My response to a rebuttal article by trini apologist Michael Burgos: https://www.biblicaltrinitarian.com/2021/03/michael-r.html
(I debated Michael earlier this year: )
That the Greek verb ἠγέρθη is the same in meaning and form in John 2.22 is the general consensus amongst trini scholars and translators.
The late Larry Hurtado on his blog wrote:
“Jesus’ resurrection is rather consistently an act of God.
E.g., even in John 2:19-22 (always read the context) though Jesus is portrayed (by John) in 2:19 as “raising” the “temple” (his body), in 2:22 note the passive verb form, “when he was raised” (by God).”
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018/03/23/jesus-resurrection-act-of-god/
There's also this online article by Greek scholar Bill Mounce who concludes that:
“It is of the utmost theological importance to see that God the Father raised Jesus" from the dead.
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/is-he-is-risen-passive-matt-286-mondays-with-mounce-273
Lastly, note the usage of the same Greek verb in other places like Mat 28.6. For example, the NET Bible (edited by Daniel Wallace) says:
“The verb here is passive (ἠγέρθη).
This “divine passive” (see ExSyn 437-38) points to the fact that Jesus was raised by God.”
These are just some of the many examples I could cite which fall in line with the standard NT use of the passive construction, egerthe, rather than the active voice, aneste, which John could have readily used here.
But the bottom line remains the bible's overall teaching of the state of the dead as total inactivity in the grave, as I stated in my article.
And of God or the Father being the sole “actor” in the resurrection of Jesus.
PS although I know you said in our debate that you do not use the 2 natures of Jesus to explain certain texts (e.g., Mar 13:32), the historic trini position you defend does.
As a result, they would never claim that the human nature (represented by the name "Jesus" or title "Christ") was in any way involved in the ressurection.
PSS re: the moniker you gave me of “Subordinationist,” the church historian and trini scholar Kevin Giles in his book (The Eternal Generation of the Son) provides the following list:
“Church Fathers”
(I debated Michael earlier this year: )
That the Greek verb ἠγέρθη is the same in meaning and form in John 2.22 is the general consensus amongst trini scholars and translators.
The late Larry Hurtado on his blog wrote:
“Jesus’ resurrection is rather consistently an act of God.
E.g., even in John 2:19-22 (always read the context) though Jesus is portrayed (by John) in 2:19 as “raising” the “temple” (his body), in 2:22 note the passive verb form, “when he was raised” (by God).”
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018/03/23/jesus-resurrection-act-of-god/
There's also this online article by Greek scholar Bill Mounce who concludes that:
“It is of the utmost theological importance to see that God the Father raised Jesus" from the dead.
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/is-he-is-risen-passive-matt-286-mondays-with-mounce-273
Lastly, note the usage of the same Greek verb in other places like Mat 28.6. For example, the NET Bible (edited by Daniel Wallace) says:
“The verb here is passive (ἠγέρθη).
This “divine passive” (see ExSyn 437-38) points to the fact that Jesus was raised by God.”
These are just some of the many examples I could cite which fall in line with the standard NT use of the passive construction, egerthe, rather than the active voice, aneste, which John could have readily used here.
But the bottom line remains the bible's overall teaching of the state of the dead as total inactivity in the grave, as I stated in my article.
And of God or the Father being the sole “actor” in the resurrection of Jesus.
PS although I know you said in our debate that you do not use the 2 natures of Jesus to explain certain texts (e.g., Mar 13:32), the historic trini position you defend does.
As a result, they would never claim that the human nature (represented by the name "Jesus" or title "Christ") was in any way involved in the ressurection.
PSS re: the moniker you gave me of “Subordinationist,” the church historian and trini scholar Kevin Giles in his book (The Eternal Generation of the Son) provides the following list:
“Church Fathers”
- Irenaeus, Ag. Her. 3.6 “The Father is the only God and Lord who alone is God and ruler of all.”
- Justin Martyr, Dial. Trypho 13.3. The Son is the “second God” worshiped “in secondary rank.”
- Tertullian, Ag. Prax. 7.15. The Son “second to the Father”; the Spirit “third from God.”
- Clement, First Letter Corinthians 42.1-2 “Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ: thus both came in proper order by the will of God."
- Origen, Cont. Cel. 5.9. The Son is “secondary in rank” and the Spirit “third rank.”
- Bishop George Bull, Defenso Fidei Nicaenae: The Son “in respect to his divinity, is a degree subordinate to the Father, insomuch as he is from him.”
- Bishop John Pearson, Exposition of the Creed: “The Father is greater (than the Son).”
- Samuel Clarke, The Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity: The Son “is evidently subordinate to the Father, that he derives his being, attributes, and powers, from the Father, and the Father nothing from him.”
- Presbyterian Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology 1:467. The Trinity summed up by “three essential facts: unity of essence, distinction in persons and subordination.”
