The Type of Worship Given to Jesus

Three Greek Words for “Worship”

The Greek word latreia (λατρεία) as a noun and latreuō (λατρεύω) as a verb are both related to the concept of service or worship. They most often refer to the act of serving or worshiping in a religious context.

In the New Testament,  latreia and latreuō  usually reserved for the divine worship of God alone, are not used in reference to Jesus Christ. Instead, the term proskynesis (προσκύνησις)  is employed to denote worshipful reverence towards Jesus Christ.

Proskynesis is a term that refers to the act of bowing down or prostrating  oneself as a gesture of deep respect, worship, or submission. It comes from the Greek verb proskyneō (προσκυνέω). Proskynesis is not limited to religious worship. In ancient Greek and Persian cultures, it was also a form of homage or deep respect shown to kings and other high-ranking individuals. In religious contexts, particularly in ancient Greek and later in Christian literature, proskynesis signifies the act of worship offered to gods, rulers, or revered figures as an expression of their divinity, authority, or superiority.

In the Theodotion version of Daniel 7:14, the term douleuō (δουλεύω) is used to describe the service rendered to the Son of Man. The Greek verb douleuō (δουλεύω)  and its future tense form douleusousin (δουλεύσουσιν) primarily mean “to serve” or “to be a slave.” While these terms can be used in religious contexts to describe serving a deity, they do not directly translate to “worship” in the sense of religious adoration or reverence. 

Daniel 7:14 (Theodotion)

“And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve (δουλεύσουσιν, douleusousin) him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”

In this context, douleusousin is used to describe the universal service or allegiance given to the Son of Man, indicating a form of submission and loyalty. Given the context of Daniel 7:14, the term douleusousin carries a strong implication of royal service and submission to the authority of the Son of Man. This service includes elements of worship, given the exalted status of the Son of Man in this prophetic vision.

Use of Proskynesis in Luke -Acts + Paul

 Luke is the more primitive gospel narrative (see https://lukanpriority.com/), which only contains the word proskynesis applied to Jesus once in Luke 24:52. However, this is a textual variant that is not observed in some of the earliest manuscripts, including Codex Baeze, the earliest Old Latin Manuscripts, and the early Sinaitic Syriac manuscript. Thus, it can be argued that in the earliest version of Luke, there are no occurrences of proskynesis in reference to Jesus. Interestingly, Acts 10:25 includes a reference to Peter receiving proskynesis.

Moreover, there are no references in Paul's letters) in which proskynesis is used with explicit reference to Jesus. For Paul, God has highly exalted Jesus and bestowed on him the name above every name, that every knee will bend, and every tongue confesses Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:8-9). But this is after him being exalted due to his obedience. For those who hold Luke-Acts + Paul as being the core foundational authorities of Apostolic Christianity, it is clear that it was not common practice in the most primitive form of Christianity to refer to Jesus as an object of worship during his life and ministry. Now that Jesus has been made Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) and has been exalted to the right hand of God (Acts 2:33), Jesus has fully merited honor and servitude as one we should prostrate ourselves to. 

Use of Proskynesis elsewhere in the New Testament

The tendency to use the word proskynesis in reference to Jesus during his ministry is expanded in later Gospel traditions. Mark and Matthew, later revisions to the primitive narrative, have two occurrences and eleven, respectively, of proskynesis applied to Jesus, with the English translation being “worshiped,” “knelt” or “falling on his knees” in the ESV. Hebrews and Revelation, which both point to the fulfillment of God's plan, also include occurrences of proskynesis to Jesus. 

Unitarians understand proskynesis worship that is applied to Jesus in a manner that acknowledges him as God's chosen agent, but not as an object of divine worship in the same sense as God. Jesus is regarded as having been given authority and power by God as an exalted figure above creation. Jesus, being the Messiah (Christ), who fulfills prophecies of a future leader and king in Jewish tradition, is the one chosen by God to rule over and judge the world. 

Is Latreia worship ever applied to Jesus in the Bible?

Nowhere in the New Testament is the term latreia (usually denoting divine worship typically only given to God) used in reference to Christ.

Some trinitarian apologists like to point out that in the Septuagint (LXX) version of Daniel 7:14, latreia is used in reference to the Son of Man. However, they fail to disclose that there are multiple Greek versions of Daniel that predate the first century, and that the version which scholars hold as more accurate does not exhibit the word latreia in Dan 7:14.

In the Theodotion version of Daniel 7:14, the Greek word used is douleusousin (δουλεύσουσιν), which means “they will serve” or “they will worship in a servile manner,” indicating a form of homage or service rendered to the Son of Man. The explicit use of (λατρεία), which specifically denotes worship in a religious or divine sense, is not present in the superior Theodotion version of Daniel. Instead, the emphasis is on the submission and service of all peoples, nations, and languages to the Son of Man's authority and kingdom.

Which Greek word is more appropriate, lateria or douleusousin?

The word being translated from Aramic to greek is  “פלח” (pleach). This word does not necessarily entail religious worship. The term “פלח” (pleach) generally means “to serve” or “to work,” and its context determines whether it refers to religious service or secular labor.

In religious contexts, “pleach” can indeed refer to acts of worship or service to a deity. However, in other contexts, it might simply denote serving or working for someone in a non-religious capacity. Thus, the specific meaning of “pleach” depends on its usage within the broader text or discourse. Therefore, while peach can signify religious worship in certain contexts, it does not inherently or exclusively entail religious worship. Its precise meaning must be interpreted based on the surrounding text and usage. 

When translating a word with a broad range of meanings, it is generally advisable to use a translation that retains the broad range of meanings. This ensures that the translated word can encompass the various contexts in which the original word is used.

In the case of the Aramaic word “pelach” (פלח), which broadly means “to serve” or “to work,” a translation that retains this broad range of meaning would be ideal. In this case, douleusousin (δουλεύσουσιν) is more appropriate because this term is broader and can refer to any form of service, whether secular or religious. It captures the general sense of “serving” without limiting it to worship or religious service.

Yet latreuō is sometimes used loosely in the LXX and elsewhere

There are instances in the Septuagint (LXX) and other early Jewish and Christian texts where latreuō (λατρεύω) is used as a verb in contexts that extend beyond strictly religious worship to include servitude or service to human authorities or entities.

1. Deuteronomy 28:48 (LXX): You will serve (λατρεύσεις, latreuseis) your enemies whom the Lord will send against you...” This passage indeed uses latreuō to describe serving enemies, implying subjugation or forced service rather than worship in a religious sense.

2. Judith 3:8 (LXX): “and the nations worshiped (ἐλάτρευσαν, elatreusan) Nebuchadnezzar...”Here, latreuō is used to describe the nations serving or being subjugated to Nebuchadnezzar, again extending the term's use beyond divine worship.

3. Sibylline Oracles 8.442-445: This passage describes angels “worshiping” the first Adam, which is an unusual context and demonstrates the flexibility of latreuō in certain texts to denote profound respect or honor, though not necessarily in a strictly religious sense.

These examples show that latreuō can indeed be used more broadly to include servitude or honor beyond strictly religious worship. Therefore, latreuō does have a range of meaning that can include both religious and non-religious contexts, although its primary connotation is often religious service. This broader usage can sometimes justify translating pelach as latreuō, especially when the context involves subjugation, honor, or service that could be seen as analogous to worship.

The Theodotion version is superior

This Theodotion version of Daniel (Th-Dan, which reads douleusousin rather than lateria, generally follows the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) more closely compared to the Septuagint (LXX) version (OG-Dan). Th-DAN is a more accurate and faithful rendering of the Hebrew/Aramaic text into Greek, addressing perceived shortcomings or discrepancies found in earlier Greek translations.

The Theodition version has been associated with the historical Theodotion, who lived in the early second century CE and was previously thought to have reworked much of the Greek OT. Dan. It is now certain that Th-Dan is not the work of Theodotion, but pertains to an earlier Greek manuscript tradition of the Old Testament that precedes the 1st century CE. 

A date later than the composition of the New Testament texts cannot account for how the NT cites many phrases from Th-Dan. Because of the correspondence between Th-Dan and the New Testament, scholars have concluded that Th-Dan must antedate it. 

The New Testament cites readings that come from OG-Dan as well as Th-Dan. Again, the evidence seems to indicate that the NT writers and the early Christian community employed at least two different Greek forms of Daniel. 

J. Gwynn has argued in “Theodotion,” Dictionary of Christian Biography ((1887) 4.970-79) for a probable theory that in addition to OG-Dan the Jews of pre-Christian times had another Greek form of Daniel. This form was known to the translator of the deuterocanonical Book of Baruch into Greek at around 70 CE, in addition to the NT writers and the earliest Church Fathers such as Clement and Hermas. Gwyunn concludes that this other Pre-Christian Greek form of Daniel became the foundation of the work of the historical Theodotion.

Ziegler (Daniel, 28-29 n. 1.)  had the view that Th-Dan has nothing at all to do with Theodotion but was only superficially reworked by him.

The Theodotion version of the Book of Daniel is often regarded as superior or more reliable compared to the Septuagint (LXX /OG-DAN) version for several reasons:

1. Faithfulness to Hebrew Text: Theodotion's translation of Daniel is known for its closer adherence to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), which is considered the authoritative Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Theodotion's rendering is seen as more accurate in reflecting the wording and structure of the original Hebrew/Aramaic text of Daniel.

2. Clarity and Completeness: Theodotion's translation is often clearer and more complete than the LXX version of Daniel. It includes additional material and provides a more coherent narrative flow that aligns closely with the MT, making it easier for scholars and readers to study and understand.

3. Textual Criticism: In the field of textual criticism, which involves comparing and evaluating different manuscript traditions, Theodotion's version of Daniel provides important insights into the textual history of the Old Testament. It helps scholars reconstruct the original Hebrew/Aramaic text and understand the transmission and interpretation of the biblical text in ancient times.

4. Wider Acceptance: Early Christian communities and later scholars generally favored Theodotion's version of Daniel due to its perceived fidelity to the original Hebrew and its comprehensive nature. Theodotion's translation became widely accepted and used in the Christian tradition, influencing later biblical manuscripts and translations.

By the 2nd Century, Th-Dan was the principal version of Daniel used by Christian communities.

Justin Martyr (c. 100–165)

Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist and philosopher, frequently cited and used Theodotion's version of Daniel in his writings. In Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 80, Justin Martyr discusses Daniel 7:13-14, where he quotes a passage that aligns with Theodotion's wording rather than the Septuagint (LXX). This supports the claim that Justin Martyr considered Theodotion's translation to be more accurate and reliable for his theological arguments concerning Christ and prophecy.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202)
Irenaeus, an early Church Father and bishop of Lyons, quotes extensively from Theodotion's Daniel in his works, such as “Against Heresies.” This indicates that he appreciated Theodotion's translation for its clarity and fidelity to the Hebrew text. 

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215):
Clement, a Christian theologian and philosopher in Alexandria, also used Theodotion's Daniel in his biblical exegesis and theological writings. In his work “Stromata” (Stromateis), Book 1, Chapter 23, Section 155, Clement of Alexandria cites a passage from Daniel that aligns with Theodotion's version rather than the Septuagint (LXX). He discusses the prophecy of the seventy weeks in Daniel 9, which is a key passage used in theological and exegetical discussions. Clement's citation reflects his preference for Theodotion's translation for its clarity and theological significance.

Tertullian (c. 155–240):
Tertullian, an early Christian theologian and apologist, referenced Theodotion's version of Daniel in his treatises and polemical works. In his work “Against Marcion,” Book 3, Chapter 13, Tertullian discusses Daniel 7:13-14, where he quotes a passage that aligns with Theodotion's wording rather than the Septuagint (LXX). This supports the claim that Tertullian regarded Theodotion's translation as authoritative and relied on it for doctrinal arguments concerning Christ and prophecy.

Origen (c. 184–253):
Origen, a prominent Christian scholar and theologian in Alexandria, used Theodotion's Daniel in his biblical commentaries and textual studies. In his commentary on the book of Daniel, Origen frequently refers to Theodotion's version and compares it with the Septuagint (LXX) and other Greek translations. Oigen's discussions of Daniel often include comparisons between different textual traditions, highlighting his engagement with Theodotion's translation as an authority.

Jerome (c. 347–420):
Jerome, known for his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), also favored Theodotion's version of Daniel. Jerome regarded Theodotion's translation as more faithful to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and superior to the older Greek versions, including the Septuagint (LXX), for its accuracy and completeness.

In Jerome's preface to Daniel in his Latin Vulgate translation, he explicitly discusses the differences between the Greek versions of Daniel and his rationale for preferring Theodotion's version over the Septuagint (LXX):

“Daniel the prophet, whom the Jews named Chaldean, who also among the Greeks has the name Δανιήλ, interpreting Ezekiel, whom they call Ιεζεκιήλ, has been translated into Latin anew, word for word, not according to the Seventy translators, who in this case also have a version not only differing from the original but even differing from the other interpreters... Therefore, as we have said, following the Seventy translators, I have restored their text in such a way that I have given it preference wherever they seem to say something better, to understand more clearly, or to make sense in a more complete manner.” (Jerome, Preface to Daniel in the Vulgate)

In this preface, Jerome discusses his method of translation and explicitly states his preference for Theodotion's version of Daniel over the Septuagint. He criticizes the Septuagint for its departures from the original Hebrew and other Greek translations, indicating that he found Theodotion's translation to be more faithful to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and superior in terms of accuracy and completeness. 

Jerome's endorsement of Theodotion's Daniel was influential in the Western Church and contributed to the acceptance of Theodotion's translation alongside his own Latin Vulgate translation, which became the standard Bible of the Western Christian Church for many centuries. His scholarly work on biblical texts, including Daniel, emphasized the importance of accurate translation and textual fidelity in biblical studies. 

Again, scholars generally consider the Theodotion version of the Book of Daniel to be more accurate and reliable compared to the Septuagint (LXX) version in this particular book. Theodotion's translation of Daniel is more detailed and closer to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), which is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The LXX version of Daniel, on the other hand, is known to be less consistent and faithful to the original Hebrew, especially in its translations of proper names and theological nuances. 

The more accurate Theodition version of Daniel indicates that the term latreia in the LXX version (OG-DAN) is a mistranslation and that douleusousin is a more appropriate rendering in Greek. 

In conclusion, there is no place in the Bible where latreia is clearly applied to Jesus. Those who appeal to the LXX version of Daniel 7:14 appeal to a contested translation, which scholars and early Christian writers considered an inferior Greek translation of Daniel. 

For more on the contrast between OG-DAN and Th-DAN see https://www.basedtheology.com/2023/06/two-greek-versions-of-daniel-predating.html

Revelation 4 and 5 show the distinction between the worship given to God and that given to Jesus

Revelation 4 and 5, which describes the throne room in heaven, is a perfect reference for distinguishing the workshop given exclusively to God and the type of worship that also applies to the Lamb of God (Jesus).

Revelation 4 describes the worship of God who is sitting on the throne, in verse 8:

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!” (Rev 4:8 ESV)

In verse 10 God is referred to “him who lives forever and ever.” and is further worshiped in verse 11 as being described as the one who created all things:

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.” (Rev 4:11 ESV)

Jesus (the Lamb) is not identified in the scene until chapter 5 and is described in Rev 5:6 as standing between the throne and the four living creatures and the elders. This distinguishes him from being God as he is not sitting on the throne but rather in the midst of the throne between God and others. When the Lamb takes the scroll from God who is sitting on the throne, the Lamb is worshiped with the following attribution:

“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” (Rev 5:9-10 ESV)

and:

“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Rev 5:12 ESV)

 

The Lamb is not being given the attribution of being God who created all things as God is in Chapter 4. Rather, the Lamb is given the attribution that is appropriate to Jesus, as the one who was slain and, in doing so, ransomed people for God, and made them a kingdom. Only God in chapter 4 is given the attribution only appropriate to God as being the creator, the source, and the origin of all things according to his will.

Later, in verse 13 of chapter 5, when “him who sits on the throne” and “the Lamb” are being worshiped together, a blessing is declared for both:

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” (Rev 5:13)

In Summary

1. Only God who sits on the throne is given the attribution that is appropriate to God alone (the one who created all things and by his will they existed and were created)
2. Jesus, the Lamb who stands in the midst of the throne (between God and others) is given the attribution that is appropriate to him. Not the attribution of being the creator that only applies to God. 
3. Both God who sits on the Throne and the Lamb can be worshiped together as deserving of blessing and honor, and glory.   

Thus, we worship God alone as the only True God, and Jesus being distinguished from God, is worshiped not as God, but as the Lamb who ransomed us and made us a kingdom, priests to our God. Here we see the appropriate distinction of how God is worshiped as compared to how Jesus should be worshiped. 

Jesus is no extraterrestrial, Arian Christology undermines Christ's humanity

 

Arians actually believe that an extraterrestrial became fully human

The basic dictionary meaning of extraterrestrial is “being from another world.” Merriam-Webster defines extraterrestrial as “originating, existing, or occurring outside the earth or its atmosphere.   According to Wikipedia, Extraterrestrial life, colloquially referred to as alien life, is life that may occur outside of Earth and which did not originate on Earth.

The Arian Christological view (held by Jehovah's Witnesses and others), is that Jesus was God's first created being who existed before this world was made. They affirm that Jesus is an incarnation of this being who existed for ages and ages before his human life. 

The parallel with the Arian view of Jesus is that Arians believe Jesus was from a world that existed before this one and that Jesus was transported down from heaven in one way or another. That Jesus was transported down from heaven and then transported back to heaven where he existed previously. 

Arianism Undermines the Humanity of Christ

In many ways, the Arian view is a view that undermines the humanity of Christ.

If Jesus preexisted, he is not truly human (in the likeness of the first Adam). Being human is more than having a body of flesh. To participate in humanity is to have the human experience of gaining wisdom and experience as one develops on this plain of existence. A pre-existent being would have the benefit of ages and ages of acquired knowledge and experience. Such an idea undermines the humanity of Christ and makes him less relatable to us. It undermines the testimony of the Gospel if he didn't gain in wisdom from the starting point of coming into existence as a human. 

Luke 2:52 - Revised Standard Version (RSV)

And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.

 To be human is to start from ground zero with respect to cognition, and not to be privileged from wisdom and knowledge gained from a former existence. All humans start from ground zero in terms of cognition. Normative development is toward greater cognition. The idea of incarnation is repulsive and obscene.

Additionally, the Bible presents Jesus as a descendant of Adam and a descendant of Moses, who will be a prophet like Moses. The pre-existent Jesus simply couldn’t be, regardless of your theory of identity. If anyone has any notions of a literal pre-existence of Christ, Acts 3:19-26 should cure them of that:

Acts 3:19-26 (ESV)

19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ 24 And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. 25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ 26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.”

• Acts 3:22 refers to Jesus as one whom God would raise up as  “a prophet like me from your brothers” (i.e., like Moses from mankind). Jesus must clearly be a man who is a descendant of man. 
• Acts 3:25 -‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’  It is Abraham's offspring that all the nations would be blessed. Being Abraham's offspring, Jesus couldn't have preexisted Abraham.
• Acts 3:26 - "God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first.”—This clearly indicates that God raised up his servant (in his human life as a man), not that God had sent down a pre-existent servant from heaven. 

There is not a hint of Arian nonsense in Luke-Acts, the core foundational witness of the NT in addition to Paul. https://lukeprimacy.com

Arians try to read things into Paul, such as Philippians 2, based scholars recognize that Phil 2 says nothing to substantiate notions of literal preexistence and incarnation. There is a based non-Arian interpretation of all so-called Arian proof texts.

For more on refuting Arianism, see:
https://preexistenceofchrist.com —Understanding in what sense Christ preexisted

https://formofgod.com —Analysis of Philippians 2, Exaltation, not Preexistence

People read Arianism into Fourth Gospel without realizing that John is an abstraction, written in allegory and metaphor – not to be taken literally. Totally a diversion from the core apostolic witness of Luke-Acts. It’s really an apocryphal work, as James Dunn acknowledged. Sad how so many misunderstand John. Too many like yourself fall into error due to misguided notions of what it says.

https://issueswithjohn.com

Unfortunately, once Arian indoctrination sinks in, it is so hard to reverse it. They start to believe a lie and become blue-pilled. Biblical Unitarians refuse to drink the Arian Kool-Aid. It is not much better than the Trinitarian stuff.

E.T. as a metaphor for Jesus

In many other ways, the character and story of E.T. is a metaphor for Jesus. Ever since the year of its release in 1982, many articles have been published examining how E.T. can be understood as a religious parable. Spielberg allegedly claimed that ET resonated with people as deeply as it did (and still does) because he made the character and story — by design — a Jesus metaphor.

In a deeper review, E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial rises above mere Jesus metaphor to full-scale parable.

The classic image is a direct (albeit inverse) homage to Michelangelo’s “Creation Of Adam” in the Sistine Chapel.

E.T. has a heart light in the same fashion as the famous Christ icon “The Sacred Heart of Jesus”, which is seen in statues, paintings, and stained-glass designs.

The following Parallels are extracted from a seminary paper by Bryce Rich entitled Christology of ET

• Like the baby Jesus of the Matthew and Luke narratives, E.T. comes into a world of darkness, symbolized by night. [Instructor Comment:  Nice parallel.  Also, as in John, he pre-exists his entry into this world.]
• He is immediately sought out in the darkness by men who appear to function as a polyvalent symbol. It is not clear if these scientists and military men are the Magi of the modern age or the religious authorities and rulers of this world who seek to destroy the visitor from the heavens 
• Matthew’s gospel reports Jesus to have said, "Truly I tell you, unless you become like children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (18:13). In this vein it is to a young boy that the alien reveals himself. And Elliott, in turn, tells his sister, Gertie, "Grown-ups can’t see him, only little kids can see him."
• When Gertie and her mother share the living room and kitchen with E.T., Though Gertie talks incessantly about her new friend and tries to introduce him, her mother is distracted with the "grown-up" concerns of the cost of groceries and a Ragu stain that didn’t come out of her dry cleaning. With her focus totally consumed by the cares of this world, Mary totally misses out on the presence that has come among them.
• With no place to call his own, E.T. finds a home among the stuffed animals in a closet between the children’s bedrooms, invoking the memory of a child born in a stable and placed in a feeding trough because there was no room for him in the inn. 
• There are no parables or prayers, or sermons. However, E.T. does manage to sum up much of Jesus’ teaching in the first English phrase that he ever utters as he learns to speak while watching Sesame Street: "Be good."
• The initial Christological image conveyed by our hero is Jesus as the Strange Presence of God. In the film, we find several other Jesus motifs as well: Life-giver, Liberator, Sacrifice, and Victor.
• As Life-giver we find a being that restores wilted and dead flowers to a state of vibrant beauty.  This symbol indicates the death of E.T. and his subsequent resurrection in the film. But the more obvious instance is an allusion to the image portrayed in Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam, in which the divine spark of life passes from E.T.’s finger to Elliott’s, instantly healing a cut that he had just received. With his touch, E.T. is able to set right the ills of this world.
• As Liberator, we see E.T.’s compassion for frogs that are about to be dissected alive as a part of Elliott’s biology class. Through his symbiotic link with Elliott, he urges the boy to release first his own frog and then all of the others in the lab. Before long the other students also revolt against the teacher and the questionable practices of animal cruelty promulgated in his classroom.
• From the beginning of the film the overwhelming problem of humanity appears to be estrangement from God, consequent loneliness and a loss of the cosmic order.
• The solution to the family’s problems is found in reconnecting them in a loving, supportive community. E.T. does this in two ways. With Elliott he forms a deep, empathic bond through which he is able to share in all of the young boy’s burdens. As previously noted, there are some suggestions in the film that perhaps E.T. even takes on Elliott’s physical maladies as a part of the healing process. Through their symbiotic bond, E.T. and Elliott are melded into one, sharing the same feelings. 
• E.T. proves to be loving and kind, bringing healing and new life into every life that he touches. In turn those around him find themselves responding in positive ways. We are not quite sure what happens after the movie ends; however, the family has come together as one in an emotional farewell. Michael has given up his antagonism with Elliott and appears to have grown from the experience. Gertie displays kindness and generosity as she presents the botanist from space with potted flowers to take back to his onboard greenhouse. Elliott appears somehow older and wiser, no longer the scared child he had been at the beginning of the film.
• Though they will be physically separated, the boy and the Life-giver will still be connected in thought and feeling. It is as though Elliott has been brought into E.T.’s reality. As Elliott and E.T. grow closer, they become “connected”, bonding at a metaphysical (spiritual?) level.
• E.T. is also similar to all four gospel accounts of the life of Jesus in that he dies and experiences resurrection. Finally he ascends into the heavens in a way that might be seen as parallel to the portrayals given in Mark and Luke/Acts.
• Post-resurrection, E.T.’s previously displayed powers are magnified, but he doesn’t wield his powers against those trying to hurt him (although he could). E.T. simply uses his powers to save his followers.
• E.T.’s final sentiment to Elliott “I’ll be right here” (as he points to the boy’s head) mirrors Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit.
• An ascension occurs at the end of the movie

References:
http://www.brycerich.net/seminary-papers/th230/christology-of-et.html
https://icantunseethatmovie.com/2016/06/07/e-t-the-extra-terrestrial-1982-30-days-of-spielberg/

E.T. Arian Memes

E.T. Meme Objections

Some might believe that these ET Memes demean and trivialize the Arian view. But if Arianism is wrong, it should be demeaned and trivialized. People should be more worried about how bad Arianism actually is than a provocative ET meme that is based. Additionally, a meme isn't required to have perfect equivalence to what it corresponds to, it just needs to exhibit significant parallels. 

Unitarian Questions Regarding our "Relationship with Jesus"

Intro

Someone in the Biblical Unitarian Alliance Facebook group postulated the following questions: 

• What is the nature of your relationship with Jesus now?
• If we are to pray to Father alone as God, what role does Jesus have in your daily life?
• Is he just a name you tack on to the end of your prayers or do you actually have an intimate, personal fellowship with him?
• If you are not supposed to pray to him or worship him as God, “what shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?”

The person who raised these concerns followed up by stating:

"Biblical unitarians need to be able to clearly express not only who Jesus was and is, but also what role he now plays in our worship services, our prayer lives, in our daily walk. It's not enough to be able to explain that the Father alone is God and that Jesus is His human Messiah...  biblical unitarians struggle with what to do with Jesus now that we freely acknowledge that he is the Son of God, the human Messiah, but not God himself."

Overview of Apostolic Testimony

We are to model our life after Jesus. https://Jesusisthemodel.com addresses many ways that Jesus is a model for us. Most especially, we are to mirror the spiritual walk of Jesus as affirmed by the most reliable Gospel witness of Luke-Acts. (https://lukeprimacy.com) The emphasis of Jesus' ministry is the importance of prayer, and he demonstrated a dependence on prayer (https://prayerisnecessary.com). Jesus would continue all night in prayer to God (Luke 6:12) At times he took disciples with him to the mountain to pray (Luke 9:28) When Jesus was under great distress, he prayed to the Father, not my will but yours be done (Luke 22:39-46) Jesus gave his disciples instructions on how to pray to the Father in Luke 11:1-4 To Jesus, prayer was a process of humbling yourself before God, being under the influence and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, receiving revelation and empowerment from God, remaining in a state of forgiveness, and averting temptation.

Jesus implied that we should seek from prayer the Holy Spirit and that it is the Father's will to give the gift of the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. (Luke 11:13)  What happens when one receives and prays in the Holy Spirit? The answer is that when one utters mysteries in the Spirit, one speaks not to men but to God. (1 Cor 14:1) The Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. (Rom 8:26) The Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Rom 8:28) Thus, praying in the Holy Spirit, corresponds to praying how we ought, according to the will of God, and this involves speaking “not to men but to God.”

Paul was clear that we shouldn't be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let our requests be made known to God. (Phil 4:6). Paul prayed to God. (1Cor 13:7) When he wanted others to be saved, it was his heart's desire and prayer to God. (Rom 10:1) When Paul prayed for others, he always thanked God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Col 1:3) Thus, we should bring our needs before the one God and Father, Just as Jesus and Paul did and Paul instructed.

When Peter was kept in prison, prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him (Acts 12:5) When Paul and Silas were in jail they were “praying and singing hymns to God” (Acts 16:25)  When the apostles were persecuted, they prayed for boldness. This is recorded in Acts 4:23-30.

Acts 4:23-30 (ESV)

24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them,

25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant,1 said by the Holy Spirit, “‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? 26  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’

27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. 

29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

We can see from the above passages that prayers were directed to the one God and Father who created all things. In Acts 4:23-30, Jesus is referenced in the second person. Clearly, prayer should be directed toward the one God and Father.

What about John?

To justify doctrines involving prayer to Jesus or prayer to saints, one has to go outside the New Testament or read things into a verse in the Gospel of John where Jesus is claimed to have said to his disciples “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it,” in reference to Jesus's going to the Father. (John 14:14) We know that John is highly metaphorical, and many things are not intended to be understood literally. Later in John 15:16 and John 16:23, Jesus speaks of asking the Father in Jesus' name, that the Father may do it. Jesus also speaks of the day when his disciples will ask nothing of him:

John 15:16 (ESV) 

  ¹⁶ You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

John 16:23 (ESV) 

  ²³ In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.

According to the Gospel of John, Jesus helped the disciples by praying for them, but there would be a day when Jesus would not need to ask of the Father on their behalf because the Father himself loves them. The implication of John 16:25-27 is that they would no longer be in need of an intercessor, that is, relying on Jesus to ask or pray on their behalf: 

 John 16:25-27 (ESV) 

²⁵ “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father. ²⁶ In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; ²⁷ for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.

Furthermore, in Jesus' prayer of John 17 to the Father, he requested that those who would believe in him through the word of his disciples would have the same oneness with the Father that Jesus had with the Father. Again, the implication of John, is that believers would have direct access to the father as Jesus did: 

John 17:20-23 (ESV) 

  ²⁰ “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, ²¹ that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. ²² The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, ²³ I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

Although the Fourth Gospel reflects a later tradition that is not historically reliable and is also the cause of much misunderstanding, it still indicates that prayer to Jesus would not be necessary. This is considering our status with the Father of being one with the Father and loved by the Father as he was. Some try to use the esoteric language in John to suggest certain notions about Jesus. John, however, has been the source of much confusion and misunderstanding through the centuries. It is best to not depart from the clear and straightforward apostolic testimony of Luke-Acts + Paul. 

Of the few things in John that are explicit, it is that Jesus prays to the one God and Father and confesses the Father as the only True God after Jesus told his disciples that “I am leaving the world and going to the Father.” (John 16:28)

 John 17:1-3 (ESV) 

¹ When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, ² since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. ³ And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Few other verses in John are as explicit as this. Another one is at the end, where the author expresses his motivation. 

John 20:31 (ESV) 

³¹ but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Thus, salvation comes down to believing in Jesus being God's chosen Messiah. There is no indication here of maintaining a personal relationship with Jesus as if he were, himself, God. 

What about Stephen?

After preaching the Gospel in Acts 7, Steven gazed into heaven and “saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” and he said “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56) After this those in the council he was speaking to rushed at him and cast him out of the city and stoned him. As they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts 2:59) And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep. (Acts 7:60). 

Some claim that Stephen addressed the Lord Jesus asking him to receive his spirit. That this is akin to praying to Jesus and identifying Jesus as God (the one who receives spirits). In this case, however, Stephen has an open vision in which he sees Jesus. In this vision, there is a distinction between Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and the Glory of God. Thus, Jesus is distinguished from God in the vision. “Receive my spirit” is another way of saying “receive my life” in the context of Stephen showing allegiance and dying for the Lord Jesus. It is not an indication that Jesus is God in any ontological sense. 

The reason this is not a normative case of prayer is that it is in the context of an open vision of Jesus being within view. Paul also had a direct encounter with Jesus on his road to Damascus experience. Despite encountering Jesus, and receiving instruction from him, he continued to pray to God and did not give any indications in his many letters that others are to pray to Jesus. Paul's instructions on prayer being what we have covered in the Overview of Apostolic Testimony section above. 

Specific Answers

• What is the nature of your relationship with Jesus now?

We acknowledge him as Messiah (Christ) and confess him as Lord. This includes acknowledging him as King of Kings and maintaining our allegiance toward him as God's chosen one. We acknowledge Jesus and confess him as the blessed one, the most favored over all creation, the Son of God.

• If we are to pray to Father alone as God, what role does Jesus have in your daily life?

We constantly affix our hope on the coming kingdom of Christ's reign. We bring to remembrance Jesus' example and his sacrifice. Furthermore, we model our lives after him, following his example and teachings. We abide in the same love he abided in. Our hearts and attitudes are aligned with his.

• Is he just a name you tack on to the end of your prayers or do you actually have an intimate, personal fellowship with him?

Does one have an intimate, personal fellowship with a king? People are to love and revere their king, devoting themselves to his service. However, not everyone interacts with the king on a daily basis, although they may constantly bring themselves to the remembrance of their sovereign by saying such things as “God save the King” and affirming their allegiance. So, there is to be an emotional attachment and affinity toward Messiah, but our prayer life should be directed toward God, as was the prayer life of Jesus and the Apostles. 

• If you are not supposed to pray to him or worship him as God, “what shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?”

We pray to the Father and worship him alone as the only true God. We worship as Jesus the servant of God, “The Lamb” who is worthy to receive power, wealth, wisdom, might, honor, glory, and blessing:

Revelation 5:12 (ESV) 

“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,

to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might

and honor and glory and blessing!”

He was slain and by his blood, he ransomed people for God, from every tribe and language and people and nations, and made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth. (Rev 5:9-10)  Amen!

Conclusion

Luke-Acts + Paul provides a clear answer to this question as to what is normative in Apostolic Christianity with regard to prayer being directed to the Father. Even according to John, Jesus indicates that we can pray to the Father directly, having the same oneness with God that he had, without needing Jesus to ask for us. (John 16;26-27) Although it is apparent that many today would prefer to pray to Jesus, this is a different approach than Jesus and his Apostles of praying to God. Jesus is the model for us! (https://jesusisthemodel.com)

For more on Prayer, see https://prayerisnecessary.com

For more on issues with John, see, https://issueswithjohn.com

For more on Luke-Acts Primacy, see https://lukeprimacy.com

John 10:30, "I and the Father are one"

The meaning of John 10:30, “I and the Father are one”

Not only did Jesus say, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), he prayed to the Father for those that are his disciples, “that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:11) and for those who will believe through their word, “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us” (John 17:21) and, “that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one.” (John 17:22-23)

Saying “I and the Father are one” is equivalent to saying “the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:30 + John 10:37) While Jesus prayed for us to all be one he also prayed for us to be in the Father saying, “just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us.” (John 17:21) And, “I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one.” (John 17:22-23) Earlier in John, when Jesus speaks of the day when the Holy Spirit will given, he alludes to the same sense of oneness when he said, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. (John 14:20) The concept of the Father being in us and us being in the Father is also a major theme of the first epistle of John. The following verses in 1 John shed further light on how the author wants us to understand this concept of being one:

• Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. (1John 2:24)
• And now, little children, abide in him… everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him. (1John 2:28-29)
• And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us. (1John 3:23-24)
• No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. (1John 4:12)
• By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. (1John 4:13)
• So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (1John 4:16)

It is in this context that we should understand what Jesus meant in John 14:9-11 when he said, “If you have seen me you have seen the Father. Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” So we see that Jesus was not claiming to be God but was claiming to be “one with the Father” as a servant and representative of God. In the same sense that Jesus was “one with the Father,” we are to be “one with the Father”. The Father is to be in us in the same sense that the Father was in Christ. We are to be in the Father in the same sense that Jesus was in the Father. God our Father, Jesus and us – we are all to be in each other. (John 17:21) We are all to be perfectly one. (John 17:23)

For more on this, see the website https://jesusisthemodel.com

Non-Trinitarian on Philippians 2

- - - - - If Paul meant to identify Jesus as God, why would he say “Who, BEING IN THE FORM OF God, thought it not robbery…”? Why not simply say “Who, BEING God, thought it not robbery…”?

The Bible never says that God is “in the form of God” because He simply IS God.

To say that an entity is “in the form of” something means that it is NOT that something. To say that Jesus was “in the form of” God means that he was NOT God.

- - - - - We can say that someone is equal with God insofar as they have one or more attributes in common with God. However, we can not say “God is equal with God”- because “equal with” is a term used to compare two or more entities with one another, not to compare a single entity with itself.

A single entity cannot be equal with itself (drum roll please…) because it is itself.

So one reason why Jesus being “in the form of”God cannot mean that he is God is that the sentence elsewhere speaks of Jesus being “equal with” God.

To say that Jesus was equal WITH God is to say that Jesus was NOT God - but rather, a separate person being compared TO God. -

- - - - - Paul Proclaimed A Distinction Between God And Jesus.

A fundamental law of Biblical Hermeneutics (the science of the interpretation and explanation of Scriptures) is that no verse of the Bible will contradict other verses dealing with the same subject.

If Paul makes a clear distinction between Jesus and God elsewhere in Philippians, then he cannot be saying that Jesus is God in Phil.2:6,7.

This is exactly the case:

- - Phil.1:2 - “Grace from God AND FROM Jesus”. Here Paul clearly distinguishes between God and Jesus.

- - 2:9 - “God hath exalted him, and given him a name”. This characterizes Jesus as distinct and separate from the one (“God”) who exalted and named him. The idea of God performing such actions upon Himself is not only never found in the Bible, it is also simply ludicrous. Of the 95 times “exalt” appears in the (KJV etc.) Bible, it is never used in such a context; nor is it ever said that God gave Himself another name. He says that His name shall be “Jehovah” (transliterated: LORD) “for ever” and “to all generations” - Ex.3:15.

- - 2:11 - “God the Father”. This means that God IS the Father (aligning with Jesus’s statement that the Father alone [“monos”] is God - Jn.17:3, and Paul’s statement that the one God is the Father - 1Cor.8:6).

- - 4:7 - “God THROUGH Jesus”. Paul yet again presents God and Jesus as two distinctly separate persons.

- - 4:19 - “God BY Jesus”. Ditto.

- - 4:20 - “God our Father”. An even clearer identification of God as (and only as) the Father.

In light of these statements by Paul, it would make no sense that he- without explanation - would suddenly change his point of view and make a statement in which Jesus is characterized AS God.

Let’s consider some of the specific arguments by which Trinitarianism attempts to prove its “understanding” of the passage.

- - - “Form” (“Morphe”) - - -

Probably the most compelling aspect of the Trinitarian argument centers on the words:

- “Who being in the form (‘morphe’) of God… took upon him the form (‘morphe’) of a servant”(Phil.2:6,7).

Trinitarianism wishes us believe that morphe here describes Jesus’s essential nature - meaning that he actually was God. But it goes without saying that God has the essential nature of God, so why would Paul need to make that point?

Trinitarianism insists that “morphe” refers to the character, nature, or essence; that “form” means “identity”- in other words, that for Jesus to be in the form of God means that he isGod:

- “The phrase "form of God" is one that naturally conveys the idea that he was God” - Barnes' Notes on the Bible

- “Properly the nature or essence… as actually subsisting in the individual” - Vine’s Lexicon

- “There can be no doubt that in classical Greek, morphe describes the actual specific character which makes each being what it is” - Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

- In Mk.16:12 Morphe Means “Outward Appearance”

The only other use of “morphe” in the New Testament bespeaks the outward appearance, not the inner identity.

The Gospel of Mark refers to Luke 24:13-33, in which the resurrected Jesus appears to two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphe)” to these men so that they did not recognize him (Mk.16:12). This was not a different identity (he was still the Son of God), but a different outward appearance - it was not that he was different, it was that he looked different.

Note how several English versions - even though written by Trinitarians - render “morphe” in this verse:

- “He was revealed to them completely changed in APPEARANCE [morphe]" - NAB.

- “They didn't recognize him at first because he had changed his APPEARANCE [morphe]." - LB.

- “He appeared in a different GUISE [morphe]" - NEB.

- “He appeared in another SHAPE [morphe]" - Douay.

- “He did not LOOK LIKE he had looked [morphe] before to these two people" - NLV.

- “Jesus did not LOOK the same" - ETRV.

In all of these translations, “morphe” refers to Jesus’s external appearance, not his essential identity.

- “Morphosin”

“Morphosin”, derived from “morphe” and also rendered “form”,is similarly used to describe the outward appearance:

- “Having a form (“morphosin”) of godliness, but denying the power thereof” - 2Tim.3:5.

This speaks of persons who are not godly but have the outward appearance of godliness. Here, again, “form” refers to the way they look, not the way they are.

- The Actual Definition Of “Morphe” Is “External Appearance”

- - -“Taking the DISGUISE [morphe] of a slave" - Phil. 2:7, Living Bible.) - - -

Despite erroneous definitions presented by trinity-biased commentaries and lexicons such as those cited above, the actual definition of “morphe” is “outward appearance; shape”:

- Bauer's Greek Lexicon (BDAG) has under “morphe”: “OUTWARD APPEARANCE, SHAPE”.

- The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Vol.1, p.705, 1986) defines “morphe” as: “’FORM’ in the sense of OUTWARD APPEARANCE”.

- The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (edited by Gerhard Kittel) defines “morphe” as: “FORM, EXTERNAL APPEARANCE”(adding that in pagan mythology, the gods change their “forms” [morphe] - a change of appearance, not nature).

- Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament(p.418) defines “morphe” as: “The FORM by which a person or thing strikes the vision; THE EXTERNAL APPEARANCE”, adding that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphe) of their parents. (Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make “morphe” refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many”).

- Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Greek Dictionary defines “morphe” (G#3444) as: “SHAPE”- deriving from a word meaning “a division or share”; and adds that it only refers to one’s nature in a “figurative” (“Representing by a figure or resemblance: emblematic” - Merriam-Webster.com) sense.

Let’s be clear - “Morphe” refers to something’s EXTERNAL APPEARANCE (what it LOOKS LIKE), not its intrinsic nature or identity.

- “God” Versus “Like God”

Because “in the form of” means “having the external appearance or likeness of”, note how the following English translations render Phil.2:6:

- “Christ himself was LIKE GOD” - EXB, ICB, NCV

- “He was in every way LIKE GOD” - WE

- “He was LIKE GOD in every way” - ERV

- “He had EQUAL STATUS WITH GOD” - MSG

- “God” Versus “A God”

In Phil.2:6,

the word translated “God” is not “ho theos” (which in stand-alone form designates Jehovah), but simply “theos” - which, without the definite article (“ho”), is also applied to others besides God (as Jesus pointed out when saying “He called them ‘gods’ [a form of ‘theos’] to whom the word of God came”- Jn.10:35. (a reference to Old Testament judges).

In Phil.2:7 the word translated “servant” (“doulou”) also does not have the definite article. In this instance, the indefinite article “a” is added (there being no indefinite article in the Greek language) because English language translators understand that it is implied .

If it were understood from other Scripture that Jesus is not God, then by this same standard Vs.6 could be translated: “Who, being in the form of ‘a’ god” [meaning “a divine being”], because it would be “implied” in this statement as well. (See also Acts 12:22 and 28:6, where men thought to be gods are said to be “theos” without the definite article - translated therein “A god”).

- “But if ‘form of a servant’ means ‘servant’, then ‘form of God’ must mean ‘God’ ”.

Trinitarianism argues that since the phrase “in the form (morphe) of a servant” literally identifies the incarnate Jesus as a servant, the corresponding phrase “in the form (morphe) of God” must also be understood to literally identify the pre-incarnate Jesus as God.

This argument is flawed in two respects:

- The passage does not "literally identify" Jesus as a servant, it says that he took upon himself the "morphe" ("outward appearance") of a servant.

Consider the following:

- - - “The Lord Jesus was not literally a servant… the ‘form of a servant’… means to APPEAR AS [“To have an outward aspect; to seem” - Webster] a servant… he was made LIKE a servant” - Barnes' Notes on the Bible

- - - “Christ’s assumption of the ‘form’ of a servant does not imply that the innermost basis of His personality was changed”- Expositor's Greek Testament

- Since “form” refers to the outward appearance, both of these phrases must be understood as describing the way Jesus looked, not who he was. In heaven, he looked like God. On earth, he looked like a servant.

“Morphe of a servant” means “an external appearance like that of a servant”. Correspondingly, “morphe of God” means “an external appearance like that of God”.

- - “Equal With God” - Phil.2:6 - -

Trinitarianism insists that “equal with God” means God:

- “... (Jesus is) as God himself is, and therefore God, for there is no one in all parts equal to God but God himself” - Geneva Study Bible

Others disagree:

-“The Son of God in his pre-existent being… resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6).... and after his work on earth… when raised to the right hand of God .... he is STILL not made equal to God… but remains subordinate to Him"- The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p.80, vol.2.

- The Definition Of "Equal"

The Greek word translated "equal" here is "ison". According to the trinitarian interpretation, “equal with God” means “God” - but this is not how “ison” is defined:

- "(Ison) indicates… an EXTERNAL… LIKENESS” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, v2, p497

- “Isos [#G2470] prob. from 1492 [‘eido’] through the idea of seeming; SIMILAR [often translated 'LIKE'] [often translated 'LIKE']" - Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

So, to say that Jesus is "equal (ison) with God" is to say that he bears an EXTERNAL LIKENESS to God, that he is SIMILAR to God - not that he IS God.

- N.T. Usages Of “Isos” As Meaning “Similar”

In Mt.20:1-15 Jesus tells a parable of workers who complain that those who started later than they had been paid the same wage. They say “These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal (‘isos’- from which 'ison' is derived) unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day”. Here “equal” means “like” or “similar” - not “one and the same”.

In Lk.20:36 Jesus says that saved and resurrected humans in heaven will be “equal (‘isos’) unto the angels”. This does not mean that they will be angels, but that they will be similar toangels.

- - - “In Mt 20:12, `made them equal' means `put them upon the same footing,'. In Lk 20:36 the context restricts the equality to a particular relation." - The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol.2, p.968

When something is described as being equal (isos/ison) with something else, it nonetheless remains distinct from and different than that something else. The one is merely like or similar to the other. Again: to be "equal with” (just as with being “in the form of”) really means that they are NOT the same person or thing at all.

- - - “Thought It Not Robbery…” - - -

The orthodox translation of Phil.2:6 reads: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God”.

- The Trinitarian Mis-interpretation

Trinitarianism interprets this as meaning that since Jesus wasGod, he did not consider it to be robbery to retain his equality with God:

- “Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God” - CEV

- “Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to” - NLT

- “Though he was of a divine nature… he did not seek to retain his equality with God” - Barnes’ Notes

Non-trinitarianism sees this as a misconstruction of meaning. It holds that the words mean that Jesus (who has never been equal with God in any sense of the word) didn’t even consider trying to seize or snatch equality from God [as Satan did in saying “I will be LIKE the most High”- Is.14:14].

In support of this, consider the following translations:

- “He did not think that by force he should try to BECOME equal with God" - TEV, GNB

- “He did not think to SNATCH AT equality with God" - NEB

- “He did not count equality… a thing to be GRASPED” - RSV

- The Greek Word Translated “Robbery”

The word translated “robbery” here is “harpagmos” (Strong’s G#725).

- Strong's Exhaustive Concordance tells us that harpagmos means "plunder” - from “harpazo”(St.Gk.#726), which means: "to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force)".

- “Harpagmós - to seize” - HELPS Word-studies, Helps Ministries Inc.

- “Harpagmos; the act of seizing" - New American Standard Concordance of the Bible

- “Harpagmos” Means “Snatch” Or “Seize”, Not “Retain”

“Harpagmos” does not intend to convey the idea that Jesus did not seek to retain equality with God, but rather that he did not seek to snatch equality from God.

Consider this:

- “We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [including harpagmos] has the sense of `retaining in possession’. It seems invariably to mean `seize', `snatch violently'. It is not permissible to glide from the true sense into one which is totally different" - The Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol.III, pp.436, 437

- W. E. Vine acknowledges that harpagmos is "akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force." - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p.887

- The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (V3, P604) tells us that the majority of Bible scholars "have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized”,explaining that: “Verse 6 states what Christ might have done, i.e. seized equality with God; verse 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself”.

The true definition of “harpagmos” establishes that Phil.2:6 is telling us that Jesus gave no thought to seizing an equality with God which he did not possess.

- - SUMMARY - -

We have seen that:

Trinitarianism claims that Phil.2:6,7 means to say that Jesus is God, and that therefore he did not consider it an act of robbery to be equal with Him. Non-Trinitarianism disagrees, asserting that the passage means that while Jesus looked like God. he was not God; and that he never contemplated seizing from God an equality which he did not possess.

“In the form of God” means “resembling God”, not “being God”.

To be “equal with God” means by definition to “have attributes in common with God”, not to “be God”.

Elsewhere in the book of Philippians, Paul asserts a distinction between God and Jesus.

The accurate definition of “morphe” (“form”) is “outward appearance”, not “inner nature”.

The accurate definition of “ison” (“equal”) is “similar or “like”, not “identical”.

The accurate definition of “harpagmos” (rendered “robbery”) is “snatch or seize”, not “retain in possession”.

- - CONCLUSION - -

Trinitarianism has gone to great lengths to make a passage which clearly demonstrates that Jesus is not God appear to say just the opposite. Now that we are aware of the definitions and Biblical usages of the words of Phil.2:6,7, we are equipped to understand what it really means: “Jesus looked like God, yet never presumed to seize equality from Him. Instead, he emptied himself and took on the appearance of a servant”. THIS was the mental state which Paul exhorted us to imitate; the example of humility which Paul sought for us to follow.

Originally published here https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2017/06/exalted.html on Jesus, not YHWH blog: https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/the-sinless-christ.html

For more on Philippians 2, see https://formofgod.com - Analysis on Philippians 2

Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

 At first, when the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit was invoked in baptism or in other contexts it was not affirming a belief in later Trinitarian dogma but was an affirmation of the old roman symbol (a primitive version of the apostle's creed). It is not making a statement that these are three persons of one God, but that these three are critical aspects of our confession of faith. 

[The Father]

 I believe in God the Father almighty;

[The Son]

and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,

Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,

Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,

on the third day rose again from the dead,

ascended to heaven,

sits at the right hand of the Father,

whence he will come to judge the living and the dead;

[The Holy Spirit]

and in the Holy Spirit,

[Other confessions of faith]

the holy Church,

the remission of sins,

the resurrection of the flesh

the life everlasting.

Early Christians, who were baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit were just making an affirmation of the Apostles Creed (not a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity): As you can see we have Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the creed—but no conflation of the three.  Jesus is the name of the Son, by which we are reconciled to the Father and receive the Holy Spirit. According to Acts 2:38, if we repent (towards God the Father), and are baptized in the name of Jesus (the Son), we will have the forgiveness of our sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

Acts 2:38 - Revised Standard Version (RSV)

<38> And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This is the meaning harmonized with Matthew 28:19.

For more on why baptism is in the name of Jesus, see https://baptisminjesusname.com

integrity Syndicate—For the restoration of 1st Century Christianity https://integritysyndicate.com

Integrity Syndicate YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/IntegritySyndicate

Integrity Syndicate Discord: https://discord.gg/wM7HtbeQeX

Alpha and Omega, First and Last as Applied to Jesus

 

Calling Jesus Alpha and Omega or First and Last is not a statement of ontology (that Jesus is literally God). 

Jesus is the firstborn from the dead in that all who are saved are saved through him. All that have lived who will be saved, from the beginning to the end will be saved through Christ. God's plan from the beginning to the end was to reconcile all things through Christ. Jesus is first and last, beginning and end, alpha and omega, in a different sense than God is. Alpha and Omega can be applied to God himself or it can be applied to the centerpiece of God's plan. There are two major themes pertaining to the revelation of God throughout the Bible. God and God's plan to save the world through his Messiah. Luke 24:44 (ESV) "Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Revelation 19:10 (ESV) "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Ephesians 3:8-11 (ESV) "to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord." 1 Timothy 2:5-6 (ESV) "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time."

For more on this, see https://bibleconflations.com

Integrity Syndicate—For the restoration of 1st Century Christianity https://integritysyndicate.com

Integrity Syndicate YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/IntegritySyndicate

Integrity Syndicate Discord: https://discord.gg/wM7HtbeQeX

Unitarian interpretations of John 1

How do Unitarians understand John 1?

There are actually several Unitarian interpretations of the prologue of John. These differences have to do with explaining various abstractions in the prologue, and don’t have a bearing on core Unitarian Theology and Christology. John 1 cannot be used as a proof text for Trinitarian dogma, since it can be interpreted in several ways that does not require a belief in a literal pre-existence of Christ. The prologue is not explicit, and there are a number of ways to read John 1 that doesn’t presuppose incarnation. This demonstrates that John 1 should not serve as the basis for Christian doctrine, but rather we should focus on the explicit statements of who Christ is – in harmony with the other Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.

Near the end of John’s Gospel in Chapter 20:31, the author wrote, “These things are written so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” This provides an explicit declaration of who Jesus is. The Gospel of John is actually one of the most explicitly Unitarian books in the New Testament, as evidenced by the many quotations of Jesus within it. Whatever someone might take the more ambiguous prologue to be saying, what is clear is that the correct interpretation is not Trinitarian.

Unitarians all understand the Father to be the only true God, as Jesus declared in John 17:3, and we all affirm Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God, as supported throughout the gospel. Where Unitarians differ is how the “Word”, which is “logos” in the Greek, is to be understood in the context of the prologue, and also with respect to what beginning is being spoken about in verse 1.

Some Unitarians understand the Word “Logos” as an “it,” being a concept pertaining to what God thinks and speaks. Most English Bible translations before the King James Version, including Tyndale, Cloverdale, Matthews, Bishops and the Geneva Bible, rendered the Word (Logos) as an “it” in John 1:3. For example, the Geneva Bible reads, “All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.” According to this understanding, the concept of God’s divine Word (Logos) encompasses God’s intentions, thoughts, plan, purpose, wisdom, and reasoning. For instance, if you consider God’s Word to correspond to God’s plan, it makes perfect sense, in reference to verse 3, to say that all things came into existence through God’s plan, and that apart from God’s plan, nothing came into existence, and in verse 14, the plan of God was caused to be flesh. At the center of God’s plan for humanity, is Jesus, the Messiah, that we might be reconciled to God, through Christ.

Other Unitarians see John 1 as Wisdom Christology and understand the Word (Logos) to be the personification of Wisdom. That is, Jesus is the latest and greatest example of various personifications of Wisdom. Proverbs 8 personified wisdom as “her” and indicates that lady wisdom was with God at the foundation of the world. There are also many other passages in the deuterocanonical books in which wisdom is personified and this was especially common in contemporary philosophical writings at the time of the first Century. John was written in the backdrop of this wisdom literature and, for these reasons, some see John 1 as Wisdom Christology.

Another common Unitarian understanding of the Word of John 1:1 is that it pertains to Jesus in a direct sense, and that Jesus is considered divine, as an agent of God. Usually, this perspective is in conjunction with the view that the beginning being spoken about in verse 1, is not the Genesis creation but the beginning of the ministry. Jesus quotes in John 10:35 that those to whom the word of God came were called God, and thus Jesus can be figuratively called God, according to the biblical concept of agency, because he is a representative (Shaliach) of God. Jesus can be called God since he is an anointed and empowered servant of God who conveys the words of God, but it is to be understood that Jesus is not God in a literal ontological sense.

Some Unitarians have alternative or narrower definitions for the Word (Logos), including the physical manifestation of God, the actual speech of God, or that the Word (Logos) is a synonym for the Holy Spirit. Unitarians agree that God’s Word is associated with his physical manifestations, His speech and the operations of His Holy Spirit and so there is some overlap with all these ideas.

With regard to what beginning is being spoken about, many Unitarians believe that this is the Genesis creation, while many others believe it is the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist and Christ. A minority of Unitarians attribute this to being post-resurrection, that is, the beginning of the apostolic ministry, or to the new creation. It is also possible to view John 1:1 as a general axiomatic statement, that pertains to any beginning. What God does (including what comes into existence) is through his Word (Logos) and that nothing is implemented, and nothing comes into existence, apart from his Logos.

All these interpretations of John 1:1 have some rational basis and is a sounder alternative to the Trinitarian dogma of incarnation. Personally, I believe it is best to understand the Word (Logos) as a concept that pertains to the mind and thoughts of God, including His intentions, reasoning, wisdom, plan and purpose. This explanation also fits well with the Greek meaning of the word logos that typically refers to something said, but can also include the thoughts or reason. It is not a significant issue if another Unitarian has a different view than mine, since again, these differences have no bearing on our core understanding of God (Theology), and of Christ (Christology). John was clearly a Unitarian, and the several Unitarian interpretations are much better supported than the single speculative Trinitarian one, which had been dogmatically imposed on Christians for centuries.

Again, in John 20:31, John said that he “wrote these things so that we may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God – not that we would presume the Jesus, the Son of God, is God in a literal ontological sense. Rather, as Jesus said in John 17:3, when he prayed to the Father, “This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

Unitarian interpretations of John 1  

There are 4-5 Unitarian interpretations of John 1 with respect to "the Word" and the context of verse 1:

1. The Word is a hypostatization of God's speech (and thoughts): an "it." John 1:1 pertains to the original creation—This is my view / Anthony Buzzard / James DG Dunn
2. The Word is a hypostatization of God's speech (and thoughts): an "it." John 1:1 pertains to the beginning of the ministry—REV translators
3. The Word is the personification of Wisdom (Wisdom Christology): a "he." John 1:1 pertains to the original creation—Dale Tuggy / Nathaniel Lardner
4. The Word is Jesus in a direct sense and John 1:1 pertains to the beginning of the ministry—Andrew Perry / Bill Schlegel / Socinian 
5. The Word is Jesus in a direct sense and John 1:1 pertains to the new creation (post-resurrection) 

Whatever your view here, it doesn't change the core fundamentals of our Unitarian understanding of the doctrine of Christ (Christology) and of God (Theology). So, we should acknowledge there are differences among us and agree to disagree when these differences don't play a significant impact on our core Biblical Unitarian doctrine. 

Related Website: https://understandinglogos.com/ – The true meaning of the Word in the prologue of John

Integrity Syndicate YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/IntegritySyndicate

Integrity Syndicate Discord: https://discord.gg/wM7HtbeQeX