For many years Biblical Trinitarian has served to regular post material related to theological and biblical studies. To those who regularly read this blog, I'm grateful to have given you some food for thought. As for the future of this blog, I will be directing new material to my personal website. For now, Biblical Trinitarian will remain as a resource for preexisting material but there will not be further new posts.
Grace,
Michael R. Burgos
Because of its Christological and anthropological
implications, subordinationists typically deny that the Son of God resurrected
himself. Instead, they appeal to NT passages that assert that the Father was alone
in bringing about the resurrection (e.g., Acts 2:24). John 2:18-22 has been a
classic locus for the orthodox contention that Jesus resurrected himself. That
is, not in isolation from the Father and the Holy Spirit. Rather, like creation
itself, the resurrection of Christ was a Triune work.
In John 2:19
Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John
noted that Jesus was metaphorically referring to the “temple of his body" (v. 21). The
verb translated “raise” is ἐγερῶ, the future active first person of ἐγείρω; a
term which is defined as “to wake.”[1]
Jesus uses this term metaphorically as a reference for his resurrection in conjunction
with λύω, a circumlocution for death. Three days after his interlocutors would
kill him, Jesus would raise the temple of his body. Here, Jesus explicitly claims
responsibility for his future resurrection.
Despite his
clarity, subordinationists insist that Jesus was not claiming responsibility
for his resurrection. A case in point is the comments made by Carlos Xavier: “
In John 2.19 Jesus did not say, “I will raise myself up.” The word
translated “raise” [egeiro] simply means to get up or to wake up. So when we
normally speak of someone waking up from sleep, we have no problem. But because
the context here has to do with the resurrection, many in the Jesus-is-God
movement have tried to use it as some sort of “proof text.” This view is
propagated by the Orthodox teaching of the immortal soul that clearly
contradicts the biblical view of the state of the dead as total inactivity in
the grave.[2]
Xavier recognizes the implications, at least in part, of Jesus’
claim. If Jesus raised himself, anthropological monism is necessarily untrue. Given
that the historic Christian faith has affirmed the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ
as one of its central tenets, Xavier’s quaint characterization (i.e., “the
Jesus-is-God movement”) is akin to calling the United States the “freedom
movement.” Unfortunately, Xavier has employed a common subordinationist tactic: obscuring Jesus’ statement by relegating it to the opaque veil of a figurative speech:
The fact is that the immediate language in John 2 is figurative
since Jesus was comparing his body with the temple and spoke of it in the third
person. The point is Jesus [sic] resurrection from the dead as a sign to
his unbelieving fellow Israelites, not how it would happen.”[3]
This is a betrayal of an explicit statement and a false dilemma.
Jesus’ statement indicates both that his resurrection would occur and that he
would bring it to pass. Xavier added:
Note that John
did not go on to say “So when Jesus raised himself from the dead” but “when he
was raised from the dead,” i.e., by God. This is typical resurrection language
for Jesus throughout the rest of the NT.[4]
Xavier has pitted
Jesus’ statement (i.e., “I will raise it”) against v. 22 (“he was raised from
the dead”), arguing that the aorist passive ἠγέρθη requires another actor,
namely God, to have accomplished the resurrection. However, because ἠγέρθη only
takes a prepositional object (i.e., “from the dead”) it is intransitive,
especially given its complement in v. 19.[5] The
grammatical passivity is owed not to a “divine passive” and the like,
but is active in meaning (cf. John 10:17).[6]
While it is common
for subordinationist writers such as Carlos Xavier to obscure the plain
statements of Scripture, their arguments, upon closer scrutiny, are bald eisegesis. Perhaps this is why the Jesus-is-not-God movement, in all of its iterations, remains a small fringe minority in comparison with the historic Christian
church.
[1] BDAG, 271.
[2] Carlos Xavier,
n.d. “Did Jesus Raise Himself From the Dead?,” The Human Messiah Jesus, http://thehumanjesus.org/2019/07/31/did-jesus-raise-himself-from-the-dead/.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] A. T. Robertson,
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research
(Nashville, TN: B & H, 1934), 817.
[6]
J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, The New International Commentary
on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2010), 168. Cf. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 38.
By means of several executive orders, my state (Connecticut) has required its citizens to wear masks whenever
they are closer than six feet from someone who is not in their family. The latest
order (7NNN)
requires those who have medical conditions that preclude mask-wearing to
produce documentation of such from a medical professional. The state justified
this order upon the basis of “the effectiveness of using masks or face
coverings in preventing the transmission of COVID-19.”
Several phenomena have arisen
simultaneously: Most retailers claim that all who enter must wear a mask due to
the government’s requirement and most have posted employees at entryways in
order to ensure compliance. Such a claim is, in fact, completely erroneous
since the government’s order does not require masks at all times in retailers
but instead only when one is within six feet of a non-family member. Admittedly,
if a private business requires masks from its customers, that is their prerogative.
Any that desire to do business there ought to abide by the owner’s stipulation or find
another business to patronize. However, to pin the blame for masks-at-all-times
on the state is a deceitful—as that is simply not what the state has required.
Additionally, many Christians have
argued at length upon the basis of a variety of biblical passages, that
compliance with this requirement is our Christian duty. The typical trope
argues that 1.) the Bible states that we are to obey the governing authorities
upon the basis of Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17 and 2.) in keeping with the apostle Paul’s teaching on Christian liberty in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, we
ought to wear masks since we might offend a weaker brother. Both of these
claims suffer from an invalid application of the relevant biblical texts.
However, prior to addressing these, let us consider the state’s justification
for it's order.
Masks & Facts
Do masks prevent the transmission
of COVID-19? One might assume as much given the constant barrage of mask
exhortations from virtually every media outlet, politician, and even many
churchmen. The evidence tells another story. A 2009 study that evaluated mask
use with regard to H1N1 influenza concluded, “There is little evidence to
support the effectiveness of face masks to reduce the risk of infection.”[1] Another 2009 study
concluded, “Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to
provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.”[2] A 2015 study concluded
that the “penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical
masks 44%.”[3]
Further, researchers found that the use of cloth masks may increase one’s risk
of infection: “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may
result in increased risk of infection.”[4] A 2016 study determined
that there is “insufficient data” to show that even N95 respirators prevent
respiratory infections.[5] A 2019 study showed that “N95
respirators vs medical masks…resulted in no significant difference in the
incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”[6] A study completed in February
of 2020 concluded “The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is
not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”[7]
But wait! Wasn’t there a study just published in July that claimed the opposite, namely, that universal masking leads to a lower infection rate?[8] The Wall Street Journal and other news sources pounced on this study in order to demonstrate the legitimacy of mask mandates. The study, which focused upon front line health care workers, attributes masks to a lower infection rate but then notes that this “could be confounded by other interventions inside and outside of the health care system.” That is, the lower infection rate may be due to other factors (e.g., interventions such as hand washing, social distancing, etc.). The point here is that there is no evidence that masks preclude the transmission of COVID-19. Rather, the best the state and others can point to is research that observes correlation and not causation. Add to this sordid state of affairs the statistical probability of healthy people suffering from a debilitating case of COVID-19: People under 65 years of age make up only 2.6 % of COVID-19 fatalities.[9] As one immunologist put it, “Those young and healthy people who currently walk around with a mask on their faces would be better off wearing a helmet instead, because the risk of something falling on their head is greater than that of getting a serious case of Covid-19.”[10]
Masks & Obedience to Authority
Does Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2 require Christians to obey the government at all times? Clearly, that isn’t the case since Peter and John demonstrate that there are times when obedience to the state is immoral (Acts 4:19-20). Imagine for a moment that the state mandated that the entire citizenry wear masks in their homes at all times. Would we object to such a requirement? Rather, ought we object to such a requirement? Of course. On what grounds? The state does not have the authority to mandate what we do in our homes.
I hear many voices cry out, “Wait, aren’t
we supposed to abide by Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2?” Certainly, as the highest
authority in our land is the constitution and it is that document that precludes the state from infringing on our personal liberty. Mandating that we
wear masks in our homes or in our churches is an infringement upon liberty as
the state does not have the authority to do so. For that reason, our Romans 13
and 1 Peter 2 duty is to uphold the authority of our land (i.e., the constitution)
and to reject the tyranny of the state. Furthermore, Romans 13, despite the assumption of
many to the contrary, is a prescription of what the state ought to do and not a
description of what the state was in Paul’s day or our own.
Lest you think that I’ve gone off
the rails and into some libertarian quagmire, consider an analogous situation
in the church. Say your local board of elders begins to mandate that everyone
believe that Jesus wasn’t really born of a virgin and that the celebration of Christmas is wrong. Meanwhile, the Bible
explicitly states that Christians ought to obey their elders and submit to
their authority. Ought we believe wrong things merely because the elders told
us to? Certainly not. Rather, a higher authority prohibits
our obedience to the elders in this specific area. Moreover, the elders derive
their authority from the Scriptures. Similarly, when a governor is elected into
office, he places his hand upon a Bible and swears to uphold and defend the
constitution. Like elders, his authority is derivative and dependent upon a
higher authority. Whereas we ought to disobey our elders when they go against
the Bible, we also ought to disobey the governor when he acts like a tyrant and treats the constitution as if it doesn't exist.
This ethos is what our nation is built upon.
Masks & Christian Liberty
In 1 Corinthians 8, the apostle taught
that Christians may exercise their liberty to engage in non-sinful activity so
as long as this exercise does not confound the conscience of a brother. The
example provided in that passage is that of meat offered to idols. While new
believers, having come out of paganism, may associate that meat with what they
left behind for Christ, other Christians viewed idols and paganism as
illegitimate and essentially fake (i.e., “An idol has no real existence” in v.
4) and thus looked at this meat as a mere meal. Paul concluded this scenario by
asserting that we ought to curtail our liberty if it may lead to wounding the conscience of a weaker brother (v. 12).
Are masks a legitimate application
of this principle? Note first that the meat in question was associated with idolatry.
Masks are not associated with idolatry nor any sin in particular. Second, the weak
conscience of the immature brother in 1 Corinthians 8 was due to his new faith
and background in paganism. Those who might be offended at resistance to mask
mandates don’t have a background that associates non-mask-wearing with sinful
behavior and their offense is not due to a recent conversion. Rather, the
likely reason for people to become offended at non-mask-wearers is fear.
These folks fear that if everyone doesn’t wear a mask, they too will become
sick and possibly die. Not only is that fear misguided, it is predicated upon a
worldview that places life and death in the hands of men. Christian liberty isn’t
the issue and thus the application of 1 Corinthians 8 to masks is unwise at
best.
[1] B. J. Chowling, Y. Zhou et al,
12/16/2009, “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic
review,” Epidemiology
and Infection.
[2] Jacobs JL, Ohde S, Takahashi O, et
al, 02/12/2009, “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the
common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial,”
Am J Infect Control.
[3] C Raina MacIntyre, Holly Seale et
al, 04/22/2015, “A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with
medical masks in healthcare workers,” BMJ
Open.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Jeffrey D. Smith, Colin C.
MacDougall et al, 05/17/2016, “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical
masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a
systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ.
[6] Lewis J. Radonovich Jr, Michael S.
Simberkoff et al, 09/03/2019, “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing
Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA.
[7] Youlin Long, Tengyue Hu et al, 02/03/2020,
“Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks againstinfluenza: A
systematic review and meta-analysis,” Wiley.