Paul Owen’s Ingenious Argument for Biblical "Christological Monotheism" An Answer
By Kerry A. Shirts
Paul Owen is becoming one of my very favorite anti-Mormon scholars. He is careful; he uses passages of scriptures in ingenious ways to defend his understanding of the Bible; and he is a gentleman about it. He is also incomplete in his use of the biblical data available to us and hence his conclusions appear forced. It takes a more careful look into the philological and linguistic data of the Bible in order to see how Dr. Owen’s scriptural arguments fail.
In his chapter in the new book The New Mormon Challenge, Dr. Owen presents his argument for a "Christological monotheism" which I think is one of the most ingenious arguments put together to date by any critics of the Mormon position. But it ultimately fails based on Biblical data which Dr. Owen chooses to skip over and which I explore in further detail here. First I will present Dr. Owen’s entire trend of thought and use of the Bible to affirm his so-called "Christological monotheism."
Deuteronomy 6:4-5 continued to exercise its influence in shaping the religious faith of the New Testament church: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Jesus identified the Shema as the most important of all the commandments (Mark 12:29-30). It is likely that Jesus also alluded to Deuteronomy 6:4 when he declared to the Jews in John 10:30: "I and my Father are one" – hence, including himself alongside the Father in the Jewish affirmation of one Lord and God. The Jews certainly understood the import of his claim, for in 10:33 they accuse him of claiming to be God! The Jewish Shema is also echoed in other New Testament texts: "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever, Amen" (1 Tim 1:17). "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder" (James 2:19). "To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power, and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and evermore! Amen" (Jude25).
One of the most theologically enlightening allusions to Deuteronomy 6:4 is found in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6: "We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live" What is interesting here is the way the Jewish Shema was reinterpreted by the early Christians in order to include both the Father (one God) and the Son (one Lord). On this passage N.T. Wright comments:
"Paul, in other words, has glossed "God" with "the Father," and "Lord" with "Jesus Christ," adding in each case an explanatory phrase: "God" is the Father, "from whom are all things and we through him"… Paul has placed Jesus within an explicit statement, drawn from the Old Testament’s quarry of emphatically monotheistic texts, of the doctrine that Israel’s God is the one and only God, the creator of the world. The Shema was already, at this stage in Judaism, in widespread use as the Jewish daily prayer. Paul has redefined it christologically, producing what we can only call a sort of christological monotheism."
What this adaptation of Deuteronomy 6:4 shows is that in the early decades of the first century, Jewish Christians were including Jesus within the unique identity of Israel’s "One God" without acknowledging any breach of biblical monotheism.1
Now that is a beautifully crafted argument. Based on the biblical data Dr. Owen chose to include to enhance his argument displayed here, I can only say a hearty amen! However, the Bible also has other areas which discuss the relationship of the Father and the Son which Dr. Owen has chose not to work with, which gives a completely different picture, to which I also say a hearty amen. I do so because the biblical data gives us a more complete context than Dr. Owen has been willing to give us. It is to these other Biblical scripture to which I now turn.
The great intercessory prayer of Jesus in John 17 is one of the most astonishing and beautiful prayers ever recorded for mankind to read. It simply takes our breath away at its intimacy, its immediate relevance, and its astonishing doctrine of Jesus Christ. And Dr. Owen has completely ignored this magnificent specimen of the relationship of God the Father to Jesus Christ. It also discusses the relationship of mankind (as humans!) to Jesus Christ and hence to God the Father as well.
In his discussion with the Reverend Van der Donckt of Pocatello, Idaho, B.H. Roberts masterfully analyzes the prayer of Jesus Christ. Roberts analysis is completely overlooked (though I just know Dr. Owen is familiar with B.H. Roberts) by Dr. Owen.2
I will analyze the extra Greek, German, and Latin information which Roberts did not go into, as well as include the most up-to-date information from the Biblical Lexicons available on these issues. In short, I am updating Roberts masterful Biblical proof with information he did not have available to him in his day, but which supports his thesis.
Roberts notes the importance of the discussion of Jesus healing on the Sabbath and the pretext of this for the Jews to seek to kill Christ. The real reason, was of course, that Jesus made himself "equal to God." (KJV) - John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. The German reads …und machte sich selbst Gott gleich. Depending on usage, gleich means "at the same time or moment, equal pay for equal work, equal rights for all, to have the same objective, the same applies to or goes for you also, birds of a feather flock together," etc.3 It can be a comparison of equals or correlations such as Faust indicates – ihr bringt mit euch die Bilder froher Tage, Und manche liebe Schatten steigen auf; Gleich einer alten, halbverklungnen Sage Kommte erste Lieb und Feundschaft mit herauf. (with you return pictures of joyous days, Shadows that I once loved again draw near; like a primeval tale, half lost in haze, First love and friendship also reappear.)4
The Greek here is also most instructive as we compare its various usage and meanings in scriptural contexts. elegen ton qeon ison eauton poiwn tw qew (elegen ton theon ison eauton poion to theo). "Isos" is the accusative adjective which in the Greek is extension, of measure, quality, intensity, etc. The accusative inherently answers such questions as "how far?" or "how long?" duration of time, etc.5 The BDAG Lexicon notes it pertains to being equivalent in number, size, quality, meaning also to be equal.6 In Acts 11:17 we read tên isên dôrean, the equal gift, equal in quality, rank, or measure. In the parable of the laborers, when the last laborers who were only working for an hour received the same wages as those who had labored all day long, the latter complained that "thou hast made them equal unto us" (Matt. 20:12). The Greek here is isous autous hêmin (isous autous hmin) meaning equal in rank for paying. This is the same Greek usage of Jesus making himself equal with the Father, not in number, but in rank, in power, in quality and attributes. The Liddell-Scott Lexicon7 discusses the usage of the Greek word in the classical sources showing the contexts meaning "equal to, the same as, equal like, a mixture of equal parts of water and wine as Herodotus used the word, equally divided, an equal share, a fair measure, equal rights, impartial, ison emoi "like me," like as, alike, etc.
Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament discuss this verse of John 5:18 as well.
But also called God his own Father (alla kai patera idion elege ton theon). "His own" (idion) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See Rom 8:32 for ho idios huios, "his own Son." Making himself equal with God (ison heauton poiôn tôi theôi). Isos is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means equal. In Philippians 2:6 Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ isa theôi, "equal to God" (plural isa, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be isos theôi because in John 14:28 he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in 14:7 that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in 10:33; 19:7. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47).8
Roberts then showed the idea of the Latin in the 17th chapter of John. The claim from Van der Donckt’s position, as well as Trinitarians today, is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One God in substance, not just a moral and ethical unity. This is certainly not the case as we have seen above where being "equal with God" has nothing to do with being the same substance. It is more of the same in John 17.
In his prayer in the Latin, Jesus said Ut sint unum, sicut et nos (verse 11), "that they may be one, just as we." So in verse 22: Ut sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus; "that they may be one in us, even as we one are." Here the Latin word unum is used as it is in John 10:30 – "Ego et Pater unum sumus," "I and my Father are one."9 This is not a "Christological monotheism" however. There is more here than that. We must read it in context and realize that Jesus is including all the believers in Christ as well as himself as being one with God. That is what John 17 is all about. In other words, if we are to assert that the oneness of Jesus with God is a physical oneness, then this would include all the believers who are to be unified with God. In other words, we all become one with God, and become God, which is the ultimate deification! This, clearly, Paul Owen would not agree with. But as a Trinitarian Christian what other choice is there open for his interpretation? The conundrum is not of our making, but of a particular Christian interpretation of which Paul Owen is a believer. The oneness we would emphasize is one of moral union, a perfect union of purposes and wills, not an identity of substance. This type of union is clearly possible if Christ’s prayer is to be realized. Would he pray in vain?
The relationship of Jesus to the Father here is demonstrating their separateness of physicality. Notice the very first verse in this chapter 17 of John:
John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Notice the Greek "lifting up" is eparaj (eparas), which is the first aorist active participle of epairô. Jesus is turning his eyes upward to heaven where his Father dwells. It is an entirely different physical location. In every instance of Jesus and his relationship with His Father, his Father is in heaven, a different physical location than Jesus. This is pointed out powerfully at Jesus’ baptism:
Matthew 3:16-17 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, (kai idou hnewxqhsan autw oi ouranoi) and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, (ek ton ouranwn) saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
The German reads da tat sich der Himmel auf Über ihm. "There the heavens opened over him." Note the location is "over" Jesus, hence a different location since the voice of the Father was eine Stimme vom Himmel, "a voice from heaven," clearly a different physical location from where Jesus was. The German usually has all sorts of clarifications and extra insights into the scriptures. The German clearly describes the heavens "over" him, as opposed to the English translation of "from heaven." The different physical location appears stronger in contrast from the German.
There is no physical unity here of Trinitarian views. There is no "Christological monotheism," inherent in the scriptural texts discussing or rather, showing the relationship and interaction of Jesus with his Father.
The relationship of the Father and Son is also demonstrated in the Mount of Transfiguration. Mark 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
The voice came from a different location than where Jesus was. The German reads Und eine Stimme fiel aus der Wolke und sprach. It comes from the cloud, (aus der Wolke) which was above Jesus and his disciples.
When Jesus spoke to Mary at the tomb he declared to her at John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father…" this happened later in Acts 1:9, And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. The German reads und eine Wolke nahm ihn auf vor ihren Augen weg, showing Jesus clearly was taken to a different location, ascending to his Father, which is in heaven. Since Jesus had already declared he and his Father were one, this is not a case of "Christological monotheism," at all. Paul Owen appears to be relying more on what one scholar of the Bible says about the Bible than learning what the Bible itself says. Analyzing the text itself from a linguistic perspective shows clearly there is no such thing as a "Christological monotheism," rather there is a unity of the wills of the Father and Son. Jesus prayed thus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Here Jesus shows he goes along with the will of the Father, though he doesn’t want to. Yet his unification of will, his moral union is one with His Father’s will. Here is the clearest possible example of just such an occurrence. Another one is at Matthew 11:26 "Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight."
What has happened I suspect, is that Paul Owen has put his interpretation of a theological belief of his own back onto the scripture and then said the scripture supports his ideas. This is an incorrect methodology though. When we analyze all the occurrences of the relationship of Jesus with his Father in the New Testament, we see them clearly separated physically, though not morally, or separate wills, desires, and goals and hopes. The Father is always spoken of as being in a physically different environment, namely in heaven as at Matt 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1; 6:9, 14, 26, 32; 7:11, 21; 10:32, 33; 11:25; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 14, 19, 35; 19:5; 23:9, etc. This is just in one of the Synoptic Gospels! There are many references as to where Jesus’ Father is, which is a different heavenly realm from Jesus here on earth.
Paul Owen has failed to show the contextual data of the Bible where the relationship of the Father and Son are spoken of. These areas show a different picture than what Paul Owen has presented, which is based on what other scholars think, not on what the Biblical data give us. Hence I cannot accept Paul Owen’s conclusions against the Latter Day Saints concept of God.
Endnotes
1. Paul Owen, "Monotheism, Mormonism, and the New Testament Witness," in The New Mormon Challenge, eds., Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, Zondervan, 2002: 285-286.
2. B. H. Roberts, The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, Horizon Publishers, 3rd printing, August, 1982: 149-156. I find it fascinating that the newest anti-Mormon discussions on the Mormon understanding of God ignore B.H. Roberts work as witness J. P Holding, The Mormon Defenders, self-published, 2001: Chapter 1 on the Godhead, where Holding nowhere cites Roberts materials. I argue that to ignore Roberts complete answer on this issue is to leave oneself open to a certain measure of incompetence in discussing this subject with this Mormon doctrine. Our critics are going to have to refute Roberts in order to get any sort of foothold in the door. They cannot ignore this extraordinary invaluable source forever.
3. W. Scholze-Stubenrecht, J.B. Sykes, General editors, The Oxford-Duden German Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, Reprint, 1994: under "gleich," p. 339-340.
4. Faust, Dedication, in Kaufmann’s translation, Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1961: 64-65.
5. Gerald L. Stevens, New Testament Greek, University Press of America, 1994: 47, 202.
6. William F. Arndt & F. Wilbur Gingrich, revisers, editors, of Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed., 1979: 381.
7. I am using the lexicon as it is found in Bibleworks 5.0, (Revision #2, 2002) the computer software program.
8. As found on the Bibleworks 5.0 computer software program.
9. B.H. Roberts, The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, p. 152.