Jesus was not a Unitarian

One of the most popular modern work defending the so-called Biblical Unitarian perspective is that of Anthony F. Buzzard, Jesus was not a Trinitarian: A Call to Return to the Creed of Jesus (Restoration Fellowship, 2007). This book was critiqued by David Paulsen et al.  in a review entitled, “Jesus was not a Unitarian.” While I believe Paulsen et al. relied a bit too much on the flawed work of Bowman and Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place and did not seem to “get” everything Buzzard wrote about the issue of “my lord” in Psa 110:1 (Hebrew אדֹנִי adoni as opposed to אֲדֹנָי adonai meaning “[sovereign] Lord,” a substitution for Yahweh), the review does a very good job in (1) refuting many of the arguments forwarded by Buzzard for strict, ontological monotheism and (2) shows much of the biblical foundations for Latter-day Saint theology.

NT Elias being a "Forerunner"

In a previous post, I discussed the OT Elijah/NT Elias issue in Joseph Smith's revelations and writings. The following are some examples of LDS authors and leaders who understood Joseph Smith to be using "Elias" to denote a "forerunner" in a generic sense:

Bishop Carl W. Buehner, Conference Report, April 1960, p. 76:

John the Baptist was one of the most distinguished of God's servants. That he found favor with the Lord is emphasized in the Angel Gabriel's appearance in the temple to his father, Zacharias, promising him that he and his wife were to have a son who should ". . . be great in the sight of the Lord." (Luke 1:15.) The birth of few men has been foretold. He was one of this select group whose coming was made known centuries before his birth. Isaiah prophesied concerning his mission approximately seven-hundred years before he was born. (Isaiah 40:3.) He was an Elias in that he was a forerunner of Jesus. He vigorously preached the gospel of repentance to the Jews. There came to him one of the highest privileges ever accorded man -- that of baptizing the Savior of the world. He was a personal witness of one of the greatest manifestations ever given. It came at the time of Jesus' baptism. As Jesus came forth out of the water, John beheld the Holy Ghost descend on him like a dove, and there came from the heavens the voice of the Father giving divine approval: ". . . This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:17.)

James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, pp. 376-7:

5. "The Spirit and Power of Elias".—That John the Baptist, in his capacity as a restorer, a forerunner, or as one sent to prepare the way for a work greater than his own, did officiate as an "Elias" is attested by both ancient and latter-day scripture. Through him water baptism for the remission of sins was preached and administered, and the higher baptism, that of the Spirit, was made possible. True to his mission, he has come in the last dispensation, and has restored by ordination the Priesthood of Aaron, which has authority to baptize. He thus prepared the way for the vicarious labor of baptism for the dead, the authority for which was restored by Elijah, (see page 149 herein), and which is preeminently the work by which the children and the fathers shall be united in an eternal bond.

Orson F. Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, part 6, p. 193:

The Same Yet Not the Same.--"Elias," considered as a name, is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Elijah." Compared references in the New and Old Testaments clearly establish their verbal identity.m But Joseph Smith distinguished between "the spirit of Elias" and "the spirit of Elijah," the former a forerunner, the latter holding the sealing powers necessary to complete the work of preparation for Messiah's advent

Early Christian Authors vs. the Trinity

Here are some examples of how early Christian texts were clearly non-Trinitarian, clearly showing that creedal Trinitarianism is not apostolic in origins, but a later, post-New Testament development:

The author of 1 Clement (end of the first century):

1Clem 46:6
Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ?

1Clem 59:3
[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy; who layest low in the insolence of the proud, who settest the lowly on high, and bringest the lofty low; who makest rich and makest poor; who killest and makest alive; who alone art the Benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh; who lookest into the abysses, who scanest the works of man; the Succor of them that are in peril, the Savior of them that are in despair; The Creator and Overseer of every spirit; who multiplies the nations upon earth, and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom Thou didst instruct us, didst sanctify us, didst honor us.

1Clem 59:4
We beseech Thee, Lord and Master, to be our help and succor. Save those among us who are in tribulation; have mercy on the lowly; lift up the fallen; show Thyself unto the needy; heal the ungodly; convert the wanderers of Thy people; feed the hungry; release our prisoners; raise up the weak; comfort the fainthearted. Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.

1Clem 64:1
Finally may the All seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through Him …that they may be well pleasing unto His Name through our High priest and Guardian Jesus Christ,through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honor, both now and for ever and ever. Amen.

1Clem 65:2
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in all places who have been called by God and through Him, through whom be glory and honor, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and forever and ever. Amen.

The Didache, variously dated from 50-100:

And concerning baptism, baptize as follows: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water. And if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else is able, but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. (7).

We thank You, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant. To You be the glory for ever.(9).

We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant, to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your Kingdom for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. (9).

We thank You, Holy Father, for Your holy name you that made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which you revealed to us through Jesus Your servant. Glory to You forever and ever. You, Almighty Lord, have created all things for Your own name’s sake, You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You, but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your servant. Above all things we thank You that You are might. Glory to You forever and ever. (10).

Papias (AD 125):

The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature, and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up his work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, “For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” For in the times of the Kingdom the righteous man who is on the earth shall forget to die. “But when He says all things are put under him, it is manifest that He is excepted Who did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subjected to him, then shall the Son also himself be subject to Him, Who put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” – Fragments of the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.

Aristides (ca. 125).:

Now the Christians trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the Most High God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men.(Apology, 2).

For they know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten son and the Holy Spirit, and beside Him they worship no other God. (Apology 15)

Justin Martyr (100-165), Dialogue with Trypho, chapters 48, 49:

And [the Jew] Trypho said, “…Resume the discourse… For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish.”

And I [Justin] replied to this, “I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race… Now assuredly, Trypho,” I continued,”[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly [i.e. before his conception] as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father’s will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends,” I said, “of our race [i.e. Christians], who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself.”

And Trypho said, “Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He[the Christ].”

Does Isaiah really support Trinitarian Theologies?

Jaco van Zyl, a “Biblical Unitarian,” wrote the following, which captures why appealing to Isa 45:5 and other like-texts in “Deutero-Isaiah” poses a problem for Trinitarian claims:

Trinitarians like James White argue that Yahweh (Adonai) speaks to someone else who is also Adonai. However they want to look at it, this is troublesome even to Trinitarian theology: If Yahweh is 3-in-1 God, speaking to another Adonai adds between 1 and 3 to the existing 3, leaving us with between 4 and 6 Persons in one God. If, however, you add the second Adonai to the first, then Yahweh is 2 and not 3 Persons, isn’t He (or should I say they)? (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, pp. 51-60, here, p. 60).

Paul vs. Eternal Security

But I keep under my body, and bring it unto subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. (1 Cor 9:27)

The term translated as “castaway” is αδοκιμος. This term also means “reprobate.” Notice the other instances of this term being used in the Pauline corpus:

And even a they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate (αδοκιμος) mind, to do those things which are not convenient. (Rom 1:28)

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates (αδοκιμος)? But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates (αδοκιμος). Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates. (αδοκιμος)  (2 Cor 13:5-7)

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate (αδοκιμος) concerning the faith. (2 Tim 3:8)

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate (αδοκιμος). (Tit 1:16)

That Paul did not hold to “eternal security” or any other variant of this theology (e.g., perseverance of the saints [the “P” of Calvinism’s “TULIP]) can be seen when one reads 1 Cor 9:27-10:6, where Paul also brings in the issue of the Israelites in the wilderness and how they lost their own salvation and standing before God; I will reproduce the NIV, a popular Evangelical translation:

No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for a prize. For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. And were all baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.

Unless one wishes to engage in a lot of scripture-wrenching, the plain, exegetically-sound reading of this pericope refutes, not supports, many popular, though biblically deficient, theologies of salvation.

Insights from F.F. Bruce on the Apostle Paul's Theology

In the Reformed tradition derived from Geneva, it has frequently been said that, while the man in Christ is not under law as a means of salvation, he remains under it as a rule of life. In its own right, the distinction may be cogently maintained as a principle of Christian theology and ethics, but it should not be imagined that it has Pauline authority. According to Paul, the believer is not under law as a rule of life—unless one thinks of law of love, and that is a completely different kind of law, fulfilled not by obedience to a code but by the outworking of an inward power. When Paul says, “sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace” (Romans 6:14), it is the on-going course of Christian life that he has in view, not simply the initial justification by faith—as is plain from the point of the antinomian retort which Paul immediately quotes: “What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?” (Romans 6:15) . . . But the law of love is a different kind of law entirely from that which Paul describes as a yoke of slavery. Love I generated by an inner spontaneity and cannot be enforced by penal sanctions . . . So far as Paul is concerned, guidance for the church is provided by the law of love, not by the “law of commandments and ordinances” (Ephesians 2:15). In his letters he himself lays down guidelines for his converts and others, often couched in the imperative mood, but these guidelines mostly concern personal relations. Food sacrificed to idols, for instance, is ethically and religiously indifferent; what does matter in this or in ay other activity is the effect of my conduct and example on others. If I ignore their true interests, he says then I am “no longer walking in love” (Romans 14:15). The same principle may be discerned in his instructions about such diverse matters as sexual life or behaviour in church. (F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977], 192, 201-2).

The rhetoric of Isaiah and the supremacy of Yahweh

LDS apologist, James Stutz, has a very enlightening post on the rhetoric of Isaiah 40-47 and the supremacy of Yahweh in light of Isa 47:8, 10 and the phrase, “none else beside me” written in reference to Babylon. One could add other instances, such as the following:

All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. (Isa 40:17)

The Hebrew locution, "as nothing" translates כְּאַיִן, which is rendered correctly by the KJV (an alternative translation would be like/as nought [cf. the NASB; 1985 JPS Tanakh]). The same locution appears in Isa 41:11:

Behold, all they that were incensed against thee shall be shamed and confounded: they shall be as nothing (כְאַיִן); and they that strive with thee shall perish.

 Of course, this is a statement of the supremacy of Yahweh, not the denial of the ontological existence of nations apart from Israel.

In Isa 40:23, we read:

That bringeth the princes to nothing; he makes the judges of the earth as vanity.

Again, the term often translated as "nothing" or "nought" (Heb: אַיִן) is coupled with a pre-fixed preposition, in this instance, לְ ( לְאָיִן ). Again, the supremacy of Yahweh (and national Israel) is in view here, not the denial of the ontological existence of the princes in this verse who, obviously, have real existence, not imagined.

The term   אַיִן often means "insufficient" or impotent, even in "Deutero-Isaiah" (Isa 40-47). Note the following:

And Lebanon is not sufficient (אַיִן) to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient (אַיִן) for a burnt offering. (Isa 40:16)

Again, the impotency of Yahweh's (and Israel's) enemies are in view here; not a denial of their ontological existence.

To quote Daniel McClellan (who, in turn is paraphrasing some of the work of Michael S. Heiser):

Deutero-Isaiah is not denying the ontological existence of other deities; rather, he is denying their efficacy and legitimacy. The language used by Deutero-Isaiah and Deuteronomy (“I am and there is no other,” “there is none beside me,” etc.) is also used in reference to Babylon, Moab (Isa 47:8, 10), and Nineveh (Zeph 2:15). The vernacular is placed in the mouths of Israel’s opponents, but the point is clear: these cities are not denying the existence of other cities, but rather that they are at all relevant in comparison (see Ps 89:6 and Isa 40:25). Deuteronomy 32 provides further indication that this is the correct reading. In v. 21 YHWH states, “They made me jealous with a non-god (בלא־אל) . . . so I will make them jealous with a non-people (בלא־עם).” The nation being referenced (Assyria-Babylon) is not one that does not exist, but one that is inconsequential in the eyes of YHWH. That this is part of the same propaganda is supported by v. 39 (ואין אלהים עמדי) and by Isa 40:17: “All the nations are as nothing (כאין) before him, he considers them as less than nothing (מאפס) and deserted (ותהו).”

That the authors of this rhetoric in no way deny the existence of other deities is also made clear by the proximity of explicit mentions of other gods. Deut 32:8–9 and 43, for instance, mention the sons of El and command “all the gods” to bow before YHWH, respectively. In Deut 4:19 the gods of the nations are explicitly said to have been established by YHWH for the worship of the people of those nations. Divine council imagery is also present in Isaiah 40 and 45.

Evangelical critics of LDS theology are guilty of eisegesis when they claim texts such as Isa 44:6, 8 refute Latter-day Saint theology on the “number” of God.

Suggested Reading

Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts

Nathan McDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of "Monotheism"

Blake T. Ostler, Of God and Gods