After the ascension, we learn from the New Testament that the person of Jesus worships God the Father. Note the following:
But unto
the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever 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. (Heb 1:8-9)
Here, the author of Hebrews quotes Psa 45,
which, in its original context, is the wedding of a Davidic King, where the King
is called “god” but in a subordinate sense to the greater God who anointed him.
In the theology of the author of Hebrews, while Jesus is God, the person
of Jesus, even after his super-exaltation (cf. Phil 2:5-11) is still
subordinate to, not simply the Father, but “God.” I make reference to the person
of Jesus as some will try to wrangle out of this by claiming that it is the
human nature/will that was assumed by the eternal Logos, but what the New
Testament authors do are speak of all of these actions as those of the person
of Jesus. One will have to functionally treat Jesus as two persons, the heresy
of Nestorianism.
This is explicated further in Rev 1:1:
The
Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants
things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his
angel unto his servant John.
Here, Jesus, again after his resurrection,
ascension, and exaltation, does not know everything the Father does--the Greek
explicitly states that the person of God gives the Revelation to the person of
Jesus (Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς – the Apocalypse of Jesus
Christ which God gave to him [Jesus]).
This “God” is the recipient of worship and
praise by this exalted Jesus, where Jesus prays to/intercedes to the Father and
offers priestly action towards God:
Likewise
the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray
for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with
groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth
what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints
according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for
good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom
he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also
justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then
say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared
not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him
also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's
elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that
died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God,
who also maketh intercession for us. (Rom 8:26-34--note that the Holy Spirit,
another person who is said to be fully God, gives worship to God)
But this
man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he
is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he
ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:24-25)
Now of
the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest,
who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A
minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched,
and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices:
wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. (Heb
8:1-3)
And
almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of
blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things
in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things
themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into
the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into
heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Heb 9:22-24)
“Sacrifice” is an act of worship (the
highest, actually). And yet, the person of Jesus offers propitiatory sacrifice
to God (the Father):
For every
high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to
God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins . . . So also Christ
glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him,
Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place,
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of
his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying
and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that
he feared. (Heb 5:1, 5-7)
Commenting on the
“exaltation” of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Peter C. Orr, lecturer in
New Testament, Moore College, Sydney, Australia, wrote the following:
Although the focus is
on Christ’s superiority over the angels following his exaltation (‘having
become as much superior’), the author also maintains the exalted status of
Christ before creation (1:2; 1:10). The author seems to be using angels as
‘midpoint’ between humanity and God. As such,
[t]hey mark out the
cosmic territory. They function, so to speak, as measures of ontological
status. To be above the angels is to be God, to be below the angels is to be
human. Above the angels is to be human. Above the angels, Jesus transcends all
creation, sharing the divine identity as Creator and Ruler even of the angels.
Below the angels, Jesus shares the common identity of earthly humans in birth,
suffering, and death. (Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: ‘God
Crucified’ and Other Studies in the New Testament’s Christology of Divine
Identity [2008],241)
The Son, who was with
God from the beginning of creation (1:2; 1:10), is in his incarnation made
lower than the angels (2:9). Following his purification of sins, he is exalted
and so made higher than them again. In that sense, he becomes again—as
a human being—higher than the angels. (Peter Orr, Exalted Above the
Heavens: The Risen and Ascended Christ [New Studies in Biblical
Theology 47; London: Apollos, 2018], 21, emphasis in bold added)
Such shows that in
New Testament theology, there is a positive view of the potential of humans. As
Jesus, who is a single person, is exalted with reference to his humanity (in
Orr’s Trinitarian theology), believers should expect, to some degree, a similar
exaltation, too (cf. 1 John 3:1-3; Rev 3:9, 21 [the latter is discussed below]).
We can see this
doctrine of “Christification” of believers in Col 2:9:
For in him dwells the
fullness of deity bodily. (NRSV)
Commenting on this
verse, as well as vv.10-15, Clinton Arnold wrote:
Participating in
Christ’s Fullness Christ has not only delivered his people from the domain of
darkness, but he has brought them into his kingdom and bestowed on them his
salvation . . . What Paul says about Christ [in Col 2:9] he immediately applies
to the church by declaring, “in him you are filled” (εστε εν αυτω
πεπληρωμενοι). The “in him” (εν αυτω) marks a major motif of the entire
theological section of 2:9-15. Paul is hereby attempting to help these
believers understand the full significance of being in Christ, especially as it
relates to their concern about supernatural powers and their temptation to
follow the solution offered by “the philosophy.” His solution is for them to
gain a fuller- appreciation for their resources in Christ and to grasp hold of
their leader and supplier (2:19) and to concentrate on the things above where
Christ is at the right hand of God (3:1).
The fullness of
God—his power and his grace—are bestowed on believers by virtue of their
incorporation into Christ. As Lightfoot has said, God’s πληρωμα is “transfused”
into them. The perfect periphrastic construction (εστε . . .πεπληρωμενοι)
emphasises their share in the divine fullness as part of their present
experience. (Clinton Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism [Tübingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1995], 293-95; square brackets added for clarification)
Another important text from Hebrews is
that of Heb 1:3:
Who being
the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding
all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins,
sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high
D. Charles
Pyle in his FAIR Conference paper from 1999, "I
have said, 'ye are gods': Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of
Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New
Testament Text" offered the following exegesis of the verse:
There is also scripture that
can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a
physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact
representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some
sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of
Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare
that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.
Those who criticize this meaning thus,
however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the
passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus.
Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e.,
the present state of existence of Jesus from the
perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only
Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only
speaks of his total existence as a person.
Further, many grammarians have
severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle,
passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense.
The Greek kai kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines
the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a
parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly
to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα aapaugasma should be understood
as having a passive sense.
Why? Because the second portion of the
couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of
the Father’s substantial nature, not that he
is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is
a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion
must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly
to be seen as he “who is the reflection of
the glory (of God) and the exact representation of
the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”
In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as
its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly,
Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects
of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’
divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view
here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment
of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact
representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father
must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not
be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact
is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to
be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later
generation to develop.
Supporting the
claim that απαυγασμα is passive in Heb 1:3, note the following non-LDS sources:
The meaning
of απαυγασμα in Heb
1:3 is disputed. Actively, the word can denote radiance or effulgence (Phil, Spec.
Leg. iv.123), or passively, reflection or the
light that is reflected (Wis 7:26; Philo Op. 146; Plant.
50). The sentence structure in Heb 1:3 favors understanding απαυγασμα and → χαραχτηρ as synonyms and, therefore, interpreting απαυγασμα as pass.: Christ “reflects the
glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature.” Both predicates
characterize the Son as the perfect image of God and thus correspond to the
expression → εικων του θεου (Col 1:15; 2 Cor 4:4). (Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider,
eds., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 vols,[Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1990], 1:118)
3a.
The divine Son’s relation to the Father is expressed as a ‘reflection’ (apaugasma)
of the Father’s glory and a ‘stamp’ or ‘imprint’ (charaktēr) of his
nature. Apaugasma has been variously interpreted in an active
sense (‘radiation, emanation’ of light) and in a passive sense (‘reflection’ of
a luminary’s light on another surface). The active sense was the one commonly
accepted in early exegesis, with conclusions at times orthodox, at times
pantheistic or gnostic, but the parallel with charaktēr indicates
that it is the passive sense which is intended by our author. Charaktēr is
the imprint of a seal, the mark of one thing found in something else. ‘Glory’
is the form of God’s manifestation (Ex 24:16; 33:18; 40:34;cf Jn 1:14), and in
late Judaism often meant God himself. Hypostasis is essence,
substance, nature; to try to make the clear-cut metaphysical or speculative
distinctions of a later theology is out of place; the word is chosen on the
basis of theological imagery and metaphor. Without pressing these images
further than the author intends, we may say that ‘reflection of his glory’
denotes the Son’s divine origin and perfect similarity to the Father, and
‘stamp of his nature’ that similarity qualified by his distinction from the
Father. ‘Upholding the universe by his word of power’: pherōn has
the double sense of maintaining the existence of creation and of governing,
directing the course of history. The ‘word’ here is the dynamic OT ‘word’ which
produces the physical or historical effects, and ‘word of power’, of course, is
a Semitism for ‘powerful word’. (Dom Aelred Cody, “Hebrews” in Reginald C.
Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns, eds. A New Catholic
Commentary on Holy Scripture [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.,
1969], 1224, emphasis in bold added)
Exalted Person Receiving the Name “YHWH” and All Other Glories Jesus Possesses
In Phil 2:9, we learn
that Jesus was given the name that is above every name. Some have argued that
the "name" is "Jesus." However, the best exegetical case
can be made that the "name" is that of YHWH (which is the meaning
behind κυριος "Lord" in many NT texts). As G. Walter Hansen notes:
Some have proposed
that the name given is the name Jesus. Moule suggests that “God, in
the incarnation, bestowed upon the one who is on equality with him an earthly
name which, because it accompanied that most God-like self-giving, has come to
be, in fact, the highest of names, because service and self-giving are
themselves the highest of divine attributes. Because of the incarnation, the
human name ‘Jesus’ is acclaimed as Lord, to the glory of God the Father”
(Moule, “Further Reflexions on Philippians 2:5-11,” 270). The view that the name Jesus is
the name given by God appeals to the support of the next line: in the
name of Jesus. Advocates of this view point out that the name Jesus is
truly a name, not a title, such as the title Lord.
Solid evidence,
however, leads most interpreters to advocate the view that the name that God
gave Jesus is the name Lord. The narrative sequence of the hymn
points to the name that was given at the exaltation: at the incarnation the
name Jesus was given; when God exalted Jesus he then gave him the name Lord.
The name of a person can have the sense of a title that “is
rightfully borne and encodes what a person really is” (BDAG, 713). The sense of
title applies especially to the divine names that express “qualities and
powers” (BDAG, 712). The hymn dramatically postpones the announcement of the
divine name given to Jesus until the last line, which declares that every
tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The echo this line
gives of Isaiah 45:17-24 confirms that the divine name Lord is
the name that is above every name:
“Before me every knee
will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
They will say of me, ‘In the LORD alone are righteousness
and strength.’”
Isaiah 41-45 stresses
the uniqueness of the divine name LORD (Yahweh): “I am the LORD your God”
(41:13); “I am the LORD; that is my name” (42:8); “I, even I, am the LORD, and
apart from me there is no savior” (43:11); “This is what the LORD says—Israel’s
King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and the last; apart from
me there is no God” (44:6); “I am the LORD, and there is no other” (45:18). By
quoting Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:10-11, the hymn appropriates the unique
divine name LORD for Jesus. The parabolic shape of the hymn can be followed by
tracing the names or titles of Jesus: the one existing in the form of God goes
down to the lowest part by taking the form of slave and back
up to the highest place when God gives Jesus the name that is
above every name so that every tongue will confess that he is Lord.
Consideration of the
context for Paul’s letter to the Philippians provides another reason for the
view that the name Lord is the name that God gave Jesus. In a
Roman colony, Philippians would hear the acclamation that Jesus is Lord as a
shocking allusion to the declaration of the Roman imperial cult that Caesar is
Lord. In the ideology of the imperial cult, Jupiter and the gods gave divine
authority and divine names to August Caesar. In the theology of the hymn of
Christ, God gave the divine name to Jesus so that he will be the LORD acclaimed
and worshipped by all. By quoting this hymn, Paul presents the exaltation of
Jesus as Lord in language that reflects and subverts the Roman imperial cult.
(G. Walter Hansen, The Letters to the Philippians [The Pillar
New Testament Commentary; Nottingham: Apollos, 2009], 162-63)
Speaking of how the Father is the
ultimate recipient of any glory and worship the Son receives, Reformed Baptist
Tony Costa wrote the following about the Carmen Christi (the Christological
hymn in Phil 2:6-11):
[Phil 2:5-11’s depiction of the
exalted Jesus] does not replace God or take worship from God. God is worshipped
through the worship of the exalted Jesus. The worship which is given to the
exalted Jesus does not usurp the worship of God, nor does it rival the worship
of God; it rather complements the worship of God and
facilitates it. Paul thus includes the exalted Jesus within Christian worship.
The eschatological grande finale for Paul is the ultimate and
universal glorification of God which God has purposed to be achieved through
the worship of the exalted Jesus. The importance and centrality of the risen
Jesus in relation to Christian worship, which I have argued from the beginning
of this study, is evident here. God cannot be ultimately and maximally
glorified according to Paul, without, or apart from, the exalted Jesus. Paul
thus sees worship from a teleological perspective as fulfilled in the ultimate
expression of honor that is given to God by the entire cosmos,
through the agency of the exalted Jesus. (Tony Costa, Worship and the
Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters [Studies in Biblical Literature
vol. 157; New York: Peter Lang, 2013], 249)
LDS scholar, Blake Ostler, wrote
something similar to Costa:
It is extremely significant that
Paul interpreted what appears to be the most intensely “monotheistic” text in
the Old Testament to refer to two divine beings, God and the Lord. In Romans
10:9, Paul also interprets Isaiah 45:23 as a reference to two figures: “for if
you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that
God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The confession is that Christ
is Lord, but he is raised from the dead by another, God. This confession that
Jesus is Lord, as in Philippians 2:10-11, appears to be dependent on Isaiah
45:23. The Septuagint (LXX) of Isaiah 45:23 reads: “By myself I
swear,/righteousness shall go out of my mouth,/ my words will not be frustrated,/that
to me every knee shall bow/ and every tongue confess to God.” The speaker is
Yahweh (Isa. 45:18), but he speaks of God (Elohim) in the third person. When
Paul quotes this same text in Romans 14:11, he exploits the distinction between
the first-person speech of the Lord with that addressed to God in the third
person: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and
every tongue shall confess to God” (emphasis mine). Paul sees in this text two
divine subjects, which he emphasizes by adding the explanatory gloss “says the
Lord,” to specify it is the Lord who is speaking that there is another
God, to whom the confession is made. This text is used, like Psalm 110 and
Daniel 7, because it permits a reading that refers to two divine figures.
We thus see a pattern emerging in
early Christian exegesis. Texts which refer to the Lord and permit a reading
that distinguishes the Lord from God are adopted to explain the relationship
between the one God, the Father, and the Lord, the Son. Similarly, it appears
that the notion there are two divine beings lies behind Paul’s midrashic
interpretation of Isaiah 45:18-25 in Philippians. Isaiah 45:25 LXX can also be
read as referring to two divine figures. The Hebrew text of Isaiah 45:25
contains both the name of God, Yahweh, which is always replaced by “Lord” when
it is read out loud, and a word for God, Elohim. However, the
Septuagint translation of Isaiah 45:25 also can be read to refer to two divine
figures, the Lord and God. Jesus is equated with the reference to “Lord” as in
the reading of Psalm 110, and the reference to God is read as a reference to
God the Father: “They shall be justified by the Lord (κυριου = Yahweh), and in God (τω θεω = Elohim) all the seed of the sons
of Israel will be glorified.” It is significant that, while Paul substitutes
“Jesus” for “Lord” in his genuine letters more than fifty times, he never
replaces “Jesus Christ” or “Lord” where “God” (Elohim, El, or ho theos)
appears in the underlying Hebrew or Septuagint texts. Paul sees “Elohim” as a
reference to the one God, but references to “the Lord” or “Yahweh” can refer to
Jesus Christ. The reason for such a distinction is fairly evident. The name of
“the Lord” is given to Christ. However, the name Elohim is not connoted in the
title “Lord” that is given to Christ by the Father.
In any event, kingship monotheism
is maintained because the honor that is given to Christ by bowing the knee to
him and confessing that he is lord ultimately redounds “to the glory of the
Father” (Phil. 2:11). Just as recognizing the agent or mediator of a benefactor
also constitutes recognition and honor given to the benefactor, so bowing the
knee to confess Christ ultimately honors the Father. The distinction between
the Father and Jesus Christ is maintained clearly because Christ as a mortal is
exalted by the power of God the Father. The Father “gives” the divine name that
properly belongs to the Father to Christ. Christ becomes the servant who obeys
the Father by undergoing death. Further, any confession that Jesus is Lord is
ultimately to the honor of the Father. Any notion that Jesus Christ is somehow
“included within the unique identity of the one God,” the Father, must overlook
all of these essential distinctions and misses entirely the ways such honorific
titles as “Lord” and the reception of the name function in a culture of honor
and shame. Christ is the recipient of honor; the Father is the one who honors.
The Father exalts; Christ is exalted. The Father gives; Christ receives. While
the Father and the Son share the same name, glory, exaltation, and honor,
Christ is not seen as identical with the one God, the Father. The identities of
giver and receiver are clearly differentiated. (Blake T. Ostler, Of God
and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], 140-42)
Why is this
important? According to the New Testament, we will be, by grace, exalted to the
same status and glory as Jesus. Note one of the glorious promises to those who
endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):
Behold, I will make them of the
synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I
will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know
that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me
in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in
his throne.
In
3:21, believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the
Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of
the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being
numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard
Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are
promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we
will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are
one. Sitting in it does not indicate, contra Robert M. Bowman, Richard
Bauckham, et al, ontological identification with God (cf. Testament of Job
32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common
in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish
pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).
As for Rev 3:9, believers are
promised that they will be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may
try to downplay the significance of this term, in all other instances where it
is used in the book of Revelation it denotes religious worship (Rev 4:10; 5:14;
7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20;
20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question begging can
one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9 (cf. my
discussion on whether Jesus receives λατρευω in the New Testament).
To
add to the discussion, here is the exegesis provided by New Testament scholar,
Jürgen Roloff, on these important verses:
[3:9] With the same words that
are in 2:9, the claim of the Jews to be the assembly (synagōgē) of God
and the people of God's is rejected as false. Because they rejected Jesus as
bringer of God's salvation, in truth they subordinated themselves to the
dominion of God's adversary. Israel's heritage and claim are completely
transferred to the Christian community. To it, therefore, also belongs the
promise, originally made to Israel, that at the end time of the Gentiles will
enter the city of God and subjugate themselves to the people of God (Isa. 60:14
and elsewhere). Indeed, among those who then come will be the unbelieving Jews,
who will realize that Jesus loved them and that means he chose them; (cf. Isa.
42:1) and made them into the people of God. When mention is made of
"bowing down" before the feet of the church, this assumes full participation
of the church in the kingdom of Christ and sitting with him on his throne (v.
21) . . . [3:21] The final word about overcoming in the series
of letters has particular importance. It summarizes in conclusion the central
promise of salvation, which is the promises heretofore was sounded several
times with variations and modifications, by using another Synoptic expression
of Jesus (Luke 22:30b; Matt 19:28 [Q?]: to those who overcome is promised here
participation in Jesus' heavenly kingdom. Thus, just as Jesus sits on his
throne (cf. 5:6) beside God as equal ruler on the basis of his having overcome
and thereby shares his dominion, so also will those who have overcome for his
sake receive a place in his messianic rule (cf. 20:6) with unlimited communion,
and even equality, with him. (Jürgen Roloff, Revelation [Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1993], 61, 65-66)
In 4Q246 from Qumran
(AKA "the Son of God Text"; "Aramaic Apocalypse"), there is
an expectation that believers who persevere will be the recipients of worship
in the eschaton, strongly paralleling Rev 3:9, 21. In Column II we read:
4. Until the people of God arise;
then all will have rest from warfare.
5. Their kingdom will be an
eternal kingdom, and all their paths will be righteous. They will judge
6. the land justly, and all
nations will make peace. Warfare will cease from the land,
7. and all the nations shall do
obeisance to them . . . (source)
Interestingly,
Solomon in 1 Chron 29, the very same chapter he received the same worship as
Yahweh, he also sit on the throne of Yahweh. On the topic of people other
than Yahweh sitting on the throne of Yahweh, Patrick Navas (author of Divine Truth or Human
Tradition? A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the
Trinity in light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures) wrote the following
which serves as another refutation of the “divine identity” argument based
Jesus sitting on the throne of Yahweh:
Another text that helps to
underscore the fallaciousness of Wallace’s reasoning is found in 1 Chronicles
29:[23] which says:
“Then Solomon sat on the throne
of the Jehovah as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all
Israel obeyed him.”
Here Solomon is portrayed as one
who “sat on the throne of Jehovah as king.” Does this text imply that Solomon
therefore “shares all the attributes of Jehovah,” or that Solomon is
ontologically “Jehovah,” or that he is a member of the “Godhead”? No. It simply
means that Solomon occupied a position of supreme/royal authority over the
people of Israel as Jehovah’s agent or representative. To sit on Jehovah’s
throne does not make one ontologically Jehovah (or one who has all of Jehovah’s
attributes as Wallace wrongly implies), but makes one an individual whom
Jehovah has invested with kingly authority as his appointed and ruling representative.
Solomon sat down on Jehovah’s earthly throne in Jerusalem. Following his
resurrection, the supremely exalted Messiah, Jesus, sat down “at the right hand
of the majesty on high”—in heaven itself, with all things in subjection to him,
with the obvious exception of God himself (Heb. 1:3; 1 Cor. 15:27). (Patrick
Navas, Response
to Daniel Wallace)
This
is yet another area where Latter-day Saint theology and practice is more
commensurate with “biblical Christianity” and not the theologies of our
Evangelical opponents (for more, see Joseph
Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet
Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology).
One may argue “well, if your theology is true, there is more than
one ‘God Most High’ [El Elyon].” That does not follow. One can believe that the Father is singularly God Most High, and LDS theology allows for a consistent model of such, as do modern textual discoveries, such as the earliest text of Deut 32:7-9, 43. Even if the traditional
interpretation of the King Follett Discourse is true, a Trinitarian has the same
problem. Imagine if Jesus (who will be the God-man eternally, according to
Chalcedon), alongside the persons of the Father and the Spirit (taking bodily form
[a theophany]) appeared to someone and this person asked “hands up if you are ‘God
Most High’” how many will raise their hands? If you answer more than 1, you
have multiple persons who are “God Most High” (El Elyon). Simply claiming “but they
are the same being” will not get you out of this dilemma; LDS believe angels,
man, and exalted beings (Gods) to be the same genus (cf. Latter-day
Saint Theology and Acts 17:28-29).
The "responses" will be largely the following:
(*) informed by a form of Nestorianism (all too common in modern Evangelical Protestantism, not on a creedal level, but a functional level)
(*) Engage in eisegesis of the texts discussed above and other relevant ones and/or engage in a lot of "nuh-uh"
(*) claim that the "historical church" has taught otherwise, which is rich, as the "historical church" contradicts Protestantism on core issues (e.g., the instrument of justification [the patristics were unanimous in affirming the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration]; the nature of justification; rejection of imputed righteousness; transformational model of justification).
