darinhouston wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 2:13 pm
dwight92070 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 2:02 pm
It's mind boggling how you could accept Jesus being the god and creator of the New Heavens and the New Earth, but not the GOD who created the original heavens and earth. There are no "little g 'gods'", except false gods, Satan, or demons, so Jesus does not fit into that category. He is either God or He is not God. The author of Hebrews clearly exalts Him as God, never as a "little g 'god'".
***
As to the little g issue, I suggest you might consider a word study on the subject. Maybe start with Exodus 7:1; 21:6; 22:8, 9, and 28. Maybe also John 10:34.
I thought this was a useful chapter from an old book which has been recently re-released. Whether you agree with it or not, it might help you understand how non-Trinitarians think of the argument that the mere use of the "term" god (in various forms) is convincing proof that Jesus is Yahweh.
-----------
1.1 How the Word “God” is Used in Scripture
That the blessed Jesus has the title of “God” ascribed sometimes to him in the holy Scriptures is not denied by Arians or Socinians.[69] But it remains to be examined in what sense that title as given to him is intended. Nor is this an unreasonable or needless inquiry, since it is beyond all reasonable denial that the title of “God” is given in very different senses in the Scripture.
Sometimes it signifies the most high, perfect, and infinite being, who is of himself alone, and owes neither his being nor authority, nor anything to another; and this is what is most commonly intended when we speak of “God” in ordinary discourse, and in prayer and praise; we mean “God” in the highest sense.
At other times it has a lower sense and is made a title for persons who are invested with subordinate authority and power from that supreme being. Thus, angels are styled “gods.”[70] “Thou hast made him a little lower than the gods,” as it is in the margin;[71] so also, magistrates are “gods.”[72] And sometimes in the singular number, one person is called “god,” as Moses is twice so-called, a “god” to Aaron, and afterwards a “god” to Pharaoh.[73] And thus the devil is called “the god of this world,” i.e., the prince and mighty ruler of it, though by unjust usurpation and God’s permission.[74]
Now, as he who alone is “God” in the former sense is infinitely above all these, so we find him distinguished from all others who are called “god” by the title “a God of gods,”[75] or the chief of all gods, with whom none of those gods may be compared.[76] So Philo describes him to be not only the “God of men” but the “God of gods” also.[77] This is the highest and most glorious title given to him in the Old Testament, when it is designed to make a most magnificent mention of his peerless greatness and glory.[78] I take that title to be equivalent to these which are so often used in the New Testament: “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” “the God of our Lord Jesus, the Father of Glory.”[79] For since Jesus Christ is the chief of all subordinate powers, “the prince of the kings of the earth,”[80] and far above the greatest angels,[81] “the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings,”[82] he who is called “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,”[83] is therein, in effect said to be “the God of gods” or above all gods.
Now the question to be resolved is, in which of these two senses is Christ said to be “god” in the holy Scriptures? Just the title “god” determines nothing in this case because it belongs both to the supreme and to subordinate beings in power and authority. The question is whether Jesus Christ is “the God of gods,” or above all gods.
He is indeed the “Lord of lords,” but that indicates an inferior description, compared with that of “God of gods,” as appears in 1 Corinthians 8:5, though it be included in the superior, so that he who is above all gods is also over all lords, but not vice versa.[84] In short, does Jesus Christ have any god over him who has greater authority and greater ability than himself or not? This will decide the matter, for if he should have a god above him, then he is not the absolutely supreme god, though in relation to created beings he may be a “god” (or ruler) over all.[85]
1.2 Jesus on Himself as Distinct from and Subordinate to God
Nor can we more clearly prove this point than by showing first that Jesus Christ explicitly speaks of another “God” than himself. Secondly, that he considers this “God” to be above or over himself. Thirdly, that he lacks those supereminent and infinite perfections which belong only to the Lord God of gods. I shall discuss these in a manner suited to ordinary abilities, for I think it inappropriate to speak or write of important doctrines (which the common people must believe and must so far understand) in such a manner as leaves them wholly unintelligible.
First, our Lord Jesus Christ expressly speaks of another “God” distinct from himself; several times we find him saying “my God” of another: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”[86] Surely he didn’t mean to say, “Myself, myself, why have you forsaken me?” This “God” Jesus was addressing, then, was distinct from himself, as he declares in other places: “He shall know my doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”[87] So John 8:42, where it is to be noted that he does not distinguish him from himself as “the Father,” but rather as “God”;[88] and therefore, in all reasonable interpretation, he cannot be supposed to be that self-same god from whom he distinguishes and to whom he opposes himself. How manifestly are the one God and the one Lord distinguished in 1 Corinthians 8:6?[89] And that there may be no good reason to say with Placaeus[90] that the “God and the Lord,” or the cause from which all things are and the cause by or through which they are, are just two things said of the same one god, we may see them more clearly distinguished in Ephesians 4:5–6.[91] Here, since other things are put between the one Lord and one God, namely “one faith, one baptism,” evidently these were not intended as two descriptions of the same being. I think that no one who impartially considers the scriptural records can doubt whether God and his Christ are two distinct beings.[92]
Secondly, our Lord Jesus holds not only that another than himself is God, but also that this one is above or over himself, which is plainly indicated also by his apostles. Jesus himself loudly proclaims his subjection to the Father in many instances; in general he declares his Father to be greater than him.[93] He says that he came not in his own but in his Father’s name or authority,[94] that he sought not his own but God’s glory, and that he made not his own will but rather God’s his rule.[95] And in such a posture of subjection “he came down from heaven” into this earth,[96] so that it should seem that this nature which pre-existed did not possess the supreme will, even before it was incarnate.[97] Again, he acknowledges his dependence upon his God and Father, even concerning those things which some suppose belong to him as God, namely the power of working miracles, of raising the dead, and of executing universal judgment—about all of which he says, “Of my own self I can do nothing.”[98] In like manner his apostles declare his subjection to another, not only as his Father, but as his God, which is emphatically expressed, in calling the most blessed God “the God of our Lord Jesus,” after his humiliation was over.[99] Again, Paul says that the “head of Christ is God.”[100] They declare Christ’s headship over the universe, and the very foundations of his claim to honor and service, to be due to the gracious gift of God, echarisato auto [“granted him”][101] and yet these are some of the highest glories of Jesus Christ.
Let me only add to this topic that great text, so full of irresistible evidence for the inferiority of the Son to his Father (or to God), 1 Corinthians 15:24–29,[102] where the apostle says several relevant things.
First, he says that all things are to be put under Christ’s feet—all enemies and powers are to be subdued to him—but he adds that it is clear that God must be excluded from these things that are under him because it is he who put all under Christ. And why is it, that it is so clear, that someone else must be supposed to be the great author of this triumph of Christ? Why might it not be done by himself independently, if he is the supreme God? (Then there need have been no exclusion of any one from the “all things” under him.) But the apostle knew that Jesus Christ must triumph by a power derived from God, to whom that power was to be ascribed in the highest sense. To one who had such thoughts, it was clear that there must be one excluded from the “all things” under him, because one who enables Christ to subdue all things (who makes him a god over all), must be above him.[103]
Second, he says that the Son shall deliver up his kingdom to God, that is, to the Father, not to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as some suppose, but to the Father only, since it was the Father who gave him all power in heaven and earth, and who made him King in Zion.[104] Christ will surrender all into God’s hands, in testimony of his having done all in subordination to him, and having acted and ruled in dependence on him who shall have a satisfactory account of all given to him in the end. This is a glory unique to the Father as supreme.
Third, he says, then the Son himself shall be subject to him who put all things under him—to God his Father—so that “God may be all in all.” That is, his subjection shall be then manifested by an open and solemn acknowledgement of it, when he shall recognize the supremacy of the Father in that public act of surrender, so that though formerly (i.e. in the present state) all judgment and rule was committed to the Son, yet then it shall be otherwise, and God will more immediately appear in the government of the future state, which shall not be so much shared, probably between him and the Redeemer, as the present administration appears to be. This then will be the resolution of all our disputes: God all in all, and the Son himself subject under him. Can anything be more expressive of an inequality between God and Christ?
But it will be said by some, that the “Son” means the Son of Man, or Christ as man, while as God, he shall not be subjected to the Father.
Response: as there is no indication of any such distinction between the supposed two natures of the Son here, so there is enough in the words to show that they are spoken of him under his highest capacity and description, so that Monsieur Claude[105] maintains it to be true of the Son of God as to his (supposed) divine nature. But though there is no need to suppose such a nature (which I think the text plainly contradicts) yet he proves why these words do speak of Christ under his highest description, the name of “Son.” For first, as he says, it does not say the “Son of Man,” but “the Son” absolutely, which he thinks in Scripture often means more than the “Son of Man.” Undoubtedly, it implies all that comes under that title and even more, since it is said, “even the Son himself,” with great emphasis, as if it should say that as great and glorious as he is, with all his grandeur and power, he himself shall be subject. Secondly, his subjection being contrasted with his reign, both must be understood of the same subject. Surely, the delivering up of the kingdom can only be done by the same to which it was committed, and by which it was managed. Now I grant that Christ could give up his kingdom only in his human nature, but then it is because it is as a man delegated and inhabited by God that he directs and manages this kingdom, and if this to be allowed (as I think it must) that the man Christ is sufficient, by help from God, to manage his universal spiritual kingdom, I see no reason to oppose those unitarians who think him to be a sufficient savior and prince even though he isn’t the only supreme God. Nor can any, with reason, attempt to prove him to be such from his works and office as king of his church, since it is implied that as such he must do homage to God the Father in “delivering up his kingdom to him.” And this very expression, “to God the Father,” makes it plain, that there is no God the Son in the same sense, or in the same supreme essence with the Father, because if there were then he ought not to be excluded from his glory of having such open homage paid to him, which is here given to the Father only. And since the apostle speaks of the same God (whom he explains to be the Father) throughout this discourse, and says he shall be “all in all,” how clearly does he show him to be far beyond all that are not God the Father, whatever other descriptions apply to them? So then, Jesus Christ, in his highest capacity, being inferior to the Father, how can he be the same god to whom he is subject, or of the same rank and dignity?
Thus it appears that Christ is “God” insofar as he is under a superior god, who has set him over all. This fits with the scriptural explication of the deity of the blessed Jesus—that he is invested with a God-like authority and power from the supreme God his Father. Thus, when he was accused by the fault-finding Jews of assuming the title “the Son of God” (which they would perversely stretch, as though it implied an equality with God) he explains in what sense he justified it, namely “as one whom the Father has sanctified,” i.e. called to a greater office, and honored with a higher commission than those magistrates, on whom the Scripture so freely bestows the title of “gods.”[106] So when he is called “God,” it is explained in what sense or what sort of “God” he is.[107] It is to be understood that by saying his god (implying that he had a god over him) had “anointed him with oil,” etc., that is, had invested him with royal power and dignity (as kings were installed in their office among the Jews by anointing with oil) which is an explication of his deity or dominion. And he is said to be “above his fellows,” not, to be sure, above the Father and Holy Spirit (which are supposed by those who understand Jesus’ deity to be the supreme deity to be his fellows as God) but above all other subordinate powers. This is one simple, scriptural explanation of his being called “God,” for these things are spoken to him and of him under the title of “God”—“O God, your throne,” etc.[108] I think people should be well assured on what grounds they go before they assign other reasons for this title being given to him which are so different from the scriptural explanation. Let it be enough for us that God has “made him both Lord and Christ,” that he has “exalted him to be a Prince and a Savior.”[109]
Our adversaries will gain nothing by prooftexts in which the title of “God” is given to Christ,[110] since that may be, and yet it will not prove him to be the supreme and independent God, but only one who is inhabited and commissioned and enabled by him who is so. As to that place which is corruptly rendered in our translation, “he thought it no robbery to be equal with God,”[111] it is confessed by our adversaries themselves, that it should be read thus: that he did not assume, or arrogate, or snatch at an equality with God, or covet to appear in the likeness of God.[112] The words are never known to be used in any other sense, as is shown by Dr. Tillotson in his discourses against the Socinians,[113] also by Dr. Whitby in his exposition on that text, and others.[114] So that this rather denies than asserts Christ’s equality to God, though he was “in the form of God,” as that has to do with the outward resemblance of him in his mighty power and works, etc., which is the constant meaning of the word “form” in the New Testament.
But because some think perfections are ascribed to Christ in Scripture which will prove him to be God in the highest sense, I proceed to show next that our blessed Lord Jesus disavows those infinite perfections which belong only to the supreme God of gods. And it is most certain that if he lacks any of these perfections that are essential to the Deity, he is not “God” in the primary sense. And if we can find him disavowing the one, he cannot lay claim to the other, for to deny himself to have all the divine perfections, or to deny himself to be the infinite God, is the same thing.
Emlyn, Thomas. An Humble Inquiry into the Scripture-Account of Jesus Christ: A Short Argument concerning His Deity and Glory according to the Gospel (pp. 22-23). Theophilus Press. Kindle Edition.