Trinitarians do not propose that the Logos/God the Son is the same person as the Father or the holy spirit (Holy Spirit): the doctrine of the Trinity is often interpreted in this way by friend and foe alike. But the church creeds make it clear that the divine "persons" should not be confounded, nor should the divine substance be divided.
So when Daniel B. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) asserts that the Logos "shared the essence [nature] of the Father," (based on John 1:1c) he means that the Son is fully God as the Father is fully God, but they're not the same person. Augustine of Hippo discusses this very point in his work De Trinitate.
To word matters another way, Wallace is claiming that the Logos has all of the properties that pertain to Deity; the Word is supposedly Omnipotent, Omniscient, Impassible, Infinite, in short, he is reputedly everything that systematic theologians believe God the Father is. Thus, they claim that the Logos is fully God in this sense, according to John 1:1c. Wallace therefore does not mean what the "person on the street" possibly means when he/she wields the term "essence." Please consult Dana and Mantey for similar language regarding Jn 1:1c.
On the other hand, it appears highly problematic to aver that the Son has every property (P) that the Father does. If the Son and Father share/are the same nature and have every divine property in common, then how could we tell them apart?
Trinitarians obviously appeal to concepts like eternal filiation, eternal spiration or to unbegottenness in the case of the Father, to obviate modalism. However, we must ask whether eternal filiation or spiration are satisfactory approaches and are they scriptural? Moreover, these views evidently presuppose a Platonic schema when it comes to time and divine begettal. However, does not Plato's schema have some logical difficulties?
Charles Ryrie once wrote about the eternal generation doctrine:
“I agree with Buswell (A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, pp. 105-12) that generation is not an exegetically based doctrine. The concept it tries to convey, however, is not unscriptural, and certainly the doctrine of sonship is scriptural. The phrase 'eternal generation' is simply an attempt to describe the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity
and, by using the word 'eternal,' protect it from any idea of inequality or temporality. But whether or not one chooses to use the idea of eternal generation, the personal and eternal and coequal relation of the Father and Son must be affirmed.”
Trinitarian Spiros Zodhiates criticizes the eternal generation doctrine because he thinks it is not taught in the Bible. There's also the question of whether eternal generation or spiration strictly conform to the principles of logic: John Feinberg thoroughly examines the (potential) logical merits or demerits of these notions in No One Like Him.
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
What Does It Mean to Say That the Logos/Word Shares the Father's "Essence"? (Wallace and John 1:1c)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
This post reminds me of this from the Catholic Encyclopedia online:
"The theory of relations also indicates the solution to the difficulty now most frequently proposed by anti-Trinitarians. It is urged that since there are Three Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. Neither person nor mind is self-consciousness; though a person must needs possess self-consciousness, and consciousness attests the existence of mind (see PERSONALITY)."
Separated for the sake of emphasis:
"Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence. It is impossible to establish that, in regard of the infinite mind, such a supposition involves a contradiction."
See: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#I
Upon reading that entry so many years ago, the first thought that entered my mind was how this description seems to present God as a sort of divine Sybil Dorsett, except that God's multiple personalities wouldn't be the result of a disorder. The second thought that entered my mind was a question: How long ago had the writer of that entry lost his Bible?
When one brings this concept of God into the discussion about "eternal generation" then one is compelled to ponder what it would even mean for something like a personality to beget something like another personality at all, much less eternally. I trust that no one knows, though folks who are obsessed with the post-apostolic doctrine don't seem to tire of such fruitless, unbiblical contemplations.
Wallace also admits ( unlike some) that the Logos was seen as an “instrument” or had a more “hands on” role in creation while the father is the creator.
Origen says similar and also says “the unbegotten God commanded the firstborn of all creation” ( paraphrase)
Justin makes a distinction aswell says Logos was something Besides the maker of all things ( I don’t think Justin meant to include Logos as the creator)
“ Wallace therefore does not mean what the "person on the street" possibly means when he/she wields the term "essence." ” - wouldn’t put essense be “flesh”? Do we not all “share” in that essense?
John 4:24 - God is a spirit… angels are also spirits - there is divinity but no levels too it as Origen calls angels divine ( hence gods)
Sean, thanks and please see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/01/brief-comment-on-divine-intraproduction.html
When I first started to investigate Trinitarianism in earnest, one of the first books I read was by Owen Thomas, a systematic theologian, who was Episcopalian (I think). He stated that the whole one consciousness versus three in the "Godhead" debate was still ongoing. From what I've seen in recent years, Trinitarians are still debating it, but if the belief cannot be falsified (or verified?), then I guess Trinitarians are ultimately claiming that the case is closed.
Anonymous, what you say about human/spirit nature (essence) is true, but I've found that the term can be "cloudy" for those who have not waded into the den of theologians. Essence in the case of the Logos, Wallace and others claim, makes the Logos totally on par with the Father with the exception that the Logos is not the same "hypostasis" or person/relation.
There are many idea's I've heard about what the "essence" is, some (like the Barthans) say there is no essence outside of the relations of Father Son and Spirit, you have the Russian orthodox concept of the divine Sophia. Then you have propositional models like the divine attributes. I find it somewhat bizzare that the doctrine of the trinity is the line between orthodoxy and heresy, yet it's only a linguistic doctrine, it's conceptual content is up for grabs ... I mean if Karl Rahner, Bruce McCormack, William Lane Craig, Jorgen Multmann, and so on and so forth are all "orthodox" trinitarians, it seems all that matters is you say the words.
The critique that if the Son shares the Father’s essence, they would be indistinguishable, misunderstands the doctrine of the Trinity and the nature of "essence." Trinitarians affirm that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine essence (ousia), meaning they all possess the attributes that define God (such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.), but they are distinct persons (hypostases) within that single essence. This is central to avoiding both modalism (where God is viewed as a single person manifesting in different roles) and tritheism (the belief in three separate gods).
The claim that sharing the same essence makes the Father and Son indistinguishable is incorrect. What differentiates them are the personal distinctions: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and in the Western tradition, the Son). These personal properties allow for relational distinction within the Godhead without dividing the essence.
The objection to the doctrine of eternal generation (the Son’s eternal begottenness) questions whether it has scriptural or logical merit. While it's true that eternal generation isn't explicitly described in Scripture using modern terminology, it reflects the biblical portrayal of the Father-Son relationship. For instance, John 1:14 and John 1:18 refer to the Son as “begotten” or “the only begotten” (monogenēs), a concept tied to the Father-Son dynamic. Early church theologians interpreted these texts as pointing to the eternal relationship between the Father and Son, not one bound by time or temporality.
Trinitarian theology uses this concept to maintain both the Son’s distinct personhood and his full divinity. The idea of eternal generation avoids subordinating the Son temporally or ontologically, ensuring that the Son is not "less divine" but eternally God in unity with the Father.
It is claimed that concepts like eternal filiation or spiration (the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit) presuppose a Platonic view of time and causality. However, these are theological categories developed within the context of biblical revelation, not mere appropriations of Platonic thought. While early Christian theologians, such as Augustine, may have engaged with Platonic categories, their doctrine of eternal generation is rooted in biblical exegesis and theological necessity rather than dependence on Greek philosophy.
Plato’s schema of time and eternity provided a philosophical framework for articulating divine mysteries, but it does not fully define or dictate Christian theological constructs. Christian theology distinguishes between appropriating helpful philosophical concepts and subjecting divine revelation to philosophical systems. The notion of eternal generation reflects an attempt to articulate the timeless, eternal relationship within the Godhead, grounded in Scripture, not in Greek metaphysical assumptions.
The claim that three persons necessarily imply three separate self-consciousnesses misunderstands the Church's teaching. In God, there is one divine mind and consciousness, but within that, there are three persons who are distinguished by their relations (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). These relations do not divide God's nature but express how the three persons relate to one another within one essence.
This is not a "divine Sybil Dorsett" (a reference to Dissociative Identity Disorder) but a profound mystery in which God's unity is preserved, and distinctions within the Godhead do not imply multiple beings. While human analogies fail to fully capture this mystery, the Church holds that one divine intellect and will exists in three persons without contradiction.
The question of what it means for one person to "beget" another eternally reflects confusion about eternal relations within the Godhead. The term begetting in the case of the Son is not to be understood in a temporal or physical sense, but as an eternal relationship. Just as God’s nature is timeless, so too is the Father’s generation of the Son. This relationship does not imply subordination or creation in time but describes the eternal relation of origin within the divine essence.
Scripturally, John 1:1 and John 1:14 refer to the Son as being "begotten of the Father," but these passages emphasize the Son’s eternal relationship with the Father, not a division in God’s being. The term "begotten" is theological language expressing the uniqueness of the Son within the Godhead, eternally generated but co-eternal and co-equal with the Father.
The critique asserts that the doctrine of eternal generation or the Trinity is a "post-apostolic" invention, detached from the Bible. However, the concept of the Trinity is deeply rooted in Scripture, developed through reflection on biblical passages like Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, and John 14:26. The early Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Augustine, defended these doctrines against heresies like Arianism, which denied the full divinity of Christ. Far from being a post-apostolic innovation, the doctrine of the Trinity preserves the biblical teaching that God is one in essence but exists eternally in three distinct persons.
Biblically, John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, and Philippians 2:6 provide a strong foundation for the understanding that Christ shares fully in the divine essence. John 1:1c does not present Christ as a lesser god but as fully divine, participating in the same essence as the Father. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) affirmed this understanding based on scriptural exegesis, particularly to counter Arian claims that Jesus was a created being.
The assertion that Wallace or Origen diminishes the role of the Logos (the Word) to merely an "instrument" in creation misinterprets their theology. While the Father is often seen as the "source" of creation, the Logos is not merely a passive tool. In John 1:3, we see that "all things were made through him, and without him, nothing was made that has been made." This affirms that the Logos had an active role in creation, not as an inferior entity but as fully divine, participating in the act of creation alongside the Father. The use of the term "through" does not imply a mere instrumental role but highlights a cooperative divine agency.
Origen did indeed use terms like "divine" to refer to angels, but this is vastly different from the divinity of the Logos. When Origen or others speak of angels as "divine," they use the term in a qualitative sense, meaning that angels have a share in God’s goodness or are spiritual beings, not that they possess the same essence as God. The Logos, however, shares the Father's essence, which is fundamentally different from the nature of angels. The Son’s divine nature is identical to that of the Father, whereas angels are created beings with limited power and knowledge.
The confusion about "essence" in Trinitarian doctrine arises because the concept of essence refers to the nature or substance of God, which is singular and undivided among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The term "hypostasis" or "person" is used to describe the distinct relationships between the Father, Son, and Spirit within that one divine essence. So, while the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons, they all share the same divine essence, meaning they are equally omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal. Wallace's argument, based on classical Christian teaching, asserts that the Logos shares this divine essence fully, without confusion or division, but remains a distinct person.
The claim that humans and spirits all "share the same essence" conflates categories. Humans share a created nature, but God’s essence is uncreated, eternal, and completely unique. The Logos' sharing of the Father's essence means that the Logos possesses the same divine attributes (such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence), which are not shared by creatures—whether human or angelic.
It is true that theological discussion about the Trinity has included diverse opinions (such as the views of Karl Rahner or William Lane Craig), but these differences typically focus on how to express the mystery of the Trinity, not on the core doctrine itself. The essential Christian belief in the Trinity (one God in three persons) has remained constant since the early Church. The diversity of explanations shows the richness of theological reflection, but it does not imply that the doctrine is merely "linguistic" or "up for grabs."
Nincsnevem, did anyone make the claim that the Son's begettal is understood by Trinitarians to be spatial or temporal? When I use begettal in this context, I realize what you guys mean. I am not saying that you're acing the Son in time or space by teaching the eternal generation.
"...their doctrine of eternal generation is rooted in biblical exegesis..."
Examples, please.
"...The notion of eternal generation reflects an attempt to articulate the timeless, eternal relationship within the Godhead, grounded in Scripture, not in Greek metaphysical assumptions."
The term "Godhead" is not in the Biblical text, neither is the timeless, eternal relationship you speak of. Isn't use of the term in and of itself a presupposition?
"This relationship does not imply subordination or creation in time..."
Yes it does.
Can you provide a Biblical example where a father is equal to his son in age, power, authority, etc?
I think the differences in trinitarian theories are more fundamental, I mean Karl Rahner's trinity and William Lane Craig's trinity are not just two expressions of the same concept, they are entirely distinct concepts.
When it comes to Origen, I'm sorry but I have to disagree, for Origen the Angels were divine in the same manner, although not to the same degree, that the Son was, and all are divine through participation, in the Father, the son directly, the lower gods indirectly.
Nincsnevem, btw, do you agree with Rahner's maxim that the economic trinity is the immanent trinity?
@Edgar Foster
Trinitarians, when discussing the eternal generation of the Son, are not claiming that it happens in time or space. The term "begettal" is used analogically to express the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Son's generation is considered eternal, meaning it occurs outside of time, and does not imply a point of origin within time or space. This concept preserves the Son’s co-eternity with the Father.
Thus, eternal generation speaks to the relational distinction between the Father and the Son without suggesting a beginning or subordination in essence. This is foundational to the doctrine of the Trinity, ensuring that the Son is eternally begotten, not created "ex nihilo" in time, and is fully divine in the same way as the Father.
@Terence
The doctrine of eternal generation is indeed rooted in biblical exegesis, with examples often drawn from John 1:18 ("the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father"), Hebrews 1:3 (the Son as the "radiance of God’s glory"), and Proverbs 8:22-25, which the early Church Fathers interpreted as referring to the Son’s eternal generation from the Father. These passages emphasize the intimate, eternal relationship between Father and Son without suggesting temporal beginning.
I would also mention John 1:1, according to which the Logos already existed "in the beginning" (hence not created, came into existence in the beginning), or Hebrews 1:2, from which it was revealed that the Son came into being "aions" too, so there could not have been an "aion", a time when the Son did not exist. That is why the Nicene Creed states that the Son was born of the Father "before all the Aeons".
While the specific term "Godhead" is used in some translations (e.g., Acts 17:29, Colossians 2:9 in KJV), the concept of divine essence is drawn from the Bible. Theologians use terms like "Godhead" to summarize the unity of the divine nature, which is found throughout Scripture, even if not explicitly stated as such. For instance, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share a single divine nature (see Matthew 28:19’s Trinitarian formula).
Although the Bible does not explicitly use terms like "eternal generation," it points to a unique, eternal relationship between Father and Son (e.g., John 5:26, “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself”). This reflects a timeless relationship without implying creation in time. The language of "eternal generation" is theological, used to clarify that the Son is eternally from the Father, yet fully God.
In human terms, fathers and sons are unequal in age and authority, but this does not apply to God. Biblical texts like Philippians 2:6 stress that Jesus, though "in the form of God," did not grasp at equality with God in His incarnate state, but this equality in essence remains. The relationship between Father and Son in the Trinity is ontologically equal, yet relationally distinct (see John 10:30, "I and the Father are one").
@Roman
You are right that Karl Rahner's approach and William Lane Craig's differ fundamentally. Rahner emphasizes the inseparability of God's economic actions (how God acts in history) from His immanent existence (God’s eternal being). Rahner’s maxim ("the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity") highlights that the way God reveals Himself in salvation history truly reflects His inner life. Craig, on the other hand, aligns more with Social Trinitarianism, emphasizing the persons' distinct relationships and activities.
Origen’s view on divinity is nuanced. While he did believe that angels and humans participate in God’s divine essence, he distinguished the Son’s divinity as unique. The Son is "begotten" and fully divine by nature, whereas angels and others participate indirectly, not in the same ontological way as the Son.
Rahner’s idea that "the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity" is a major point of theological discussion. If accepted, it challenges the notion that God’s self-revelation differs from His internal nature. It affirms that how God acts in the world directly reflects His eternal being. Whether one agrees depends on their theological perspective, as this maxim impacts the understanding of God's nature and His actions in salvation history.
Anyway, I'm not a big fan of Nouvelle théologie :) Some Thomist theologian said about this: "Nova, pulchra, falsa" (new, beautiful, false).
https://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/05/are-there-two-personalities-in-christ.html
Are there two personalities in Christ, a human "I" and a divine "I"?
https://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/06/are-there-three-personalities-in-god-i.html
Are there three personalities in God, an "I" of the Father and an "I" of the Son and an "I" of the Holy Spirit?
Nincsnevem, I do understand the Trinitarian claim: I studied the Fathers.
"These passages emphasize the intimate, eternal relationship between Father and Son without suggesting temporal beginning."
That's exactly what they suggest. That's what a son is. Can you provide a Biblical example of a Father/Son relationship where the Son is the same age and rank as the Father?
"While the specific term "Godhead" is used in some translations (e.g., Acts 17:29, Colossians 2:9 in KJV), the concept of divine essence is drawn from the Bible."
No it's not. It speaks of no such thing anywhere. Deity, yes, Divine essence shared in hypostatic union? Excusez moi?
Something I've wanted to say to you for a while now... apologies if this comes across as quite direct. You are adept at summarising the orthodox position, and I have found you to be quite gracious with me overall, but you defend your assertions poorly in my opinion, as you provide no engagement with why your position is so, or engage with any contrary ideas. It just "is" and must be asserted as such. I mean no personal offense to you (I don't know you) but you come across like an AI Chatbot that repeats a predetermined script over and over again, when all of your interlocutors, including myself, are trying to get to what actually underpins your theological framework, or WHY you believe what you do, but instead we get reams of encarta and stuff we've heard over and over again. If I request "A=B, show your working out", you provide a response akin to "A has always been understood by the Church to be..." and by the end of your very long reply I'm left without an answer to my original request other than "yes A=B." It reminds me of when Neo asks the Architect: "Why am I here?" and after his grandiloquent, overly loquacious reply, responds: "You haven't answered my question."
In this blog post, I can only suppose you didn't grasp what I was asking for. You provided no examples of the Church Fathers' actual exegesis itself. You merely referenced supposed "proof texts" that I personally don't believe mean what you would say they mean. You've not asked for my opinions on those texts, so I assume the burden of proof is on you, who is making the assertions as to their meaning.
Also I appreciate that you are always on the side of the defense in a blog with a unitarian bias, but then again you came here of your own volition, so...*SHRUG*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHZl2naX1Xk
@Terence
You mentioned that "that's exactly what they suggest. That's what a son is. Can you provide a Biblical example of a Father/Son relationship where the Son is the same age and rank as the Father?"
This objection overlooks a crucial distinction: while in human relationships, the concept of sonship implies a later generation or different rank, biblical language about the Father and Son operates in a different, divine framework. The "Sonship" of Christ is not a temporal or created sonship like that of human fathers and sons but rather an eternal and unique relationship within the Godhead that defies temporal categories.
You see, although you use biblical language, you want to derive non-biblical thoughts from it. From the expression 'Son of God,' you want to deduce that the Son is not God, but the biblical usage of "Son of God" does not carry such implications. When we say 'Son of God' referring to Jesus, it answers the question of who He is, and the statement that He is 'God' answers the question of what He is. It is entirely clear that a person whose Father is God will Himself be God. Just as the son of man is man, and the foal of a horse is a horse.
There are three senses in which someone can be "Son of God." First, every human is a child of God in a broad sense, as a creation of God's providence. Second, sonship to God can mean possessing supernatural grace and adoption as children of God through faith. Third, and most importantly, "Son of God" refers to the Second Person of the Trinity, eternally begotten by the Father, sharing the same divine essence, not in a temporal or created sense but in an eternal, mysterious relationship within the Godhead. This Sonship is beyond human comprehension, and when Jesus is called the "only begotten Son," it refers to His unique relationship with the Father, not a biological or temporal relationship.
This is why Jesus is referred to as "the only begotten Son" (John 3:16) and the "Son of Man." These titles convey His divine nature as well as His unique mission on earth. Moreover, He declares His oneness with the Father (John 10:30), and when He says, "All that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15), He is claiming an equal, eternal, and inseparable relationship with the Father. It is not a lesser relationship, but one of full equality in nature and essence. Jesus expresses His divine identity not only in His words but in the authority He exercises, the miracles He performs, and the worship He receives.
This biblical language does not suggest temporal subordination or inferiority. The concept of Sonship within the Trinity is unique and eternal, unlike human relationships. Therefore, any attempt to compare the divine Sonship of Christ to human father-son relationships fails to grasp the profound mystery of the Godhead as revealed in Scripture.
As for Jesus' claim in John 10:30 that "I and the Father are one," it is a statement that clearly expresses unity in essence, not just purpose. This is not simply a claim of agreement or harmony but of shared divinity. His audience understood it as such because they accused Him of blasphemy, saying, "You, being a man, make yourself God" (John 10:33). Thus, Jesus' contemporaries understood His claim to Sonship as a claim to divinity.
While the exact terminology like "hypostatic union" or "divine essence" might not appear verbatim in the Bible, the concepts behind these theological terms are derived from Scripture. The specific term "Godhead" appears in certain translations, the theological concept of shared divine essence arises from a synthesis of biblical texts rather than being tied exclusively to a single term. The term "Godhead" itself, though limited to certain translations, points to the idea of divinity or the divine nature. Here's the reasoning:
Colossians 2:9: The word used here, theotēs, refers to "deity" or "the state of being God." It is an abstract noun indicating the divine nature itself, not just divine attributes. This verse highlights that Jesus possesses the totality of what it means to be God, which is distinct from having merely divine characteristics. This concept of divine essence stems from the fact that ALL of the fullness of deity resides in Christ, implying that Jesus is fully and truly God, not just endowed with godly qualities. This is where the concept of "divine essence" comes into play, even though the term itself may not be explicitly stated in the text.
The concept of divine essence (or "ousia" in Greek) is derived from the Bible's portrayal of God as a single divine being with a unique nature, yet this nature is fully shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The term "hypostatic union" is theological language developed by the early Church Fathers to explain how Christ, as the second person of the Trinity, can have both a fully divine nature and a fully human nature. It's a synthesis of biblical passages such as John 1:1, John 1:14, Colossians 2:9, and Hebrews 1:3.
You also asked for a more direct engagement with the Church Fathers and their exegesis. You’re right to point out that it’s not enough to simply assert a position without providing the underlying rationale or engaging with contrary viewpoints. Your request for examples of the Church Fathers' exegesis is valid, and I agree that providing these examples is necessary for a well-rounded discussion. However, it's important to acknowledge that early Christian theology developed as the Church Fathers reflected on and responded to the scriptural witness. Theologians like Athanasius, Cyril, and others were attempting to articulate complex theological truths in response to heresies such as Arianism, which denied Christ's divinity.
The concepts of "divine essence" and "hypostatic union" were formalized as the Church sought to understand the mystery of Christ's nature in light of Scripture. The fact that the precise terms do not appear in the Bible doesn't diminish their legitimacy. Theological development is often about articulating what the Bible implies, even if it doesn't explicitly state something in the way later theology would.
You mentioned that my responses sometimes come across as "pre-scripted" or lacking in deeper engagement with contrary ideas. I understand that concern and will take it seriously. I'll try to focus more on explaining WHY I believe what I do and engage more thoroughly with the alternative perspectives presented, rather than just reiterating orthodox positions. My aim is not just to repeat doctrine but to explore the reasons behind it in a meaningful way.
That said, I do believe that orthodoxy, developed over centuries of theological reflection, has much wisdom to offer. The early Christian community wrestled deeply with these questions, and their conclusions deserve careful consideration. I hope to continue our discussions with an openness to exploring these ideas more thoroughly.
I saw the 2013 debate between Wallace and Ehrman. Ehrman pointed out that Paul said at 1 Cor.8:6 One God the father... Wallace replied that it had not been revealed to Paul at that time.
When Wallace said that he confirmed that Paul did not believe Jesus was part of the Trinity. Yes no 1st century christian including Paul believed in a trinity.
The Trinity teaching is apostate.
@Philip Fletcher
Paul writes, "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." The claim that this verse excludes Jesus from divinity is incorrect. Instead, it reflects an early form of Christology that highlights both the Father and the Son in roles that belong only to the divine.
The phrase "one God" and "one Lord" draws directly from the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), a fundamental confession of Jewish monotheism. In the Shema, "Lord" and "God" are synonymous, but Paul applies "God" to the Father and "Lord" to Jesus. This does not divide God into two beings but rather integrates Jesus into the divine identity. Paul ascribes to Jesus the role of Creator and Sustainer—roles that belong solely to God. Therefore, far from denying the divinity of Christ, Paul is emphasizing the unique role of Christ within the Godhead.
You claim that no 1st-century Christian, including Paul, believed in the Trinity. While the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity as articulated in the 4th century was indeed a later theological development, the foundational beliefs that led to the doctrine were present in the New Testament and among early Christians. Consider the following:
Philippians 2:6-11: Paul presents a high Christology where Jesus, though in the form of God, took on the form of a servant and was exalted by God to receive the name above all names. This passage, often called the "Carmen Christi," suggests a preexistent divine status for Christ and is one of the clearest New Testament affirmations of Christ’s divinity.
Colossians 1:15-20: Paul writes that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God" and that "in him all things were created... and in him all things hold together." This affirms Christ's preexistence and role in creation—attributes of divinity.
John 1:1-14: The prologue of John's Gospel explicitly identifies Jesus as the Word (Logos), who was with God and was God, and through whom all things were made. This passage also emphasizes the unity yet distinction between the Father and the Son within the Godhead
These and other passages reveal that while the specific language of "Trinity" was not yet formalized, early Christians—including Paul—affirmed the divinity of Jesus and recognized the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as sharing in the one divine essence.
Regarding the debate you mentioned between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace, it is essential to clarify Wallace's position. Wallace did not say that Paul was unaware of Jesus' divinity. Instead, Wallace would argue that the full theological articulation of the Trinity developed over time, but this does not mean that Paul or the early Christians denied Christ's divinity. Wallace's point likely was that theological concepts like the Trinity were more fully developed in later centuries but were rooted in the experiences, teachings, and writings of the apostles, including Paul.
The claim that the Trinity is an "apostate" doctrine misunderstands both the biblical witness and the history of Christian theology. The early Church councils, such as those at Nicaea and Constantinople, did not "invent" new doctrines but formalized what was already present in the apostolic teachings. These councils were reactions against heresies like Arianism, which denied Christ's full divinity. The councils affirmed the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit based on Scripture, not as a new invention but as a defense of the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).
"This objection overlooks a crucial distinction: while in human relationships, the concept of sonship implies a later generation or different rank, biblical language about the Father and Son operates in a different, divine framework. The "Sonship" of Christ is not a temporal or created sonship like that of human fathers and sons but rather an eternal and unique relationship within the Godhead that defies temporal categories." - this is simply theological garbage
1. temporality or time is a measurement not a thing you can be "outside of"
2. If the age implication didn't come into it, Why use a similar illustration for Gods relationship with humans?
3. Why not use the term "brothers" implying the same age.. or King and servant who are brothers? implying one has commandment over the other but are the same age
"Colossians 2:9: The word used here, theotēs, refers to "deity" or "the state of being God."" - here we go again - omit modern scholarship that contradicts your views... a study done 20 years ago refutes this. & there are other factors at play aswell - it wouldnt be uncommon to think Christ represented or showed Gods qualities to humans... not that he was God himself (or in your case itself, since God isn't a person)
you cant go adding your own meaning to texts to support your own belief, we will just debunk you everytime, no matter how many paragraphs you write - debate (and actually respond) or leave
"ensuring that the Son is eternally begotten, not created "ex nihilo" in time" - cite a source for where Witnesses, Edgar or myself make this claim.. you cannot
We said he was "created" - we never specified how or where from.
On Sonship, found this gem ;)
"Unless one is going to suggest that God gave the hypocritical religious leaders a divine revelation so that they understood the phrase in a manner comparable to how it was understood in later Centuries, I think one must accept the probability that they understood its meaning within the parameters of the Jewish conceptual categories extant during their time. Thus, when seeking to discern why the Jews sought to kill Jesus, we should seek explanations that do not defy historical probability. The claim that Son of God connoted ontological properties has little to recommend it."
@ Sean Kaz
Nice article.
@Anonymous
You state that "temporality or time is a measurement, not something you can be 'outside of'." I understand that the concept of eternity can be difficult to grasp because we, as human beings, experience time linearly. However, in Christian theology, God is not confined by the created dimensions of time and space. As Creator, God exists outside these dimensions, which is why the doctrine of the Trinity and the concept of "eternal generation" must be understood within this framework.
The term "eternal generation" does not imply that the Son is born at a particular point in time, as would be the case with human sons. Instead, it expresses a timeless, eternal relationship within the Godhead that transcends temporal categories. In fact, the Bible gives us glimpses of this idea, such as in John 1:1, where we read that the Word (Jesus) was with God "in the beginning." The concept of beginning here refers not to a starting point in time but to the eternal nature of the Word's existence. The "Sonship" of Christ, therefore, is unique and divine, operating within the eternal nature of God rather than following the linear temporal constraints we apply to human relationships.
You ask, "Why use a similar illustration for God's relationship with humans if the age implication doesn't come into it?" The biblical language of "Son" is used to convey relational distinctions rather than temporal or hierarchical ones. In ancient Semitic cultures, "sonship" carried connotations of inheritance, authority, and likeness, not just origin. Jesus as the "Son of God" reflects His divine nature and intimate relationship with the Father.
Using familial terms such as "Father" and "Son" helps us understand the unique, eternal relationship within the Godhead. In this context, "Son" does not imply a beginning or inferiority but highlights the unique roles within the Trinity. These relational terms are meant to reveal truths about God’s nature, not to impose human limitations on Him.
Additionally, the term "brother" would not be appropriate in this context because it would suggest equality in every way, including origin, which is not what the Bible teaches. Christ is eternally begotten of the Father, not created alongside Him as an equal in origin. The language of "Father" and "Son" serves to emphasize the unity of essence and distinction of persons without implying that the Son is inferior or created.
@Anonymous
Your assertion that modern scholarship contradicts my interpretation of THEOTĒS in Colossians 2:9 is worth addressing. THEOTĒS refers to the fullness of divinity dwelling bodily in Christ. The Greek term THEOTĒS is an abstract noun that directly denotes the essence or state of being God. This is distinct from other Greek terms like THE*I*OTĒS, which could imply divine attributes rather than the fullness of the divine essence.
Even modern scholarship, such as that found in major lexicons like BDAG, supports this interpretation. It is clear that Paul is emphasizing the complete and total deity of Christ, not just that He displays divine qualities. To reduce this verse to merely saying that Christ represented God's qualities would be to overlook the profound theological claim being made: that Christ is fully and truly God in His very being.
While the word THEOTĒS refers to "deity" or "the state of being God," it is incorrect to argue that this does not point to divine essence. When the Bible speaks of Jesus as possessing the "fullness" of deity in bodily form, it is not speaking of Jesus as a mere representative of God or as having some of God’s qualities. Rather, it emphasizes that the complete nature and essence of God is present in Christ. The fullness of THEOTĒS indicates that Jesus is fully God in every respect—He is not a mere vessel for God’s qualities but embodies the very essence of what it means to be God.
While scholarly opinions vary, the consensus among most historical and contemporary biblical scholars and lexicographers is that THEOTĒS in Colossians 2:9 refers to the fullness of God’s divine essence dwelling in Christ. Theological constructs such as the Trinity and the hypostatic union are based on careful exegesis of Scripture and reflect an understanding that goes back to the early Church Fathers.
Moreover, a claim to modern scholarship does not automatically refute centuries of theological thought. The vast majority of Christian scholars, both ancient and modern, affirm that THEOTĒS in Colossians 2:9 refers to the fullness of God’s nature, not merely to divine qualities. Theological reflection on the nature of Christ has been ongoing since the earliest centuries of Christianity, and key doctrines such as the Trinity and hypostatic union were formulated based on careful consideration of all of Scripture, not just isolated proof texts.
The idea that Jesus merely "represents" God’s qualities but is not God Himself falls short of the biblical witness. While it is true that Jesus reflects God's glory and character, the Bible goes further and insists that Jesus is God in essence. This is evident in passages like John 1:1, John 20:28, and Colossians 2:9, which speak of Christ not just reflecting divine qualities but fully embodying the divine nature. Jesus does not merely act as a representative of God; He is God incarnate.
The New Testament consistently presents Jesus not only as embodying SOME divine qualities but as sharing fully in the divine essence of God Himself. This is why He is worshipped, prayed to, and given divine titles that belong exclusively to YHWH in the Old Testament.
@Anonymous
You challenge me to cite a source where Jehovah’s Witnesses, Edgar, or yourself claim that Christ was created "ex nihilo" (out of nothing). I understand that Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Christ is a created being, the first of Jehovah’s creations. However, my point about "ex nihilo" was not to misrepresent your position but to clarify the Christian theological distinction between creation and eternal generation. While Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Christ was created, Christians believe that the Son was not created at all but is eternally begotten of the Father, existing with Him from all eternity.
The key difference lies in the belief that, in traditional Christian theology, Jesus is co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father. This means that He shares the same divine essence and has no point of origin, even if He is described as "begotten." This is not a creation event but an eternal relationship within the Godhead, which is why Christian theology holds that Christ is fully divine, just as the Father is divine.
I understand your frustration with theological language and your desire for a clear and coherent explanation. However, the depth of Christian theology sometimes requires nuanced explanations to address complex ideas. When discussing the Trinity and the eternal nature of the Son, we must recognize that biblical language is often analogical, not literal, especially when referring to divine relationships.
@Terence
The very premise of this argument is contradicted by the Jewish reaction to Jesus’ claims in the Gospels. In John 5:18, for instance, after Jesus claims God as His Father in a unique way, the Jews respond by seeking to kill Him. The text specifically says, “For this reason, they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
Similarly, in John 10:30-33, Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." The Jewish leaders immediately pick up stones to stone Him, accusing Him of blasphemy: "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." The religious leaders clearly understood that when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, He was not merely making a metaphorical or honorific claim, but was, in their eyes, equating Himself with God. The claim to be the "Son of God" carried divine implications that they found blasphemous.
The assertion that the phrase “Son of God” would not have had ontological significance in first-century Jewish thought overlooks the uniqueness of Jesus' usage of the term. While "Son of God" could sometimes refer to Israel (Exodus 4:22), angels (Job 1:6), or even kings (Psalm 2:7), none of these uses are identical to the way Jesus employed the term.
When Jesus used the phrase "Son of God," He did so in a way that went beyond mere function or office and pointed to a unique, intimate relationship with the Father that implied a shared divine nature. This is particularly evident in the parable of the tenants (Mark 12:1-12), where Jesus presents Himself as the unique “beloved son” of the vineyard owner (God), distinct from the other servants (the prophets). The “beloved son” is not just another servant, but someone who shares in the Father’s identity and authority.
Furthermore, the New Testament writers clearly affirm the ontological equality of the Son with the Father. In Philippians 2:6-7, Paul writes of Jesus, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” This passage affirms that Jesus, as the Son, had equality with God but chose to humble Himself by taking on human nature.
Similarly, in Colossians 2:9, Paul writes, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” This clearly indicates that Jesus possesses the fullness of God’s nature, affirming His divine essence and refuting the idea that the "Son of God" title does not imply divinity.
It is also important to note that Jesus was introducing a new revelation of God's nature. The argument assumes that first-century Jewish conceptual categories should restrict the meaning of Jesus' self-identification as the Son of God. However, Jesus came to fulfill and reveal what was hidden or partially understood in the Old Testament. The full revelation of the Trinity and the divine Sonship of Christ was progressively revealed through His life, death, resurrection, and the teachings of the apostles. The understanding of the Sonship of Jesus expanded beyond the limited categories of first-century Jewish thought as God revealed the mystery of Christ to the apostles and the early Church.
Finally, the argument falls into the trap of imposing limitations on divine revelation based on human conceptual categories. While first-century Jews may have had preconceived ideas about what the "Son of God" meant, Jesus came precisely to challenge and expand their understanding. Limiting Jesus’ self-revelation to the conceptual categories of His audience would miss the fact that Jesus often spoke in ways that transcended their expectations and led to deeper theological understanding. The role of divine revelation is to unfold truths that go beyond human expectations and categories, which is precisely what Jesus did in His ministry.
The Son, under the title of eternal generation, is conceptually dependent on the Father, and this provides a sufficient logical basis for speaking in such a way that the Son, while not temporally, does logically follow the Father. The Son is begotten by the Father, but begetting is not to be understood in the ordinary sense. The Father generates the Son through purely spiritual begetting, by the unlimited communication of His essence. Therefore, the birth of the Son is the intellectual activity of God.
“We confess also that the Son was born, but not made, from the substance of the Father without beginning before all ages, because neither the Father without the Son, nor the Son without the Father ever at any time existed. And yet not as the Son front the Father, so the Father from the Son, because the Father did not receive generation from the Son, but the Son from the Father. The Son, therefore, is God from the Father; the Father, however, is God, but not from the Son; Father indeed of the Son, not God from the Son. He, however, is Son of the Father and God from the Father. However, the Son is equal in all things to God the Father, because at no time did He either begin or cease to be born. We believe that He is of one substance with the Father…
For, neither from nothing, nor from any other substance, but from the womb of the Father, that is, from His substance, we must believe that the Son was begotten or born. Therefore, the Father is eternal, and the Son is eternal. But if He always was Father, He always had a Son to whom He was Father; and by reason of this we confess that the Son was born of the Father without beginning. Neither do we call the same Son of God a part of a divided nature because of the fact that He is begotten of the Father; but we assert that the perfect Father begot the perfect Son without diminution or division, because it is a characteristic of Divinity alone not to have an unequal Son. Also, this Son is Son of God by nature, not by adoption, whom we must believe God the Father begot neither by will nor by necessity; for, neither does any necessity happen in God, nor does will precede wisdom. […]
We must not, however, consider these three persons separable, since we believe that no one before the other, no one after the other, no one without the other ever existed or did anything. For, they are found inseparable both in that which they are, and in that which they do, because between the generating Father and the generated Son and the proceeding Holy Spirit we believe that there was no interval of time in which either the begetter at any time preceded the begotten, or the begotten was lacking to the begetter, or the proceeding Holy Spirit appeared after the Father or the Son.” (Eleventh Council of Toledo)
The birth must be understood in a narrower sense - the broader sense refers to something that did not exist coming into being, while the narrower sense means only that a living being originates from another living being, and the two share the same nature.
Through our self-knowledge activities, we can gain some insight into the origin of the Son. When we understand something, we form an image of it (the so-called verbum mentale – mental word). However, this intellectual image is quite different from the object it resembles. The more perfect the understanding, the more it exhausts the knowability of the object. And when we know ourselves, we form an internal image of ourselves, which is not identical to us. But in the Father, there is such perfect intellectual activity that the Son, as the Mental Image (Verbum divinum – divine Word) of God's self-conception, is identical to God Himself. The Father's intellectual activity is of such great spiritual power that it does not merely create an image but generates a true likeness of Himself. AND BECAUSE GOD IS INFINITE, THE IMAGE HE FORMS OF HIMSELF IS ALSO INFINITE, THEREFORE GOD, and thus a true Word (Verbum – Word) is born from Him. Therefore, by understanding and formulating Himself, the Father begets the Son, as if He speaks Himself in the Son.
There are three senses in which someone can be "the son of God." In the broadest sense, every human being is a child of God, that is, a product of God's creative providence. In a narrower sense, divine sonship means possessing supernatural grace, the supernatural rebirth in God, which occurs when God no longer sees us as His servants but as His adopted children. In the strictest sense, "Son of God" refers to the second divine person, who, in a way incomprehensible to us, is "born," originates, proceeds, flows eternally from the Father, but remains one substance, one essence, one God with Him. That Jesus was the Son of God in this latter sense has been demonstrated in the foregoing. This divine sonship is expressed in Scripture by speaking of the "only-begotten Son," while we humans can only be adopted sons of God, children in a figurative sense. Jesus Himself felt a completely different relationship with the Father than we do; for example, He never said, "our Father," but "my Father and your Father." He is the "only-begotten Son," who "is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18).
In Jewish tradition, the son inherited his father's name, title, and social position. If Jesus inherited the Father's power, rights, and especially His name, then this means that Jesus Himself is the Almighty God. Jesus confirmed this.
The Bible calls angels "sons of God" (Hebrew b'né Elohim) (Job 38:7, Psalm 36:9), and it refers to the Jewish people collectively as God's "son" (Hosea 11:1). However, no Jew could personally call God his own father as if he originated directly from God, for that would make himself God (cf. John 10:33).
Jesus referred to Himself with two specific titles: He is the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man." The "... son of" structure, as in other languages, often expresses kinship in Hebrew as well (e.g., Simon, son of Jonah), but it is also a peculiar Hebrew grammatical phenomenon that does not imply kinship but qualification, for example, "sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2) refers to those who are disobedient, just as "son of death" refers to someone who is dead.
Thus, when Jesus called Himself the "Son of Man" (Matthew 16:13), it first means: "who is Man." Secondly, this expression refers to an apocalyptic figure from the Old Testament who "sits at the right hand of the Mighty One" and who will return to earth to be the king of nations (Daniel 7:13-14 cf. Matthew 26:63-66, 25:31). Judging by the reactions, Jesus' contemporaries clearly understood the power Jesus claimed for Himself with the title "Son of Man."
On the other hand, Jesus also called Himself the "Son of God," which means "who is God." Concerning His relationship with the Father, He is the only Son of God (John 3:16; "only-begotten" = only), and therefore He is the Son (1 John 1:3, 2:22-24, 3:17, 4:9,14, 5:12, etc.), for whom God is personally His Father (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, John 10:32-38), through whom the Father teaches and acts (John 14:10-11). As He said: "All that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15), for "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Jesus' statements about Himself were understood by the Jews to mean that "being a man, He made Himself God" (John 10:33) because His words, in the context of the Old Testament and Hebrew understanding, could not be interpreted otherwise.
It should be noted that according to the New Testament, believers are also "sons of God" (Galatians 3:27), but while the Son is God by nature, eternally, and inherently, believers only partake in His divine nature – in character, immortality, and glory – through God's grace (2 Peter 1:4, 2 Corinthians 3:18, 1 John 3:2, 1 Corinthians 15:53-54).
There is a personal distinction between the Father and the Son in the doctrine of the Trinity, so what I affirm about the Son does not mean that Jesus replaces the Father. Rather, it means that He is the Father's Only Begotten, possessing His nature, and representing Him before humanity (and angels, etc.). This is what it means that we do everything in the name of Jesus and that we go to the Father through Him. This can be called a commission, but it is not just that, for an angel could also receive a commission. He is the image or imprint of God's glory; the fullness of divinity dwells bodily in Him. He is to be honored as the Father is, superior to the angels, and the Scripture calls Him God, and so on. He is not some subordinate God but the person of the Divinity in whom the Father has revealed Himself to us. He became lesser only because He humbled and emptied Himself, though He was previously equal with God. As the Son in a state of servitude, He did not call the Father His God in vain, He prayed to Him, and so on.
How the one God remains despite the two (or three) distinguishable persons is answered by the doctrine of the Trinity by distinguishing essence (nature), which is one, and persons (states of being, subsistences), of which there are three.
Thus, due to His humanity and self-emptying, He indeed was lesser than the Father while on earth. However, after His resurrection, He regained the glory (DOXA) He possessed from the beginning, and at that point, He again knew both the day and the hour. Due to His humanity and self-emptying, He can be said to have been lesser than the Father. But due to His divinity, He can be said to be equal with Him, as stated in Philippians 2:6. If Jesus emptied Himself, then He must have had something to empty Himself of: namely, the "form of God." Orthodox theology interprets this as Jesus temporarily ceasing to exercise His divine power. (This is also how the Epistle to the Hebrews puts it: "For a little while He was made LOWER than the angels" [Hebrews 2:9]).
The self-emptying (kenosis), according to current interpretations, could have occurred in two ways: either by Jesus discarding His divinity (and being only human on earth) or by refraining from the use of His divine attributes by His own power. In my view, the first position is heresy; the second is the truth. Thus, it was not the one true God who emptied Himself (nor the Trinity, nor the Son), but rather that the second person of the Divinity, incognito, appeared in the created world. He did not cling to His equality with God as something to be grasped at all costs but humbled Himself under the divine (existential) form (morphē), taking on a human-servant (existential) form. Thus, He did not empty Himself of His divine essence, but of His divine rank and power.
@Nincs
Exactly what I was referring to, seen here again. In defending your view of Christ's Sonship as eternal, you refer to Christ's eternal Sonship. Petitio principii, τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι.
And again you revert to lengthy Encarta. In my opinion, your views are eisegetical. Also, why not try to be more succinct?
"One doth protest too much."
@Terence
Your response accuses me of committing a logical fallacy, specifically petitio principii, or begging the question. However, my argument is not circular but grounded in Scripture and theological reasoning. Let me address your concerns more directly, and I will strive to be more succinct in demonstrating the basis for my claims. The key issue we are discussing is whether the title "Son of God," as applied to Jesus, carries ontological implications—specifically, whether it points to Jesus’ divine nature. The accusation of eisegesis (reading into the text) is misplaced, as I am drawing directly from the biblical text and historical context.
John 5:18: The Jews wanted to kill Jesus "BECAUSE He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." This is a direct indication that Jesus’ claim to Sonship was not understood in a mere metaphorical or honorary sense. The Jews recognized that Jesus was claiming something far beyond what the title "Son of God" typically denoted in their tradition.
John 10:30-33: When Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," the Jewish leaders understood this as a claim to deity, which is why they accused Him of blasphemy. They stated, "You, a mere man, claim to be God." Again, the reaction of the Jewish authorities demonstrates that Jesus' use of the title was understood as a claim to divinity.
These passages are not examples of "begging the question" but are part of the historical and textual evidence that support the ontological equality between the Father and the Son.
In Philippians 2:6-7, Paul explicitly states that Jesus existed "in the form of God" (μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων) and that He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." This is not merely functional language but ontological—it describes the pre-incarnate Christ as fully God. Jesus’ decision to "empty Himself" refers to His incarnation, not to any diminishment of His divine nature.
In Colossians 2:9, Paul states that "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form." The Greek term "πλήρωμα" (fullness) indicates the totality of the divine essence, not merely an aspect of divinity. This again affirms that Jesus possesses the full nature of God.
You suggest that my views are "eisegetical" and ignore first-century Jewish conceptual categories. However, I am not imposing later doctrinal developments onto the text without reason. Jesus’ claims were understood as blasphemous precisely because they exceeded the expectations of His Jewish contemporaries. As I mentioned before, Jesus often expanded or challenged existing Jewish categories, revealing deeper truths about His identity.
Your reference to petitio principii seems to misunderstand that I am not assuming Christ’s eternal Sonship to prove His divinity; rather, I am demonstrating from Scripture that His Sonship implies ontological divinity. The early Christian recognition of this reality, while more fully articulated in later theological terms, is rooted in the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as God incarnate.
@Nincs,
That being said, I appreciate your using an analogy of the mental self-image of God, but I fail to see how you can’t avoid an infinite regress. The Son who is a person in his own right, would have a Son who would have a Son and so on.
Every human in every culture throughout the ages knows what a son is. A being caused by another. I see no reason why we wouldn’t understand Christ as caused by the Father. He even said “I live because of the Father”.
It’s a causal relationship. All causes occur in time, without exception.
@Terence
You mentioned that if the Son were "generated" by the Father, it could logically lead to an infinite regress where each "Son" would have a "Son" and so on. However, this concern stems from misunderstanding the concept of "generation" as it applies to the divine nature versus its application in human or material terms.
In human terms, generation involves time, change, and causality, where one being is produced by another and exists as distinct from it both in time and essence. This naturally involves a beginning, and thus each successive generation can, in theory, go back infinitely. However, divine generation is fundamentally different. It is an ETERNAL generation, which transcends time and does not entail a "before" and "after." Therefore, the idea of infinite regress does not apply because there is no succession of moments within God's eternal nature. The Father's generation of the Son occurs in eternity—without time, succession, or division.
In this framework, "generation" is not a physical or temporal process but an eternal relationship within the Godhead, where the Son eternally receives His being from the Father. This doesn't imply that the Son came into existence after the Father or is causally dependent in the way that human beings are. Rather, the Son's "being" is eternally derived from the Father, but this derivation does not imply inferiority or temporal succession. Both the Father and the Son exist co-eternally, sharing the same divine essence without any diminution or delay.
When Jesus says, "I live because of the Father" (John 6:57), He affirms His eternal relationship with the Father without implying any inferiority or temporal causality. This statement must be understood within the broader context of Trinitarian theology. The Son’s life is eternally "from" the Father, but this does not mean He was caused to come into existence at a point in time. It is instead an eternal relation that defines their distinct persons within the Godhead while maintaining their consubstantiality, meaning they share the same divine essence.
The issue of infinite regress is avoided precisely because we are not speaking about temporal causality. The Father’s generation of the Son is an eternal act, without beginning or end. Unlike in the temporal world, where causes produce effects in sequence, God’s eternal nature means that everything is simultaneous. There is no "first" or "later" (in time) in the Trinity. The Son does not generate another Son, because His generation is a unique, singular, and eternal act that defines His personhood within the Godhead. The relationship of Father and Son in the Trinity does not imply a temporal chain of causes but an eternal relation.
You rightly point out that in human experience, sonship implies causality, dependence, and temporality. However, divine sonship is different. The Son’s generation from the Father is not comparable to human parenthood. While we might use the term "Son" to communicate the relational distinction between the Father and the Son, this does not imply that the Son is less than the Father or that He came into existence after the Father. Rather, it expresses an eternal relationship of love and unity that exists within the single divine essence.
@Terence
When theologians speak of the Son being "begotten, not made," they emphasize that this begetting is an eternal and ongoing reality, not a one-time event that occurred at a specific moment. There is no temporal before and after in God. The Son is eternally generated by the Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This is what distinguishes the persons within the Trinity while maintaining the unity of their essence.
You also raise the point that "all causes occur in time." This is true in the natural world, but it does not apply to the supernatural or divine realm. God, as the creator of time, is not bound by it. Causality in the created order involves succession and temporality, but divine causality transcends time. When we speak of the Father "causing" the Son to exist, we must understand that this language is analogical. The "cause" in question is not a temporal cause but an eternal relation within the Godhead. As Aquinas explains, God's actions are not bound by time because God exists outside of time. Thus, the eternal generation of the Son is not a temporal process, but a timeless and eternal reality that reflects the unique relationships within the Trinity.
Aquinas and other theologians emphasize that divine generation is unique to the Son and cannot be repeated or extended. There is no "second Son" because the generation of the Son is the eternal and perfect act of the Father expressing Himself in the divine Word (Verbum). This is a one-time, eternal, and perfect act that does not involve succession, repetition, or change.
The divine understanding is common to the three persons; so how is it that only the Father conceives, begets the Word? Just as the divine being (which is identical to divine understanding) has a triple mode of existence (possession of being), insofar as it is in the Father ἀγεννήτως (unbegotten), in the Son γεννητῶς (begotten), and in the Spirit ἐκπορευτῶς (proceeding), so too understanding and the wisdom derived from it is in the Father unbegottenly, in the Son begottenly, and in the Spirit as by procession. Therefore, just as the divine Reality as such neither begets nor breathes forth, but when conceived with the mode of fatherhood, it flows into the Son in eternal generation, so understanding does not beget the Word by itself, but indeed as the Father’s understanding, or rather His thought.
Since Origen, the question has often been raised: Why does the second divine origin not also constitute sonship? That is: why is the Son’s origin generation, and why is the Spirit’s origin simply procession? For the fact itself is certain from Scripture (the Word is the only-begotten Son) and from tradition; the Church Fathers (with the exception of Hermas) most vehemently oppose anyone who would call the Holy Spirit the Son or the brother of the Word.
@Terence
Although here too we are faced with one of the profound mysteries of God’s Trinitarian life, before which, with the holy Fathers, we can invoke the words of the prophet Isaiah: „Generationem ejus quis enarrabit?” (Who can describe his generation?), yet we can still, to some extent, find our way with the guidance of revelation. In the Deity, understanding and will differ in value; it is therefore understandable that the products (termini) of these activities are of different nature. In the Godhead, everything is necessary and perfect; there are no repetitions there. Two divine generations are internally ungrounded, for the Godhead has already put into the first all that can be given by way of generation: the divine reality. A new origin only has place if it provides, through a new mode of origin, a new mode of possession of divine reality.
Why it is the Son's origin that must be regarded as generation and not that of the Holy Spirit, after the groping of the Greek Fathers, Saint Augustine finds the satisfying answer, which Saint Thomas explains as follows: Generation and knowledge are substantively related. For the generative activity is formally directed to realizing the living image of the generator from the substance of the generator; generatio est origo viventis a principio viventi coniuncto (= generation is the origin of a living being from a living principle united to it) in similitudinem naturae ex vi ipsius productionis. The internal goal of intellectual activity is likewise to create the image, the likeness of the object within the intellect (representation, εἶδος). On the other hand, love is indeed directed towards the like, but already presupposes its existence and likeness; its deepest nature is directed towards union, not towards assimilation (in similitudine, non in similitudinem naturae).
This internal kinship between knowing and generating is also indicated by language: concept–conceptus–conception; the root γεν in the verbs γεννᾶν (to beget) and γιγνώσκειν (to know); ידע (to know) and to beget, etc. The Holy Spirit is also similar to the Father, for He possesses the same divine reality, but not by the nature of His origin, only by common possession. On the other hand, the Son's likeness is rooted in the nature of His origin: knowing or begetting is directly aimed at forming the likeness of reality. In creation, of course, we only know one process that continues nature in an independent being: generation. This explains why we have a specific name for the first divine origin and its product: son. For the Holy Spirit, there is no such term; we know of no experience of an origin that transmits nature, but not by generation.
@Nincs
“The Jews wanted to kill Jesus "BECAUSE He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." This is a direct indication that Jesus’ claim to Sonship was not understood in a mere metaphorical or honorary sense.”
I didn’t say it was.
“John 10:30-33: When Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," the Jewish leaders understood this as a claim to deity, which is why they accused Him of blasphemy. They stated, "You, a mere man, claim to be God." Again, the reaction of the Jewish authorities demonstrates that Jesus' use of the title was understood as a claim to divinity.”
Likely so, but a capitalised “g” muddies the water, wouldn’t you say? I’m not arguing that Jesus is not properly called “theos” as to his divine origin. I believe he pre-existed. He is God’s Son, after all.
“However, I am not imposing later doctrinal developments onto the text without reason”.
Imposing later doctrinal developments on to a text is the definition of eisegesis. As long as you’re aware that’s what you’re doing. I just don’t think that’s how one comes to an accurate understanding of the text.
“I am demonstrating from Scripture that His Sonship implies ontological divinity”.
A point to which we can both heartily agree on. But you still haven’t got round to showing how sonship implies having always existed. Sons always come into existence from non existence. What son is the same age as his Father?
Also…The texts you’ve cited don’t say what I think you’d like them to say.
Also, apologies, I didn’t mean to come across as accusatory in any way. I hope I didn’t offend. This blog commenting thing is a pretty blunt apparatus. Enjoyable though.
@Terence
Thank you for your response and the continued dialogue. You seem to agree with me that Jesus' Sonship does imply divinity, which is a significant point of agreement. However, you question how this Sonship also implies eternality. The concern you raise is based on a human understanding of sonship, where sons come into existence from non-existence and are therefore younger than their fathers.
This concern stems from applying temporal, creaturely categories to the divine realm, which I believe is a category mistake. The Sonship of Christ, as presented in Scripture, must be understood in a unique, divine context rather than through the lens of human generational relationships. The term "Son" in reference to Christ is used analogically rather than in a strictly biological or temporal sense. The concept of "eternal generation" avoids the notion that the Son came into existence at a certain point in time. Instead, it refers to an eternal relationship in which the Son is perpetually generated by the Father.
This is why passages like John 1:1-3 and John 1:14 are critical. John asserts that "In the beginning WAS the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There is no temporal distinction here; the Word (who is identified as the Son in verse 14) already existed "in the beginning" and was fully divine. The language of "Son" is not meant to imply a moment of creation but rather describes the eternal relationship within the Godhead.
Similarly, Hebrews 1:3 describes the Son as "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being." Radiance from a light source does not imply that the light was created at some point after the source—it is co-existent with the source. In this way, the Son’s Sonship does not imply a beginning in time, but rather an eternal relationship of dependence and co-existence with the Father.
You correctly point out that the Jews understood Jesus' claims as blasphemous and equated them with a claim to divinity. This response is essential to understanding the nature of Jesus' claims. If Jesus were merely claiming to be a particularly exalted creature or an angelic figure, this charge of blasphemy would not make sense. Jewish monotheism was (and is) stringent in its rejection of polytheism and the worship of created beings. The fact that Jesus was accused of blasphemy shows that His claims transcended the categories of creaturely existence and were understood as claims to divinity—claims that only made sense if He was, in fact, asserting equality with God.
@Terence
You’ve implied, that I engaged in eisegesis by “imposing” “later doctrinal developments” (such as the doctrine of the Trinity) onto the biblical text. However, I contend that the doctrine of the Trinity is not an “imposition” on the text but a natural outgrowth of what is revealed in Scripture. The Church’s formal articulation of the Trinity developed over centuries, but the foundational elements of the doctrine are clearly present in the New Testament. The doctrine was not created ex nihilo but was the result of centuries of careful theological reflection on the biblical text.
Moreover, the early Church recognized this triune nature of God long before the formal councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon. The recognition of Jesus as fully divine, yet distinct from the Father, is deeply rooted in the earliest Christian confessions and is not anachronistically imposed by later theological developments.
Your challenge—"What son is the same age as his Father?"—is based on a temporal, human analogy that doesn’t apply to divine relationships. We are dealing with an eternal, infinite God, not finite human beings. In human terms, yes, sons are younger than their fathers because they are born into time. But God exists outside of time, and His relationship with His Son is likewise eternal.
When we speak of the "eternal generation" of the Son, we are not suggesting that the Son came into existence at some point after the Father. Rather, this "generation" is an eternal truth about the relationship between the Father and the Son. It’s a mystery, yes, but one that is grounded in the biblical revelation of a God who is both one and three—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—existing in perfect unity and distinction from all eternity.
You noted that the use of a capitalized "G" muddies the water when referring to Jesus as "God." However, in the context of John's Gospel (John 1:1, John 10:30), and in other places like Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 2:9, it is clear that Jesus is not merely divine in a lesser or derived sense, but fully and truly God in the same way as the Father. The capitalization of "God" reflects this ontological equality. Jesus is not just "a god" or a lesser divine being—He is fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
You don't need to apologize, I didn't find your words offensive, just because of my profession I'm used to really heated arguments as well :-)
@Nincs.
Thanks for clarifying your position. I am slowly grasping it better. But for now, due to time restraints, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
@ Terence - Part 1:
Thanks, I'm glad you appreciated that blog entry. Once we set aside the anachronistic approach to understanding Jesus' sonship, and take a more historical approach, then we'll be more likely to infer something historically grounded.
About John 5 and John 10, I also address those accounts on my blog. Here's something I posted on Facebook not long ago about John 5, with minor tweaks:
John 5:18 - Was Jesus Equal with God, and If So, In What Sense?
This week someone in this group argued that John 5:18 teaches that Jesus is equal with God. I submitted a reply under the original comment, but it appears the entire OP has been deleted, so I'm reposting my response as a stand-alone post.
Notice that John 5:18 makes a two-part charge:
"For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
So Jesus' adversaries thought - or pretended to think - that Jesus broke the Sabbath and made himself equal with God.
My fellow interlocutor agreed that Jesus didn't break the Sabbath, and offered two observations to support that view:
(1) Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath; and
(2) the law that Jesus broke wasn't part of the Torah, but was part of the traditions of men that emerged over time.
I agree with him on both points. About 1, since Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath it would seem to be impossible for him to break the Sabbath. About 2, there's no reason to believe that John agreed with the charge.
As Catholic scholar Adela Yarbro-Collins has pointed out:
“…talk about Jesus ‘breaking the Sabbath’ is clearly spoken from the point of view of the opponents of Jesus, not necessarily from the vantage point of Jesus as a character in the narrative or of the audience of the gospel.” (Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children), p. 64
His second point is instructive, because it shows that he agrees that historical considerations should inform our exegesis. However, that applies then to both charges, not just the Sabbath-breaker charge.
With that in mind, it is important to note that the sense that he wishes to attribute to Jesus' status as "Son" didn't exist when Jesus claimed sonship. There is no ancient, pre-Christian Jewish writing that I know of in which someone is called "Son of God" where that phrase has the sense "one who fully shares the ontological essence of God." It is therefore highly implausible that Jesus' adversaries inferred from Jesus' claim to Sonship what he chooses anachronistically infer.
@Terence – Part 2:
The following question therefore emerges: How should we properly interpret John 5:18?
First, if we agree that Jesus did not break the Sabbath and that his adversaries were simply mistaken on that point, or just trying to create a false narrative to destroy Jesus, the way modern politicians often do, then it would plausibly follow that they were equally mistaken in believing that Jesus' claim to sonship made him equal with God. If that's the case, then we have our answer: The charge was false, which would be consistent with what we might expect from partisans.
As J.C. Fenton observed:
"making himself equal with God: this is what the Jews wrongly supposed, not what John believes, as the speech with follows shows." (The Gospel According to John in the Revised Standard Version With Introduction and Commentary, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1970), p. 71
But there are other possibilities as well. In addition to what I state above, here are three interpretations of John 5 that I find plausible in light of historical and theological considerations, which do not necessarily involve or require an implication of ontological equality. I've placed them in the order of my own view of their plausibility. I've placed McGrath's view last because I'm skeptical about his approach to the Greek, but the historical considerations he touches on clue one in on one severe weakness with the anachronistic approach:
[Continued with Part 3]
@ Terence – Part 3:
1. The first view is my own, as far as I’m aware, as I’ve never seen it published. It is based on taking the view that sonship implies obedience rather than equality seriously, and builds from there this way:
The implied “thereby” in the clause “[thereby] making himself equal with God” doesn’t follow directly from sonship alone, but from both charges stated, i.e. breaking the Sabbath and calling God his own father.
By working on the Sabbath, and then defending himself by stating that God has been working until now and he is working, Jesus was implying that he was doing God’s own work. God’s work is exempt from Sabbath restrictions, so claiming to do that work is quite striking, and it’s easy to understand how this could infuriate his enemies.
By calling God his father in this context, Jesus was implicitly claiming that even in doing God’s own work he was actually acting in obedience to God. If doing God’s very own work is an act of obedience, then it is done with God’s full authorization, making Jesus equal to God in that sense. This is an example of the shaliah principle at work, involving conferred legal equality, not ontological equality.
2. I find J.C. O’Neill’s view compelling, i.e. that it wasn’t the “equal with God” bit but the “making himself” bit that was at the heart of the objection. O’Neill postulates that there was a law and a commonly held belief, lost to us now, that God himself was expected to reveal his own Messiah. This isn’t in the Torah, so it would obviously constitute one of the traditions that emerged over time. In this view, since God alone was expected to reveal his Messiah, when Jesus presented himself as Messiah, it was felt that he did what only God had the right to do. Obviously this would mean that when Jesus called God “my father,” his opponents inferred Messianic sonship. You can read about his view in “Who Did Jesus Think He Was?”, published by E.J. Brill, and in the article “‘Making Himself Equal with God’ (John 5.17-18): The Alleged Challenge to Jewish Monotheism in the Fourth Gospel,” published in Irish Biblical Studies, April 1995, pp. 50-61.
3. James McGrath feels that the implication of obedience is so prominent at John 5, and an inference to equality so problematic, that he suggests that the rendering of verse 18 in most translations is incorrect. Since sonship does NOT imply equality, in his view, he supports taking the participle ποιῶν as a concessive participle.
He explains:
“This further suggests that the traditional translation of v. 18 is very probably incorrect. It is usually rendered along these lines: ‘He claimed that God was his own father, thereby making himself equal with God’, equality being understood as a corollary of sonship. However, in view of the evidence we have surveyed [evidence which is contrary to the understanding that “my Father” implied equality], it appears better to take the participle ποιῶν as a concessive participle, which would mean that the phrase as a whole be given a sense something like, ‘He claimed that God was his Father, yet at the same time made himself equal with God.’ Jesus has claimed to be God’s son; the Jews are accusing him of not behaving in a way appropriate to sonship, because he is claiming for himself his father’s unique prerogatives. That is to say, ‘the Jews’ are accusing Jesus of behaving in a way that discredits or tells against his spoken claims, of saying one thing but doing another, of contradicting his claims through his behaviour. This interpretation not only fits with the cultural background of the time, but also with the response which the Johannine Jesus goes on to give.” (A Rebellious Son? Hugo Odeberg and the Interpretation of John 5:18, NTS, Vol. 44, 1998), p. 472
@Terence,
Finally, with respect to Jesus' response to his opponents' charge at John 5, notice that it was classic shaliah language. If an ancient Rabbi wanted to teach a class called "Shaliah Principle 101" he would have been hard-pressed to find a more paradigmatic example of the agency model at work than John 5. I would argue that it has nothing to do with ontology.
As the late Larry Hurtado correctly pointed out, the post-Apostolic focus (and obsession) with Jesus' ontology wasn't part of the Apostolic intellectual apparatus.
See: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/chronology-and-ontology/
@Terence,
About understanding Jesus' sonship in the context of historical dialogue, see:
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/does-son-of-god-mean-possesses-the-ontological-nature-of-god/
Note in particular these words by John Ziesler:
“By the Second Century, it [Son of God] came to refer to Jesus Christ as divine, but originally it was not a particularly lofty title. It is not the same as God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. Though it was not particularly common, it could be used of human beings, both in the Jewish and in the Greek world…(Hos. 11:1; Exod. 4:22; Isa. 43:6; 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; Gen. 6:2,4; Duet 32:8; Wisd. 2:10-20; 5:1-5)…Such ascriptions did not mean that the nation or the king or the righteous man was genetically related to God. Israel rejected any idea of that. Rather, being Son of God meant obedient service to God on the one hand, and divine commissioning and endorsement on the other. In our society we tend to forget that the first thing about a son was that he obeyed his father; therefore calling Jesus Christ Son of God meant first of all that he did what God wanted. He was the obedient one… …Paul’s use of the title reflects Jewish rather than pagan background.” (Pauline Christianity), pp. 41, 42
If we thoughtfully interpret John 5 in light of the understanding that "being Son of God meant obedient service to God on the one hand, and divine commissioning and endorsement on the other", then suddenly we can make sense of the account without a need to conform our interpretation to anachronistic ideas.
John 5:18 does indeed present the charge against Jesus: He was accused of making Himself equal with God. The response provided suggests that the claim was either misunderstood or based on false assumptions by Jesus' opponents. However, the Gospel of John consistently presents Jesus as more than just a misunderstood figure. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus consistently affirms His unique relationship with the Father, which goes beyond mere obedience or the SHALIAH (sent representative) principle.
To begin with, John 5:18 is not an isolated instance of Jesus' divine claims. Other passages in the Gospel of John affirm the deeper unity between the Father and the Son. For example:
In John 10:30, Jesus explicitly says, "I and the Father are one," which led the Jews to accuse Him of blasphemy (John 10:33) for claiming to be God.
John 8:58 contains another significant statement: "Before Abraham was, I AM." The phrase "I AM" (ἐγώ εἰμι) recalls God's self-identification to Moses in Exodus 3:14 ("I AM WHO I AM"), underscoring Jesus' divine identity.
These passages show that Jesus' claims went beyond mere obedience or conferred legal equality. His declarations in the Gospel point to an ontological unity with the Father, not merely a functional one.
The argument suggests that first-century Judaism had no concept of sonship that implied equality with God. However, the Jewish understanding of the Messiah and the divine Son of God was not static, and John's Gospel presents a unique revelation of Jesus' identity. The charge of blasphemy, both in John 5:18 and in John 10:33, indicates that Jesus' opponents recognized His claims as assertions of divinity. If sonship was merely a claim of obedience, it is unlikely they would have reacted so strongly.
Moreover, while it is true that pre-Christian Jewish texts may not explicitly connect "Son of God" with divine essence, the Gospel of John develops this concept in light of Jesus' teachings and actions. The Son shares in the Father's divine nature, as evidenced in John 1:1 ("the Word was God") and John 1:18, which speaks of the Son being "in the bosom of the Father." These verses highlight a unique, intimate relationship that goes beyond a mere representative role.
The alternative interpretations presented, such as McGrath's view that obedience discredits equality, or O'Neill's suggestion about a lost law regarding the revelation of the Messiah, miss the broader context of John's Gospel. The focus on obedience in John 5 does not negate Jesus' claims to divine status but rather emphasizes the unique relationship of unity and mission between the Father and the Son. John 5:19-23 clarifies this relationship further:
1. Jesus does "nothing by Himself" but only what He sees the Father doing, showing their perfect unity.
2. The Father "has given all judgment to the Son," indicating shared authority, a divine prerogative.
3. "That all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father" (John 5:23) indicates that the Son is to be honored with the same reverence and worship as the Father—something that would be inappropriate for a mere human or created being.
While the charge against Jesus in John 5:18 may have been brought by adversaries seeking to accuse Him, the context of the Gospel makes it clear that Jesus was indeed claiming a unique and divine status. His relationship with the Father is not based on mere obedience but on an ontological unity that surpasses any typical human father-son relationship. The charge of equality with God is therefore not a misunderstanding but a reflection of the profound truth of Jesus’ divine nature, as revealed throughout John's Gospel.
Your objection seems to be that early Christians, particularly in the New Testament period, did not operate with what later theologians would call "ontological" categories when speaking of Jesus' divinity, and that this makes post-apostolic developments in Christology anachronistic or out of sync with the earliest beliefs. Let's engage with this argument directly.
You mention the concept of SHALIAH—the idea of Jesus as a divinely appointed agent, representing God’s authority but not sharing God’s nature. This is a valid concept within Jewish thought, but it's important to realize that it does not fully capture the portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament, particularly in the Gospel of John.
In John 5, Jesus' statements are indeed framed in terms of agency (e.g., He only does what He sees the Father doing), but they go beyond the typical agency language. Jesus speaks of having life in Himself (John 5:26), a prerogative unique to God. Furthermore, Jesus asserts the right to receive the same honor as the Father (John 5:23), which would be inappropriate for a mere agent. This suggests that Jesus' relationship to the Father is not just one of representation but of shared divine identity.
Hurtado rightly points out that explicit ontological language like OUSIA (substance/being) does not appear in the New Testament. However, this does not mean that ontological concerns were absent. What is clear from the New Testament is that Jesus is not treated as merely a superior agent of God, but as someone who fully shares in God’s divine identity and prerogatives.
For instance:
* John 1:1 declares that the Word was God.
* Philippians 2:6 asserts that Jesus existed "in the form of God" (morphe theou), indicating pre-existence in divine form, even though He voluntarily "emptied" Himself to become human.
* Colossians 1:16-17 describes Jesus as the agent of creation, the one through whom all things were created, again pointing to a divine role beyond what an agent could claim.
Thus, even if the language of "ontology" (in the philosophical sense) was not fully developed, the New Testament writers made remarkable statements about Jesus’ divine identity that later theologians would need to articulate more precisely as questions and challenges arose.
It's essential to recognize that doctrinal development is a natural and necessary process in Christian theology. Early Christian writings were focused on addressing immediate pastoral, evangelistic, and apologetic concerns. As the Church faced new challenges (e.g., Arianism in the fourth century), it became necessary to define Christological beliefs more explicitly.
The Nicene Creed (325 AD) did not invent new beliefs about Jesus but clarified what the Church had always believed in the face of heretical interpretations. The Creed affirmed that Jesus is "of one substance" (homoousios) with the Father because this was the best way to preserve the truth that the New Testament presents about Jesus’ divine identity.
The fact that New Testament authors do not use terms like OUSIA does not mean they weren’t dealing with questions of divine nature. The early Christians were steeped in Jewish monotheism, yet they consistently worshipped Jesus, prayed to Him, and attributed to Him roles and honors that were exclusively reserved for Yahweh. This practice necessitates an understanding of Jesus as sharing in the divine identity, even if the philosophical terminology would only come later.
The development of theological language in the early centuries of Christianity was not an arbitrary imposition on the New Testament. Instead, it was an attempt to faithfully articulate the truths about Christ that were already present in Scripture. Early Church theologians like Athanasius and the Cappadocians worked hard to safeguard what they understood to be the apostolic teaching: that Jesus is fully God, fully divine, yet distinct in personhood from the Father.
The Christological controversies of the early centuries, including the Arian controversy, were not introducing novel ideas but rather defending the foundational Christian belief in Jesus’ divinity against misunderstandings and misinterpretations. As such, the later creeds are not at odds with the New Testament but are the Church’s effort to express what the New Testament implied all along.
Your argument that early Christian texts did not operate with ontological categories and therefore should not be seen as supporting the later Nicene framework misses the point. While the New Testament does not use technical philosophical language, it consistently presents Jesus as sharing in the divine identity and attributes of God. The post-apostolic theological development was a necessary response to heretical challenges and sought to preserve the apostolic faith. Thus, the Trinity and the full divinity of Christ are firmly rooted in the biblical witness, even if their articulation took time to develop.
You argue that Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was not blasphemous because the title "Son of God" had no ontological implications at that time, only referring to a messianic role. Yet, the Jewish leaders accused Jesus of blasphemy precisely because they understood His claim as making Himself equal with God. In John 5:18, the text clearly states: “For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
This accusation is not about Jesus overstepping His authority as the Messiah but about Him claiming an intimate, divine relationship with God that implied equality. The Jewish leaders knew the gravity of this claim—claiming to be God's unique Son went beyond the title of Messiah, as seen in their reaction to His statements.
Similarly, in John 10:33, the Jews say, “We are not stoning you for any good work, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” The text doesn’t suggest that their issue with Jesus was a misunderstanding of His messianic role. Instead, they understood that His claim to sonship was a claim to divinity.
Your argument asserts that Jewish traditions understood "Son of God" solely in functional or messianic terms and not as a statement of divinity. While it is true that the title had various uses in the Old Testament, including for kings, angels, and Israel itself, the way Jesus used the term in the Gospels goes beyond these precedents.
Jesus often linked His sonship with actions that only God could perform, such as forgiving sins (Mark 2:5-7) and claiming pre-existence (John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am”). These claims were understood by His listeners as declarations of divinity. The title "Son of God" in this context takes on an ontological dimension—Jesus was not merely a prophet or a righteous man but claimed equality with God.
Moreover, the prologue of John’s Gospel (John 1:1) directly asserts the divine nature of the Logos (Word). This is important because it frames Jesus as the eternal Word who was both with God and was God. This clearly establishes that, from the perspective of early Christian theology, Jesus was understood to be divine, not merely a functional or obedient Son.
You mention that interpreting Jesus' sonship as divine is anachronistic and that such a view only developed later in Christian theology. However, John’s Gospel is written with a deep understanding of Jewish traditions and simultaneously reveals a high Christology. John 1:14, which says “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” presents a profound theological claim that God Himself took on human nature in the person of Jesus Christ.
The Jewish leaders reacted strongly to Jesus' claims, not because they saw Him as merely a messianic figure but because He was claiming an authority and relationship with God that went far beyond what was traditionally expected of a Messiah. This is why they accused Him of blasphemy.
Your argument focuses on limiting the term "Son of God" to its functional or metaphorical meanings found in Jewish contexts. However, Jesus’ use of the term is unique and cannot be fully understood within those boundaries. Jesus is referred to as the "only begotten Son" (John 3:16), which signifies a unique and singular relationship with God the Father—one that transcends mere function or title.
While it is true that "sonship" in some contexts denotes obedience and service, in Jesus’ case, it also conveys a shared divine nature with the Father. Hebrews 1:3 states that the Son “is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.” This is not just about function or role but about the very nature and essence of Jesus being one with the Father.
The claim that "Son of God" in the context of the Gospels does not imply ontological divinity overlooks the clear intent of the Gospel writers and the reactions of Jesus' contemporaries. The charge of blasphemy leveled against Jesus was not because He overstepped His messianic role, but because He was understood to be claiming equality with God. The Gospel of John, along with other New Testament writings, provides a consistent testimony that Jesus, as the Son of God, shares in the divine nature of the Father.
Thus, while "Son of God" may have had multiple meanings in Jewish culture, the unique way in which Jesus used the term, coupled with His actions and claims, demonstrates that He was not merely claiming a functional title but was revealing His divine identity.
It appears that Nincsnevem is now posting as "Anonymous" so that s/he can get around Edgar's request that s/he stop interacting with me. What sad and unhealthily behavior.
S/he should take a lesson from Edgar, who regularly allows numerous and extensive posts on his blog that he disagrees with, but without displaying a similar obsessive need to respond point-by-point and always get the last word. Nincs reminds me of Queen Gertrude, who doth protest so much that me thinks s/he senses the strength in the arguments s/he doesn't like.
As for the supposed refutations, they are all addressed on my blog, in Edgar's writings, and elsewhere (including in some writings by Trinitarians). All texts put forth as support for assuming that Jesus' opponents understood his claim to be Son of God in the anachronistic sense that Trinitarians obsessively promote have been dealt with many times. No need to do so yet again.
I do want to at least take a moment to point out that Heb. 1:3 has nothing to do with whether the man Jesus, when he walked the earth, had God's nature, and so that text can't be used to stipulate how Jesus' enemies would have understood his claim to sonship.
Moreover -- and I'll end here for now -- the language we find at Heb. 1:3 is so reminiscent of Wisdom 7:5 that one must assume that either the writer was borrowing from those very ideas, or that the writer of Wisdom 7 and Heb. 1 both borrowed from the same Wisdom traditions. Interestingly, the ancient Jews had no problem conceiving of Wisdom as "created" yet as "a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty..."
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2023/10/08/the-connection-of-hebrews-13-and-gods-wisdom/
I believe both sides have been considered in this thread. So I'm going to close it soon. Thanks all.
Hebrews 1:3 speaks of Christ as "the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being." This language is fundamentally about Christ’s divine nature, presenting Him as the perfect reflection of God’s glory and being. The text explicitly portrays Jesus as fully divine, sharing in the same essence (Greek: hypostasis) as the Father. This passage isn't merely about Jesus’ functional role; it affirms His ontological identity as God.
This is not just a metaphorical description but a theological assertion of Christ’s divinity. The author of Hebrews presents Jesus as more than just a created being or a manifestation of divine wisdom—He is the exact imprint of God’s nature, meaning that He possesses the very substance of God. This contrasts with Wisdom traditions, which often depicted Wisdom as a created entity, albeit an exalted one.
Wisdom 7:25 describes Wisdom as "a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty" and "a reflection of eternal light." This poetic description emphasizes the closeness of Wisdom to God but never equates Wisdom with God Himself. Wisdom is an extension of God’s power, a created aspect of His work, not a co-equal divine person.
In contrast, Hebrews 1:3 does not speak of Christ as a mere emanation or reflection, but rather as the exact imprint of God’s nature, denoting equality with God in essence. Christ is not portrayed as a created being but as eternal and divine. The use of "exact representation" in Greek, "charaktēr", underscores the idea that Christ is the full and complete expression of God's nature, which cannot be said of Wisdom in Jewish traditions.
The Christology in Hebrews, however, affirms that Christ is eternal, not created. Hebrews 1:2 explicitly states that Christ is the agent through whom God made the universe, indicating that He pre-exists creation. While Wisdom is depicted as having a beginning, Christ is presented as the eternal Creator, who shares in God's nature and sustains all things (Hebrews 1:2-3).
The suggestion that the writer of Hebrews borrowed from Wisdom traditions is not entirely out of the question, given that early Christian writers often drew on familiar Jewish ideas to express new theological truths. However, even if the author of Hebrews used language reminiscent of Jewish Wisdom literature, the theological message of Hebrews is different. The focus is not on Christ as a created emanation but as the uncreated, co-eternal Son of God.
While Wisdom in Jewish thought might have been revered as a powerful force or even personified in literary terms, it was never equated with God in the way that Christ is in the New Testament. Hebrews elevates Christ far beyond what Jewish Wisdom literature ascribes to Wisdom. Christ is presented as the eternal Son, co-equal with the Father, and superior to angels (Hebrews 1:4). The distinction between Christ and Wisdom is clear: Christ is worshipped (Hebrews 1:6), and Wisdom is not.
The key difference lies in the theological implications. Christ in Hebrews 1:3 is not merely a reflection or emanation; He is the exact representation of God's being. While Wisdom literature might have influenced the language, the New Testament writers clearly distinguish Christ as divine and eternal, not as a created manifestation of God's wisdom.
The author of Hebrews places Christ in a category beyond Wisdom—He is not just a reflection of God’s glory but shares fully in His divine essence. Therefore, Hebrews 1:3 serves as a powerful affirmation of Christ’s divinity, transcending the created nature attributed to Wisdom in Jewish traditions.
Post a Comment