7. The self revelation, in the Old Testament, that only Yahweh (who is one person) is God.

“To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD [Yahweh] Himself is God; there is none other beside Him.” (Deuteronomy 4:35)

“Now see that I, even I, am He, and there is no God beside Me.”
(Deuteronomy 32:39)

“O LORD [Yahweh] of hosts, God of Israel, the One who dwells between the cherubim, You are
God, You alone . . .” (Isaiah 37:16)

“You are My witnesses,” says the LORD [Yahweh], and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the LORD
[Yahweh].” (Isaiah 43:10, 11)

“I am the LORD [Yahweh], and there is no other; There is no God besides Me. For thus says the LORD [Yahweh], who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD [Yahweh], and there is no other.” (Isaiah 45:5, 18)

“But the LORD [Yahweh] is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King . . .”
(Jeremiah 10:10)

“And the LORD [Yahweh] shall be King over all the earth. And in that day it shall be—The LORD
is one, and His name one.” (Zechariah 14:9)

The doctrine of the Trinity is not the teaching of the Old Testament, the Scriptures that the Lord Jesus Christ used. It is a corruption of the clear and simple truth that there is one true God and one person, alone, who is God. The teaching of one God in three persons is not a firm foundation for our faith. It is a shell game that hides the glory of the one true God in the garments of Platonic paganism.

In examining the discussion thus far, I see that I have presented a few points that I do not think Marc has dealt with well, and I will restate them as well as present my final constructive points for the readers’ consideration.

1. Jesus, Uniquely Begotton, Was “With God”

We are discussing whether the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is alone Almighty God. And I do not think that Marc has adequately addressed some of my strongest points. Not the least of them is Jesus’ concession that the Father has given him life. While Marc has cited sources that have provided some opinions of some recognized classic scholars, on this point his commentators have not adequately provided contextual argumentation as to why John 5:26 and 6:57 fail to establish Jesus’ dependence in the absolute sense on having received life from the Father. Fathers generate life, they beget sons. While Marc has not stated it outright, Trinitarians believe, strangely, in a concept called the eternal begettal of the Son of God by the Father. The problem with this is that begettal is a point in time event. There was a moment in the past when Jesus did not exist. Then he did exist and, for a time, he was “with God” John reveals to us under inspiration (John 1:1).

Mark, in his Rebuttal 1b, follows Barnes in saying John 5:26 teaches Jesus role as mediator in raising the dead and judging the world. Neither Barnes nor Marc had a comment on John 6:57 where Jesus says flatly, “I live because of the Father.” And whatever may be the specifics of his role as mediator regarding others, he stressed the personal point in the two passages that he owes his life to the Father. While God had other sons, only Jesus is monogenes (John 1:14, 18). That is he is literally “one of a kind,” “only,” and “unique” among them (J.H.Moulton and G.Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament 416-417). God gave this Son unique existence among all others that he also gave life.

2. Jesus, Named The Word of God (Revelation 19:13), Was “A God”/Divine, who Became Human

C.H. Dodd, who directed the work of the New English Bible translators, from 1950, writes, “‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted” (“New Testament Translation Problems II,” Bible Translator_28.1[1977]:101-102). In fact, this translation/sense is not only grammatically possible, but grammatically the most natural reading (Other texts with the same grammatical construction are John 8:34: “Everyone who does sin is a slave of sin”; John 8:48: “You are a Samaritan”; John 9:24: “This man is a sinner”; John 1:1 “the word was a god’)
If the word was “a god” (a divine being), then it is natural if not necessary to conclude that “the word” was a personal entity who was “with God” in the beginning. And, if “the word” (who was a divine being) “became flesh” in the man Jesus, the straightforward interpretation is that “the word” actually became flesh (a man). In other words “the word,” ceased being “a god/divine being” and truly “became flesh/human,” not that he became some kind of a divine-human hybrid, or a ‘god-man,’ or a divine being who merely “cloaked himself” in a human “outfit.”

The translation “the word was a god” also harmonizes well with the most likely manuscript reading of John 1:18 that speaks of Jesus as “an only-begotten/unique god” who dwells “in the bosom of the Father.” This is, in fact, the most likely reading A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition, pp. 169-170).

3. John 1:1-18 Harmonizes with Philippians 2:5-11, 2 Corinthians 8:9, and John 17:5

Paul tells us that although Christ was existing in God’s form (or ‘in a god’s form’), he “did not think to snatch at equality with God,” but “emptied himself” and took on “a slave’s form” when he “appeared in the likeness of men.” The text also speaks of a point in time when Christ “found himself in fashion as a man,” a seemingly redundant/nonsensical comment to make about someone who has never been anything but a man. The plain reading of the text indicates that Christ was in one form (God’s form) and took on a different form (a slave’s form) when he “appeared in the likeness of men” and when he “found himself in fashion as a man.” The plain reading also indicates that Christ’s conscious decision not to “snatch at equality with God” (or ‘exploit his likeness to God for his own advantage’) took place before he “appeared in the likeness of men.”

Incidentally, this understanding based on the plain reading perfectly fits Paul’s comments about Jesus in 2 Corinthians 8:9: “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.” This clearly tells us that Christ had something very valuable that he gave up for our sake. This is just like Paul’s statement to the Philippians: “although he was existing in God’s form (‘he was rich’), he emptied himself, and took on the form of a slave (‘he became poor for our sake’).” In addition, these two texts (Philippians 2:5-11 and 2 Corinthians 8:9) also appear to harmonize wonderfully with Jesus’ statement in John 17:5: “Father, glorify me alongside [para] yourself with the glory I had alongside [para] you before the world was”—language suggesting, again, that Jesus had something valuable at one time that he gave up (See para with the dative of person = by the side of, beside, by with in G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, pp. 336-337).

When all these points are kept in mind, Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 8:9 seems like it means: “although Christ was rich (though he ‘had glory’ with God before the world was) he became poor (he emptied himself of his ‘god’ form and took on a slave’s form when he appeared in the likeness of men/and the word1 became flesh) for our sake, so that through his poverty (through his human life, sacrificial service, and ultimate death) we might become rich.”

4. Psalm 110:1The Distinction Between the Messiah (Adoni) and Yahweh

Marc still has not given a satisfactory response to this passage. The teaching of the Psalm is supported by Passages like 1 Timothy 2:5, which among other passages demonstrates the distinction between the exalted man Christ Jesus and the Father. This will become increasingly significant as I try to demonstrate more thoroughly in the latter part of this debate, what I mentioned in my first presentation, namely how a Trinitarian perspective cannot coherently be maintained. Only by recognizing that Jesus is a separate entity from the one who gave him life can we make sense of some very plain biblical texts that become muddled if there are more than one Almighty beings. That Jesus is a separate individual—and I do not mean that in a philosophical sense where, for instance, “person” does not mean individual entities with individual wills that they may choose to offer in harmonious cooperation with another (or not)—that Jesus is a separate individual from the Father who is Almighty God is easily demonstrated.

_____________________

In preparing for this discussion, I have done a lot of reading. I’ve reviewed the first debate that I had with Mark June – October 2006, and I’ve tried to keep up with the most current discussions available on the topic. Two excellent resources that I would recommend, regardless of the position you embrace, are, on the Trinitarian side, Robert Bowman’s and J.E. Komoszewski’s Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ , which reads a lot like Marc in some specific points of argumentation. On the strict monotheist side, see Patrick Navas’ Divine Truth or Human Tradition: A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic – Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (That’s really the whole title!). I’ve spent a lot of time talking with Patrick about issues in this discussion, and respect his balance and fair-mindedness immensely (There are differences on the Jesus is not Almighty God side too!), sometimes even embracing perspectives that he tried to provide with equanimity, some of his insights appearing in my share of the present debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4W6GqzuxZY

Probably the best line in it was, “If your views on abortion can fit on a bumper sticker, you haven’t thought it through hard enough.”  I think this can also be said for all of the “hot button” social issues.  When I took a course on Ethics in college, the biggest thing I learned was that there are no simple answers.

Some other good quotes from the video:

“The question is not, ‘Should abortion be legal or illegal,’ the question is, ‘What can we do to eliminate the need for abortions?’”

“In a perfect world there would be no abortions.”

“Abortion itself is not the problem.  It is a symptom of many societal problems.”

“If reducing the number of abortions is what we want, we need to change the way we look at the issue entirely.  Not ‘pro-choice,’ not ‘pro-life,’ just ‘pro-common-sense.’”

(BTW, the guy in this video is not a theologian or scholar of any kind.  He’s just a guy who makes video blogs on YouTube.  But I think he did a great job of putting the issue in perspective.)

One of the figures that Scripture refers to, in both the Old and New Testaments, is “The Satan”. In addition, the New Testament refers to a figure called “The Devil”. For example, The Satan caused the catastrophes that befell Job, and The Devil is called “The father of lies”.

An important item to note is that the Hebrew word satan means “adversary”, or “accuser”; and the Greek word diabolos (from which we get the word “devil”) means “slanderer”.

As with many other Scriptural concepts, there are several different beliefs about who - or what - The Satan actually is, among various Christian groups. Basically, there are two main questions about The Satan, that these doctrines try to answer:

- Does “The Satan” refer to a unique, personal spirit being - i.e., to an angel?

- If “The Satan” is a personal being, then how much “freedom of action” does he have?

Three different doctrines

Here are the three most common doctrines that I have seen, about The Satan - along with some Scriptural passages which appear to support each doctrine.

1. The “Metaphorical” Satan: According to this belief, the terms “The Satan” and “The Devil” are completely figurative. In other words, those terms do not refer to a personal being at all - instead, they only refer to the “sinful nature” within human beings.

The Christadelphians, and some Universalists, have this belief about The Satan.

Some passages that are used to support this doctrine are as follows:

Matthew 16:21-23 (ESV):

²¹From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. ²²And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” ²³But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Acts 5:3-4 (ESV):

³But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? ⁴While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

James 1:14-15 (ESV):

¹⁴But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. ¹⁵Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

2. The “District Attorney” Satan: This doctrine states that The Satan is a unique, personal, spirit being. However, the only actions he can perform are ones that God has explicitly permitted him to do. So, in a sense, The Satan works for God - i.e., he is God’s “district attorney” - or perhaps God’s “hit man”.

Orthodox Jews generally hold this doctrine about The Satan.

Some passages that are used to support this doctrine are as follows:

Job 1:8-12 (ESV):

⁸And the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” ⁹Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? ¹⁰Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. ¹¹But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” ¹²And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

1 Chronicles 21:1 (ESV):

¹ Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.

2 Samuel 24:1 (ESV):

¹ Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.“

3. The “Enemy of God” Satan: In this view, The Satan is a unique, personal spirit being. In addition, he is able to perform any action that he wants to - even without God’s permission. In other words, The Satan is the “enemy of God” - i.e., he is locked in an ongoing, cosmic “struggle” with God.

Almost all of the mainstream Christian denominations have this doctrine about The Satan.

Some passages that are used to support this doctrine are as follows:

Revelation 12:7-9 (ESV):

⁷Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, ⁸but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. ⁹And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Isaiah 24:21-22 (ESV):

²¹On that day the LORD will punish
the host of heaven, in heaven,
and the kings of the earth, on the earth.
²² They will be gathered together
as prisoners in a pit;
they will be shut up in a prison,
and after many days they will be punished.

Ezekiel 28:14-16 (ESV):

¹⁴You were an anointed guardian cherub.
I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
¹⁵You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
¹⁶In the abundance of your trade
you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.

Is The Satan a personal being?

The passages in group 1 indicate that in some cases, the generic word “satan” (adversary) does represent sinful human nature. However, that does not mean that every reference to satan refers to human nature! In particular, when the specific term The Satan - or The Devil - is used, it almost always refers to a unique, personal being - not to sinful human nature.

For example, consider Revelation 12:7-9, above. If the word satan always refers to sinful human nature, then that means that the archangel Michael fought against sinful human nature - and against sinful human nature’s angels! Does that make sense? In addition, Jude 1:9 tells us that Michael had a dispute with the devil about Moses’ body. Was the archangel Michael arguing with sinful human nature?

Also, Scripture tells us that during the Millennium, Jesus will rule the nations with “a rod of iron” - and “sinners will be put to death”. This tells me that there will still be sin during the Millennium - because if there won’t be any sin during the 1000 years, then Jesus would not have to rule the Millennium so forcefully. With that in mind, consider this passage:

Revelation 20:1-3 (ESV):

¹Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. ²And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, ³and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

The above passage tells us that Satan will not have any influence over people, during the entire Millennium. So, if Satan always refers to “sinful human nature”, then that means that people will not sin at all, during the 1000 years - since everyone’s sinful nature will be “bound” during that time.

Of course, since Jesus will rule the Millennium with force, that implies that people will sin during the Millennium. That, in turn, indicates that Satan does not refer to sinful human nature in this case. On the contrary - this passage strongly indicates that Satan is a unique, personal being - completely separate from humans.

How much “freedom of action” does The Satan have?

The passages in group 2 indicate that in some cases, God does permit The Satan to incite people to sin - and to even bring about calamities. However, that does not mean that God approves of every action that Satan performs!

Consider this: if Satan only performs the actions that God wants him to perform, then why would God punish him? In other words, if Satan is God’s “district attorney” - and if he always does exactly what God tells him to do - then why would God ever punish him at all?

Of course, the passages in group 3 indicate that God will punish The Satan, in the future. Isaiah 24:21-22 states that God will punish “the host of heaven, in heaven”. In other words, God will punish heavenly beings - i.e., angels. Also, Ezekiel 28 states that a cherub - a type of angel - rebelled against God; and as a result, God will destroy that angel. Finally, Revelation 12:1-9 speaks of a war in heaven - with some angels fighting against other angels - and the leader of the rebellious angels is identified as Satan!

Also, consider this passage:

Revelation 20:10 (ESV):

¹⁰and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

That passage certainly seems to preclude the idea that Satan is God’s loyal “district attorney”…

Can The Satan do anything that he wants to do?

There is one other item to note: it certainly appears that The Satan can sin against God - i.e., he can do things that God does not approve of. However, that does not mean that he can do anything that he wants to do. In other words, there are (presumably) some “limits” on what Satan can do.

After all, if Satan can do anything that he wants, then why doesn’t he just kill off every human being? Or, at the very least, why doesn’t he ensure that everyone is constantly suffering calamities like the ones that struck Job? Certainly, life during this age is very difficult - but it could be a lot worse.

Also, consider this: Scripture contains examples of God preventing humans from doing certain things! In other words, even human beings do not have complete freedom of action - i.e., sometimes God does not allow us to take certain courses of action.

For example, Moses wanted to enter the Promised Land - but God prevented him from doing so, because Moses had sinned. Also, the apostle Paul wanted to enter the province of Asia, on one of his missionary journeys, but God prevented him from doing so. It seems to me that the same type of situation exists with Satan - i.e., God prevents him from doing certain things.

Conclusion

As mentioned above, there are three common doctrines about The Satan:

- The “metaphorical” Satan;

- The “district attorney” Satan;

- The “enemy of God” Satan.

It occurs to me that each of those doctrines is partially true - and partially false:

- It is true that in some cases, the word “satan” refers to sinful human nature. However, in some other cases, Satan refers to a spirit being - not to sinful human nature.

- It is true that in some cases, God permits The Satan to perform certain actions. However, in some other cases, Satan takes actions that God does not want him to perform.

- It is true that The Satan is an enemy of God. However, Satan can not do anything that he wants to. In other words, God places “limits” on Satan’s actions, just like He limits human actions.

In closing, the reason why I think it is important to identify The Satan – or The Devil – is so that we will be able to resist him, when he attacks us. A very succinct description of this concept is provided here:

Ephesians 6:10-13 (ESV):

¹⁰Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. ¹¹ Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. ¹²For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. ¹³Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.

I would be interested to hear what all of you have to say about who - or what - The Satan refers to!

Thanks, Marc.

First and Last

Let’s start by noting the weight of the instances that have Jesus calling himself “the First and the Last” in the book of Revelation, associating that designation as following his death and resurrection.

God cannot die (1 Timothy 1:17). The Trinitarian presupposition that Jesus was a mortal God-man can be read back onto the biblical text, but these are more naturally explained as speaking of Jesus who had a beginning when God gave him life (John 5:26; 6:57). He is not eternal. However, “First and Last” is a designation that only applies to Christ in Revelation, and it does so twice (1:17-18;2:8). Revelation talks about Christ being first, calling Jesus the ‘firstborn from the dead’ in Revelation 1:5. This fits the immediate context and the way that John looks at things overall.

Revelation 2:8 also remains connected to the resurrection in mentioning Jesus’ authority over life and death, and Smyrna is told that in facing persecution and death perhaps, they should consider Christ’s example and rejoice that he can give them the crown of life and rescue them from the second death (2:10-11). Furthermore, Revelation 22:13 stresses that this designation is, foundationally a title of authority. And it is connected with Christ’s role as judge at the end of the age. While the ground for this prerogative isn’t mentioned directly in the verse, in the context of the overall book, there is a clear connection to the fact that Jesus has been victorious over death (See Revelation 2:26-27;5:5-7).

That the three titles stand in Revelation 22:13 isn’t necessarily justification that they are one theological statement with one theological truth. God begins and ends creation (Revelation 4:11; 21:66). Christ is first and last as he stands before the church. As to the theological dictionaries and lexicons defining the terms protos and eschatos, the Bible doesn’t present “first and last” as meaning “the eternal one” (the one without a beginning).

Lord of Lords

Jesus is “Lord” because God made him “Lord.” In Marc’s rebuttal point 3e he mentions that Luke 2:11 indicates that Jesus already was Lord. What Marc fails to recognize is that Luke 2:11 does not indicate when Jesus became Lord. And that wouldn’t matter anyway, because God made Jesus to be Lord. That is the clear teaching of Matthew 28:18 and Acts 2:36. God does not need to be given authority in heaven or on earth. And God certainly cannot be made Lord.

As to Jesus being Lord of lords, this sort of language is applied to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:37, but he isn’t “Almighty God” even though they “share the same appellation.” Daniel begins: “O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory.” Notice, Nebuchadnezzar is, like God and Jesus, called “king of kings.” Nebuchadnezzar was king over neither Jesus nor God, yet he was the most powerful king on earth based on the kingship that God gave to him. Marc cites the New International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology which translates Kurios as “Yahweh.” In commentary the Dictionary applies this designation to Jesus in Philippians 2:9 where it is supposed to denote “divine equality.” This is sheer interpretative theology based upon a preconception from later Trinitarian development. H. Bietenhard writes in the same Dictionary:

[The] NT church did not reflect on the relationship of the exalted Christ to God the Father as did later church doctrinal teaching. One may perhaps say that there is indeed no developed doctrine of the Trinity in the NT, but that the writers, particularly in the later strata, thought in Trinitarian forms. (NIDNTT_II:516_“Lord”)

J. Schneider also writes:

The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. [Quoting Karl Barth]: “The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself. And the other express declaration is also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus, i.e. as Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (NIDNTT_II:84_ “God”

Jesus’ kingship was limited inasmuch as God, the highest king of all, gave it to him. Similarly, Jesus is king of kings and lord of lords because God gave him that authority (So says Jesus also in Revelation 2:27). Again, the only exception to this is God who gave Christ this authority, as directly taught in Scripture (1 Corinthians 15:27). There is no contradiction between Revelation chapters 17 and 19 which refer to the Lord Jesus and Acts 4:29. In Acts 4, the Father is referred to as the Sovereign Lord in the context.

Marc repeatedly fails to correctly grasp the biblical concept of agency, particularly as it is related in the kings in the Davidic dynasty. We should never forget that the Father-Son relationship, the relationship between the Almighty God and his Son the king, whoever that king might be in the Davidic line, was eternal within the dynasty as established in 2 Samuel 7:12-16. Jehovah talks to Adoni in Psalm 110:1. This is a troubling passage for anyone who sees Yahweh/Jehovah as being the same person as the diminutive entity. Adonai is not Adoni. Yahweh is not “my Lord.” God is not himself Servant/Child (Greek Pais in Acts 4:27). Other Trinitarian scholars note that

it is preferable to retain the text and take this statement as another instance of the royal hyperbole that permeates the royal psalms. Because the Davidic king is God’s vice-regent on earth, the psalmist addresses him as if he were God incarnate. God energizes the king for battle and accomplishes justice through him. A similar use of hyperbole appears in Isa 9:6, where the ideal Davidic king of the eschaton is given the title “Mighty God.” (N.E.T. Bible note 2 at Psalm 45:6, )

Prayer and Latreuo

God’s king represents God and is addressed as God. Indeed he can even receive prayer. People marveled at the authority he had received in Jesus’ ministry (Matthew 9:5). In fact all authority has been given to the Son proving that what Jesus said is true, namely, that he had been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18), which would logically include the authority to be the recipient of prayer and supplication. In fact prayer as proseuchomai is not only offered to God, but as H. Schonweiss has written, “NT prayer is addressed to God or to Jesus” (NIDNTT_II:867_“Prayer’”).

Additionally, note that nothing in Romans 10:13 indicates that Paul “applies Yahweh of Joel 2:32 directly to the Lord Jesus to be called upon.” Paul is simply quoting Joel and simply reiterating (through his quotation) the need to call on the LORD/Jehovah in order to be saved. Or he is using the Joel quotation in a translation that had “Lord,” not “Yahweh,” and applying it to Christ since “the Lord” (not ‘Yahweh’) language now fittingly applies to Christ based on his Messianic authority.

According to D. Steenburg, latreuo in early Christian literature demonstrates why Christ, who is not God, can receive worship. Regarding the thought that nowhere “do we find any suggestion that the worship of any exalted being other than God alone was admissible, let alone actual,” he observes that because “Adam had been worshipped may have provided a crucial warrant for the worship of Christ.” He cites latreuo applied to Adam in The Sibylline Oracles:

587God speaking says, “Behold, let us make man
588In a form altogether like our own,
589And let us give him life-sustaining breath;
590Him being yet mortal all things of the world
591Shall serve, and unto him formed out of clay
592We will subject all things.”
Milton S. Terry, translator. The Sibylline Oracles, 8:587-592. (p. 62)

This partly demonstrates why latreuo, translated “serve” above, is used of a human. Steenburg says “that it accounts for the use of morphe [form]” because Adam is seen as being in the form morphe or image of God, justifying using latreuo of him. He then shows how this also accounts for Adam-Christ Christology found in Philippians 2:6-11.

Here, the pre-existent Christ, rejects the notion of grasping at equality with God but chooses to humble himself and become a human servant, willing to die on a cross. Thus he is given glory and honor for what he has done. (See D. Steenburg, “The Worship of Adam and Christ as the Image of God,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 39 [1990], pp. 96-97).

Yahweh’s Messenger is Almighty God?

Please note that “Rabbinic Judaism in the time of Jesus clearly recognized the function of the representative or proxy derived from the old Semitic law concerning messengers. It is expressed briefly in the principle found in the Mishnah, Muller writes, ‘A man’s agent (shaluach) is like himself’ (Berakoth 5:5, and others).” (NIDNTT_I:127-128,“Apostle.”) But the messenger/angel of God is not God himself, or else, what would be the point of calling him God’s “messenger”?

Danny Dixon

Most people believe:
A.) Heaven is a place souls float up to, after their body dies, where they will see God, play golf, and live a life there, where the gates are pearly and the streets are golden.
B.) Heaven does not exist, except for it being the sky.

But, today, I would like to give a third option that the Bible offers us:
C.) Heaven is a place where our invisible God dwells, with His Son Jesus who sits at the right hand of God until the time of restoration is complete.  Jesus will come down to the earth to resurrect the dead, restore things, put all authorities and government under his feet, judge the world, so that the age of the Kingdom can begin, and then God will finally be able to come down and dwell with mankind on the new earth.

Let’s start with the word ‘heaven.’  In the New Testament, Heaven or the Heavens, is translated from the Greek word, “Ouranos.”  The lexical aid commentary on this word ‘ouranos’ reads, “The heavens are often used as a name of God in the Old Testament, and therefore heaven is used in the same sense in the New Testament.  Thus, the Kingdom of the Heavens, or Heaven, is synonymous with the Kingdom of God.”  

The only writer of the four gospels who used “Kingdom of Heaven” rather than the “Kingdom of God” was Matthew, who was known to be writing to the Jewish people, and out of deference to them, chose the word “the heavens” or “heaven” rather than using “God”.   This practice is still done today, and that is why you will see a Jewish person write “G-d” or replace another name for God, such as Ha Shem, Adonai or Lord for “God” or “YHVH”, because they do not want to take His name in vain.  They have created an additional command (or fence) which states a person is not to say or write the name at all.  Which is, in fact, what Matthew did with writing “Kingdom of Heaven” rather than “Kingdom of God” in his texts in the Gospel of Matthew.  The meaning is synonymous; the concept is the same.  However, ‘The Kingdom of Heaven”:

“was certainly not a kingdom in the clouds they longed for.  It was the reign of God over a perfected earth, at a definite point in history, under the Lord Messiah.” (Greg Deuble, “They Never Told Me THIS in Church” p. 336-337). 

The Bible refers to the Kingdom of Heaven as an actual place and dominion, a political government rule of the world, in an age that is to come.  Many have misunderstood this concept, and dropped ‘Kingdom of’ and think only “heaven” when they read anywhere about this Kingdom.  So, images of puffy clouds and pearly gates in the sky, flutter through their heads, when reading the Scripture, which concepts are very inconsistent with the promises the Bible lays out clearly for us, about this coming reign of Jesus and His saints.

More accurately, this Kingdom is the one prophesied in the book of Daniel and spoken of very clearly in chapter 7:  “And to him [the Messiah] was given dominion [to have power, to rule an empire], glory and a KINGDOM [malku - royalty, reign, kingdom], that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve him.  His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away and his KINGDOM is one which will not be destroyed.”  Daniel 7:14.

This makes perfect sense with Isaiah 9:7 that prophesies about this same Messiah, “There will be no end to the increase of his government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his KINGDOM, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore.  The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.”

This Messiah was miraculously conceived in the womb of Mary by the power of God, and as the angel proclaimed to Mary, “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the LORD God will give him the throne of his father David; and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His KINGDOM will have no end.”  Luke 1:32-33.

These passages tell us that this kingdom will be without end.  The King will sit on the throne of David and he will rule and reign with justice, peace, and righteousness.  This theme is very consistent throughout the Bible and it is not a new concept that people tend to think was introduced in the New Testament that teaches people that they go to heaven when they die.  This Kingdom of Heaven is actually located on the earth, and King Jesus will rule the world.  “For the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he would be heir of the world” in Romans 4:13 promises us that we will inherit the world, not the heavens.  Jesus promises this also in Matthew 5:5, “for they shall inherit the earth.”

So, where does this great misunderstanding of the word ‘heaven’ come from, when it is so clearly laid out in Scripture, that there will be a dominion set up on the earth, where this Anointed King will rule and reign from the throne of David forever?

One such Scripture is this:  “Rejoice, and be glad for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”  Matthew 5:12.  And another, “But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal.”  Matthew 6:20.  This one is probably the most infamous of all: “My Father’s house has many rooms. If that were not true, would I have told you that I’m going to prepare a place for you?   If I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again. Then I will bring you into my presence so that you will be where I am.” John 14:2-3. 

We can easily assume that these words of Jesus are telling us that our treasure and reward are in heaven, and if they are in heaven, that is where we are going to get our reward.  We can start to believe, erroneously of course, that our reward IS heaven.

But Jesus says in Revelation 22:12, “Behold, I am coming quickly and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to what he has done.” “And when the Chief Shepherd [Hebrews 13:20 tells us our Great Shepherd is Jesus] appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”  I Peter 5:4.

Yes, our reward is from heaven, just as every perfect gift is from above, or sent from God.  Very true indeed!  But what is made clear in the Bible is that our reward is going to be given out to us when Jesus returns to the earth to give it to us!  He will present to us our reward, here on the earth when he comes back!

Our reward is a heavenly one, but our reward is NOT heaven.  Our reward is the resurrection of the dead to eternal life.  Our reward is to be heirs to the promise made to Abraham, that we will inherit the earth, the very land of a glorious new earth, that will be indestructible and imperishable.  Our reward is to rule and reign with Christ Jesus.  This is the basic definition of the Gospel [or good news] of the Kingdom of God and Jesus Christ!  We must grasp the promises of our reward that we will be given if we believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.  In Jesus’ own words, he said, “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him, may have eternal life; and I, Myself, will raise him up on the last day.”  John 6:40.

“And Thou hast made them to be a KINGDOM and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”  Revelation 5:10.

The Kingdom of Heaven is our reward, a literal kingdom that is to come, here upon this earth when Jesus ushers it in!  Until that time,  “repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and that He [God] may send Jesus, the Christ [Anointed King] appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.”  Acts 3:19-21.  Heaven must receive Jesus, until the day of his return.  The Bible speaks nothing about receiving us!  But it does speak of us asleep in death, awaiting our resurrection, when we shall be awakened from our rest to rise again and receive immortality from our awesome lord messiah and king! (See Daniel 12; I Corinthians 15).

The Kingdom of Heaven is a coming Kingdom upon this earth, and this is our reward.  A heavenly reward, there is no doubt!, but we will receive it at the day of the lord messiah’s return to this earth, to reward us as we deserve.  Just as Abraham was looking forward to this heavenly kingdom in Hebrews 11:16, “they desire a better country, that is a heavenly one.  Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.” 

And where is this city? Does the Bible promise us that we will go “up to heaven” to this heavenly city?  Jesus says in John 8:21, “Where I am going, you cannot come!”  So, if we aren’t going up to it, it must be coming down to us.  Hebrews 13:14 tells us, “For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.”  And Hebrews 12:22, “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels.”  This city is to come here, and it will be the new Jerusalem, that comes down to the earth to us, as stated in Revelation 21:2, “And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.”  From Scripture, we see that this city is to come to us on the earth.

It is very plain that this city is a ‘heavenly one,’ meaning it is created and designed by God, our Heavenly Father, who is its architect.  It describes a dominion, a rule of our Messiah here upon this earth.  This kingdom will be indestructible and without end.  It will come down TO us in the rulership of Jesus Christ when he returns.  We are not going UP to it.  We are not coming DOWN WITH it.  That is not what the Bible teaches.  Rather, the ultimate plan of God is to have the earth renewed and restored, and all evil, sin and death destroyed, so that our Most HOLY GOD can finally come down and ‘dwell’ with us.  Nowhere does it speak of us going up to dwell with Him.  This Kingdom is our ultimate reward; albeit a heavenly one, here upon the earth.  The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!  Repent (turn away) from your sins and be ready for our Lord Messiah’s return to the earth.

6. It was God, the Father of Jesus Christ, who was the source of all the good works and miracles that Jesus did.

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.” John 14:10

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—“ Acts 2:22

“how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.” Acts 10:38

the challenge

Will you ask these five questions of your pastor or trusted Christian expert? Most people just believe in the Trinity because that is how they were raised. Tradition has been passed down from generation to generation and no one seems to be asking whether or not this doctrine is biblical. If you care about this subject, if this is important to you, if you want to know who God really is, then you owe it to yourself to wrestle with these questions.

the expected response

Time after time when we engage in conversation with other Christians about these issues we are brushed off with appeals to our human limitations. They tell us that the Trinity is a mystery that we just have to accept by faith. We are cautioned that we are not capable of understanding God. Though there is some truth in this type of sentiment, we still consider such appeals to incomprehensibility as cheating. I mean, let’s just reverse our positions for a moment. You be the Unitarian and I’ll be the Trinitarian. You try to convince me that my beliefs are unbiblical, anachronistic, and illogical. You make some solid arguments and rather than listening and really considering what you are saying I say, “Well, I hear what you are saying, but really, you just need to accept that this is a mystery that you cannot understand; you just have to believe it.” If I pulled that on you, wouldn’t you feel like that was dirty? Yet, this is what happens over and again. We have to be willing to change our beliefs if they are wrong. May God help us!

1. That the Lord Jesus is the First and the Last necessitates that He is Almighty God in that He always existed.

a. Brown: The formula “the first and the last” is only found as a self-designation of the exalted Christ (1:17; 2:8; 22:13). This goes back to the Heb. wording of the divine predicates in Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12. In the Gk. translation of this expression the LXX has avoided the divine title of eschatos and uses a paraphrase instead, perhaps because of negative undertones. The formula belongs essentially to the synonymous phrases “the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13; Alpha being the first, and Omega the last letter of the Gk. alphabet), and “the beginning and the end” (22:13). The application of these divine predicates to the exalted Christ means the ascription to him of a rank equal with God’s with the attribution of the functions of Creator and Perfecter (NIDNTT 2:58, 59, Goal).

b. Kittel: A more common antithesis in the NT is prwtos/ esxatos. The exalted Christ is ho prwtos kai ho esxatos in Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13; the reference here is to the beginning and the end. ho prwtos refers to pre-existence, being in eternity before all time, while ho esxatos refers to being in eternity after all time (TDNT 6:867, prwtos).

c. NIDOTTE: Occasionally used with its antonym (”last”), this adj. forms a merism typical in Sem. languages, in which polar extremes describe totality. In Isaiah’s expression of monotheism, Yahweh is both “the first” and “the last”, meaning the only (probably an enumeration in which he is the only number, Isa 44:6, and see also 41:4; Neh 8:18; Rev 1:8) (3:1027, rishown)

d. Thayer: the eternal One, Rev. 1.17; 2.8; 22.13 (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, prwtos, page 554).

e. Vine: of Christ as the Eternal One, Rev. 1:17 (in some mss. ver. 11); 2:8; 22:13 (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Last, page 641).

2. The fact that the Lord Jesus is Lord of lords (Revelation 17:14; 19:16) necessitates that He is Almighty God in that YHWH shares this same appellation (Deuteronomy 10:17) with Him in heaven at the same time.

a. There is only one (singular) Lord of all lords (plural) in heaven at this time. To whom does it apply? If it only refers to the Father then that contradicts Revelation chapters 17 and 19 where it refers to the Lord Jesus. If it only refers to the Lord Jesus then that would make the Lord Jesus “Lord” of the Father since the Father is referred to as Lord (Acts 4:29).

b. Neither option bodes well for for those who insist that the Lord Jesus is not Almighty God. The truth of Scripture reveals that this appellation equally refers to both YHWH and the Lord Jesus. That this is the case the TDNT refers to this as Christ’s “divine equality” with God (TDNT 5:273, onoma). Thayer cites both Revelation 19:16 and Deuteronomy 10:17 saying it refers to the “Supreme Lord” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, kurios, page 366).
Supreme means - 1. highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief 2. of the highest quality, degree, character, importance, etc. 3. greatest, utmost, or extreme (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, supreme, page 1430).

c. Agency: Those who insist that this is simply a case of “Agency” will often appeal to the relationship between Pharaoh and Joseph (Genesis 41:40-44). In Genesis 41:40 however we see that Pharaoh will still be greater than Joseph in his throne. That is not anything like the equality concerning “Lord of lords” (i.e. Supreme Lord) as mentioned in Revelation and Deuteronomy. Whereas Pharaoh was the “supreme” (greatest, utmost) ruler of Egypt Joseph was not. In fact, according to Genesis 41:43 Joseph rode in “the second chariot” not the first one with Pharaoh showing he wasn’t equal. The Hebrew word for “second” is mishneh and Gesenius’s Lexcion defines it as “the second rank, the second place”. Along with Genesis 41:43 2 Kings 25:18 is also cited demonstrating that the second priest Zephaniah is not equal with the first priest Seraiah. Here as with Pharaoh and Joseph there remains a distinction cancelling out “equality”.

3. Praying to/worshiping the Lord Jesus proves that He is Almighty God (See 4c below).
Some of the passages where this takes place is Acts 1:24, 25; 7:59; Romans 10:13 and Revelation 22:3.

a. In Acts 1:24 the Lord Jesus receives proseuxomai which is due unto God alone.
1. Kittel: From the very first proseuxesthai means calling on God,
whereas it is not always clear to whom the request is directed when desthai is used (TDNT 2:807, proseuxomai).
2. Louw/Nida: to speak to or to make requests of God - ‘to pray, to speak to God, to ask God for, prayer.’ (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 33.178, Pray - euxomai; proseuxomai; euxee, proseuxee, page 409).
3. Mounce: The fact that people pray to both God (Mt. 6:9) and Jesus (Acts 1:24) is part of the proof of Jesus’ deity (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, pray, page 531).
4. Thayer: The noted linguist Professor Grimm wrote concerning proseuxee that it “is a word of sacred character, being limited to prayer to God” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, deesis, page 126).
5. Vine: concerning proseuxomai writes that it: “is always used of prayer to God” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Pray, page 871) .

b. In Acts 7:59 Stephen prayed that the Lord Jesus would receive his spirit and the Jews knew that their spirit would return “unto the God who gave it” (Ecclesiates 12:7).

c. In Romans 10:13 Paul applies YHWH of Joel 2:32 directly to the Lord Jesus to be called upon.

d. In Revelation 22:3 we see that the Lamb is the recipient of latreuw which is due unto God alone.
1. Kittel: The ministry denoted by latreuein is always offered to God (or to heathen gods…R. 1:25…Ac. 7:42) (TDNT 4:62, latreuw).
2. Moulton and Milligan: in Biblical Greek always refers to the service of the true God or of heathen deities (The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, copyright 1982, page 371).
3. Moises Silva: As used in the New Testament, the word latreuw denotes actions that are always evaluated positively when God is the grammatical object and negatively with reference to any other object (Karen H. Jobes in Moises Silva’s “Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics”, copyright 1994 revised and expanded edition from 1983, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, page 203).

4. The Messenger of YHWH is Almighty God.

a. The Hebrew word for angel means “messenger” (mal’ak). It could refer to supernal beings (Psalm 148:2) or to people (Joshua 7:22) or in fact to YHWH Himself. This Messenger although being YHWH is also distinct from YHWH (Exodus 23:20-23; 2 Samuel 24:16; cf. 1 Chronicles 21).

b. In Genesis 48:16 Jacob states, The angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads ; And may my name live on in them, And the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac ; And may they grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

c. No one but God alone should be prayed to for no one but the omniscient God would be capable of hearing this prayer (along with all others directed to Him) and no one but the omnipotent God would be able to act on what was requested of Him.

d. Not only does the Messenger have YHWH’s name “in him” (Exodus 23:21) - in a sense so do Michael (”Who is like God”) and Gabriel (”man of God”) - but His very name is YHWH (Hosea 12:3-5).

Seeing that there is only a 1500 word limit I was surprised to see that Danny didn’t select a few passages and give a thorough explanation/defense for his position. What he often did do is simply give a scant one or two sentence affirmation followed by several passages. The somewhat large amount of passage citations may look impressive and convince the unsuspecting but this shotgun approach still doesn’t hit its intended target of attempting to prove that the Father alone is Almighty God.

a. John 17:3
When the Lord Jesus said the only true God He wasn’t denying that He was God but that the Father is the only true God in relation to false gods. The expression “true God” is always used in Scripture in relation to the true God in contrast with false gods (idols) (2 Chronicles 15:3; Jeremiah 10:10, 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9 and 1 John 5:20, 21).
The following Greek lexicons also teach that John 17:3 is to be understood this way as well:
1. Brown: in Jn. 17:3, monos is linked with alethinos, true, in contrast to the deceptive appearance (pseudos) of all alleged gods and revealers (NIDNTT 2:724, One).
2. Thayer: ton theon, the one, true God, in contrast with the polytheism of the Gentiles (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ginwskw, page 117).
3. Vine: John 7:28; 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 6:10; these declare that God fulfils the meaning of His Name, He is “very God,” in distinction from all other gods, false gods (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, True, page 1170).
In fact, Jude 1:4 states that the Lord Jesus is our only Master (despotes) but according to Acts 4:24 the Father is also our Master (despotes). If one insists that the Lord Jesus is not the true God based on John 17:3 then so too the Father is not our Master according to Jude 1:4.

b. Functional subjection does not necessitate ontological inferiority. The wife is to subject herself to her husband but she is equally a person as him (Ephesians 5:24).

c. The Lord Jesus has a Father and God because He is also a man. That in no way proves He can’t be God as well.

d. John 5:26
This passage does not disprove the aseity of the Son but it refers to His Mediatorial role (cf. 1 John 5:11).

Barnes’ Notes On the New Testament

http://studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=005

Hath he given. This shows that the power or authority here spoken of was given or committed to the Lord Jesus. This evidently does not refer to the manner in which the second person of the Trinity exists, for the power and authority of which Christ here speaks is that which he exercises as Mediator. It is the power of raising the dead and judging the world. In regard to his divine nature, it is not affirmed here that it is in any manner derived; nor does the fact that God is said to have given him this power prove that he was inferior in his nature or that his existence was derived. For,
1st. It has reference merely to office. As Mediator, he may be said to have been appointed by the Father.
2nd. Appointment to office does not prove that the one who is appointed is inferior in nature to him who appoints him. A son may be appointed to a particular work by a parent, and yet, in regard to talents and every other qualification, may be equal or superior to the father. He sustains the relation of a son, and in this relation there is an official inferiority. General Washington was not inferior in nature and talents to the men who commissioned him. He simply derived authority from them to do what he was otherwise fully able to do. So the Son, as Mediator, is subject to the Father; yet this proves nothing about his nature.

e. Acts 2:36
The resurrection powerfully confirmed what the Lord Jesus already was - Lord (cf. Luke 2:11). So too in Romans 1:4 He is declared to be the Son of God because of His resurrection but He was already the Son of God before this time (John 1:49 and 11:27).

f. Colossians 2:9
I’m not sure why Danny cited this passage when it teaches the very opposite of what he is trying to affirm. The Lord Jesus is referred to as theotes and it is defined as follows:
1. Brown: theotes “must mean deity, Godhead, entirety, the sum total of divine attributes” (NIDNTT 1:740, Fullness).
2. EDNT: theotes means (in contrast to theiotees, “divinity, divine quality”) deity, the rank of God (EDNT 2:143, theotees).
3. Louw/Nida: the nature or state of being God (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 12.13, theotes, page 140).
4. Thayer: the state of being God (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, theotes, page 288).
5. Vine: Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendour not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Divinity, pages 320-321).

g. Citing Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:43-44 Danny asserted that Jesus “is a lesser individual from Jehovah”. If that doesn’t constitute an assertion without proof I don’t know what does.

h. I will address the concept of Agency in my First Constructive Statement.