Response to Unitarians Dave Barron and Patrick Navas, Part 2

So.

John 12, Isaiah 53, and Seeing Christ’s Glory

With that as the background. We go back to the statements, and you'll see why I've put Isaiah 53 to. In there we'll look at that in just a moment. Listen to the comments.

White sex of Jesus seemed to focus more on just the words saw his glory and spoke about him. And so with those words he would try to link that back to Isaiah 6. But he did not deal with the fact that Isaiah said what he said.

Which which was what John was speaking about because Isaiah Saw his glory and spoke about him. In other words white isn't explaining How seeing God's glory and speaking about him served as the basis? For what Isaiah said or to put it another way white hasn't explained.

How what Isaiah said was dependent upon seeing glory and speaking about him or.

Again.

Mountain out of molehill these things tauta I've been. Comes right after quotation of Isaiah 6 10 That is an entire pericope you cannot separate 10 from 1 no Jew would because they all knew the Isaiah temple vision and so Isaiah Saw his glory whose glory to see Yahweh's and he spoke concerning him who is that Yahweh.

And. Yet, what application does John make? That it's Jesus. It's right there. I Can't open eyes to see it. And as long as a person wants to reject who Jesus is they they can just close it. Oh, no, no, not gonna believe it not gonna believe it but anyone with a septuagint in their hand Which was John's original audience would see it and they would understand it.

And if this was if this was just one verse, but isn't just one verse. This is the gospel of John folks. Even skeptics like Bart Ehrman recognize the gospel of John presents the deity of Christ even they even unbelievers right now.

Come on, it's right there. I mean, how can you miss that?

But.

Still there's always a way to squint your eyes and to close them tightly shut.

So you don't see speaking about God in Isaiah 6. The reality is though that this is going to be very difficult for white if if not possible because the words that are quoted Weren't dependent upon seeing God and speaking about him.

It was something that was told to Isaiah.

There was also a command given to Isaiah, which is exactly why John quotes these words about seeing his glory and speaking about him. That's irrelevant. He didn't have to say all that. It's this. This whole verse doesn't even need to be there.

It's.

So that was the basis for what Isaiah said him being told that him being commanded it was not seeing glory.

Seeing God or speaking about him, which is why John actually emphasized those words, but never used the word commanded. Like I said reading out of the text that which is there because it doesn't fit with our traditions.

Not. This made a really good point in that typically the Messiah's seen glory within the book of John refers to His works. What he has done so that this would carry forward into John chapter 12 is certainly a very probable.

Interestingly the most in other words what he's saying there is well. We can see the glory of God in the works of Jews, of course. But that doesn't explain why John says what he says in verse 41 about Isaiah.

Spoke these things. So here's a quote. Here's a quote. Isaiah said it because he saw his glory and he spoke concerning him. Messianic fulfillment you bet. But who did Isaiah see. The Unitarian says, um, it wasn't Joe.

But no, no, don't don't notice that part. No, he no, it can't be that. It can't be that because we don't believe that. That's why it can't be that. Catch catch how that's working folks. It'll help you to follow along.

Immediate occurrence prior to John.

1241 is in John 1140 where God's glory is spoken of and that also is glory seen through works. White really hammered on the verbal parallel, but of course, it's meaningless meaning first can't deal with because.

And it really the verbal parallel also exercise a 53 Isaiah 53 to it says idos auto. And so he says we saw him. So that same concept of seeing is there present in Isaiah 53. He goes on to speak now, let's let's.

Let's provide mr. Barron with some remedial Greek 101 here because he's mistranslated Isaiah 53 to provided in the blog article. You do see idos auto. That does not mean we saw him. We saw him is item in Alton which is a little bit later on.

If.

Mr. Barron were actually translate the phrase there. He would have noticed that right before idos auto is oak estin Idos auto Buddha Daxa, which means he had no form to him neither glory. Idos means a form or appearance at that point.

It is not a verb. So I don't know if mr. Barron has ever been trained in Greek. He certainly hasn't taught it that's clear, but that's just a basic error on his part. Fundamental error that a lot of people wouldn't catch but fundamental error in his part.

So Notice what's happening here, though. We have this clear citation of a text clear direct verbal parallels to a citation of a text. That's irrelevant. But if we go over here. Um, yeah, I know there's no glory mentioned here but but but but but the verb Ida.

It's right there item in Alton. So that's good enough to make the parallel but the direct citation isn't. When you're this is called doing gymnastics. All right, this is not exegesis. This is is a Jesus.

There's clearly an overriding Thought here that is keeping you from actually allowing the text to speak for itself that of his lowly form.

But then he speaks about his redemptive work. He says that he bears our sin and his pain pain for us. So there in that redemption in his bearing our sins the Messiah's glory is seen. So this addresses the the matter of how his glory was seen and where it was seen it was seen.

Starting in Isaiah 52 where Isaiah speaks about the suffering servant and then on into Isaiah 53 Where he continues to speak about him with first Corinthians 8 6. White took the petition that Paul was modifying the the Shema of Deuteronomy 6 4.

I was surprised that white white didn't really Grasp the force of Patrick's point that Paul could have said.

Notice when they say you failed to grasp means you didn't agree with. That's an inaccurate description. I fully understood. Mr. Novice's argument. I did not find it to be meaningful. That does not mean I did not grasp it.

Might want to be a little bit more accurate in your use of terminology.

There is to us one God the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. He certainly could have done this and you know, he says that the Trinity is revealed. But this is a creedal statement if Paul is Formulating a creed here by which the church can follow.

This is the time to do that to present the doctrine of God. He doesn't do that though. He says there is one God the Father and that would really encompass the Shema at that point there.

Catch that now. Let's let's look at section B and let's examine. Mr. Barron's.

Assertions.

Section B gives you the Shema in the Greek Septuagint Shema Yisrael Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh Echad Here of Israel Yahweh is our God. Yahweh is one Heis Echad in Hebrew Akua Israel Kurias Hathaias Heimon Kurias Heis Esten.

That's an you shall then the next line Deuteronomy 6 5 you shall love the Lord your God all your heart soul mind And all your strength. And that is of course the Greek version of that. The reference didn't come through.

I apologize for that. But the next line beginning with all is actually first Corinthians 8. All he mean heist they asked hap a tear Exhuta Panta Kai. Hey, my ice out on Kai ice Kurias Jesus Christos D who top on ta Kai?

Hey mice D out who and. So here you have in first Corinthians 8 and you've you've. Most if you've done any work with Mormons, you already know this text because you know that Joseph Smith misused this text First Corinthians 8 for even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth as indeed There are gods many and Lords many.

But to us all he mean Heist the oz hop hot air now notice in the preceding in the preceding verse. He has said There are like Gamma noi say oi There are so-called gods Whether in heaven or upon the earth.

Good description of the pagan deities of that day. And then he says host bear ice and say oi polo a kai Kuri oi polo a. So now he is used both say oi gods and kuri oi.

Lords as.

There are gods many and Lords many now Paul is not saying there are many gods and many Lords he's saying that there are those who are called gods who are called Lords and Then he says but this is the adversative use of a law but To us for us for the Christian people High stay oz hop hot air from whom are all things and we for him Kai, heist Kuri oz Jesus Christ oz Through whom are all things and we through him now.

I Have used bold to show you Why it is that and again? And I don't think They have accused me of this though. I think sometimes they want to sort of Present this idea a little bit. I'm not the first one to think of these things.

Okay. I'm a midget standing on the shoulders of Giants. Many scholars For a long time have pointed out that for someone like Paul who clearly is Able to function in both Hebrew and Greek He is bilingual.

He would know the Shema like the back of his hand because as a faithful Jewish person living at that period Second Temple Judaism. It was a part of his daily life but he also Would have heard it in Greek.

He would have known of the Diaspora synagogues. Where does he and Silas and he and Barnabas go and there is that they go into? The synagogues. And not everybody there knew Hebrew.

And so.

What would the Shema be for him? Kudios, haath, thayos, haimon, kudios, hais, esten. What are the words kudios Lord the ahs God haimon? Haimon is just a genitive form of hainin which is the second word in first Corinthians 8 6.

So the idea that well, I'm not convinced that this is actually have anything to do the Shema. Well again, you can read that out if you want. It's obvious it's right there. The idea is the idea that a monotheistic Jew who said the Shema over and over again could write these words and go.

Oh, but look at that. That looks a lot like the Shema. I didn't mean to do that. Is ridiculous, but if that's where you want to go then you can go there. But for those who are serious about the study of the text it's obvious and what Paul is doing here is He's not.

I Don't think this is something that once the this was read at the church in Corinth. They all went Wow. We've never heard of that before. He's actually referring to something that would have been something that he had already taught them and so what is the.

The Christian version of the Shema here. Well, you have hais, thayos, hapater. One God the father and what you just heard mr. Barron said, I don't know be it for the Shema right there. That's it. Again, that's it.

You don't read the rest of the sentence. Because clearly what Paul is doing is this there is only one God the father from whom X who from whom. Top on top same thing. We're gonna see in Colossians 1 all things and.

We.

For him I saw Tom which by the way is going to be used of Jesus the Son in Colossians 1. I saw Tom. All things are I saw Tom. Hi, and this is where where mr. Barron. Mr. Novice miss it. There's a Chi here.

Oh, no, that's that's it says something else story about that. Don't don't pay attention to the sentence behind the curtain or whatever else. But to us one God and one Lord. Oh, that's that's a separate thing.

It wasn't in the Shema was it courios hot. They are same own courios. Hi Seston. And one Lord Jesus the Messiah D who through whom top on top and we D out to we through him. Now he uses different prepositions which fits Exactly the role that the Sun has taken.

Not only is the instrumental means by which creation takes place all of creation meaning He cannot be in the created order as we'll see when we get to mr. Barron's false assertion of the part of genitive and Colossians 1.

We'll get there. We've got. I still got an hour and 15 minutes left and I may not get. I may not even get to start my other two Series, but I'm going to finish this. We are going to be consistent and thorough and move on very clearly we have a beautiful New Testament Expansion.

What you've got is Shema and it's still there. There is no contradiction. But what have I said over and over and over again? What have I said over and over and over again. The revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Is in the.

Incarnation and The outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And so now what is first Corinthians 8 6? It is the Shema in the fuller light of the incarnation Death burial resurrection of Jesus Christ and now the coming of the Holy Spirit.

He said where's the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn't testify himself he testifies of Jesus and so this is what he's doing right here and. So you there is there is absolute precision and purposefulness in Paul's Ascription to the highest they asked and the highest courtyards all of creation all of creation.

Because when you take X who taught Panta and we for him and D who taught Panta and we for him through him. That is the very description of Of the activities of God and we can follow those very same prepositions into the discussion of Colossians 1 as we go a little bit later on and so.

When you hear Baron saying, oh, well, you know that that high style that that's enough of the Shema. It's just just blindness. Just just just putting your hands over your eyes saying I will not see it.

I would yes, there's a Chi there. I don't care. My my Unitarianism will not allow me to see that. But it's right there and For he who has ears to hear and eyes to see.

That Chi is right there and one Lord the Holy Spirit Doesn't say that I'm not convinced. However that that Paul is making use of the Shema at this point. We'll notice that in verse 5 There's a contrast between many gods and in many Lords and then into verse 6 and that Contrast is made with the one God in our one Lord.

Well, if I said Paul was making use of the the Shema at that point Lord in the Shema Of course was the touch of graviton. It was Jehovah. So there was you know, Jehovah our God. Jehovah is one or one Jehovah.

Here however, it's apparent that Paul is not saying that Jesus is the one Jehovah. Rather he is contrasting those many Lords to the one Lord. Just as there were many gods for example the angels they were properly called God the judges of Israel were properly called God.

There was many of those and there were also many Lords.

This might not of course Paul wasn't talking about proper usages of the plural. They oi he was saying like Gammon oi, they are those that are called gods whether in heaven or on earth and. Of course just as in John 12 you have to go.

That's not. Isaiah wasn't talking about Jehovah. Now you have the very language of the Shema which was about Jehovah. Uh, no, it's not about Jehovah either. It's just it's like the Jehovah's Witnesses New World translation.

You know.

They had these things called the J documents when they mistranslated the New Testament. They put the word Jehovah in the New Testament 237 times. But they don't ever put it in where it would refer to Jesus.

Even though many of the sources they they drew derived from including the J documents Which they quote actually had places where Jehovah was used of Jesus, but they hid those they didn't put them in the footnotes.

You know, that's that's just deceptiveness. And this is just spiritual blindness.

Paul might have had in mind here. For example, we know in one early Jewish texts that that certain angels were called Lords. Perhaps that's what he's contrasting the many of those with the one.

Who is Jesus our one Lord? Yeah, that's why he says there's one God. We're not really talking about the true God here. We're just talking about you know in comparison to false gods and and all things through him.

That really wouldn't be about Jehovah any more than de who all through him or all things. I know that you see you see what you have. What happens when you just chop the text up and you don't allow to have Any flow.

You don't allow. You don't allow one phrase to inform the meaning of the preceding phrase the following for see what happens.

It's it's.

You can you can make anything you want out of the text next.

They went on into Hebrews chapter 1 and I think section C had a strong case here and white just didn't seem to grasp it. Yeah, I didn't go. White argue that God's nature is eternal. Speaking about verse 3.

And so when it calls Jesus the exact representation or the copier the reproduction of God's being. White insisted that Jesus therefore must be eternal.

Now let me it is interesting. It is somewhat educational for me to hear what Unitarians Hear me saying over against what I actually argue.

And.

The one thing is very clear is that Patrick novice and mr. Barron is other they they're not overly self-reflective on the role of presuppositions in their own thinking. They they and how many times that we run in that?

Here's the situation. Look at look at Hebrews chapter 1 verse 3. It's section C.

In.

In the notes on and if you're just joining us, please go to the blog at a omin org and you'll see a blog article Documentation for today's program and of course it'll stay up there. So when you listen to this at other times, you'll be able to look at this section.

C Hebrews 1 3. He is the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his nature and upholds all things whether word was power. When he had made purification of sins he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high.

Now I've given you that in the Greek and the the primary Phrase that was focused upon remember we we had seven minutes. I covered all of Hebrews chapter 1 in seven minutes. And mr. Mr. Novice was not good at Timekeeping, I don't know if he didn't have a timer in front of him or something like that.

He kept going over time and he and. This is where experience helps. I'm able to look at the clock and go.

Okay.

I've got so much to cover and so I can only give so much time to each section and I can just sort of do that. On the fly and I got all the way through. I was able to present all the positive Argumentation from Hebrews chapter 1 in 7 minutes.

That's not easy to do, but I I managed to do it. He didn't even get to verses 10 through 12, which is the key text. Which applies Psalm 102 25 to 27? Which is about Yahweh and Yahweh alone to Jesus. We're gonna see that.

Mr. Baron has a really interesting way. Well, I didn't come up with it.

It's.

Anthony buzzard has used it and others, you know, they borrow from each other. But interesting way to try to get around that which we will debunk in just a few moments. It's the quote that will help us to do.

So is right there on the screen in front of you anyway, but first. The issue is the meaning of correct air. Haas own up. Oh God's ma tastes ducks a sky cardiac tear tastes who pass. Dassaos outu is the first phrase of Hebrews 1 3.

Who being and please notice I did bold own. I Bolded that for a couple reasons. It's not an heiress. In fact, it's the same phrase in a go. I mean hot own at excess 314.

Who.

Being the radiance or the effulgence of his glory and the correct air the imprint the exact representation of his Person nature being depends on the context of use so on and so forth. Now if you listened to my debate with Greg Stafford from back in 2004 as I recall, you know that modern-day Aryans Take this and they say well that means Jesus is a copy.

Now we think of a copy, you know, we think of photocopiers which can make sometimes really good copies but very often Really not so good copies. You can tell her copies, you know that you know. So like using the fax machine to make a copy.

It's got the black lines and so it's readable but it's you can tell it's a copy right and they want to take that term copy and here's where again, I Hope by investing this time. I am helping you to think through things and.

See.

Where arguments.

See the.

Unspoken the unspoken presuppositions of arguments that are bad arguments. The argument from the Unitarians is if Jesus is a copy then he has to be a creature. Because a copy by necessity comes after the original.

What is the unspoken assumption there? What's the unspoken assumption there? The unspoken assumption is that the term correct error in?

Its.

Meaning and application at this point. Refers to a point of origin. That it has a temporal Element to it. Well, of course a copy it has to happen. The original has to come before a copy as if the process of copying and a photocopier is in the mind of the writer the Hebrews.

Which of course it is not. What's in the mind of the right of the Hebrews is the exactness of? The correct air a correct air,. I've told the story before but I'll tell again If we have to go a few minutes long.

It's Ralph's birthday and Ralph would be happy if we did that, so I'm not gonna rush it. But I've told the story before. I remember one of my favorite memories of.

Of.

The holidays When I was a kid Was my mom who had beautiful handwriting. Had this huge Christmas card list and that's pretty much gone the way of the dodo bird to be honest with you and She would write these Christmas cards to everybody and Then for a while she had this neat set of candles wax candles and You'd light it and the the wax would a drop of wax would go down onto the back of the of the Envelope then you blow it out, and then she had this metal W.

Fancy W. That she would press into the wax on the back and it would form a seal. Really cool looking seal on the back of the envelope bill. Please don't do stuff like that anymore. You know we've lost that and every once while she'd let me do that.

You had to wait a little bit till it gelled just a little bit. Then she'd let me push it in there as I was great the impress of that W in the wax is The correct air and It was an exact mirror image of what was in the metal stamp.

Signet rings would be the years in the same way you'd press it into the into the wax and That would seal something and that was something that would have been understood by the people of that time. I just realized we do need to take a brief break at the top of the hour if we can.

I'll let you queue that Up and keep going let me know when ready to go because I want to keep recording this and It's gonna stop here in a few moments. So I need to continue on because I'd like to put at least some of this up on the web that's what this is talking about and If mr. Navas and mr. Barron and these guys really wanted to be honest with Hebrews they would notice the context.

Are you saying that the glory of God began at a point in time? Because you're saying correct air means is referring to a point in time where an inferior copy was made. But was God always glorious. Has there always been an effulgence of his glory of course?

Then where do you get this idea that character means? Created at a point in time. It's an assumption. I've never heard them back it up with anything other than a photocopier. Analogy which would not be in the mind of the writer, but there's something more as I pointed out They don't really believe correct air.

Because I asked is and this is interestingly enough all of mr. Barron heard but didn't fully understand. I asked is Eternality a definitional part of God's nature. He said yes, I said is Jesus eternal.

No, then he's not really the correct air. Is he? Because you see to avoid the implications of the position. They have to diminish the meaning of correct air. They have to turn it into a bad photocopy.

That's not what the writer of the Hebrews ever intended. Remember this is this is the very presentation of the supremacy of Christ. The beginning of it which is going to end at the end of chapter 1 with the identification of Jesus Yahweh.

So the idea that this is some created concept. Makes absolutely no sense in the context of Hebrews chapter 1 I will. Number number two and fifty eight point sixty two in the blog article our definitions of character first is from Bauer Donger Arndt Gingrich and the second is from low.

Anita if you want to have that okay, we'll continue on with mr.

Barron's.

Presentation and our refutation thereof right after we take a short. I'll come back. It's talking, but no one can hear me. We are responding to a video that was posted on YouTube. Comments on the debate that I had with Patrick novice on Friday evening.

If you are just joining us Please go to the blog at a omin org and you will find there The notes that I have provided. Which are helping us to to deal with these issues and to explain some of the things that we're talking about.

It's a little bit on the complicated side, but we want to be able to tackle these things and.

Hopefully it's useful to you. Let's continue on. But that goes against the very definition of what a copy or a reproduction is.

Yeah a modern definition not what carter means. But what a modern definition would mean which you would have to demonstrate. Character means that in Hebrews 1 3 and that it is always.

Temporally after the original it always comes after that one. That's just definitional to what a copy is. So whites presuppositions came to bear there.

Actually my exegesis came to bear there and his presuppositions were just exposed.

He also couldn't grasp how the language of Hebrews 1 10 to 12 Which is a quote from Psalm 102 how that could apply to a creature now?

Let me let me stop here because if you haven't if it's been a while. Since you have read Psalm 102 25 to 27 might I might I read it to you.

Because.

You know it just strikes me as as being pretty obvious. Let's let's let's listen to it. Of old you laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain.

They will all wear out like a garment you will change them like a robe and they will pass away. But you are the same and your years have no end. Yeah, I think that's a very very good description of the immutability of Yahweh The one Creator God, and I just want you to consider.

How could you ever apply those words to a created being. To a created being? You created being laid the foundation of the earth. You created being the heavens of the work of your hands. Well. What is this created being.

When was he created if he created the earth and the heavens. Did he create himself? They created things will perish you created thing, but you created thing will remain because you're not really a created thing.

Maybe I don't know. They will all wear out like a garment. You will change them created thing like a robe and they will pass away even though you are like them. But you are the same. Created thing even though you're not always the same because you came into existence the point in time and your years have no end even though.

They had a beginning. Yeah, that's what the psalmist had in mind, okay, so. Now it's obvious to me. It's obvious to the vast majority of the listeners of this. Of this broadcast what is being discussed there?

But there is a sneaky little way around this and we have discussed this before in the program. But we're gonna discuss it again.

Let's let's listen insist that the author of Hebrews would never have done that. But the reality is is that application to another to a creature? Came much earlier. And it's actually that application that the author of Hebrews is drawing from from the Septuagint where in the psalm It's reinterpreted and reapplied.

To what is apparently the psalmist who is interpreted to be the Messiah? This text is in the Septuagint Applied to one other than Jehovah, and it actually has Jehovah speaking to that one. So we find right there the reapplication of it.

So.

What he's talking about is that there is a minor difference in the Greek Septuagint and the Masoretic text if you want to hear a Fuller discussion of this see my sermon on this relevant text sermon audio in the Hebrews series but I provide you an entire quotation and for those who don't get to Follow the notes.

I'm gonna go ahead and read FF Bruce's commentary at this point. There's many of you who listen on a podcast you're driving down the road or doing what I do riding a bicycle someplace or Running or something like that.

And so let me go ahead and read this for you. So, you know, what is being referred to? Bruce I believe this is in the NIC NT, which I just got thanks to the Lord. On Kindle, I wanted this in electronic form for a long time and finally got it.

The words in which the psalmist addresses God However are here applied to the Sun as clearly as the words of Psalm 45 6 following were applied to him in verses 8 and 9. What justification can be pleaded for our authors applying them thus first as has already been said in verse 2.

It was through the Sun that the universe was made. The angels were about worshiping spectators when the earth was founded, but the Sun was the father's agent in the work. He therefore can be understood as the one who is addressed in the words of Moreover in the Septuagint text and here's the point in the Septuagint text the person to whom these words are spoken is addressed explicitly as Lord Thou Lord in the beginning did slay the foundation of the earth and it is God who addresses him thus.

Or as in the Hebrew text the suppliant is the speaker from the beginning to the end of the psalm in the Greek text. His prayer comes to an end with verse 22 and the next words reads as follows. Hmm he restoration of Jerusalem is a verse 13.

I may have had a a Problem here in cutting and pasting. I apologize for that as in verse 13 and not summon him to act when that set time is already have expired while he assures Him that he and his servants children would be preserved forever.

Something obviously got missed there. I apologize for that that sometimes happens when cutting and pasting I will double-check the citation and fix it after the program. I continue on anyways, but to whom a Christian reader the subject my well ask could God speak in words like these.

And.

Whom would God himself address as Lord as the maker of earth and heaven. Now you just heard mr Barron say well, this is this is prior the Messiah. Oh. So God calls the Messiah Lord and says the Messiah is the maker of heaven and earth.

Certainly it's not the psalmist and so what is the Unfounded presupposition which once again our Unitarians have immediately Thrown into it. Oh the Messiah is a created being because he said oh, it's see it's used here of a creature and.

And so God calls the Messiah.

Kodios Lord.

Really same terminology used of Yahweh. Now if the Septuagint and if the writer is picking up on this then he's picking up on this as a further identification as Of Jesus as Yahweh and that's exactly how Bruce takes it.