Restoring Apostolic Faith

What This Argument Is — and What It Is Not

If the previous post unsettled you, that reaction is understandable.

For many Christians, language about Jesus has been framed almost entirely by later doctrinal debates. Questions of who Jesus is are often assumed to precede every other concern, and any attempt to begin elsewhere can feel destabilizing.

This follow-up exists for clarity—not retreat.

Let us be explicit.

What This Argument Is Not Saying

1. This is not a denial of Christ’s divinity

Nothing in the previous argument denies Christ’s divinity, preexistence, or uniqueness. It does not claim Jesus “became God,” nor does it suggest He was merely human until exaltation.

What it insists upon is something more modest—and more textual:

Scripture introduces Jesus through mission and authority before it invites philosophical reflection.

This is a matter of narrative order, not doctrinal denial.

2. This is not Adoptionism in disguise

Adoptionism argues that Jesus was a mere man who later became divine.

That is not the claim here.

The New Testament does not describe Jesus acquiring identity through obedience, but receiving public authority and cosmic recognition through faithfulness.

Exaltation language answers the question “Who rules now?”, not “Who has Jesus always been?”

Those are different categories, and Scripture keeps them distinct.

3. This is not an argument against later creeds

The Nicene and post-Nicene formulations were attempting to safeguard truths Scripture already proclaimed—especially in response to real distortions.

This argument does not deny that effort.

It simply notes that Scripture itself does not begin where later theology eventually landed.

Creeds aim to protect meaning.

Scripture aims to form allegiance.

Those are related, but not identical, tasks.

What This Argument Is Saying

1. Scripture trains recognition before explanation

The Gospels do not ask readers to solve metaphysical puzzles about Jesus.

They ask readers to:

• Listen to Him

• Follow Him

• Obey Him

• Recognize whose authority He bears

Only later—often much later—does reflection deepen into philosophical articulation.

This is not an accident.

It is pedagogy.

2. Authority is the Bible’s native category

Second Temple Judaism already possessed a well-developed framework for agency:

• God sends

• God authorizes

• God acts through representatives

• God remains the source

Jesus steps into this framework—not as one agent among many, but as the one in whom the pattern reaches its climax.

Understanding that framework does not reduce Jesus.

It prevents misunderstanding Him.

3. Exaltation answers a covenantal question

When Scripture proclaims Jesus as Lord, it is answering a pressing, real-world question:

Who now carries God’s authority over Israel and the nations?

That is why:

• Confession precedes creed

• Allegiance precedes ontology

• Worship precedes metaphysics

Not because ontology is irrelevant—but because Scripture is forming a people, not a lecture hall.

Why Starting Place Matters

When modern readers start with ontological conclusions and then read Scripture backward through them, subtle distortions occur:

• Agency language gets flattened

• Obedience becomes performative rather than meaningful

• Exaltation is treated as symbolic rather than consequential

• Jesus’ faithfulness is reduced to a foregone conclusion

But Scripture insists that obedience mattered.

That authority was given.

That allegiance truly shifted.

Those claims lose weight when we rush past them.

Holding the Full Picture Together

Beginning with authority does not end the conversation—it anchors it.

Once Scripture’s categories are honored, theological reflection can and does move forward responsibly. The church did not err in asking later questions.

The risk lies in forgetting which questions Scripture asked first.

If we restore that order, we do not weaken doctrine.

We strengthen formation.

Why This Framing Is Worth the Discomfort

The earliest Christians did not confess Jesus because they had resolved ontological complexity.

They confessed Him because:

• God had acted

• Authority had shifted

• Allegiance was required

That confession reshaped lives, loyalties, and communities long before it reshaped philosophical vocabulary.

Recovering that sequence does not undo orthodoxy.

It helps us understand why it mattered in the first place.

Where We Go Next

Future work will explore:

• How early Jewish-Christian confession functioned before creeds

• Why agency language remained dominant well into the second century

• How Trinitarian theology emerged rather than appeared fully formed

• And what modern Christianity gains by recovering Scripture’s pedagogical order

For now, this clarification will suffice:

Beginning with authority is not an evasion of truth.

It is obedience to Scripture’s own way of teaching us how to see Jesus.

And in Scripture, seeing rightly always comes before defining precisely.