The Mormon scriptures make clear that there is a "God of all other gods" (D&C 121:32). It is implicit in this scriptural assertion that, although there is more than one individual of the kind "God," there is only one who is preeminent and the God of all. Such language is similar to the New Testament language that the Father is "the God and Father of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 1:3), even though it calls Christ "God." The book of Abraham says that this God of all other gods "is more intelligent than they all" (3:19). In any event, it is clear that the "one God" of the Old Testament is identified with the God and Father of Jesus Christ in the New Testament (1 Cor. 8:6, 1 Tim. 2:5). The Father is "the God" (John 1:1, emphasis mine) and "the only true God" (John 17:3).Such expressions entail that the Father is in some sense unique and superlative. (Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books 2008], 257-58).
In 2003, James R. White debated Greg Stafford on whether Jesus was “God” (in a Trinitarian sense) or “a god” (within the Arian sense). The debate in full can be found here. The following is an excerpt of a portion of the debate where White’s Trinitarianism failed and failed badly, as he had to give answers that were, in reality, dodges, and failed any meaningful exegesis (this is not to endorse the Arian Christology endorsed by Stafford et al.):
Such texts (John 17:3; Phil 2:9-11) post significant problems for much of so-called “mainstream” or “Orthodox” formulations of Christology.
On John 17:3, as I explained in response to another Reformed Baptist who tried to use this verse against Latter-day Saint and in favour of Trinitarian Christology:
Already, Gilpin has used a text that refutes, not supports, his Christology Why? Firstly, one should note that in Trinitarian theology, there is an allowance (albeit, ambiguously) for a distinction between the “persons” of the Godhead (the Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father), as modalism would arise if no distinction was permitted between them; however, there is no allowance for a distinction between “God” or any of the divine titles (e.g., Yahweh; Adonai) and the persons, that is, the Father is “God” but so is the Son and Spirit. However, in many key “creedal” texts in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Tim 2:5 [discussed below]), there is a distinction, not just between the persons of the Father and the Son, but also between “God” and the Son, which is very non-Trinitarian. This is the case in John 17:3. The Greek reads:
αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.
"Now this is life of the age to come that they may know you the only one who is the true God and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ" (my translation).
The title, τον μονον αληθινον θεον (“the only one who is the true God”), is predicated upon a single person, not a “being” composed of three “persons” (however one wishes to define “person”), and such is predicated upon the singular person of the Father, with Jesus himself distinguishes himself in John 17:3 from “the only true God.” Absolutising this verse, this is a strictly Unitarian verse as only a singular person is within the category of being the “only true God.” However, in Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities. That this is the Christological model of “Biblical Christianity” can be seen in many places, such as Heb 1:8-9:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.
This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "Midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִים אֱלֹהֶיךָ(elohim eloheyka)].
In the same paper, on Phil 2:5-11, I wrote:
Phil 2:5-11 Considered
Gilpin uses an analogy from one of the Batman films(!), to "prove" that Jesus' glory in his pre-mortal existence is the same as he now possesses post-ascension.. He also takes umbrage with a comment from Joseph Fielding Smith:
Here is a quote from 10th Mormon President Joseph Fielding Smith showing something of the LDS view of the nature of Christ.
“CHRIST GAINED FULNESS AFTER RESURRECTION. The Saviior did not have a fulness at first, but after he received his body and the resurrection all power was given unto him both in heaven and in earth. Although he was a God, even the Son of God, with power and authority to create this earth and other earths, yet there were some things lacking which he did not receive until after his resurrection. In other words he had not received the fulness until he got a resurrected body, and the same is true with those who through faithfulness become sons of God. Our bodies are essential to the fulness and the continuation of the seeds forever” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:33).
The problem is not between biblical and Latter-day Saint Christologies; it is between Gilpin’s anti-biblical Christology and the authors of the New Testament. Let us do something Gilpin doesn’t do, and exegete the text; and afterwards, out of theological necessity, one will have to discuss, albeit briefly, the overwhelming logical and scriptural problems with the “hypostatic union.”
Phil 2:9 states that “God also hath highly exalted [Christ], and given him a name which is above every name.” Here, we read that the Father gave to Christ, at the moment of his exaltation of the Son, a name above every other name (Yahweh). This shows that the son did not possess this name until his exaltation, showing the ontological subordination of the Son to the Father; also, it speaks of Christ being “exalted,” which is nonsense in light of much of Trinitarian theologies that state that Jesus was not void of his deity, but instead decided to voluntary “shield” it to most people (in effect, ridding Phil 2:5-11 of the concept of kenosis, self-emptying, and instead, perverting the Christology of the text to speak of an endusasthai or a “clothing up”). Furthermore, we know that this name could not be “Jesus,” as He possessed this name prior to his exaltation.
This can also be seen in John 17:11-12:
And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled. (NRSV)
In the above pericope, using prolepsis (cf. v.22), Christ speaks of how the Father “gave” him the Father’s name (Yahweh); it was not something Christ intrinsically possessed until after his exaltation.
Even after his exaltation, the telos of all glory and honour Christ receives are that of the further glorification of the Father:
That at the name of Jesus ever knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-10; cf. 1 Cor 15:22-28)
One should also point out the term, sometimes translated as “exploited” in Phil 2:6 αρπαγμος. Again, this points to something that Jesus did not have, as its predominant meaning in Koine Greek literature means “to plunder” or “to steal.” Notice how Louw-Nida define the term in their work, Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed.:
ἁρπάζω ; ἁρπαγμός, οῦ m ; ἁρπαγή, ῆς f: to forcefully take something away from someone else, often with the implication of a sudden attack - 'to rob, to carry off, to plunder, to forcefully seize.' ἁρπάζω: πῶς δύναταί τις εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἁρπάσαι 'no one can break into a strong man's house and carry off his belongings' Mt 12.29 . . . ἁρπαγμός, οῦ m: that which is to be held on to forcibly - 'something to hold by force, something to be forcibly retained.'
Liddell-Scott, in their Greek Lexicon (abridged), offers a similar definition of this term:
ἁρπαγμός
ἁρπαγμός, ὁ, (ἁρπάζω) a seizing, booty, a prize, N.T.
Such a Christology, apart from being one that permeates the entirety of the New Testament, can also be seen in the revelations of Joseph Smith, such as D&C 93:16-17:
And I, John, bear record that he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.
If Gilpin and other Trinitarians are correct, Phil 2:9 is utter nonsense, for how can the Father glorify Jesus and give Christ the name that is above every name, if Christ had this glory before the incarnation and even had it during his 33 years of mortality? The Trinitarian understanding of this verse is incoherent. In reality, post-ascension, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily in Jesus (Col 2:9), something we are also said to strive for (Eph 3:19). However, Christ is still subordinate to God the Father (1 Cor 11:3; 15:22-28 [exegeted below]). Furthermore, Gilpin is guilty of begging the question: what type of equality is in view? Functional? Ontological? Again, no meaningful exegesis is offered, this time of the phrase ισα θεω (“equal to God”).
That Paul held to a subordinationist Christology can be seen in other places in his epistles, most notably his Midrash of Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX) in 1 Cor 15:22-28.
The Hebrew of Psa 110:1 reads:
נְאֻם יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי שֵׁב לִימִינִי עַד־אָשִׁית אֹיְבֶיךָ הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ׃
Yahweh said to my lord, “sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” (my translation)
The LXX (109:1) renders the verse as follows:
εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου
The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” (my translation)
Here, the first Lord (in the Hebrew, Yahweh) says to a second lord (אדֹנִי adoni in Hebrew, meaning “my lord”) to sit at his right hand. The only meaningful, and exegetically sound interpretation of this verse is that the second lord is sitting at the right-hand of God, making him distinct from "Yahweh," and not that he is numerically identical to the "One God," a la Trinitarianism, though he does indeed serve as God’s vizier, to be sure.
I am aware that some (e.g., James R. White) have tried to argue that the second Lord is Adonai, not Adoni, but the LXX, the Targums, and other lines of evidence support the Masoretic vocalisation; for instance, the Targums always interpreted the second lord to be a Davidic King, not "another" Yahweh. For more, see David M Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBL: 1973) and Jaco Van Zyl, "Psalm 110:1 and the Status of the Second Lord--Trinitarian Arguments Challenged," in An E-Journal from the Radical Reformation: A Testimony to Biblical Unitarianism, winter/spring 2012, pp. 51-60.
In Trinitarian theology, as mentioned previously, there is an allowance (albeit, an ambiguous one) for a distinction between the persons of the Father, Son and Spirit (e.g. the Father is not the Son). However, there is no allowance for a distinction between “God” and any of the persons. However, the Christology of the New Testament tends to distinguish “God” (θεος) from the Son, not simply the “Father” from the Son, as it does here, differentiating between ο θεος (literally, the God) from Jesus. Indeed, the other instances of the New Testament’s use of Psa 110:1 differentiates, not just the persons of the Father and the Son, but θεος and the Son. For instance, consider 1 Cor 15:22-28 and Heb 10:12-13:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order. Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is expected, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (θεος) may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:22-28)
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God (θεος); From henceforth expecting till his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet. (Heb 10:12-13)
In both these pericopes, Psa 110:1 (LXX, 109:1) is used and expanded upon, and clearly, a distinction is made between, not just the persons of the Father and the Son (which is accepted, albeit, ambiguously, as the definition of "person" is debated within Trinitarian circles, both historically and in modern times, by Trinitarian theology), but God (θεος) and Jesus, a distinction not tolerated by Trinitarianism, as well as showing the Son's subordination, even post-ascension, to God the Father.
Finally, another example of the exegetically an intellectually-weak arguments forwarded by Gilpin can be seen in his assertion that, in LDS Christology, Jesus did not "humble" Himself in any meaningful manner. The truth of the matter, however, is that in Latter-day Saint theology, the pre-mortal Jesus was the God of the Old testament (Mosiah 3:8; 4:2; 3 Nephi 9:15; 11:17 as examples in the Book of Mormon). While Mormon theology does not recognise a species differentiation between deity and humanity, per any meaningful exegesis of Acts 17:29, LDS theology also recognises significant qualitative differences between us and Christ, even in his pre-mortal state before being exalted by the Father, as Phil 2:5-11 clearly states.
James D.G. Dunn, a leading contemporary Christologist, presents the following spot-on analysis of the issue on p. 110 of Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? (emphasis in original):
In various passages, Paul uses the formula, "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The striking feature is that Paul speaks of God not simply as the God of Christ, but as "the God . . .of our Lord Jesus Christ." Even as Lord, Jesus acknowledges God not only as his Father but also his God. Here it becomes plain that the kyrios title [Lord] is not so much a way of identifying Jesus with God, as a way of distinguishing Jesus from God.
Latter-day Saint Christology, as well as the statement from Joseph Fielding Smith, is reflective of true "biblical Christianity," not the post-biblical perversions that Gilpin and others, to their eternal detriment, embrace (cf. Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:4, 13-14, etc).
It is my hope that Trinitarians will awake from their theological slumber and realise that the dogma they have embraced is without any exegetical (and even linguistic and logical) warrant, and that there exists a wealth of evidence (exegetical; logical; linguistic; scholarly) against such.
