Marketing in Confusion: A Response to Dale Tuggy, Part 6

 

Continuing from the previous section, we come to what is Tuggy’s final jab at the doctrine of the Trinity, in the final section of his post.

The Unitarian Tendency Towards Exhibitionism

As has been noted throughout this series, Tuggy has a tendency to conflate matters, namely either through the flattening of distinct, biblical categories or simply ignoring them. This is seen most clearly in what he claims that Trinitarians have to deny in relation to his argument,

It looks like the only way to save trinitarian hypotheses (which are committed to 1, 4, and 5) is to deny 2 and/or 3. But notice that 3 follows from 1 & 2. And you don’t want to deny 1. So really, you have to attack 2: you have to deny or at least cast doubt on the premise that the Yahweh of the OT just is the one called “Father” is the NT. (emphasis original)

However, we’ve already argued that Father, Son, and Spirit, are all identified as Yahweh in the New Testament. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that there are at least two distinct figures who are both identified as Yahweh in the Old Testament, and the so the New Testament continues this identification, so that we can say that New Testament theology is therefore a continuation of Old Testament theology as well as a broadening and clarification of it.

The point here is that when Trinitarians say God is a trinity it is in regard to the Persons, as Berkhof has noted, “…[When] we speak of the Trinity of God, we refer to a trinity in unity, and to a unity that is trinal.”[1]

But how does this fact any alleged “commitments” that a “trinitarian” might have in regard to Tuggy’s argument?

Since none of his premises are true, by biblical evidences, then no Trinitarian is committed to any of them, especially in regard to the truthfulness of premise 2, which is the heart of Tuggy’s argument. The primary reason for this is that the New Testament authors take the identification of two OT divine figures of Yahweh Elohim (LORD God) and Adonai Yahweh (Lord GOD), the second figure identified by other alternate titles as well, and find those identifications in the New Testament as “God the Father” and the “Lord Jesus Christ”.[2]

The Problem of Interpretation

However, to support the contention that “Yahweh just is the Father”, Tuggy attempts to muster some biblical evidence, saying that “it comes pretty close to the surface at times.”

For this, he appeals to Acts 2:32-33, which reads 

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (ESV)

Now, remember that Tuggy has asserted that its “right close to the surface”, which means that it should be somewhat obvious as to what he wants his readers to conclude. However, a bare reading of text that he appeals to actually gives us no evidence of the claim that he his making. That is, without some interpretational framework already running, one has no reason to assume his conclusion.

In fact, from a bare reading of the text, no one has any reason to assume that “God” even refers to “the Father” or that the terms are even related as the writer makes no indication that they are such. In fact, it could be argued, from a surface reading of the text that “the Father” isn’t even deity because we have no reason to assume such from this text.

Consider that against what Tuggy says,

Do you see what Luke has done here? He’s just used “God” twice. So just for variety, the third time around he substitutes “the Father.” (emphasis original)

Looking at the passage, there is nothing that inherently signals that Luke’s use of “the Father” signals any relationship to the prior uses of “God”. In fact, as noted, one cannot even assume the deity of “the Father” from this passage without some prior interpretational framework up and running in their mind. In fact, the original Greek makes this even more problematic as it places “the Holy Spirit” (τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου) ahead of “the Father” in the sentence making him, following Tuggy’s logic, the more likely candidate for the identification of “God”.[3]

The problem for Tuggy is demonstrating how the original audience to whom Peter is speaking would understand Peter’s words, not how later readers, readers operating with an interpretational framework, would understand it, especially given the fact that Peter speaks of “the promise of the Holy Spirit”, a promise which comes from John 14:26 and 15:26, not from Luke’s gospel.

If anything, Tuggy--by his attempt to demonstrate his theology of God from this passage--is missing the greater point: that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, proven by his resurrection, by God raising him from the dead and exalting him, and subsequently sending the Spirit whose activity is detected and demonstrated in the goings on.[4]

More importantly though is Peter’s appeal to Psalm 110:1 in the subsequent verses, a passage of Scripture that--until the middle of the second century AD--had been used by Jewish rabbis to refute Gnostics by demonstrating that there were two distinct manifestations of Yahweh that were one deity.[5] Moreover, it’s this same verse that becomes a Christian prooftext against the same group and does double-duty by both expressing the unity-in-plurality of Yahweh and demonstrating the deity of Jesus as the second manifestation.[6]

The second text that Tuggy appeals to is also in the book of Acts, in 3:12-13. This passage comes on the heels of Peter healing a lame man in the gates of the temple, a man healed, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth…” (Acts 3:6, ESV). In speaking to the crowd, who is amazed by what has happened, Peter states,

And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him.”(ESV)

Notice what Tuggy says,

Now, Peter can’t say “Yahweh”; that was forbidden at this time. But this one he calls “the God of our ancestors” etc. – this is supposed to be Yahweh, right? So there you go: Luke and Peter assume that Yahweh just is the Father, that those are numerically the same.

Notice how Tuggy simply assumes his conclusion? Where in the Passage does Peter ever say “Father”?

To say that “Peter can’t say ‘Yahweh’” is simply an assumption that is unjustified since what we have in Acts is a dramatized recreation of events. We don’t have Peter’s exact words that he said, but what we do have is a fair representation, most certainly packed with literary flourish, meant to fully represent the rejection of the very God that they are gathered to supposedly worship at that moment.[7] What is most important here is something that Peter says that slips under Tuggy’s radar because of his predisposition in looking at this passage: God glorying someone else in a reversal of travel as all glory is supposed to be directed at him.[8] Most importantly, Peter doesn’t attribute the healing to Yahweh, or the Father, but to Jesus via “the name” (v16).

This is important because this simple phrase, “the name”, has ties to Old Testament divine covenant language, primarily in pre-Sinai passages.[9] As such “the name” doesn’t simply become a placeholder for the divine name but operates as a specific personification or manifestation of Yahweh.[10] This manifestation is the one who is truly the one redeems, rescues, and is the God of Israel.[11]

Moreover, where is it that “Luke and Peter assume that Yahweh just is the Father”? As has been noted, Peter--via Luke’s dramatization--uses language that ties back, not to Yahweh specifically, but to the Angel of Yahweh, the Name, who is the Second Yahweh in Second Temple theology.[12]

Furthermore, notice that the phrase, “the God of our ancestors” is identified by the tripartite identification, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”. This means of identification is to demonstrate solidarity with his opponents.[13] Notice, that he does not say, “the God of your ancestors” rather “the God of our ancestors”, and while Tuggy is correct in asserting that this God is Yahweh, everything that Peter says is built upon a Jewish context and Jewish categories, one of which includes the belief in two Yahwehs.

Turning to the Apostle Paul’s introduction in his Epistle to the Ephesians, Tuggy notes that “Paul repeatedly calls someone the God of Jesus,” after which he asks a leading question, “Surely, this is the god of the Jews, Yahweh, right?”

He focuses on two portions of the introduction: v2-4 then v15-17, which read:

 

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him….For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him…(ESV, emphasis Tuggy)

Of this passage, Tuggy notes,

It’s just basic reading comprehension that he’s using “God” and “Father” of the same one here. And in its first century, Jewish context, it is clear than this is none other than Yahweh, the one true God of the Jewish scriptures.

 

That’s a lot of assumption. However, exegetically, the passage presents a different message for a number reasons.

First, in v2, the “grace…and peace” extends singularly from, as the Greek literally reads, “god father of us and lord Jesus Christ”.[14] What makes this passage so troublesome is the use of the term “father” (Gr. pater) which is often assumed in Trinitarian circles to refer to “the Father”, the First Person of the Trinty. However, I would like to suggest that its use here, by the fact that it is coupled with “lord” (Gr. kyrios) needs to be understood in specifically ancient Middle Eastern and Hellenistic terms of patronage as grace is an extension of favoritism or partiality from someone of greater social standing to someone of lesser.[15] Furthermore, the use of the title “father” emphasizes this understanding of patronage due to the fact that it is applied to Jesus in a non-biological sense.[16] Paul is especially stressing the deity of Christ, by assigning him with the title of “lord”, which indicates his position in relevance to the worshipper.[17] However, if Paul is calling Jesus “father”, wouldn’t that affirm Oneness claims in opposition to Tuggy’s unitarian claims?[18]

Paul eliminates and denies such an understanding by the declaration that (by the Greek) “the God and Father of the Lord of us Jesus Christ” has “blessed” those who believe “in Christ”.[19] The apostle is clearly defining, by the language available to him, that there is a second divine person to the exclusion of polytheistic understandings.[20] Believers are only able to call upon Jesus’ Father as “Father” as a result of God’s adoption of them in and through his Son, by the regenerating power of the Spirit(v17).[21] Furthermore, Paul’s introduction is heavily laden with Trinitarian language, emphasizing the roles that all three divine Person’s play in the plan of redemption.

So when Tuggy appeals to “basic reading comprehension”, to which is he appealing: the original language or the English translation? If the latter, then he needs to provide a basis--beyond the mere assertion--for drawing the conclusion. However, if the former then he needs to provide the exegetical basis, which he doesn’t.

Tying the Noose

Exegetically, Tuggy’s approach to these three texts has been demonstrated as at least suspect by demonstrating that he’s assuming what he’s trying to prove if not outright false by the application of exegetical examination both linguistically and historically. As such they are fundamentally eisegetical at heart.

In the next section, we will look at Tuggy’s argument, in light of these exposures.

 

Notes

 

1. Louis Berkhof. Systematic Theology. GLH Publishing. 2017. p. 59

2. These alternate titles applied to the second Person are discussed in Van Dorn and Foreman’s excellent exploration of the topic The Angel of the LORD: A Biblical, Historical, and Cultural Study (Word of Creation, 2020).

3.  τῇ δεξιᾷ οὖν τοῦ θεοῦ ὑψωθεὶς τήν τε ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου λαβὼν παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξέχεεν τοῦτο ὃ ὑμεῖς βλέπετε καὶ ἀκούετε.(SBL Greek NT, Acts 2:33)

4. Darrell L. Bock. Acts. Baker Academic Publishing. 2007. p. 205-7 (ePub)

5. Alan Segal. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism. Brill Publishing. 2002. p. 227-8

6. Ibid, p. 228

7. For a discussion of the rhetorical strategy employed in this passage see Mikeal C. Parsons Acts (Baker, 2008) p. 60ff

8. Bock, p. 258-9

9. Matt Foreman and Douglas Van Dorn. The Angel of the LORD: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Study. Waters of Creation Publishing. 2020. p. 95 (ePub)

10. Ibid, p. 95-6

11. Ibid, p. 96

12. Ibid.

13. Bock, p. 257

14. θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: SBL Greek New Testament (Lexham, 2013)

15. Bruce J. Malina. “Grace/Favor”. Handbook of Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning. Hendrickson Publishing. 1993. p. 84

16. --. “Patronage”. Handbook of Bibilical Social Values and Their Meaning. Hendrickson Publishing. 1993. p. 133

17. Michael S. Heiser. “New Testament Terms for Unseen Divine Beings”. Faithlife Study Bible. Lexham Press. 2016.

18. Oneness unitarians affirm a type of modalism that asserts that Jesus is the Father by divine mode of action.

19. Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ: Eph 1:3; SBL Greek New Testament (Lexham, 2013)

20. Markus Barth. Ephesians: An Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1-3. Yale University Press. 2008. p. 72

21. Ibid, p. 72-3