This is the continuing dialogue with Theophilus (Eastern Orthodox). Here are his questions in response to my article:
http://spirited-tech.com/Council/index.php/2020/07/04/besides-me-there-is-no-god/
Theophilus:
We can discuss this in as much detail as you like, but I’m curious how you resolve the exegetical issue I mentioned. In Isaiah 42:1, YHWH refers to the Messiah as “my servant,” and the speaker does not change from Isaiah 42 to Isaiah 48.
If Isaiah 44-46 is the Trinity speaking, then the Trinity must also be speaking in Isaiah 42:1. This would imply that the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit) calls the Messiah “my servant,” meaning the Son would be calling Himself His own servant.
That’s the main reason I believe all the monotheistic claims in Isaiah 42-48 are the Father speaking. If you can resolve this issue, I have no problem accepting that the Trinity is speaking in Isaiah 44-46.
Before we proceed further, Bahnsen, address my argument instead of dodging it. I’d honestly be very interested to hear what you have to say—it could strengthen the Philippians 2:10 argument significantly.
TheSire:
I don’t think your argument addresses my objections, you insignificant coward. Who says Yahweh always refers to all three persons every time? That assumption seems unwarranted. I suppose it’s possible, but it would seem unusual. The Father-Son dynamic is so common that it’s difficult to read these texts as fully Trinitarian. Maybe Jimmy has some helpful insights.
Theophilus:
I believe Paul applied Isaiah 45:23 to Christ in Philippians 2:10 to show that everything in that verse applies to the Son. My only point is that, historically, the speaker in Isaiah 45:23 is God the Father.
I’m cautious when using these texts in debates with Unitarians. If I claim that Paul identifies Christ as the speaker in Isaiah 45:23, a Unitarian will likely point to Isaiah 42:1 and accuse me of modalism. My concern here is primarily apologetic.
Jimmy Stephens:
Two things, Theophilus:
- It doesn’t follow that because the Triune God speaks, the term “servant” must apply to all three Persons. We can reason that because the Father is God and the Son is the servant of the Father (economically), the Son is the servant of God. So, the Triune God can say, “my servant” in virtue of the fact that God, as a whole, possesses the perfections of the Father, without confusing those perfections with the other members.
(Just as the Father possesses all the perfections of God without inheriting the perfections of the Son or the Spirit.)
- Your hermeneutic, when pushed to its logical conclusion, seems to foster skepticism about the Trinity. It appears you’re presupposing that whenever God speaks, it’s a single Person speaking on behalf of that one Person, excluding the others. However, your theology suggests that God often works as a unified whole in His actions, alongside the doctrine of perichoresis. You affirm the unity of God’s deeds among the Trinity, yet your hermeneutic would prevent us from ever inferring that unity, given that God only speaks of one Person at a time, to the exclusion of others.
TheSire:
You might be able to argue that Isaiah 45:23 supports your case, but I doubt that’s what’s meant in John 8 and similar passages. Richard Bauckham has argued that Jesus shares in the divine identity, so it seems reasonable that these texts aren’t merely applied to Him after the fact but have always spoken of Him.
A similar dynamic is seen in Hebrews 1:8-12:
8 But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
10 And:
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.”
As you know, this references Psalm 102:25-27. If this text applies to the Son because He shares in the divine identity, it suggests a similar “dual” language. The Son is both God and the servant of God, existing in a complex, multifaceted relationship that is revealed over time.
Furthermore, the incarnation would be deeply problematic if it weren’t possible for the Son to be both God and the servant of God. The entire concept of the incarnation hinges on the Son taking on a human nature and submitting to the Father’s will, while still fully retaining His divine identity. If the Son could not be called “servant” in His relationship to the Father, it would undermine the very nature of the incarnation itself. This duality of roles—being God and being the servant—shows the unique and profound way in which the Son fulfills His mission, bridging the gap between God and humanity without diminishing His divinity. The incarnation is the ultimate expression of God’s plan for redemption, and only by maintaining this tension between servanthood and divinity can we fully appreciate the Son’s work on the cross and His mediation on behalf of humanity.
This distinction between the Son’s divine identity and His role as a servant also aligns with historic Christian teaching on the Trinity and the incarnation. Throughout church history, theologians have emphasized that the Son, in His divine nature, is co-equal with the Father and the Spirit, yet, in His role as the incarnate Christ, He humbles Himself and submits to the Father’s will. Philippians 2:6-8 captures this beautifully: though being in the form of God, the Son “emptied Himself” by taking on the form of a servant. This submission doesn’t negate His divine status but highlights the profound humility of the incarnation. It is through this act of submission that the Son not only provides the perfect model of obedience but also fulfills the necessary requirements of justice and mercy in His atoning work.
In light of this, it’s not only possible but necessary for the Son to be spoken of as both God and servant without contradiction. These passages reveal the depth of God’s self-revelation, showing that the Son’s role in the economy of salvation is complex yet cohesive. The apparent tension is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity and the incarnation, where God in His wisdom brings together divinity and servanthood in the person of Christ. This understanding strengthens our grasp of Trinitarian doctrine and the biblical portrayal of the Son, where His servanthood is not incompatible with His divinity but is, in fact, a reflection of His redemptive mission. It also equips us to respond to challenges from groups like Unitarians, who often misunderstand or misrepresent the relationship between Christ’s divine and human roles, by showing that the Scriptures consistently affirm both His divinity and His servanthood as integral to His work in salvation.
The future of the godly is tied up with God himself and with his promises. The psalmist praises the Lord in that he will be true to “the children of your servants.” They and their descendants will “dwell” (šākan, GK 8905; NIV, “live”; cf. 15: 1; 23: 6) and be “established” (kûn, GK 3922) in the Lord’s presence (cf. 69: 35-36; Isa 65: 9; 66: 22). Such is the confidence in the covenantal care of the Lord. The Lord magnificently showed his fidelity to his promises when he restored the people from exile under Cyrus and when he sent Jesus the Messiah to restore humanity to himself. God the Father is able to bring “many sons to glory”; and to this end he sent Jesus, his Son, to be the author of our salvation. As the Savior is perfect (cf. Heb 2: 10-11), so is his salvation. What the psalmist longed for has been experienced in time, as the faithful servants of God have testified. But as long as God’s servants suffer, this psalm is appropriate for all who long for the fullness of salvation, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.
VanGemeren, Willem A.. Psalms (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 23247-23254). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
The Council 