Son and Spirit are functionally subordinate to the Father.  I don’t believe that this has any damaging ramifications for the sharing of the “divine identity” or that it in any way shows an ontological inferiority.  I also, contrary to many Trinitarians, believe that this functional subordination is eternal.  What I mean is that before the incarnation of the Son, during the incarnation while the Son was in his humiliated state, and after the resurrection and glorification of the Son, that he was functionally subordinate to the Father.  I have no problems in recognizing a taxis (i.e., order, not rank) in the Trinity.  I see this as the foundation of the functional subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father. 

I think that Jesus’ reference to the 82nd Psalm in John 10 was to expose the hypocrisy of the Jews he was addressing, rather than to justify calling himself God.  First I would point out that the context in which he says that he is one with the Father is in bringing about the salvation of God’s sheep.  This was something that God alone could do which is what brought the charge of blasphemy from his audience.  They understood him to be appropriating a divine function for himself (and they were quite correct to note that).  Jesus has throughout John’s Gospel up until this point performed many works/miracles attesting to his right to make such claims yet they accuse him of blasphemy.  He then points to a Psalm in which wicked judges are called gods so as to basically say, “hey, you guys don’t have a problem when wicked men are called gods because the Scripture can’t be broken, but here I am actually performing the work of God and you want to stone me for blasphemy?”  He wasn’t saying that the wicked judges in the Psalm were actual gods or gods in any derivative sense.  Like Moses, the judges represented God (in judgment).  But the same Psalm makes it quite clear that these ‘gods’ still die like men. 

And I thank you for recognizing that I’m busy and yes, I’ve had similar conversations many times.  I can’t say that they’ve been quite as cordial as this one and for that I thank you.  Thank you for your warm wishes and I wish you well in 2008 also. 

Nick Norelli
http://rdtwot.wordpress.com

B”H

Your response: