Agency Christology Nullified by Divine Prerogatives

The Categorical Error of Agency Reduction

The Central ThesisThe Shaliach framework collapses when the agent receives worship reserved exclusively for YHWH and claims prerogatives belonging to the divine nature alone.

The Unitarian appeal to shaliach (Jewish legal agency) attempts to reduce Jesus to a representative empowered by divine delegation. This framework operates under the principle that "a man's agent is as the man himself"—the agent functions with full authority of the sender but remains ontologically distinct. Applied to Christology, this would mean Jesus exercises divine authority as God's commissioned representative without possessing divine nature. Three textual realities destroy this model:

• The shaliach concept permits delegated authority but explicitly forbids the agent receiving honors proper to the sender alone—no Jewish agent could accept worship (proskuneo) directed toward YHWH without idolatry.
• Jesus repeatedly accepts proskuneo (Matthew 28:9, John 9:38, Hebrews 1:6) and nowhere corrects those who render it, unlike Peter (Acts 10:25-26) and angels (Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9) who violently refuse such worship.
• The New Testament restricts proskuneo to YHWH in monotheistic contexts (Matthew 4:10 quoting Deuteronomy 6:13), yet commands angels to render proskuneo to the Son (Hebrews 1:6), demonstrating ontological equality, not mere agency.

An agent who accepts worship violates the foundational principle of agency by arrogating honors reserved for the principal. Jesus' acceptance of proskuneo without rebuke proves He operates from divine essence, not delegated authority.

The Ego EimiGreek ἐγώ εἰμι—'I am'; absolute usage mirrors LXX rendering of YHWH's self-designation in Isaiah 40-48 Statements and Ontological Identity

The Central ThesisThe absolute use of ego eimi in John's Gospel directly echoes the LXX rendering of YHWH's self-disclosure, claiming divine identity rather than prophetic commission.

Unitarians argue that ego eimi ("I am") functions merely as self-identification in Greek, equivalent to "I am he [the Messiah]" rather than claiming YHWH's name. This reading fails on linguistic, contextual, and reactionary grounds:

• While ego eimi can function as simple identification, its absolute usage (without predicate) in John 8:24, 8:58, 13:19, and 18:5-6 mirrors the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 43:10, 46:4, 48:12, where YHWH declares "that you may know and believe that ego eimi".
• John 8:58 uses present tense eimi ("I am") in deliberate contrast to genesthai ("came into being") for Abraham, establishing pre-temporal existence—no mere agent or prophet claims existence before Abraham without asserting preexistence in divine being.
• The Jewish audience's immediate attempt to stone Jesus for blasphemy (John 8:59) and the soldiers falling backward at Jesus' utterance of ego eimi in John 18:6 demonstrate they understood the claim as divine self-identification, not prophetic agency.

The contextual parallels to Isaiah's ego eimi formula, the grammatical structure asserting pre-existence, and the violent reaction of witnesses all converge on one reading: Jesus claimed the incommunicable name and nature of YHWH. Agency theology cannot account for this without charging Jesus with blasphemy.

Thomas' Confession and the Climax of Johannine Christology

The Central ThesisJohn 20:28 functions as the theological apex of the Fourth Gospel, vindicating Jesus' prior claims by attributing to Him both Lordship and deity without correction.

Unitarian exegesis proposes two escape routes from Thomas' "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28): either "God" refers to the Father working through Jesus, or "god" is used in a diminished sense for an empowered human. Both readings collapse under literary and theological analysis:

• The Gospel of John opens with "the Word was God" (theos en ho logos, John 1:1) and climaxes with Thomas' ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou—the inclusio structure frames the entire narrative as demonstrating Jesus' divine identity.
• Jesus does not correct Thomas but instead pronounces blessing on those who believe without seeing (John 20:29), affirming the confession as true faith rather than rebuking it as idolatry—compare His response to Peter's confession (Matthew 16:17) versus His rebuke of Satan (Matthew 4:10).
• John 14:1 records Jesus commanding "believe in God, believe also in me"—the parallel structure places faith in Jesus alongside faith in God, not as subordinate agent but as co-equal object of salvific trust, which Thomas finally recognizes.

Thomas' confession is the interpretive key to the Gospel's Christology. The author presents it without qualification or correction, identifying Jesus as both kyrios (Lord, the LXX title for YHWH) and theos (God). No Jewish agent could receive this dual ascription without theological violence to monotheism unless ontologically divine.

MorpheGreek μορφή—essential nature or form; denotes intrinsic ontological reality, not mere appearance Theou and Pre-Incarnate Equality

The Central ThesisPhilippians 2:6 identifies Christ as existing in the morphe of God, denoting essential divine nature that cannot be predicated of a created agent.

The phrase en morphe theou hyparchon (Philippians 2:6) has been subject to agency reinterpretation, suggesting Jesus possessed divine "form" in a representational rather than ontological sense. Lexical and contextual evidence refutes this diminishment:

• MorpheGreek μορφή—essential nature or form; denotes intrinsic ontological reality, not mere appearance denotes essential nature or intrinsic form, not external appearance—Paul uses it antithetically with morphe doulou ("form of a servant"), requiring consistent meaning in both phrases: if Jesus took the essential nature of a servant, He possessed the essential nature of God.
• The text states Christ "did not consider equality with God (to einai isa theo) something to be grasped," presupposing He already possessed equality—this is concessive ("although He was equal") not conditional ("in order to become equal"), eliminating any progression from non-deity to deity.
• The parallelism "being in the form of God" and "being equal with God" are conceptually synonymous, confirmed by the grammatical structure linking morphe theou directly with isa theo—no created agent can claim ontological equality (isa) with YHWH without theological absurdity.

The Philippian hymn presumes Christ's pre-incarnate existence in divine essence, not merely divine function. The shaliach model cannot accommodate a representative who intrinsically possesses morphe theou and equality with God—these are predicates of nature, not delegation.