Tim Bertolet - Christological Monotheism

7/25/2019 Tim Bertolet - Christological Monotheism

1/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page 1

Christological Monotheism: A Foundation for Religious Debate

Tim Bertolet

I. Introduction

In todays luralistic culture it is not uncommon for claims to be made that all religions

are e!ual" that all eole #orshi the same god or that all aths lead to sal$ation% &rthodo'

Christianity has historically re(ected such erroneous $ie#s% )$en in light of the e'tensi$e

luralism in our ostmodern culture" #e #ould be na*$e to assume that #e are the first

generation of Christians to be attac+ed by religious luralism% Truly" as the #riter of )cclesiastes

roclaims" ,-hat has been is #hat #ill be" and #hat has been done is #hat #ill be done" and

there is nothing ne# under the sun%./Monotheism is aramount to Christianitys confrontation

#ith other religions" #hich ultimately do not #orshi the biblical 0od" 12-2% 2o#e$er" this

monotheism must be roerly understood #ithin the conte't of the 3e# Testament re$elation

that 4esus is 0od% 5aul demonstrates in his o#n religious confrontations by dra#ing from the

Shema and first6century 4e#ish monotheism that a Christological Monotheism must be

foundational to Christianitys continual confrontation #ith luralism and other religions%

II. What is a Christological Monotheism?

A difficulty that 3e# Testament scholars face" in terms of history6of6religion" is to

e'lain ho# first6century Christians" articularly 4e#ish Christians 7e%g% 5aul8" could go from

being monotheistic to embracing 4esus the Messiah as 9ord" 12-2 of the &ld Testament"

#ithout aarently $iolating the strict monotheism of first6century 4udaism% This difficulty is

comounded by the fact that certain 4e#ish circles re(ected not only Christian claims that 4esus is

/)cclesiastes /:" all Bible !uotations in the )nglish #ill be from the )nglish ;tandard


2/33


the 4e#ish Messiah but that he is at the same time 12-2% =Are #e therefore forced conclude

that Christianity $iolated monotheism in the first6century> 5ure history6of6religion aroaches

ha$e been content to argue in #ays similar to a 2egelian formula that 4e#ish monotheism 7the

thesis8 mi'ed #ith agan olytheism 7the antithesis8 creating something distinct in the Christian

concet of 0od 7the synthesis8% -hile this is a simlification of more nuanced argumentation"

0e?a


3/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page

solutions can be traced bac+ to -ilhelm Boussetsyrios Christos342e argued that titleyrios

9ordE as alied to 4esus mar+ed a ma(or shift in early Christian thought and arose from

Christianitys 2elleni?ation%/;ummari?ing the e$idence against a theory of late de$eloment for

Christology" 2urtado concludes based on receding careful e'amination of rele$ant sources ,a

$eritable e'losion of de$otion to 4esus too+ lace so early and #as so #idesread 5y the timeof

his 5aulsE 0entile mission" that in the main christological beliefs and de$otional ractices that

he ad$ocated" 5aul #as not an inno$ator but a transmitter of tradition%.// In other #ords"

confession of 4esus as di$ine is not the result of Christianitys association #ith 0reco6Roman

religion% 9et us dra# attention to three basic failures in the $ie#s of those #ho see high

Christology contradicting high monotheism%

First" they fail to gras the shae of first6century monotheism" #hich results in a study

that ursues the #rong trails of e$idence% As 2urtado notes" ,these scholars in$o+e their

ortrayal of 4e#ish monotheism as a basis for determining in ad$ance #hat could or could not

ha$e haened christologically among Christians #ith allegiance to the monotheistic stance of

the 4e#ish tradition%./=Monotheism #as not monism as #e #ill discuss belo# in our o#n

treatment of monotheism% First century 4e#ish monotheism and that of the &ld Testament" is not

to be e!uated #ith later 4e#ish and Islamic monotheism% This is articularly ertinent since these

t#o religions ha$e had centuries to formulate and articulate their o#n monotheism in a manner

that confronts and re(ects Christianitys Trinitarian monotheism%

;econd" the de$otion and #orshi of 4esus arose e'tremely early and is not the roduct of

late de$eloment as 4e#ish Christianity #as allegedly confuted #ith agan olytheism%/@ The

that 4esus functions as di$ine in the religious life of Christian grous of the first t#o centuries. 78%2urtado"/or" Jesus Christ% /6=% +ne !o"% +ne /or"% =6=G%/2urtado"/or" Jesus Christ% =%///or" Jesus Christ% =/% )mhasis mine%/=/or" Jesus Christ%=%/@2urtado" +ne !o"% +ne /or"% @"Cf% also 2urtados/or" Jesus Christarticularly as cited in note %


4/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page $

data does not suort this tyical re$isionist aroach%/ Citing Biblical e$idence" Richard

Bauc+ham succinctly re(ects the notion that #orshi of 4esus from agan 0reco6Roman sources"

,Certainly the $ie# that the transition to #orshi of ChristE coincided #ith the mo$ement of

Christianity from a 4e#ish to a agan 2ellenistic en$ironmentLis mista+en%./ )'amination

must be thorough including the titles of Christ in the 3e# Testament" &T assages alied to

Christ" and the earliest de$otional ractices of Christians%/Tyically resuositions that first6

century monotheism is entirely incomatible #ith later 3icene Christology has led scholars to

osit atterns of synthesis that de$eloed in the second and third centuries% Again 2urtado is

reresentati$e of the solid 3e# Testament scholars #ho re(ect this notion:

But the e$idence suggests strongly that" #ell before these later de$eloments the3icene CreedE" #ithin the first t#o decades of Christianity" 4e#ish Christians

gathered in 4esus name for #orshi" rayed to him and sang hymns to him"

regarded him as e'alted to a osition of hea$enly rule abo$e all angelic orders"aroriated to him titles and &ld Testament assages originally referring to 0od"

sought to bring 4e#s as #ell as 0entiles to embrace him as the di$inely aointed

redeemer" and in general redefined their de$otion to the 0od of their fathers so as

to include the $eneration of 4esus%An" apparently they regar"e" this re"einitionnot only as legitimate 5ut% in"ee"% as something "eman"e" o them3./G

Third" #hen #e focus on 5aul" in articular" in his argumentation concerning $arious

toics 7including 0od" 9a# and ;irit8 he is a thoroughly 4e#ish theologian #ho has come to

understand his #orld in light of the climactic eschatological acti$ity of 0od in fulfillment of the

&ld Testament romises%/H9i+e#ise" 5auls discussion of Christ" articularly 2is deity" bears the

same 4e#ish fla$or% 1et 0ods o#n eschatological re$elation "eman"e" 7to use 2urtados

language8 on the art of 2is eole a greater understanding of 0od" the $ery same 12-2J0od

/2urtado" +ne !o"% +ne /or"% @"% Cf% also 2urtados/or" Jesus Christ3/,4esus" -orshi of".Anchor Bi5le ,ictionary 7ed% Da$id 3oel Freedman 3e# 1or+: Doubleday" /=8" @:H/@%/For a discussion of the early Christian #orshi and its binitarian nature cf% 9arry 2urtado"At the +rigins o

Christian 6orship# The Conte7t an" Character o 0arliest Christian ,eotion70rand Raids" MI%: )erdmans" /8

along #ith the t#o other ma(or #or+s from 2urtado" namely +ne !o"% +ne /or" and/or" Jesus Christ%/G+ne !o"% +ne /or"% //% )mhasis mine%/HThis #ould hold true for non65auline te'ts such as 2ebre#s / #here 4esus is clearly 12-2 described using

language and te'ts to sea+ of the ;on as one #ho is truly 0od%


5/33


re$ealed rogressi$ely in the &ld Testament through 2is history of redemtion% The last thing

5aul #ould e$er do" as one anchored in the firm belief that the &ld Testament has no# come to

its eschatological fulfillment" is abandon his belief that Israels 0od" 12-2" is the one true 0od%

-hile the oosing scholars may ac+no#ledge this last oint concerning 5auls 4e#ishness" they

do#nlay the eschatological6re$elatory significance of Christs death and resurrection that for

5aul #as combined #ith a ersonal re$elation recei$ed on the Damascus Road%/Ta+ing into

consideration these e$ents" 5aul is !uite comfortable in redefining true monotheism in light of

and because of the clima' of 12-2s o#n self6re$elation%= 2ence" a number of recent 3e#

Testament scholars ha$e roosed the term Christological Monotheism as a hrase to describe

5auls continuity and discontinuity #ith first6century 4e#ish monotheism%=/)ssentially" 5aul" in

light of 0ods o#n eschatological self6re$elation in Christ" adated monotheism to incororate

both 0od the Father and 4esus the 9ord withoutany $iolation of &ld Testament monotheism%

This Christological monotheism does not e'ist #ithout 0ods eschatological self6re$elation in

the erson and #or+ of Christ% These aroriations and alications of 12-26language

/3otice that in / Cor% /:/6" 5aul does not see his Damascus road e'erience as contradiction the teachings of theearliest church as it has been assed on% ;ee also 0alatians /6=% For a discussion of the significance of 5auls

Damascus Road e'erience see ;eyoon im" The +rigin o *auls !ospel7re$% ed% TNbingen: 4%C%B% Mohr 5aul

;iebec+E" /H8 es% chater fi$e follo#ed by his later #or+*aul an" the .ew *erspectie# Secon" Thoughts onthe +rigin o *auls !ospel 70rand Raids" Mi%: )erdmans" ==8 es% chaters one and fi$e% 5eter T% &Brien" ,-as

5aul Con$erted>". inJustiication an" 9ariegate" .omism# 9olume 2 The *ara"o7es o *aul 7ed% D%A% Carson" 5eter

T% &Brien and Mar+ A% ;eifrid 0rand Raids" Mi%: Ba+er Academic" =8" @/6/% Both conclude that the

Damascus Christohany included ne# elements of Christology and soteriology for 5auls ersonal understanding%=-e use the term redefine in the sense that the name 0odJ9ord no# e'anded to include the confession that 4esus

is 9ord 7notice for e'amle" the use of 4oel =:@= in Romans /:/@ or the use of Isaiah :=@ #ith reference to 4esus

Christ8% 0od is no# +no#n as Father and ;on% This e'anded definition is recisely 5ecausein these eschatological

last days 12-2 has re$ealed 2imself in ;on 72eb% /:=6 8" #ho shares in the $ery glory of 0od as 2imself uncreated" ossessing full glory in eternity ast 72eb%

/:@"/6/= 4ohn /:/6@ /G: Col% /:/6/G Re$% /:/G6/H8% The redefinition is not because 0od has changed butbecause 2e has further re$ealed 2imself at the clima' of 2is sal$ation history% 5aul ob$iously is neither the only

Christian nor the first Christian to engage in this redefinition 5oth in their theology an"their #orshiJde$otionalractice% 7The t#o are not mutually e'clusi$e as is often thought in this ostmodern era8%=/ At least t#o 3e# Testament scholars ha$e used the term in their distinct #or+s% Richard Bauc+ham" !o"

Cruciie"# Monotheism an" Christology in the .ew Testament 70rand Raids" MI%: )erdmans" /H8 esecially

chater t#o: ,Christological Monotheism in the 3e# Testament.% 3%T% -right" The Clima7 o the Coenant# Christ

an" the /aw in *auline Theology7Minneaolis: Fortress" //8 /@ et al es% chaters t#o through si' 7chater si':

,Monotheism" Theology and )thics: / Corinthians H. is most rele$ant to our discussion belo#8% The general concet

is used by 2urtado in +ne !o"% +ne /or"" articularly chater fi$e contains the concet but not the secific hrase%


6/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page :

alied to the erson of 4esus ser$e to e'ress the identity of the Messiah" as human and di$ine"

and did not $iolate monotheism% The re$elation of 0od e'ands the definition of the one 0od

central to monotheism #ithout contradiction of or infringement uon this truth%

In other #ords" #hen first6century monotheism is e'amined in con(unction #ith 5auls

o#n language" he clearly refers to Christ in #ays tyically reser$ed only for 12-2 yet in a

fashion that does not betray true monotheism%==2is Christological monotheism centers on the

confession that 4esus is 9ord% 5aul is most unambiguously not comromising to luralism in

fact" !uite to the contrary" on se$eral occasions he uses his o#n Christological Monotheism

con$ictions to confront religious luralism" tyical of the attac+s 4e#ish theologians made from

their o#n monotheistic ersecti$e% Those #ho osit Christianity as a synthesis of 4e#ish and

agan ractice #ho be #ise to heed the #ords of B%B -arfield concerning the language of the

3e# Testament #riters:

They do not" then" lace t#o ne# gods by the side of 4eho$ah as ali+e #ith 2im

to be ser$ed and #orshied they concei$e 4eho$ah as 2imself at once Father";on and 2oly ;irit% In resenting this one 4eho$ah as Father" ;on and ;irit" they

do not betray any lur+ing feeling that they are ma+ing inno$ations% -ithout

aarent misgi$ing they ta+e o$er &ld Testament assages and aly them toFather" ;on and ;irit indifferently% &b$iously they understand themsel$es" and

#ish to be understood" as setting forth in the Father" ;on and ;irit (ust the one

0od that the 0od of the &ld Testament re$elation isL=@

==Again" monotheism is emhatically not monism 7as in Islam or contemorary 4udaism8% In $arious conte'ts" 5aul

can distinguish bet#een Father" ;on and ;irit yet still refer to one 0odJ9ord% Furthermore" the thrusts of hisargument are undergirded by monotheistic concerns 7es% #orshi creation or unity of 0ods eole" see belo# on

/ Cor% H but also 5hil% =:6// / Cor% /= )h% :6 Col% /:/6= et al8% Interestingly" in Armstrongs o#n

discussion of 5hiliians =:6// fails to deal #ith the comle'ity of 5auls articulation% 2er interretation aearsmore li+e 0nosticism #ith a second lesser di$ine being 7History% HH68% 2er interretation of 5aul lea$es him

$iolating monotheism at a fundamental le$elO In 5hil% =:6//" 5aul" !uoting Isaiah :==6=@" identifies Christ as12-2 yet +ees him distinct from 0od the Father% This !uotation from Deutero6Isaiah is significant for t#o

reasons: 7/8 the eschatological significance in the later half of Isaiah" #hich informs much of 5auls o#n theology ashis fre!uent !uotations testify and 7=8 the e'tremely rofound and unyielding confessions of monotheism made in

this section as #ell as the entire boo+ of Isaiah" #hich no# in 5hiliians stand as alied to 4esus Christ% These t#o

oints could hardly go unmissed let alone $iolated by 5aul% 3or did he simly sli6u in alying a 12-2 te't to

a less6than612-2 e'alted figure% It is clearly not as if 5aul simly meant to ut 4esus on ar #ith the other e'altedalbeit less6than612-2 figures" such as of angels or atriarchs" as in 4e#ish literature contemorary to 5aul%=@B%B% -arfield ,The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity". The 6or;s o Ben


7/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page =

Therefore" 5auls thought 7and &rthodo' Christianity as a #hole8 is not a synthesis of

monotheism and olytheism but is consistent #ith monotheistic thought% 5auls language

referring to Christ reflects a thoroughly high Christology andat the same time without tension a

thoroughly monotheistic theology" hence a Christological monotheism% Before continuing to

use this term" Christological monotheism" it is imerati$e to highlight that #e are in no #ay

suggesting a Christomonism #here the Trinity is either reduced to only the erson of Christ or

the sole agent of re$elation in the Trinity is limited to Christ% 3either is there any suggestion that

the Trinity is not behind our thin+ing" or a +ey comonent to the thought of the 3e# Testament%=

Before #e can e'amine 5auls o#n use of this Christological Monotheism to confront

luralism" #e shall briefly e'amine monotheism%

III. The Shemaand Monotheism

5aramount to our discussion is the nature of first6century 4e#ish monotheism% It is easily

recogni?able that the #ord monotheism comes from t#o 0ree+ #ords monos meaning only"

uni!ue or alone and theos meaning 0od% This definition is seldom robed any further%

=1et the focus of this aer is articularly on a Christological monotheism% This aer #ill be content to discussthe significance of 5auls use of both monotheism and Christology at the same time to confront the threat of

luralism% Certainly the ontological Trinity ser$es as the grounds for all aologetics% Again" #e are in no #ay to

denying or minimi?ing the triune nature of 0od in the 3e# Testament% ;ee for e'amle = Cor% /@:/ or Matt% =H:/%

5aul incororates the 2oly ;irit in his discussions of the oneness of 0od 7cf% / Cor% /=:68% Certainly" the ;iritlays a fundamental role of ind#elling the eole of 0od 7/ Cor% :/8 and therefore bringing true unity to them" a

+ey concet in monotheism 7see belo#8 yet this is beyond the scoe of our discussion% In terms of the Trinity" #e

can remain on solid e'egetical grounds and contend that 5aul did see three distinct ersons 7to use the secificlanguage of the Creeds8 and yet one 0od" in a #ay that ne$er $iolated monotheism 7e$en if it #as slightly

redefined8% For a significant e'egetical discussion of the ;irit" including the 2is 5ersonhood and unity in the0odhead: cf% 0ordon Fee" !o"s 0mpowering *resence# The Holy Spirit in the /etters o *aul75eabody" Mass%:

2endric+son" /8 and ;inclair Ferguson" The Holy Spirit 7Do#ners 0ro$e" Ill%: Inter


8/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page ?

Monotheism of the first6century is not unitarianism% First6century 4e#ish monotheism=#as not a

hilosohical or metahysical statement of the inner nature of 0od" as the 0ree+s tended to

discuss god%=Monotheism #as not a rimarily a discussion of the internal comosition of 0od

and ho# 12-2 functioned internally%=G-hile first6century 4e#ish monotheism had room for

e'alted figures that #ere in no #ay di$ine" it ,dre# a shar line bet#een any such figure and the

one 0od in the area of cultic ractice" reser$ing #orshi for the one 0od%. =HThe Most 2igh 0od

#as distinct and set aart in relation to other beings% &ne did not mi' 12-2 language #ith

e'alted human or angelic figures%=

The most significant statement of monotheism is #hat it says about 12-2 in

relationshi to the other gods% The reality of 12-2 being 0od and ing is that no other gods

are real% For e'amle" 5salms :6"6/ declares the so$ereignty of 12-2 and 2is sole right

to #orshi:

For great is the 9&RD 12-2E" and greatly to be raised he is to be feared

abo$e all gods% For all the gods of the eole are #orthless idols" but the 9&RD12-2E made the hea$ensL-orshi the 9&RD 12-2E in the slendor of

holiness tremble before him" all the earthO ;ay among the nations" ,The 9&RD

12-2E reignsLhe #ill (udge the eoles #ith e!uity%@

Monotheism is centered on se$eral +ey tenants%@/ First" monotheism is creational

=From here on in this section" to sa$e sace" I #ill simle refer to it as monotheism recogni?ing it as distinct from

Islamic or modern 4e#ish monotheism%=3%T% -right" The .ew Testament an" the *eople o !o"7Minneaolis: Fortress" /=8 =H% Richard Bauc+ham"!o" Cruciie"%G"H%=G2ere Bauc+ham is helful in noting that" ,;ome 4e#ish #riters in the later ;econd Temle eriod consciously

adoted some of the 0ree+ metahysical language% But e$en in these #riters the dominant concetual frame#or+ ofunderstanding of 0od is not a definition of di$ine nature6#hat di$inity is6but a notion of di$ine identity rimarily in

#ays other than metahysical attributes. 7!o" Cruciie"% H8%=H2urtado"/or" Jesus Christ% G6H% ;ee also +ne !o"% +ne /or"3=;ee note == abo$e and our brief criti!ue of aren Armstrongs treatment of 5hil% =:6//%@This bears stri+ing similarity to other assages that center on monotheism% Most notable for our discussion here is

the monotheism of Deutero6Isaiah esecially such sections as :6@/ =:6 @:/6/ :6=H =:G et al%@/&ur treatment #ill follo# 3%T% -rights categories in .ew Testament% =H6% Along the same lines" 2urtado

concludes that ,there are t#o ma(or themes or concerns come through in the monotheistic rhetoricof ancient 4e#s:7/8 0ods uni$ersal so$ereignty as creator and ruler o$er all" e$en the e$il forces that oose 0od and 7=8 0ods

uni!ueness" e'ressed by contrasting 0od #ith the other deities of the religious en$ironment" but also in contrasts or

distinctions bet#een 0od and 0ods o#n hea$enly retinue" the angels. 7/or" Jesus Christ% @8


9/33


monotheism%@=It is 12-2 alone #ho created the uni$erse% This rules out any +ind of 5latonism"

0nosticism" deism" henotheism" antheism or aganism%@@It is 12-2 #ho #as acti$e in the

#orld in order to create it e7 nihilo% This strict monotheism does not rohibit $arious 4e#ish

monotheistic #riters 7canonical and non6canonical8 from sea+ing of 0ods ;irit" -ord or

-isdom as being in$ol$ed in creation%@At times ;irit" -ord or -isdom are ersonified in such

#ays that they aear distinct from 12-2" yet the #riters ne$er $iolate monotheism @because

these are ortrayed as ,asects of 0ods o#n identity%. @ To summari?e creational monotheism"

it is 12-2 the 0od of Israel alone #ho has made the uni$erse% This is rimarily a statement of

0ods relationshi o$er and abo$e the #orld not a statement of his internal ma+eu%

Furthermore" 0od #ho has created this #orld has created it #ith a goal" or telos% In the 4e#ish

$ie#" from the beginning history" as art of creation" is eschatological not circular%@G

;econd" monotheism centers on the ro$idence of 0od%@H-hile 0od is searate from 2is

creation" 2e remains concerned #ith it% 0od" being transcendent o$er creation" is not remote

from 2is creation but remains acti$ely in$ol$ed in it% There is a clear Creator6creature

@=3%T% -right".ew Testament" =H%@@For a discussion of ho# these $arious alternati$es are ruled out cf% Ibid% =H6%@0en% /:/6@ 5s% @@:6 5ro$% H 7es% ==6@8 -isdom of ;olomon :/=6//:/ 7es% G:==" =6 H: :/68 ;irach=% In 5ro$% H 0od used 2is #isdom to create the #orld in a #ay that ersonifies #isdom yet almost seems distinct

from 0od himself% 1et this is not a roto6gnostic demigod% The author can sea+ of #isdom as re6e'istent before

creation and in$ol$ed in creation #ithout $iolating monotheism% 2urtado #rites" ,the ersonification of -isdom is

the descrition of her as !o"s chie agent" #here the language of di$ine agency is used to refer to an attribute of0od. 7)mhasis original% +ne !o"% +ne /or"" 8% -hile there is debate of the ersonification of #isdom and

otential ,#isdom Christologies. in the 3e# Testament" our o$er all thesis deends neither uon the $alidation that

the ersonifications of #isdom in $arious sources ser$e as an identity #ithin the 0odhead nor an accetance ofhighly !uestionable #isdom motifs in 5aul Christology% There is in fact good e'egetical ground for re(ecting

#isdom Christologies in the 3T 7cf% aren 4obes" ,;ohia Christology: The -ay of -isdom. and 0ordon Fee,-isdom Christology in 5aul: A Dissenting


10/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page 1&

distinction% Thus" there #as absolutely no room for the #atchma+er mentality of deism in this

monotheism% The true 0od did not create the uni$erse to let it run at its o#n #him% Anything that

haens is not an accident but is because of the acti$ity of 12-2 in his creation% Isaiah :6G

roclaims 0ods continual in$ol$ement in his creation:

I am the 9&RD 12-2E" and there is not other" besides me there is no 0od Ie!ui you" though you do not +no# me" that eole may +no# from the rising of

the sun and from the #est" that there is none besides me I am the 9&RD" and

there is no other% I form light and create dar+ness" I ma+e #ell6being and create

calamity" I am the 9&RD" #ho does all these things%

Third" monotheism is co$enantal% 4ust as 0od is one so 2e also has one eole% @,The

creator calls a eole through #hom" someho#" he #ill act decisi$ely #ithin his creation" to

eliminate e$il from it and to restore order" (ustice and eace%. Israel #as called to be a +ingdom

of riests%/For this urose" Abraham and his seed #ere chosen by 0od%=12-2 is bound to

co$enant #ith 2is eole for 2is honor and glory alone% The co$enant mar+s 12-2 to 2is

eole% The saints of Israel can" in their #orshi" aeal to the one true and li$ing 0od one the

basis of 2is co$enant faithfulness%@ Thus" the co$enant is ,er$asi$e and definitional for

1ah#eh%.

&ne +ey element to this co$enant is the 9a#" Torah% This is the co$enant charter 0od

ga$e to his eole to rescribe roer relational li$ing before 0od #ithin the co$enant% A

second +ey feature of this co$enantal monotheism is the )'odus% It is 0od and 0od alone #ho

@A theme 5aul alludes to in Rom% @:=6@3%T% -right".ew Testament" ==%

/)'% /:%=9i+e#ise this is an imortant toic 5aul ic+s u to in 0al% @:G6"/"= it is Christ #ho is the true seed and

therefore all #ho are in Christ are Abrahams true descendants" the eole of 0od%@2erman Ba$inc+" +ur >easona5le )aith# A Surey o Christian ,octrine70rand Raids" Mi%: )erdmans" /G

rer%" 0rand Raids" Mi%: Ba+er" /GG8" 6G% -alter Brueggemann" Theology o the +l" Testament# Testimony% ,ispute% A"ocacy " 7Minneaolis: Fortress"

/G8 =G%Cf% es% 9e$% /H:"% The 9ord is the 0od of Israel therefore the eole shall obey his statutes to li$e% This is not of

romise of sal$ation by #or+s but roer co$enantal li$ing% Cf% -alter C% aiser" ,9e$iticus and 5aul: Do This and

1ou ;hall 9i$e 7)ternally>8".J0TS / 7/G/8: /6=H%


11/33


has brought the eole out of )gyt% The )'odus theme aears #ithin the conte't of the Shema%

If 0od is one and if 2e has them as a co$enant eole then "e acto it can only be as a result of

12-2s redemtion that Israel #as brought out of cati$ity% Redemtion and re$elation are

intimately tied together in the acti$ity of one true 0od 7the Re$ealer K Redeemer8 towar"s the

eole #ith #hom 2e #as entered into a co$enant 7the recei$ers of re$elation and redemtion8%

2e is the Most 2igh su?erain they are 2is $ice6regentJ$assal eole% The eschatological

direction of the co$enant history of redemtion anticiates a Day of the 9ord #hen all the earth

#ill behold 12-2s glory%GThe guiding structure of this is ne$ertheless co$enant% Thus" the

6estminster Conession o )aith con$eys the highest Biblical monotheism #hen" reflecting on

the tota of ;critural re$elation" it declares:

The distance bet#een 0od and the creature is so great" that although reasonable

creatures do o#e obedience unto 2im as their Creator" yet they could ne$er ha$eany fruition of 2im as their blessedness and re#ard" but by some $oluntary

condescension on 0ods art" which He hath 5een please" to e7press 5y way o

coenant3$?

These three asects of monotheism deal less #ith 12-2s internal relationshi and

more #ith 2is relationshi to the #orld% They are articularly imortant in distinguishing Israel

and her beliefs from the entire agan #orld #ith conflicting beliefs" such as antheism"

gnosticism and henotheism% In articular" monotheism rules out any +ind of dualism% Fallen

The Shemaconsists of three assages: Deut% :6 //:/@6=/ and 3um% /:@G6/% -ithin the conte't of all three is

mention of the )'odus: Deut% :/=" = Deut% //:/6"/ and 3um% //:/% This is significant for four reasons /8 The

curses of the co$enant in Deut% =G6@= is cati$ityJe'ile #hich #ill result in a second )'odus" =8 Deutero6Isaiah ic+su on this theme of e'ileJsecond )'odus" @8 the #ord 3e# Testament #ord for redemtion 7 ajpolutrwv!"8 has

the bac+ground of the sla$e6mar+et and 8 the 7highly debated8 belief of continuing e'ile in the first6century% 7Fordiscussion of continuing e'ile and its significance in 3e# Testament e'egesis: cf% 3%T% -right" ,Curse and

Co$enant: 0alatians @%/6/%. Clima7 o the Coenant" /@G6/ Jesus an" the 9ictory o !o"" Minneaolis:

Fortress" /E ==6 et aland.ew Testament% =H6G et al% Craig A% )$ans" ,4esus and the Continuing )'ile ofIsrael". inJesus an" the >estoration o (srael% ed% Carey C% 3e#man Do#ners 0ro$e" Ill%: Inter$arsity" /E" GG6

/%8G-e could cite for e'amle the second )'odus motif of Isaiah 6 or the Day of the 9ord assages in the

rohets" or the eschatological last days #$%&'()* t$r+j,a*-.E or in that day also fre!uent in therohets%H-CF G%/% )mhasis mine%


12/33


angels are no cometition to the true 0od% )$il is not a threat% There is no ri$alry of gods% It is

12-2 #ho is the uni$ersal monarch%1et 12-2 condescends to 2is eole through the

co$enant% In his o#n summation of first6century 4e#ish monotheism" 2urtado concludes" ,First6

century 4e#ish monotheism #as" thus" an e'clusi$ist" monarchial $ie# of 0od" manifested

articularly in orthora'y in culticJliturgical matters%.

&ur brief discussion of monotheism has sho#n that it #as not a metahysical statement

of the internal nature of 0od% Rather it is a olemical doctrine that ta+es a fighting stance against

the different asects of agan #orld$ie#s%/The co$enantal asects ser$e to remind the eole of

0od that they are bound to this one true 0od" desite the surrounding luralism% Before #e

discuss 5auls adatation of monotheism" #e shall e'amine the battle6cry of first6century 4udaic

monotheism" the Shema%=

Deuteronomy : roclaims" ,2ear" & Israel: The 9ord our 0od" the 9ord is one%. In the

first6century #orld this #as a +ey roclamation in 4e#ish liturgy% ,It declares a confession of

faith and an ultimate accetance of 0ods +ingshi%. @The three +ey assages for the Shema are

Deut% :6" Deut% //:/@6=/ and 3um% /:@G6/%The Shema #as to be rayed t#ice a day" once

in the morning and once in the e$ening%This confession #as the fundamental encasulating

statement of first6century 4e#ish monotheism% Israel is to gi$e e'clusi$e #orshi and

Cf% Daniel I% Bloc+" The !o"s o the .ations# (n Ancient .ear 0astern .ational Theology7=nded% 0rand Raids"

MI%: Ba+er" =8" @6% 2urtado" 9arry% ,-hat Do -e Mean by First6Century 4e#ish Monotheism>. Society o Bi5lical /iterature

Seminar *apers 1447ed% )% 9o$ering Atlanta: ;cholars" /@8 @H%

/3%T% -right".ew Testament" =H%=Ibid% Cf% also 2erbert -olf"An (ntro"uction to the +l" Testament *entateuch7Chicago: Moody" //8" =/6H%@D%


13/33


recognition to 12-2 as the sole ;o$ereign 9ord%GMichael 2orton oints out that ,it is the

;hema not antheistic ;toicism that emhasi?es the sole lordshi of 12-2 as +ing%. H ;ince

12-2 is 9ord" co$enant fidelity is central to this confession of monotheism because Israel is to

lo$e her 0od alone since in reality 2e is the only 0od and the one #ho has called out 2is eole%

Thus" #e can confirm #ith 5ayne" this assage itself is not rimarily a statement of 0ods

internal ma+eu:

The teaching of this assage does not rimarily concern a di$ine unity ofsimlicity: that 0od constitutes a unity #ithin himself" in contrast for e'amle"

#ith Baal" #ho #as so slintered u so as to e'ist searately in countless

indi$idual lots of groundLIt concerns rather the di$ine unity of singularity that

0od constitutes the sole deity" as oosed to others%

0ods oneness is distinct from 2is e'istence in three persons3&n a more oular le$el"

4ames Montgomery Boice has clearly articulated that the oneness described in Deuteronomy

: does not e'clude the Trinity because ,in this $ery $erse the #ord for one is echa"#hich

means not one in isolation but one in unity% In fact" the #ord is ne$er used in the 2ebre# Bible of

a star+ singular entity% It is a #ord used in sea+ing of one bunch of graes" for e'amle" or in

saying that the eole of Israel resonded as one eole. or in referring to Adam and )$e as one

flesh%As &rthodo' Christianity has al#ays recogni?ed" the Shemadoes not contradict the later

re$elation of 0od as Father" ;on and 2oly ;irit%

-hen #e e'amine monotheism and its central confession #e can conclude" ,the doctrine

of the deity of Christ is not at all incomatible #ith the highest form of monotheism%. /

Therefore" if it can be sho#n that 5aul adats this statement in his discussion of Christ" then he is

G)ugene 2% Merrill" ,A Theology of the 5entateuch".A Bi5lical Theology o the +l" Testament7Chicago: Moody"

//8" GH%H/or" an" Serant# A Coenant Christology 9ouis$ille" en%: -estminster 4ohn no'" =E" =%4% Barton 5ayne" The Theology o the +l"er Testament70rand Raids" Mi%: Qonder$an" /=8" /=%)oun"ations o the Christian )aith Re$ised in one $olume Do#ners 0ro$e" Ill%: Inter


14/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page 1$

sho#ing his continuity #ith monotheism e$en if" at oints" he distinguishes t#o ersons 70od the

Father and Christ the 9ord8 #ithin this monotheism% = Belo#" #e shall sho# that 5aul accets

and adats this battle6cry in his o#n confrontation #ith luralism without iolating it% In short"

contrary to those such as


15/33


of there o#n ne# +no#ledge 7/0w1!"8 of 0od there #as no threat to themsel$es if they

entered into the temles of idols and ate the food sacrificed before idols% It seems e$ident" to

5aul" that such +no#ledge did not enhance the Corinthians ,sirituality. but instead #as leading

them to become arrogant and uffed u 7H:/: 2u!o!18% As 5aul argues this is not the true

attitude of the belie$er% In fact" 5aul refutes this" arguing that such self6ercetions indicate that

they do not understand #hat +ind of attitude is re!uired 7H:=8% In $erse @ #hen he says" ,But if

anyone lo$es 0od" he is +no#n by 0od. 73 45 67 89:;< = >?@ A7 B9:6

C; D:EF8" 5aul is setting u his argument to discuss the Shema%

Concerning H:@" diffusing the Corinthians inflated $ie# of +no#ledge 5aul asserts that it

is the erson #ho lo$es 0od #ho is +no#n by 0od not the erson #ith +no#ledge 7$%@8% 3%T%

-right is correct to oint out this $erses significance because" ,5auls references to humans

lo$ing 0od" as oosed to $ice $ersa" are fe# and far bet#een" and in this case at leastLthe

reason for the reference is that he #ishes to allude" or echo" the 4e#ish confession of

monotheistic faith%.It is clear in $% G6/@ that this lo$e is demonstrated by ta+ing care not to

become a stumbling bloc+ to #ea+er brother and sin against Christ% Fee summari?es" ,The

roblem #ith conduct redicated on +no#ledge is that it results in greater sinfulness%.

The standard summation of the 9a# as the first commandment to lo$e 0od" follo#ed by

second greatest commandment as lo$ing your neighbor 7Matt% ==:@6 9u+e /:=G Mar+

/=:=6@/8" seem to be influencing 5auls use of the Shema%G5aul has already sho#n these as

foundational to his ethics u to this oint in / Corinthians%

H

The first summation that one should

Clima7%/=G%0ordon Fee" The 0pistle o )irst Corinthians70rand Raids" Mi%: )erdmans" /HG8" @%G3otice that 4esus combines the Shema#ith the greatest commandment of the 9a# in Mar+ /=:=6@%HBrian Rosner has sho#n the +ey role that the &ld Testament ;critures layed in 5auls ethical e'hortations and

rerimands in / Corinthians 6G in his study: *aul% Scripture% an" 0thics# A Stu"y o 1 Corinthians 8-= 70randRaids" MI%: Ba+er" /8% Imortant here is Rosners discussion of the co$enant motif in / Corinthians 7H6G8%

;ince the co$enant is influential to 5auls ethical rescrition #e should not be surrised in the least to find a clear

allusion to the Shemaas 5aul de$elos his argumentation in the course of his eistle%


16/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page 1:

lo$e 0od is e'licit 7$%@8" yet #ith the #ay 5aul de$elos his argumentation the second

commandment is clearly behind his thin+ing% As his argument against idols concludes this

becomes more e'licit in /:=% The belie$er must see+ the good of his neighbor rather than his

o#n ersonal good" i%e% lo$e his neighbor as himself% These summati$e commandments are not

simly early $ersions of the golden rule but are the heart of a true Biblical monotheistic faith and

its correlating ethical imlications%

In / Corinthians H:" 5aul affirms in a manner consistent #ith 4e#ish monotheism that

any idol oses no threat to the Christian% 5aul sets u t#o arallel clauses confirming #hat both

5aul and the Corinthians +no#:

7a8 oGt! ouHIJK0 J!,Iwlo0 JH0 LoM%wN@ La!K7b8 oGt! ouHIJ!KO PJoKO J!H %)K J!OQG

The te't is a monotheistic confession% 5aul continues in $% " ,For although there may be

so6called gods in hea$en or on earthas indeed there are many gods and many lords%. This

means that any idol" or religion" offers no threat to Christianity% For any other gods are not real

gods and anyone #ho claims to #orshi another god does not% &ther religions are not otions

because they do not #orshi real gods" #hich seems to be central to the Corinthians asserting

their liberty% Pltimately" as 5aul de$elos" abusing such +no#ledge" as the Corinthians #ere" is

an offensi$e against Christ 7$%//8 if a #ea+er brother is caused to stumble% They #ere not

demonstrating true lo$e to#ards the #ea+er Christians and ultimately sho#ed a lac+ of true lo$e

to#ards 0od in their lifestyle" #hich the Shemaand summations of the 9a# demanded%G/The

Shema is central to the argument" not to ro$e the Corinthians ,+no#ledge. might be correct but

It is robably no coincidence that 5aul uses o!RIa%J0and not /!0wvLw% 5aul has said that 967 uffsu but then goes on to roclaim #e +no# 7S4:8% This is not to ma+e theological oints from simle #ordusage only to highlight the subtleties that can go unnoticed in )nglish%Ga8 ,that an idol has no real e'istence and. b8 ,that there is no 0od but one.G/This lac+ of lo$e as #ell as 5auls argument in chater t#el$e against their lac+ of unity is #hy 5aul must offer a

diatribe on lo$e in chater thirteen%


17/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page 1=

to sho# their conduct ultimately did not demonstrate lo$e for 0od" #hich is a sign that one is

+no#n by 0od% As 3%T% -right notes the issue at sta+e" ,is not simly a matter of beha$iour% It is

about the definition of the eole of 0od: and" for 5aul" that definition can be stated in

Deuteronomic terms" by means of the Shema%.G=In due course" 5auls longer argument comes in

chater ten 7es% /=6=/8% -hile the Corinthians #ere free in Christ" they #ere in danger of

religious comromise before a #atching #orld% 5auls Christological monotheism #as a

boundary against internal comromise to#ards the luralism that threatened%

In / Corinthians H: 5aul ta+es the Shemaand e'ands his definition of the one 0od%

-hen #e comare 5auls #riting #ith the Deut% : in the ;etuagint #e cannot hel but notice

the arallel structure:

Deut% : / Corinthians H:

aRLouJ jTra)l Luvr!o" oU PJo" )U%w0

Luvr!o" J!N" Jjt!0

Vjll)U%!10J!N" PJoW" oU pat)Wr

JjX ouN taW pav0ta La!)U%J!1" J!j" aujto0La!W J!N" Luvr!o" jT)ou1" Yr!toW"

I! ouN tav pav0ta La!W

)U%J!1" I! aujtou15aul is not tal+ing about t#o gods% 2e is offering a Christian commentary on the Shema%

There is one 0od" yet there is 0od the Father and there is the 9ord 4esus Christ% 5aul has ut

4esus Christ our 9ord in the middle of the most monotheistic confession in the Bible% In the

confession 9ord is a reference to 12-2%G@2e further affirms monotheism is at the heart here by

adding t#o clauses ronouncing both the Father and the ;ons role in creation% GConcerning the

Father: Z:[ 7 37 :E?% Concerning the ;on: D

Z:[ 7 46 D :EF% This same language is used in 5auls great do'ology inG=Clima7%/=G%G@9arry 2urtado" ,9ord%".,ictionary o *aul an" His /etters" 7Do#ners 0ro$e" Ill%: Inter


18/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page 1?

Romans //:@ #here 0od is raised \6 Z:[ D Z:[ 37 :E=

] :E 4?^: 37 _7 :3:7@ 8`% In our assage" this do'ology is

unac+ed as it alies to the Father and the ;on%

Pltimately all creation is for 0ods glory% 5auls co$enant theology might e$en be seen in

the language 7 37 :E? in reference to the Father and 7 46 D :EF in

reference to the ;on #here 7 certainly refers to those belie$ers in union #ith Christ%

)ither #ay" #ith the e'ansion of the Shema and the references to act of creation" it is e$ident

that 5aul has struc+ at the heart of monotheism% 1et it is e!ually a Christological monotheism%

9ittle is gained by suggesting that 5aul has relaced Di$ine6-isdom #ith the erson of

Christ for nothing in the assage inherently suggests a #isdom6Christology is in $ie#%G The

focus is on the osition of 4esus Christ #ithin the di$ine identity% This inclusion stands against

the agan conte't of many gods and many lords that threatened the community%

For 5aul" lo$ing 0od and fulfilling the Shema is redefined by lo$ing Christ as #ell%

2ence in the light of temtations the Corinthians faced to shift bac+ to#ards luralistic li$ing

because they had ,+no#ledge. that no other gods are real gods" 5aul inserts his Christological

monotheism as a #ay to refocusing the Corinthians understanding of lo$ing 0od" later

imloring them not to sin against Christ 7$%/=8% 0i$ing #ay to agan ractices no matter ho#

unreal the ri$al gods does not mar+ a belie$ers lo$e for 0od% -hile the strong Corinthians

+ne# that these gods #ere not gods" ractically sea+ing they #ere in danger of comromising

their lifestyle esecially if they ate idol meat in the idols temle% This is articularly true as it

causes #ea+er brothers to stumble and brings one to $iolate lo$ing his brother in Christ%

/ Cor% /:/6@@ 7es% /6=/ and =6=8 is imortant to 5auls further conclusions regarding

GFee" 6is"om% =%Contra 2urtado" +ne !o"% +ne /or"" G6H% Anthony Thiselton" The )irst 0pistle to the

Corinthians3I0TC 70rand Raids" Mi%: )erdmans" =@8 @%


19/33


idol meat% -orshiing agan idols is to #orshi demons% True monotheism does not allo# such

luralistic comromises% )$en if meat is (ust meat" there are occasions #here eating idol meat is

forbidden 7/:=H8 recisely because eating #ould bring the aearance of luralism before the

#atching #orld" #hich had no !ualms about recogni?ing and #orshiing a antheon of deities%

This high monotheistic standard ta+en by Christians #ould ha$e been offensi$e to the agan

#orld 7Acts /:=@6/8%

The confession of Christological monotheism functions as a #ay to ,mar+ out the

eole of 0od against their neighborsLThe confession of one 0od" one 9ord mar+ed the

community out sociologically as #ell as theologically%.

G

Christianity cannot articiate #ith

demons 7/:=6==8% The eschatological eole of 0od cannot fall into the same tra as idolatrous

Israel #ho ser$e to instruct those of us ,on #hom the end of the ages had come. 7/://8% GG;ince

#e ha$e &ne 0od the Father" and &ne 9ord 4esus Christ #e must ,flee idolatry. 7/:/8% The

confession ser$es 5aul as a foundation for confrontation #ith religious luralism in a conte't

#here the church is caitulating%

Imortant to our discussion here" 5auls Christological monotheism allo#s him to

affirm that other religious otions are not otions% It functions as a boundary for the Christian

community both ractically and theology% The t#o are not mutually e'clusi$e% 3ot only is a

Christological monotheism a oint of religious debate" if #e truly belie$e the confession it

should function as an anchor for us" a nonnegotiable to our faith% 2urtado remar+s that / Cor%

H:6 ,summari?es the distinct nature of early Christian de$otionLinsisting that for Christians

there can be only ,one 0od.LThis rather strict monotheistic standindeed" offensi$ely strict in

the eyes of $irtually all agans of that time#as nothing but the common osition ta+en by

G3%T% -right" Clima7%/@=%GGBehind this thought is the notion of 0ods one co$enant eole but #ith a re6eschatological e'erience in the &ld

Testament and an inaugurated e'erience in the resent age% It remains fundamental to monotheism: &ne 0od" one

eole of 0od%


20/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page 2&

4udaism".GH The !uestion needs to be as+ed our oursel$es: As #e consider our o#n

confrontations #ith luralism" ho# offensi$ely strict are #e #ith resect to our monotheism>

;econd" in Acts /G:==6@/ 5aul uses the t#o elements of monotheism and Christology as a

means of introductory roclamation" #hich leads to a full gosel resentation% 5aul engages in a

sort of re6e$angelism as a means to oen the door for further discussion of the gosel 7Acts

/G:@=8% Contrary to the #ay many share the gosel today" 5aul did not enter the Areoagus

roclaiming" ,0od lo$es you and has a #onderful lain for your life. or e$en ,1ou need

sal$ation%. -isely" 5aul begins the discussion at a much more fundamental le$el%G 2is

resentation functions around t#o +ey oints: monotheism and an introduction to Christology%

5auls assertion of monotheism is imortant because for him it lays the foundation of his

Biblical #orld$ie#% Before he can resent the 0od #ho offered 2is ;on" he must introduce this

0od into the en$ironment of religious luralism that he had entered% Pon encountering an altar

to the un+no#n god"H5aul uses it as an oortunity to share the true nature of the one 0od%

5aul engages in #hat can be described as a defense of monotheism%H/

5aul ma+es four +ey oints that are central tenants of monotheism% First" in $erses = and

=" he asserts a creational monotheism% It is 0od #ho has made e$erything and is o$er all% 2e

does not need a temle made by man or human ser$ice because he gi$es life to all men% Thus"

0od is not to be identified #ith creation nor is 2e contained #ithin creation 7Isa% :/6=8%

;econd" 0od has made the nations from one man" i%e% Adam% 12-2 is not one of many

GH+ne !o"% +ne /or"% /%GThe alication here sea+s for itself% In an age of increasing luralism #e must begin at a more fundamental

oint in the Biblical narrati$e" that there is only one true 0od% This truth is the building6bloc+ for any discussion of

4esus Christ" his deity" his humanity and the substitutionary nature of his atonement%H0i$en the conte't of the Areoagus" the inscrition could be translated ,to an un+no#n god.% 4erome says that the

altar read: ,To the gods of Asia" )uroe" and Africa" to un+no#n foreign gods. !td% F%F% Bruce" The Boo; o Acts7re$ised 0rand Raids" Mi%: )erdmans" /HH8" @@%H/5aul did not see them as truly #orshiing the 0od of the Bible through this altar% 2e used it as an oortunity to

share about the 0od #ho they did not +no#%


21/33


gods each #ith their resecti$e nation but 12-2 is thee 0od #ho ossesses the #hole earth% H=

The reason any nation e'ists is because of 0ods common grace and ongoing rocreation of

Adams descendants 70en% //8% In =Ga" these nations should see+ 2im recisely because the other

gods are not gods%

Behind this reaching is a Biblical #orld$ie#% -e might also note that there may be

inciient thoughts of 5auls t#o6Adam Christology behind his e'ressed thoughts: 7/8 the

nations created from one man AdamE 7=8 he 0odE has fi'ed a day on #hich he 0odE #ill

(udge the #orld in righteousness by a man #ho he 0odE has aointed i%e% the eschatos

AdamE%

H@

This second asect is articularly crystalli?ed #hen #e consider the si?eable amount of

5auls teaching on the resurrection of the dead in / Cor% / that is directly elucidated by means of

his t#o6Adam Christology% The core of the resurrection teaching in this chater hinges uon a

t#o6Adam Christology% The oint concerning Acts and monotheism remains: as so$ereign

creator and 9ord o$er all 12-2 #ill" through 2is anointed one" e'ercise (udgment o$er the

nations 7Acts /G:@/8%H

Third" contrary to the deist concetion of god the true 0od remains acti$e in his creation%

5aul is e$en comfortable !uoting from a oem from )imenides the Cretan and the fifth line

*hainomenaby Aratus%H-hile both of these oems in their original conte't refer to Qeus" 5aul

uses them in his conte't to refer to the true 0od sho#ing some small le$el continuity bet#een

H=To highlight ho# monotheistic this is #e might aroriate the thoughts of Christoher -right used in a slightlydifferent conte't: ,At Mount ;inai" for e'amle" at the $ery oint #here 0od is imressing on Israel their uni!ue

identity and role in the midst of the nations" he lea$es no doubt that he is far from being a minor local deity or e$enyour a$erage national god% The scoe of his concern and his so$ereignty is uni$ersal: the #hole earth is mine 7)'%

/:8%. 7nowing Jesus% @8% 2orton ma+es similar comments noting that 0enesis conte't is olemical as 0odasserts ,his so$ereignty o$er and against the gods of the nations as Israels su?erain% It is Israels 0od #ho created

all that e'ists%. 2e ends the aragrah !uoting Acts /G:=6= 7/or" an" Serant" G/8%H@5auls t#o6Adam Christology is clearly articulated in Rom% :/=6=/ and / Cor% / es% $$% =6=H and =6%HFor the &T bac+ground #e see this in Israelite royal theology es% 5s% =" H" //" = ;am% G == and numerous other

assages but also in Re$% / and / Cor% /:=6=H% -e might also note the 3T uses of 5s =" H" // used in the same

conte'ts%HBruce"Acts" @@H6%


22/33


the $ie#s e'ressed in the oems and #hat they are saying% They are contemorary illustrations

that his audience #ould ha$e been familiar #ith but 5aul has reclaimed their truthHreasserting it

under the roer rubric of Biblical monotheism% By #ay of his illustrations" 5auls audience

should recogni?e his understanding of monotheism is not totally alien to them" e$en if they

radically differ in other +ey areas%

Fourth" in $% = 5aul contradicts their understanding that a god can be reresented in an

idol% It #ould be insulting for 5aul to thin+ the true 0od could be reresented by an idol% This is

consistent #ith a first6century 4e#ish monotheistic #orld$ie# that #as re$ealed in the &ld

Testament" esecially the second commandment 7)'% =: Dt% :H8% In this short section of the

te't" 5aul has outlined four +ey oints that are fundamentally an aologetic for monotheism%

5aul then incororates t#o Christological +ey oints into this monotheism% It is imortant

to note that #hile these may not aear at first glance to be Christological oints in the sense

that a 3icene definition of Christ is e'licitly selled out" they are ne$ertheless Christological%

5auls eschatology and Christology are so intert#ined that they can be designated a ,Christ6

eschatology.%HGRidderbos comments are ro$e seminal for our thesis that Acts /G does contain a

Christological monotheism:

This interdeendence bet#een the ,eschatological. and the ,christological.

ground motif of 5auls reaching is of the highest imortance for the

understanding of bothLThis reachingE has in rincile a redemti$e6historical"

eschatological content% It is decisi$ely defined by #hat has ta+en lace in Christ"by the acts of 0od that he #rought in him for the fulfillment of his redemti$e

lan and of #hich the death and resurrection of Christ constitute the all6

controlling center% *auls Christology is a Christology o re"emptie acts% 2erelies the ground of the #hole of his reachingLThis historical6eschatological

character of 5auls Christology also laces it in organic relationshi #ith the

re$elation of the &ld Testament% -hat has ta+en lace in Christ forms thetermination and fulfillment of the great series of di$ine redemti$e acts in the

history of Israel and the resuosition of the rogress and consummation of the

HI am thin+ing here of Cornelius


23/33


history of the #orld%HH

First" this 0od #ill (udge the #orld by a man" 4esus Christ" #hom 2e has aointed% In

the &ld Testament" as #ell as the first6century 4e#ish #orld$ie#" it #as understood that only

0od as so$ereign monarch #ould (udge the #orld%H The authority #as 2is alone% 1et 2e #ould

authori?e 2is $ice6regent to enact this (udgment% This #ould mar+ the end of the resent e$il

age and the beginning of the age to come% For 5aul" as #e noted abo$e" Christ is the agent

through #hom 0od #ill (udge the #orld in the future% This is in fulfillment of the eschatological

hoe of the &ld Testament% This eschatological reality as da#ned at least initially in Christs

crucifi'ion and resurrection%

/

Christ" the anointed one" in e'ercising (udgment as e'alted $ice6

regent ultimately #ould do #hat #as reser$ed for 0od alone% Christs aointment to (udge is

nothing less than the truth that Christ must reign until all enemies ha$e been ut under 2is feet 7/

Cor% /:=8% Christs resurrection guarantees 2e #ill e'ecute (udgment defeating 0ods enemies

and raise those #ho are united to 2im in the culmination eschatological Day of the 9ord 7/ Cor%

/:=6=H8% 5auls oint that Christ is aointed (udge is a Christological statement%

;econd" 0od assured this aointment to the #orld by means of Christs resurrection% The

resurrection aoints 4esus as the ;on of 0od in power 7Rom%/:8% The resurrection #as

fundamental to 5auls understanding of inaugurated eschatology%= )lse#here for 5aul the

HHRidderbos"*aul% 6%% )mhasis mine%H5s% :/"/@ H: Isa% @@:== :/"/%)%0% )?ra G://@ ,The Day of 4udgment shall be the end of this age and the beginning of the eternal age to

come%./Christs resurrection is the firstfruits of the one eschatological resurrection 7/ Cor% /:=8% Thus" the eschatological

day of the 9&RD had da#ned in the death and resurrection of Christ 7Dale Allison 4r%" The 0n" o the Ages HasCome 5hiladelhia: Fortress" /HE" es% /G6/8% The eschatological character of Christs death and resurrection is

readily ac+no#ledge by numerous scholars from $arious Christian traditions but articularly by Reformed scholars#ho ha$e follo#ed the redemti$e historical sensiti$ities of 0eerhardus


24/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page 2$

resurrection is imortant as the firstfruits for those #ho are in Christ and as securing their

(ustification%@It guarantees 0ods $indication of 2is eole% The introduction of the resurrection

is imortant because as Richard 0affin has sho#n" ,the resurrection of Christ is thei$otal factor

in the #hole of the aostles soteriological teaching%.In this assage" #hile reference to the

(udgment is #ithout secifics" 5aul certainly has in mind condemnation for those #ho do not

belie$e and sal$ation for those #ho do belie$e% This is e$ident #ith aeal assionate aeal that

this 0od 712-28 ,commands all eole e$ery#here to reent. 7Acts /G:@8%

Christs o#n resurrection assures both condemnation in eschatological (udgment for

unbelie$ers and forgi$eness" (ustification" or eschatological $indication for those #ho reent and

through faith being united to 2im% -rath has been oured out on Christ for 2is eole in the

form of the eschatological (udgment #ith subse!uent $indication in 2is resurrection" thus the

comletion of this Day of the 9ord is fi'ed since the firstfruits of it ha$e been e'erienced%

;uffering the curse of sin" Christ #as (udged but unable to be held by death% The day of the

9&RD has da#ned and those #ho are in union #ith Christ #ill recei$e (ustification now" instead

of condemnation at the consummation of the age% In this Day of the 9&RD" none other than

12-2 2imself has aeared to 2is eole in the erson of the eternal ;on of 0od% It is nothing

less than the resurrection of 4esus that ser$es as roof of this truth% The resurrection as the clima'

of redemti$e history is the dislay of #hat #e may call a high Christology% As eschatological

it is e!ually re$elatory of 0ods erson and the climactic sal$ation romised in the &T%

-e might oint out one final crucial connection bet#een this monotheism and

Christology% According to Acts /G:=" all men o#e their e'istence to 0od 7957

C;7 F >F@ bt)JrJ2orJ cJ!0/ doIe ofpr!0/e8" clearly suggesting that

@/ Cor% / and Rom% := Richard B% 0affin 4r%" >esurrection an" >e"emption# A Stu"y in *auls Soteriology 7=nded 5hillisburg" 3%4%:

5resbyterian and Reformed" /HG8" /@% )mhasis &riginal%


25/33


man is 0ods image% Man is not to thin+ of the di$ine being as gold or sil$er 7EZ ghi

i6 k 89 k i>8" in other #ords the image of 0od cannot be

reresented by idolatry since 0od has created 2is o#n image in man" #ho #as made to be

12-2s $ice6regent 70en% /:=6=H8% Adams creation as the image is creation in sonshi to the

high su?erain% In 0enesis / and =" 0od created 2is image to reresent 2im% 0od cannot be

reresented by an image" mar+ or imress made by man himself 7:9:6 57 Z:[

>`7 8>m; lit% an image of art and a thought of man8% The dati$e

:9:6 is most li+ely stands in aosition to the dati$es k 89 k i>%

0old and sil$er is not a true imageJimress of 0od% But #hat concerns us is this: #hy is it so

crucial that now0od no longer o$erloo+s luralistic ignorance>

This is not to suggest that idolatry #as not a culable offense for the nations in the &ld

Testament% Rather rior to the da#ning eschaton" there #as not e'tensi$e roclamation that

anticiated the inbringing of 0entiles% Man is still (udged for er$erting and suressing the

+no#ledge of 0od 2e had as 0ods creatures 7Rom% /:/H6@=8% But 0ods 9a# 7and the Shema8

#as gi$en as a light to Israel" #hich made her more culable to +ee it 7Rom% =:/=8% This same

le$el of culability did not aly to 0entiles" yet nowin light of the eschatological death and

resurrection of Christ" this idolatry can no longer be ,o$erloo+ed. by 0od% But the !uestion

remains: #hy is it so crucial that now0od no longer o$erloo+s luralistic ignorance>

The turning oint of 5auls argument is that Christ is (udge and this is dislayed to all

men in 2is resurrection% The resurrection of 4esus Christ re$eals 2im to be the image of the

in$isible 0od" the true image or dislay of glory that cannot be reresented by any +ind of

imress or form% The dislay of 0ods image is not the created image of 0od but the eternal

image of 0od" the eternal ;on of 0od 7Col% /:/6/H = Cor% :"8% Image" glory" sonshi" and


26/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page 2:

$ice6regency are all terms and concets that ser$e as near synonyms in Biblical re$elation%

3otice a near synonym to :9:6 used of idols in Acts /G:= aears in 2ebre#s /:@ n7

8;:9:: 7 4?^7 Z:[ 7 C;7 :EF used to

describe the eternal glory of Christ% Idols cannot reresent 0od #hose true image is Christ%

The resurrection is 4esus aointment as the ;on of 0od inpower 7Rom% /:8% This

redemti$e historical e$ent as eschatological ser$es as clear roof to all men% The resurrection is

Christs glorification as his human nature enters an e'alted status 7Acts =:@=6@ @:/@ 5hil% =:6

// Col% /:/"/H 2eb% =: / 5et% /:=/ cf% also = Cor% :"8% 1et it is a dislay of the glory that

Christ had eternally #ith the Father 74ohn /G: /@:@/6@=8% In resurrecting and e'alting Christ to

glory" 0od the Father has re$ealed to all men 2is o#n true image" the one #ho is clearly the

eternal ;on of 0od manifest through the $ery clima' of redemti$e history% Truly Christ is the

glory of 0od is the $ery image of 0od" #ho is no# seen%

5luralism and ri$al images are ruled out recisely because now thee image of 0od has

aeared" the true ;on #ho is e'alted to ruling (udge% 0od has dislayed 2is glory in 2is ;on at

the e$ent of 2is death and 2is resurrection% -orshi of idols and ri$al deities as images of 0od

is no longer o$erloo+ed since the true image of 0od is clearly dislayed in the erson of Christ at

the e$ent of 2is resurrection% &f course" the resurrection has al#ays been essential to the

Christian roclamation that 4esus is 9ord 7Acts =:@8" our Christological monotheism%

1et 5aul does not aeal to the e$idences for the resurrection" rather the resurrection is

itself the roof% This e$ent is only roerly understood #ithin Biblical monotheism and 0ods

redemti$e historical re$elation% The glory of 0od is dislayed in the erson of the ;on at the

center of redemti$e history% 0ods image has been re$ealed in the resurrection of the ;on% ,In

Ta+ing our !ueue from Cal$in" #e use the resurrection as synecdochic of the #hole e$ent of cross" resurrection

and e'altation"(nstitutes o the Christian >eligion% II%'$i%/@% 4ohns gosel in articular laces the cross as the e$ent

of 4esus glorification%


27/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page 2=

calling Christ the Image of 0od" he 5aulE thus identifies Christs glory #ith that of 0od

himself%. 0od is clearly re$ealed in the resurrection% 3ot only is Christ the second Adam

e'alted o$er all in the resurrection" 2e is the eternal ;on of 0od re$ealed in the resurrection:

Thus Christs e'altation as the second Adam refers bac+ to the $ery beginning of

things" ma+es him +no#n as the one #ho from the $ery outset" in a much more

glorious sense than the first Adam" #as the Image of 0od and the Firstborn ofe$ery creature% ;o the fundamental structures and imlications of 5auls

eschatological reaching of Christ are e'osed to $ie#% The ne# creation that has

bro+en through #ith Christs resurrection ta+es the lace of the first creation

#hich Adam #as the reresentati$e% It is" ho#e$er" much more glorious than thefirst as the second man" both in $irtue of his origin and of his destiny" #as

suerior to first%G

-hile the argument in Acts /G:==6@/ does not contain a full6blo#n discussion of

Christology" Christ and the resurrection lays a i$otal role% &ur e'egesis has" ho#e$er"

suggested there is in this e$ent of 5auls reaching a deeer Christology than tyically

ac+no#ledged% -e ha$e attemted to sho# that 5aul could not sea+ of Christs e'altation to

(udge and Christs resurrection #ithout ha$ing the eternal glory of Christ far from $ie#%H

Furthermore" 5auls monotheistic argument is dri$en by eschatology #hich itself centers

on the erson and #or+ of Christ% There is no absence" e'clusion" denial or re(ection of a high

Christology in 5auls confrontation #ith luralism% Rather" #e ha$e #hat #e ha$e called a

Christological monotheism% Ridderbos is again insightful for ,it is characteristic of 5aul that he

sea+s of Christs di$ine ;onshi in no other #ay than in direct connection #ith his redemti$e

#or+%.Thus" resentation of the Christ6eschatology #e see in Acts /G" namely that Christ has

been aointed (udge and has been resurrected to ro$e it" oints us in the direction of 5auls

o#n high Christology albeit a Christology further articulated else#here in its fullness%

Ridderbos"*aul% G%GRidderbos"*aul% H6%HThis is also suorted #hen #e consider 5eters teaching in Acts =%Ridderbos"*aul% GG% 2e continues" ,2is #hole Christology rests uon the manner in #hich he has learned to

understand Christ in his cross and resurrection as the ;ent &ne of the Father. 7GG6H8%


28/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page 2?

3ot only does 5auls Christology distinguish 5aul from a 4e#ish monotheist both in

defining 0od and in defining already6not yet nature of the age to come" it oens the door for

further oortunities% 5auls discourse centering in monotheism and Christ6eschatology further

challenges both )icurean agnosticism and the denial of an afterlife since 0od has both re$ealed

2imself an"dislayed the coming resurrection life in Christ% 5aul is articulating some +ey oints

to the gosel #ith a foundation of Christological monotheism% -hile #e ha$e stressed Acts

/G:==6@/ does not articulate a full6blo#n discussion of Christs deity" uon closer e'amination

the concet of a Christological monotheism is unmista+ably rominent in 5auls reaching"

forming ground for his religious debate in Athens% In clima' to the narrati$e" some of the hearers

offered disute regarding the resurrection #hile others belie$ed% Acts /G:@ this belief occurs

after some as+ed to here more about #hat 5aul had said 7$%@=8%

5aul clearly articulates that there is one 0od in standard monotheistic olemic that

includes the +eys of creational monotheism and ro$idential monotheism% There may e$en be an

allusion to the category of co$enantal monotheism behind his assertions in $%= and @% -e

should be clear that 5auls oint is not that 0od has an e'clusi$e ne# co$enant relationshi #ith

only the 4e#ish eole/or that 0od has an all6inclusi$e relationshi #here all are sa$ed" as a

uni$ersalist might argue% The oint is that all are commanded to belie$e" from both 4e# and

0entile% From those #ho belie$er" the one 0od is ma+ing one eole #ho are in Christthe

eschatos Adam% As 5aul articulates else#here it is those #ho belie$e #ho are the sons of

Abraham" are in co$enant relationshi #ith 0od and are truly 0ods chosen eole as they are

in union #ith Christ%// The danger is that #e cannot misaly the co$enantal asects of

monotheism in Acts /G and thus fail to see that fulfillment 12-2s redemti$e historical

/As #e might see in 4e#ish monotheism of the time 7e%g% / Maccabees /"=8//Rom% @:=6@ 0al% @:G6"/"=%


29/33


rogram in$ol$es the inclusion of 0entiles into the one co$enantE eole of 0od 79u+e =:G

Acts =H:=H8% -hile in the &T" 0ods co$enant eole #as ethnically restricted" Israel as a nation

#as only the firstfruits of 0ods har$est of the nations 74er% =:@8" a har$est that has no# da#ned

in the inaugurated eschaton that is itself dri$ing 5auls reaching% /=The conclusion remains that

5auls argumentation and foundation for religious debate is a Christological monotheism% 5aul

mo$es through his argument by first gi$ing an aologetic for monotheism follo#ed by t#o

Christological oints #hich are else#here sho#n to be foundational for his theology and

roclamation% These Christological oints are deendant uon the in brea+ing of 0ods

eschatological self6re$elation in the history of redemtion%

-hile #e can discuss other 5auline assages on Christology and the nature of 0od" these

t#o assages are enough to sho# that ones understanding of 0od and Christ affects the #ay one

aroaches other religions" esecially in luralistic cultures% The fundamental Christian creed

that ,4esus is 9&RD. is not merely an abstraction of dogma but defines the #ay one engages the

culture% For 5aul" in / Cor% H:6 and Acts /G:==6@/ his understanding of a Christological

monotheism i%e that 4esus is 9&RDE informs his understanding of the nature of 0od" shaes his

ethical e'hortations to a church facing luralism" forces him to assert that other gods are nothing

and is foundational to his o#n engagement #ith the religions around him% The Christological

monotheism retains the battle6cry of &ld Testament monotheism #hile the cry is e'anded to

include the erson of 4esus Christ%

V. Christological Monotheism: ! "oundation for eligious #e$ate.

The nature of &ld Testament monotheism should be redisco$ered in our o#n setting% As

/=&f course" in any age it is only through faith that one is a true seed of Abraham% 2o#e$er" #e cannot minimi?e

the fact that in the &T this #as by and large Israelite restricti$e% )$en those non64e#s #ho came to faith #ere toembrace the ;inaitic co$enant and (oin the eole of 0od% Cf% Christoher -right"nowing Jesus%ch% / ,4esus and

the &ld Testament ;tory. #here he #rites for the &ld Testament time ,only in Israel did 0od #or+ #ithin the terms

of a co$enant of redemtionL. 7% @8%


30/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page &

discussed abo$e" monotheism #as a olemical doctrine% It asserted that any other gods are in

reality not gods% It is our contention that the contemorary Christian community must redisco$er

this aspect ofmonotheism as foundational for its understanding of 0od%

Today" the luralism #e face is not so much #hole antheons of other gods but other

#ays to god" #hich are deemed e!ually $alid% As 4ohn /: roclaims" this methodology is

contradictory to Christianity at a fundamental le$el% 1et many #ithin so6called e$angelicalism

#ould see+ to Corinthiani?e% Many today #ould e$en see+ to incororate asects agan

#orshi into our #orshi of the Triune Christian 0od% This is analogous to the ossible

Corinthian assertions that they +ne# the true god and thus eating idol meat #as fully accetable

since they did not really #orshi the non6e'istent idol gods% 2o#e$er" 5aul confronts and re(ects

this luralism and tolerance standing on a thoroughly monotheistic and Christological

foundation% Furthermore" 5auls aologetics #ith agan hilosohers resides on #holly Biblical"

monotheistic and Christological resuositions for argument and confrontation% -ithin our

Christian communities" #e must adat this Christological monotheism that forced 5aul to

affirm that any other god is not a god at all% -e must echo his statement and affirm that all other

gods or #ays to god are nothing% There can be only one 0od and one #ay to 0od% -e must

reco$er the #ar and #oof of monotheism so that it is not simly belie$ing that 0od is one but

it is the ground for our actions" articularly in aologetics and religious debate% Pltimately" this is

nothing ne# because Christianitys central confession has al#ays been 4esus is 9ord forming

the center of our doctrine" ethics" and religious confrontations%

This foundation should not lea$e us #ith a closed door to religious debate% Suite to the

contrary" #e must engage our culture% -e are called to reach Christ crucified in a sea of

religious luralism% 1et as 9uther !uestioned" ,Do you" I #onder" ta+e reaching Christ crucified


31/33


to be (ust a matter of calling out Christ #as crucified" and nothing more>. /@True reaching of

Christ crucified un!uestionably brings in other +ey doctrines% /-e cannot simly retend #e

are reaching Christ crucified because #e call eole to belie$e #hen #e ha$e not engaged"

!uestioned and ultimately sho#n all their current #orld$ie#s to be found #anting% -e cannot

retend #e ha$e reached Christ crucified #hen #e ha$e not roclaimed the monotheistic

confession 4esus is 9&RD" as if #e can accet the former #ithout the latter%

If #e reach the gosel as merely an otion" #e do not sho# it to be truth% 0od" 2imself"

commands that all eole reent since Christ is 9&RD% -e must be clear to incororate

monotheism" humanitys total dera$ity" the deity of Christ" the crucifi'ion" the resurrection and

the (udgment into our e$angelistic reaching and our religious debate" emhasi?ing certain

asects as the situation demands and deending uon the audiences familiarity #ith Christianity%

If #e limit the gosel to a roclamation that ta+es simly care of needs only on an in"ii"ualistic

leel #e ha$e not sho#n the full o#er of our glorious 0od nor ha$e #e distinguished it from

other religions that for the here6and6no# often aear as $iable roads to self6fulfillment% -hile

the gosel does change li$es" religious debate cannot center on e'erience% /-e must call men

to abandon their false gods for the Triune 0od of the Bible #ho has re$ealed 2imself in the

death and resurrection of the ;on of 0od" 4esus Christ" / Thes% /:6/I%

A Christological monotheism not only sets a firm boundary against comromising our

#orld$ie#" it ro$ides a launching oint for religious debate%/3umerous religions embrace a

/@ Martin 9uther" The Bon"age o the 6ill 7trans% 4%I% 5ac+er K &%R% 4ohnston 0rand Raids" Mi%: Fleming 2%

Re$ell" /G8" /H%/Ibid%" /G6H%/5roof can be mustered for and against all religions if the foundation for debate is e'erience% -e can say this#ithout denying that a Christian must li$e the lifestyle before a #atching #orld% A failure to do so can only hinder

our religious debate% At the same time" #e #ill not deny that many are often attracted to Christianity by the faithful

lifestyle of some of its dearest saints%/-hat I am suggesting is consistent #ith the Reformed understanding that 0od is essential foundation of all7principium essen"i8 and thus 2is re$elation is the ground of all +no#ledge 7principium cognoscen"i8% For theology

and aologetics" #e need the -ord of 0od 7principium cognoscen"i e7ternum8 and the internal #or+ of the 2oly

;irit 7principium cognoscen"i internum8% It #as ho#e$er beyond the scoe of the aer to ma+e these arguments% I


32/33


god or gods% A smaller amount of religions reach one god yet do not embrace Christ% ;till fe#er

religions aear to embrace Christ but they cannot embrace him as 9ord" 12-2% &ur modern

conte't of toleration see+s to illuminate debate and e!uali?e all religion in some form of a

lo#est common denominator%/GMichael 2orton succinctly #rites:

-hile olitical toleration is a benefit for democratic culture" 12-2 ran+sreligious luralism enemy number one in his stiulations for his co$enant eole"

as enshrined in the Decalogue% The sole lordshi of 12-2" as #e ha$e seen" is

the resuosition of biblical faith" and it is carried for#ard into fuller re$elation

of 12-2s identity as alied to 4esus ChristL0od is (ealous for his o#n nameand for the eole #ho call on his name and are called by his name% 0od #ill not

gi$e his glory to another%/H

VI. Conclusion.

-e ha$e e'amined monotheism from the &ld Testament% -e ha$e e'amined the

aroriation of monotheism and a Christological monotheism in t#o +ey laces in 5auls

thought as he confronts the luralism of his day% -e" too" must ha$e this same Christological

monotheism in our resent day% A Christological monotheism reaches 0od the Father" the

9ord 4esus Christ and the 2oly ;irit #ho are distinct ersons of the one 0od% It stands is star+

contrast to the monotheism of modern 4udaism and Islam% It re(ects Buddhism" 2induism" and

any other religion or hilosohy%

Pltimately" uon the consideration of the #hole of ;criture" Christianity is Trinitarian

and reaches the triune 0od of the Bible% Central to orthodo' Christianitys Trinitarian

confession is the statement that ,4esus Christ is 9ord". the Christological Monotheism

hoe it is e$ident to the reader that these asects of Reformed theology are grounded uon the ontological Trinity

and 2is self6condescension by the means of co$enant 7-CF G%/8% -e could argue that Reformed tradition has thenbest understood this recisely because it arises from monotheism and the Creator6creature distinction%/GPsually the e'istential acti$ity of faith itself" ho#e$er $aguely defined% This is of course anti6truth" anti60od"

anti6Christianity% Follo#ing 0ods authoritati$e -ord" Christianity has al#ays laced the utmost imortance in the

ob(ect of faith rather than the sub(ecti$e acti$ity of faith% -hile the latter is essential it is ne$ertheless meaningless#ithout the former%/H2orton"/or" an" Serant% @% In our ellisis" #e ha$e omitted 2ortons !uotations of 4ohn /: 5hiliians =:6

/ and Acts :/=%


33/33

Bertolet - Christological Monotheism- page

resented here% &nly a Christian can roclaim 4esus is 9ord%/ It forms a boundary both

ractically and theologically% 5roerly understood a Christological monotheism guards

Christian doctrine and shaes a Christian ethic%

A Christological monotheism dra#s a line in the sand in fighting luralism in the same

#ay &ld Testament monotheism oosed the $arious antheons% It ro$ides the latform needed

for religious debate" confrontation" and resistance% A failure to recogni?e the monotheistic

imlications and boundary mar+ers inherent #ithin this confession that 4esus is 9ord #ill

roduce and in many laces has roducedE disastrous conse!uences in subse!uent generations

#ithin the Christian community% Among other things" #e #ill beJare no longer a city set uon a

hill" a light to the nations" a +ingdom of riests rather #e #illJha$e become a eole li$ing in the

lains of ;odom and 0omorrah% Soli ,eo !loria%

// Cor% /=:@% -e could highlight the #or+ of the Trinity from other ;critures as the 2oly ;irit regenerates

bli f ith i f i th t 4 i 9 d i th h th F th h ll d t 2i lf

Date post:	01-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	budimir-buda-lazich
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Tim Bertolet - Christological Monotheism

Documents