Dave Bartosiewicz has another video demonstrating his lack of exegetical skills and intellectual integrity to support Trinitarian Christology. One of the “proofs” he cites to support, to borrow Richard Bauckham’s terminology, “divine identity” is that of Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8, which he cites as support of (1) the doctrine of divine immutability and (2) that Jesus and “God” are numerically identical to one another.
On the topic of Christology, readers should pursue my writings on this topic, including
Latter-day Saints have chosen the true, biblical Jesus
Latter-day Saints have chosen the true, biblical Jesus
Also, my previous responses to Dave include discussions of Christology and soteriology.
Anyway, Dave is guilty of eisegesis on this issue, so he falters on the first hurdle.
Malachi 3:6
Many critics will appeal to texts such as Mal 3:6 to the effect that God does not change his mind, and, furthermore, such texts that speak of God changing His mind (e.g., Gen 6:6) are to be relegated as mere “anthropomorphisms.” Notwithstanding, such an approach is based on eisegesis. The context of Mal 3:6 specifies that God’s unchangeability refers only to His unchanging character to forgive if the sinner repents, not that God cannot change His mind about previous decisions or about contingencies that arise in accordance with man’s free-will decisions (cf. Jeremiah 18:7-10).
Other passages which indicate that God “does not change” (e.g., Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 110:4; James 1:17) refer only to God’s inability to lie, take back an oath He made, tempt one to sin, or reverse decisions based on a capricious whim, since these would be adverse to His divine character (see passages where God promises to change His mind if the future free-will actions of man resulting in their repentance--Zechariah 1:3; Mal 3:7; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).
Exodus 32-33 is a very potent example of (1) God changing his mind and (2) God’s personal nature. Let us look at it in point by point format:
1. God determines to destroy all of Israel for worshipping the golden calf.
2. Moses pleads with God to relent, reiterating the promise to Abraham and the potential mockery from Egypt.
3. God rescinds His threat to destroy all of Israel, yet punishes the leading perpetrators.
4. Moses spends 40 days prostrate and fasting to appease God for Israel’s sin.
5. Although temporarily appeased, God refuses to go with the Israelites through the desert, because they are so “stiff-necked” he “might destroy them on the way.”
6. Moses pleads again with God to change His mind.
7. God changes His mind and decides to go with them.
8. God then remarks on the intimate relationship He has with Moses as the basis of His decision to change His mind.
9. God confirms this intimate relationship by showing Moses part of His actual appearance.
Divine immutability is not in view here, nor, as we will see here, does the purported parallel with Heb 13:8 support Dave's Christology.
Other passages which indicate that God “does not change” (e.g., Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 110:4; James 1:17) refer only to God’s inability to lie, take back an oath He made, tempt one to sin, or reverse decisions based on a capricious whim, since these would be adverse to His divine character (see passages where God promises to change His mind if the future free-will actions of man resulting in their repentance--Zechariah 1:3; Mal 3:7; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).
Exodus 32-33 is a very potent example of (1) God changing his mind and (2) God’s personal nature. Let us look at it in point by point format:
1. God determines to destroy all of Israel for worshipping the golden calf.
2. Moses pleads with God to relent, reiterating the promise to Abraham and the potential mockery from Egypt.
3. God rescinds His threat to destroy all of Israel, yet punishes the leading perpetrators.
4. Moses spends 40 days prostrate and fasting to appease God for Israel’s sin.
5. Although temporarily appeased, God refuses to go with the Israelites through the desert, because they are so “stiff-necked” he “might destroy them on the way.”
6. Moses pleads again with God to change His mind.
7. God changes His mind and decides to go with them.
8. God then remarks on the intimate relationship He has with Moses as the basis of His decision to change His mind.
9. God confirms this intimate relationship by showing Moses part of His actual appearance.
Divine immutability is not in view here, nor, as we will see here, does the purported parallel with Heb 13:8 support Dave's Christology.
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb 13:8 NRSV)
This verse is often used against LDS theology; critics sometimes cite this verse as "proof" against the LDS view that Jesus' eternal nature of an intelligence took on the form of a spirit son of God (the Father) (assuming the idea of "spirit birth") and that His glory and divinity is static.
Firstly, it should be noted that this is not what is in view in this passage; as one conservative Evangelical commentary stated:
v 8 is not to be interpreted as an acclamation of Jesus' timeless ontological immutability, corresponding to the assertion that the Son remains ὁ αὐτός, "the same," in 1:10–12 (as asserted by H. Montefiore, 242; P. R. Jones, RevExp 82 [1985] 400; cf. Grässer, Glaube, 23; Buchanan, 233). The reference is rather to the immutability of the gospel message proclaimed by the deceased leaders in the recent past (see Michel, 490 and n. 2; P. E. Hughes, 570–71). Although the preachers change, the preaching must remain the same. The unchangeableness of the revelation is a consequence of the transcendent dignity of Jesus Christ, the originator of the preaching (2:3) (so Thurén, Lobopfer, 183). (William L. Lane, Hebrews 9-13 [Word Biblical Commentary 47B])
On biblical (and Book of Mormon) texts on God being eternal and unchangeable, see my fuller discussion here.
Indeed, Heb 13:8 cannot be a statement of metaphysical natures of Jesus not being changed; if such were the case, this would contradict the claim that Jesus Christ emptied himself to become a man like us (cf. Heb 2:16-18; 4:15). Consider the following from Phil 2:5-11 (NRSV):
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Notice that Christ (viewed in the totality of His person; Paul is not speaking merely of his human nature) has been exalted after His ascension, and only then was He given the name above all other names (v.9). This is commensurate with LDS Christology (cf. D&C 93:1-20), but inconsistent with the Hypostatic Union. For a fuller discussion, see my paper responding to Bobby Gilpin on LDS Christology (cf. my discussion of Psa 90:2, Moroni 8:18, and related texts)
When all things are considered, Heb 13:8 is not a valid “proof-text” against LDS theology. Furthermore, we see how deficient Dave Bartosiewicz's exegetical skills truly are.
In reality, it should be noted that Dave Bartosiewicz is not really interested in truth; he is more interested in popularity. This is exemplified in the email exchange we had, and in a comment he left on my google profile: "Have you ever thought Robert, you spend a great deal of time and you have no audience? I think you should get a new gig...." Apart from being a non-response to the various refutations of his claims, it does show what Dave's true motives are.
In reality, it should be noted that Dave Bartosiewicz is not really interested in truth; he is more interested in popularity. This is exemplified in the email exchange we had, and in a comment he left on my google profile: "Have you ever thought Robert, you spend a great deal of time and you have no audience? I think you should get a new gig...." Apart from being a non-response to the various refutations of his claims, it does show what Dave's true motives are.
