FULL ARTICLE (And Canva): Trinity - Written by Rony, 4/20-5/15
Canva:https://canva.link/
EMPHASIS IS ALL MINE
It is often alleged that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. While the word Trinity is not in the Bible, the substance of the doctrine is definitely biblical. The doctrine is simply a formal way of systematizing the following six propositions, which may be viewed as premises of the doctrine:
I. There is one God (i.e., one proper object of religious devotion).
II. This one God is a single divine being, called Jehovah or Yahweh in the Old Testament (the LORD).
III. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God, the LORD.
IV. The Son, Jesus Christ, is God, the LORD.
V. The Holy Spirit is God, the LORD.
VI. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each someone distinct from the other two.
Anyone who affirms all six of these propositions is affirming what is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity, since this is just what the doctrine of the Trinity says. In order to dispute the doctrine of the Trinity, then, one must take issue with one or more of the propositions stated above. Anything else is tangential to the issue. Objections based on the special theological vocabulary used in Trinitarian creeds, the conceptual difficulty of the doctrine, the political dimensions of ecclesiastical controversies involving the doctrine, the questionable conduct of some of those who adhere to the doctrine, and the like, fail to engage the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Ironically, anti-Trinitarians who profess faith in the Bible can be found who affirm all of these propositions, though they disagree among themselves as to which ones are biblical. All anti-Trinitarians affirm proposition #3.
Anti-Trinitarians who affirm something akin to the ancient heresy of monarchianism or modalism generally affirm all but proposition #6 (though they actually have difficulty affirming #3 in a consistent manner). Anti-Trinitarians who affirm something akin to the ancient heresy of Arianism agree that Yahweh or Jehovah is a single divine being (cf. proposition #2) and affirm proposition #3; they also agree that the Father and Son are personally distinct but take a somewhat different view of the Holy Spirit (cf. proposition #6). There are still other variations.
Each of these anti-Trinitarian groups considers its position obviously biblical. Thus, there is no need to appeal to extra-biblical considerations to settle the question, as all of the essential elements of the doctrine are addressed one way or another in the Bible.
The following outline study presents an overview of the biblical basis of the above six propositions, and therefore of the doctrine of the Trinity. Comments on the texts have been kept to a bare minimum; the emphasis is on the many biblical texts themselves. Roughly 1,000 references drawn from well over 300 different chapters of the Bible are listed, including references from all 27 books of the New Testament. The study makes no direct references to any specific non-Trinitarian religious groups but focuses solely on presenting the positive biblical evidence for the Trinity and responding succinctly to common objections to this evidence. No secondary sources are cited in the outline itself, though of course I have consulted numerous such sources.
Brief expositions of many of the texts discussed here can be found in the author’s book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989). Unfortunately, that book is out of print, but you can order a copy here. The material on the deity of Christ (point VI of the outline) is discussed in even greater depth in my more recent book Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, co-authored with J. Ed Komoszewski (Kregel, 2007).
A proper evaluation of the biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity will depend on the faithful application of sound principles of biblical interpretation. Here I will mention just two principles which, if followed, would prevent almost all interpretive errors on this subject.
The first is to interpret the implicit in light of the explicit. That is, texts that explicitly state that such-and-such is true are to govern our understanding of passages that do not address the issue directly. For example, many passages of the Bible state explicitly that God is omniscient, that is, that he knows all things, including the thoughts of men and all future events (1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9; Job 37:16; Ps. 139:1-4; Is. 41:22-23; 42:9; 44:7; Jer. 17:10a). These texts must govern our understanding of passages which might seem to imply, but which do not assert, that God did not know something (e.g., Gen. 3:9-13; 4:9; 18:9, 20-21).
The other principle is that we interpret logically but not rationalistically. Using the same illustration, if God knows everything ahead of time, then logically He must have known that Adam and Eve would fall into sin. However, to argue that if God knew Adam and Eve would sin then they would not be responsible for their choosing to sin is not “logical,” it is rationalistic. It may be difficult to understand how persons could be responsible for their sinful actions if God knew ahead of time that they would sin, but it is not illogical (not self-contradictory) to say so.
It should be kept in mind that a fruitful study of the Trinity depends to a considerable extent on a proper understanding of the nature of God. This outline touches on God’s attributes in various places but does not attempt to survey all of the relevant biblical material on the subject.
Note: This outline study has been a work in progress of mine since the late 1970s. A version that was several pages shorter than the current version was one of the most widely disseminated standard resources sent out by the Christian Research Institute (CRI) in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
An electronic media version was created without my knowledge in 1994. Since that time it has appeared on various web sites in various editions (including some with unauthorized revisions), sometimes with permission and sometimes not. The version here, created for publication on the web site of the Institute for Religious Research, is the most recent version and includes the most significant revisions and additions in two decades (including some 300 new biblical references).
In order to ensure the accuracy and integrity of this free resource, I am asserting my copyright to the work as its sole author. Anyone is welcome to print out and copy the outline study as much as they want as long as it is reproduced without change in its entirety (including this introduction and note). Permission must be obtained for posting this resource on another site.
I. There Is One God
One God: Explicit Statements
OT: Deut. 4:35, 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; 2 Kings 5:15; Is. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9
NT: John 5:44; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25
None like God (in his essence)
Explicit statements: Ex. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kgs. 8:23; 1 Chr. 17:20; Ps. 86:8; Is. 40:18, 25; 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer. 10:6-7; Micah 7:18
Being like God a Satanic lie: Gen. 3:5; Is. 14:14; John 8:44
Fallen man become “like God” only in that he took upon himself to know good and evil, not that he acquired godhood: Gen. 3:22
Only one true God: 2 Chr. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20-21
Antitrinitarians sometimes argue that the word translated “true” in John 17:3 (alêthinos) actually means “archetypal,” referring to the Father as the archetypal or original God, thus allowing Christ to be designated “God” in a derivative or secondary sense.
Even if this interpretation were possible for John 17:3, it is not for the OT texts, since the Hebrew word for “true” (’emet) never means “archetypal.”
Elsewhere, the expression “the true God” in context contrasts this God with idols or false gods, not with genuine though derivative gods:
2 Chron. 15:3—Just as Israel was for many days “without the true God” but then turned back to him (vv. 3-6), so Asa turned to him by first removing all the idols from the land (v. 7[1]).
Jer. 10:10—Israel not to fear the gods of the nations, worshiped in idols (10:1-9); the true God is the living God (v. 10) and the Creator of the world (vv. 11-12).
1 Thess. 1:9—the Thessalonians turned from idols to serve the living and true God.
1 John 5:20-21—We are in the true God and eternal life (v. 20b), and should guard ourselves from idols (v. 21).
We should read the expression “the true God” in John 17:3 in light of its use elsewhere in the Bible as well as in its immediate context in John. Jesus’ point is not that the Father is the archetypal God from whom all other Gods are derived, but that God is only truly known in the Father whom Jesus his Son came to glorify. That God the Father cannot be known apart from the Son is a major theme in John’s writings (e.g., John 1:18; 8:19; 14:6-7, 9, 23; 17:25-26; 1 John 2:23; 5:20). The parallel with 1 John 5:20 is especially significant: eternal life consists in knowing the Father as the true God and Jesus Christ (John 17:3); we know the true one in his Son Jesus Christ, and this is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20).
Ironically, critics of the Trinity often lean hard on John 17:3 to try to prove that Jesus cannot be God because the text says that the Father, as distinct from Jesus Christ, is the only true God. But this argument backfires when the “archetypal” understanding of John 17:3 is refuted, because John explicitly identifies Jesus as God (John 1:1, 18; 20:28; see IV.A.2-4 below). Although Christ humbly honors the Father in this statement as the only true God, his statement does not necessarily mean that he (Jesus) is not also God—and the explicit statements in the same Gospel prove this was not his meaning.
All other “gods” are therefore false gods (idols), not gods at all: Deut. 32:21; 1 Sam. 12:21; Ps. 96:5; Is. 37:19; 41:23-24, 29; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; 1 Cor. 8:4; 10:19-20
Demons, not gods, are the power behind false worship: Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8
How human beings are meant to be “like God”
The image of God indicates that man is to represent God and share his moral character, not that man can be metaphysically like God: Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 1 Cor. 11:7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
The goal of being like Christ has the following aspects only:
Sharing His moral character: 1 John 3:2; Rom. 8:29.
Being raised with glorified, immortal bodies like His: Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:49.
Becoming partakers of the divine nature refers again to moral nature (“having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust”), not metaphysical nature: 2 Pet. 1:4; see also Heb. 12:10; on the meaning of “partakers,” see 1 Cor. 10:18, 20; 2 Cor. 1:17; 1 Pet. 5:1.
Are mighty or exalted men gods?
Scripture never says explicitly that human beings are gods.
Powerful, mighty men are explicitly said not to be gods: Ezek. 28:2, 9; Is. 31:3; 2 Thess. 2:4.
Man and God are opposite, exclusive categories: Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 29:1; Job 32:13; Ps. 56:4, 11; Prov. 3:4; Is. 31:3; Ezek. 28:2, 9; Hosea 11:9; Matt. 19:26; John 10:33; Acts 12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2.
Moses was “as God,” not really a god: Ex. 4:16; 7:1.
Ezek. 32:21 speaks of warriors or soldiers as “mighty gods,” but in context they are so regarded by their pagan nations, not by God or Israel; cf. Ezek. 28:2, 9
The elohim before whom accused stood in Exodus was God himself, not judges, as many translations incorrectly render: Ex. 22:8-9, 28; compare Deut. 19:17.
The use of elohim in Psalm 82, probably in reference to wicked judges, as cited by Jesus in John 10:34-36, does not mean that men really can be gods.
It is Asaph, not the Lord, who calls the judges elohim in Ps. 82:1, 6. This is important, even though we agree that Ps. 82 is inspired.
Asaph’s meaning is not “Although you are gods, you will die like men,” but rather “I called you gods, but in fact you will all die like the men that you really are.”
The Psalmist was no more saying that wicked judges were truly gods than he was saying that they were truly “sons of the Most High” (v. 6b).
Thus, Ps. 82:1 calls the judges elohim in irony. They had quite likely taken their role in judgment (cf. point 6 above) to mean they were elohim, or gods, and Asaph’s message is that these so-called gods were mere men who would die under the judgment of the true elohim (vss. 1-2, 7-8).
Christ’s use of this passage in John 10:34-36 does not negate the above interpretation of Psalm 82.
The words, “The Scripture cannot be broken,” in this context probably mean “the Scripture cannot go without having some ultimate fulfillment” (cf. John 7:23; Matt. 5:17). Thus Jesus is saying that what the OT judges were called in irony, he is in reality; he does what they could not do and is what they could never be (see the Adam—Christ contrasts in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45 for a similar use of OT Scripture).
The clause, “those against whom the word of God came” (John 10:35) shows that this “word” was a word of judgment against the so-called gods; which shows that they were false gods, not really gods at all.
Finally, these wicked men were certainly not “godlike” or “divine” by nature, so that in any case the use of elohim to refer to them must be seen as figurative, not literal.
Even if men were gods (which they are not), this would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He was God as a preexistent spirit before creation: John 1:1.
Are angels gods?
Scripture never explicitly states that angels are gods.
Demonic spirits are not gods, 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8; thus, being “mighty spirits” does not make angels gods.
Satan is therefore also a false god: 2 Cor. 4:4.
Psalm 8:5 does not teach that angels are gods.
Ps. 8:5 is paraphrased in Heb. 2:7, not quoted literally (for a similar example of such paraphrase, cf. Ps. 68:18 with Eph. 4:8). In Ps. 8:5, elohim certainly means God, not angels, since Ps. 8:3-8 parallels Gen. 1:1, 8, 16, 26-28. (Hebrews is here following the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the OT, in using “angels” in place of “God.”) Note that the Psalmist is speaking of man’s exalted place in creation, whereas Hebrews, while agreeing on man’s exalted status compared to the rest of creation, applies the Psalm to speak of the lower place taken by Christ in becoming a man compared to his intrinsic status as divine. Thus, Heb. 2:7 may not mean to equate angels with gods at all (and the writer never draws that conclusion).
Having argued that Christ, unlike the angels, bears the designation “God” (1:8), it would be odd for the writer to imply just several verses later that the angels were “gods” (supposedly in 2:7).
Even if Heb. 2:7 did imply that angels are “gods,” in the context of Hebrews 1-2 these angels would be those falsely exalted above Christ. (The focal claim of Hebrews 1-2 is that Christ is greater than all the angels.) Cf. also Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9 on the problem of the worship of angels (as well as possibly Col. 2:18).
Elsewhere in the Psalms angels, if spoken of as gods (or as “sons of the gods”), are considered false gods: Ps. 29:1; 86:8-10; 89:6; 95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9 (note that these false gods are called “angels” in the Septuagint); 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; cf. Ex. 15:11; 18:11; Deut. 10:17; 1 Chr. 16:25; 2 Chr. 2:5.
Even if the angels were gods (which the above shows they are not), that would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He is not an angelic being, but the Son who is worshipped by the angels as their Creator, Lord, and God: Heb. 1:1-13.
Does the plural form of Elohim refer to “gods” or “Gods”?
It is true that the Hebrew word elohim (usually translated “God”) is grammatically a plural form. However, when it refers to “gods” in the plural (typically false deities), elohim regularly takes plural verbs, adjectives, and pronouns (e.g., “other [pl.] gods,” Ex. 20:3; Deut. 5:7; frequent in the OT; “these [pl.] are the gods,” 1 Sam. 4:8; “so may the gods do [pl.] to me,” 1 Kings 19:2; “you [pl.] are our gods,” Is. 42:17; etc.). When it refers to the true God, the Creator, the object of Israel’s proper worship, it regularly takes singular verbs, singular adjectives, and singular pronouns. For example, “created” in Genesis 1:1 is a singular verb form, despite the fact that elohim (“God”) is grammatically a plural noun. Most Hebrew scholars understand this use of the plural form elohim for God to be an example of the plural of fullness (or plenitude, amplitude, etc.).
The simple fact that the OT occasionally uses elohim with reference to a single pagan god, such as Ashtoreth, Chemosh, or Molech (1 Kings 11:5, 33), is sufficient to show that elohim can refer to a single deity (see also Judg. 6:31; 11:24; 16:23, 24; 1 Sam. 5:7; 1 Kings 18:24a, 25; 2 Kings 1:2, 3, 6, 16; 19:37).
The Greek OT (or Septuagint) translated elohim in these contexts consistently with the singular noun theos (“God”), and when the NT quotes the OT it also uses the singular form theos (e.g., Deut. 6:13, in Matt. 4:10 and Luke 4:8; Deut. 6:16, in Matt. 4:7 and Luke 4:12; Ex. 3:6, in Matt. 22:32, Mark 12:26, and Luke 20:37; Ps. 22:1 in Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34; etc.).
Since the plural form elohim can be used even with reference to an individual pagan deity, we should also not regard this plural form as evidence of the Trinity.
Conclusion: If there is only one God, one true God, all other gods being false gods, neither men nor angels being gods, and none even like God by nature—all of which the Bible says repeatedly and explicitly—then we must conclude that there is indeed only one God.
II. This One God Is the Single Divine Being Known in the OT as Jehovah or Yahweh (“The LORD”)
This one God is known in the OT as Jehovah or Yahweh (“the LORD”)
Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39; Josh. 22:34; 1 Kings 8:60; 18:21, 39; Ps. 100:3; 118:27; etc.
Texts where the compound name “Jehovah God” (Yahweh Elohim) is used: Gen. 2:4-9, 15-22; 3:1, 8-9, 13-14, 21-23; 24:3; Ex. 9:30; Ps. 72:18; 84:11; Jonah 4:6
Only one Yahweh/Jehovah: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29
The Bible never speaks of “the gods” as a group that includes Yahweh; nor is creation ever credited to “gods”; nor does it ever enjoin the worship of “gods”; nor does it speak in any other way that would imply that Yahweh was one of a group of deities. In fact the Bible explicitly rejects these types of statements (e.g., Deut. 5:6-10; 6:4-5, 13; Is. 43:10; 44:6-8, 24).
Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only El or Elohim
This one God, the LORD, is one single divine being
The Bible always refers to the LORD or God in the third person singular (he, his, him), never as they, and speakers in the Bible addressing God/the LORD always do so in the second person singular (you singular). Citing texts is really unnecessary because there are far too many occurrences, but see, for example, Gen. 1:5, 10; Ex. 3:6, 12-14; 20:7; Deut. 32:39; 1 Kings 18:39; Ps. 23:2-3.
Whenever in the Bible the LORD or God speaks to human beings or other creatures, he always speaks of himself in the first person singular (I and my/mine, not us/we and our/ours). Of the obviously numerous examples, see the especially famous examples in Ex. 3:14; Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6. He says “I am the LORD” or “I am the LORD your/their God” some 164 times in the OT (especially in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Isaiah, and Ezekiel).
This conclusion cannot be circumvented by saying that there is one “Godhead” consisting of a plurality of divine beings. The word “Godhead” is equivalent to the word “Godhood” (-head is an old English suffix meaning the state or status of something, as in maidenhead, the state of being a maiden or virgin). In the English Bible it is used to translate three closely related words: theion (“divine being,” Acts 17:29), theiotês (“divine nature,” Rom. 1:20), and theotês (“deity,” Col. 2:9). In none of these texts does “Godhead” refer to more than one divine being. The use of “Godhead” as a term for the Trinity is not found in the Bible; it is not inaccurate per se, but it must be understood as a term for a single divine being, not a group of gods.
However, the Bible never says that God is “one person.”
Heb. 1:3 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but the word used here, hupostasis, is translated “substance” in Heb. 11:1 KJV; also in Heb. 1:3 “God” refers specifically to the Father.
Gal. 3:20 speaks of God as one party in the covenant between God and man, not as one person.
Job 13:8 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but ironically the Hebrew literally means “his faces.”
The use of plural pronouns by God in Genesis 1-11
As already noted, the Bible always refers to God in the singular, and he always speaks of himself with singular pronouns (I, me, mine, my) when addressing creatures. These singular forms do not disprove that God exists as three “persons” as long as these persons are not separate beings.
At least three times God speaks of or to himself using plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7), and nontrinitarian interpretations cannot account for these occurrences.
A plural reference to God and the angels is not likely in these texts. In 1:26 “our image” is explained by the parallel in 1:27, “in God’s image.” In 3:22 “like one of us” refers back to 3:5, “like God.” In 11:7 “let us go down and there confuse their language” is explained immediately in 11:8-9, “So the LORD [Yahweh] scattered them abroad from there … The LORD confused the language of the whole earth.” Angels were evidently present when God created human beings (cf. Job 38:4-7), but the Bible never includes them as participants in creating human beings. Nor does the Bible ever speak of humans as being in the image of angels.
That the plural is in some way literal is evident from 3:22 (“like one of us”) and from 11:7 (“Come, let us go down”), which parallels the people’s statements “Come, let us …” (11:3, 4).
The “literary plural” (possibly, though never clearly, attested in Paul) is irrelevant to OT texts in which God is speaking, not writing.
The “plural of deliberation” or “cohortative plural” (as in “Let’s see now …”) with reference to a single person is apparently unattested in biblical writings, and clearly cannot explain the plural in Gen. 3:22 (“like one of us”).
The “plural of amplitude” or of “fullness” (which probably does explain the use of the plural form elohim in the singular sense of “God”) is irrelevant to the use of plural pronouns, and again cannot explain Gen. 3:22 and 11:7.
The “plural of majesty” (the royal “we”) is possibly attested in 1 Kings 12:9; 2 Chron. 10:9; more likely Ezra 4:18; but none of these is a certain use of that idiom; and again, it cannot explain Gen. 3:22 and 11:7.
There are two factors that may explain why these intradivine plural pronouns occur only in Genesis 1-11.
These plural pronouns express communication among the divine persons, rather than communication from God to human beings or angelic creatures.
It may be significant that the use of these plural forms is reported only in Genesis 1-11, prior to the revelations to Abraham, when the focus of biblical revelation became the fostering of a monotheistic faith. The history of the OT is a history of the struggle to establish Israel as a community committed to belief in one God. In that context it would have been confusing to have referred overtly to the three divine persons of the triune God. This also explains why there is no overt revelation of the three persons in the OT.
The uniqueness of God should prepare us for the possibility that the one divine Being exists uniquely as a plurality of persons
Only one God, thus unique: see I.A
None are even like God: see I.B
God cannot be fully comprehended: Is. 40:18, 25; 1 Cor. 8:2-3
God can be known only insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27; John 1:18
Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28; Rev. 1:13-16
God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench
Separate from the world: Is. 40:22; Acts 17:24
Contrasted with the world: Ps. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17
Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Ps. 33:6; 102:25; Is. 42:5; 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3
The Hebrew Bible often equates God’s Name with God himself, which is why blaspheming the Name or using it in vain makes a person guilty of a heinous sin punishable by death:
“You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.” Exodus 20:7
“And the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses. (Now his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.)… Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.” Leviticus 24:11, 16
In fact, the Name is so important that God has committed himself to make sure that it will never be profaned again:
“And My holy name I will make known in the midst of My people Israel; and I will not let My holy name be profaned anymore. And the nations will know that I am Yahweh, the Holy One in Israel.” Ezekiel 39:7
We are further told that the ark of the covenant, which symbolizes God’s presence among his people, is called after the Name:
“Then David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God which is called by the Name, the very name of Yahweh of hosts who is enthroned above the cherubim.” 2 Samuel 6:1-2
The prophetic Scriptures, along with Jewish and Christian writings even go as far as to personify the Name of God, attributing to it personal agency and characteristics such as the creation of all things and coming in judgment to unleash its wrath against the disbelieving nations:
“Behold, the name of Yahweh comes from afar; Burning is His anger and heavy is His smoke; His lips are filled with indignation And His tongue is like a consuming fire; His breath is like an overflowing torrent, Which reaches to the neck, To shake the nations back and forth in a sieve of worthlessness, And to put in the jaws of the peoples the bridle which staggers one to ruin.” Isaiah 30:27-28
ועתה אשביעכם בשבועה גדולה, כי אין שבועה גדולה מהישבע בשם המבורך והמכובד והגדול אשר עשה שמים וארץ וכל היקום:
And now I shall make you swear a great oath–for there is no oath which is greater than it by the name glorious and honoured and great and splendid and wonderful and mighty, which created the heavens and the earth and all things together. (Book of Jubilees 36:8; emphasis mine)
Chapter 59. Warning Against Disobedience. Prayer.
If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name, our hope resting on Your name which is primal cause of every creature — having opened the eyes of our heart to the knowledge of You, who alone rests highest among the highest, holy among the holy, Isaiah 57:15 who layest low the insolence of the haughty, Isaiah 13:11 who destroyest the calculations of the heathen, who settest the low on high and bringest low the exalted; who makest rich and makest poor, 1 Samuel 2:7 who killest and makest to live, Deuteronomy 32:39 only Benefactor of spirits and God of all flesh, who beholdest the depths, the eye-witness of human works, the help of those in danger, the Saviour of those in despair, the Creator and Guardian of every spirit, who multipliest nations upon earth, and from all made choice of those who love You through Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, through whom You instructed, sanctify, honour us. We would have You, Lord, to prove our help and succour. Those of us in affliction save, on the lowly take pity; the fallen raise; upon those in need arise; the sick heal; the wandering ones of Your people turn; fill the hungry; redeem those of us in bonds; raise up those that are weak; comfort the faint-hearted; let all the nations know that You are God alone and Jesus Christ Your Son, and we are Your people and the sheep of Your pasture. (First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; emphasis mine)
Other divine functions which are ascribed to the Name include forgiveness of sins, redemption/salvation, everlasting security, etc.:
“May Yahweh answer you in the day of distress! May the name of the God of Jacob set you securely on high! May He send you help from the sanctuary And uphold you from Zion! Some boast in chariots and some in horses, But we will boast in the name of Yahweh, our God.” Psalm 20:1-2, 7
“Lamedh For Your name’s sake, O Yahweh, Pardon my iniquity, for it is great.” Psalm 25:11
“For the choir director. With stringed instruments. A Maskil of David. When the Ziphites came and said to Saul, ‘Is not David hiding himself among us?’ O God, save me by Your name, And render justice to me by Your might.” Psalm 54:1
“Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of Your name; And deliver us and atone for our sins for Your name’s sake.” Psalm 79:9
It is at this point where it becomes truly remarkable since the New Testament associates the Name with Jesus Christ!
The Apostles wen forth proclaiming that Jesus is or bears the Name, and were willing to suffer and be killed for it:
“So they followed his advice. And after calling the apostles in and beating them, they commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. So they went on their way from the presence of the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for the Name.” Acts 5:40-41
“which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was designated as the Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we received grace and apostleship for the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of His name,” Romans 1:2-5
“For they went out for the sake of the Name, receiving nothing from the Gentiles.” 3 John 7
The Apostolic witness even attributes to Christ’s Name the same divine prerogatives and functions, ascribed to YHWH’s Nme in the OT writings.
For instance, it is in Jesus’ Name alone that individuals receive physical healing and salvation:
“Now it happened that on the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent. And when they had placed them in their midst, they began to inquire, ‘By what power, or in what name, have you done this?’ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, ‘Rulers and elders of the people, if we are being examined today for a good deed done to a sick man, as to how this man has been saved from his sickness, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.’
“Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and comprehended that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say in reply. But when they had ordered them to leave the Sanhedrin, they began to confer with one another, saying, ‘What should we do with these men? For the fact that a noteworthy sign has happened through them is apparent to all who live in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But lest it spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no longer to any man in this name.’ And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.’” Acts 4:5-20
The Apostles’ miraculously healing a paralytic provided supernatural confirmation that Christ is not only alive in heaven after being killed, but that his Name alone is able to save anyone.
To say that this is astonishing would be a wild understatement in light of the fact that the Hebrew Bible emphatically states that YHWH is the only just God who is able to save, which is why all the nations must to turn to him and to no other!
“Declare and draw near with your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has made this heard from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” Isaiah 45:21-23
Nor is the case of Acts 4 an isolated one since the entirety of the NT proclamation is that Christ’s Name grants the gift of the Holy Spirit, new life/regeneration, forgiveness of sins, adoption into God’s spiritual family, miracles, etc.:
“John said to Him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to hinder him because he was not following us.‘ But Jesus said, ‘Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name because you are of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.'” Mark 9:38-41
“Now He said to them, ‘These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.’” Luke 24:44-47
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12-13
“Therefore many other signs Jesus also did in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” John 20:30-31
“Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men, brothers, what should we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” Acts 2:37-38
“As for the word which He sent to the sons of Israel, proclaiming the good news of peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—… And He commanded us to preach to the people, and solemnly to bear witness that this is the One who has been designated by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” Acts 10:36, 42-43
“Now it happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a servant-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling. Following after Paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, ‘These men are slaves of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.’ And she continued doing this for many days. But being greatly annoyed, Paul turned and said to the spirit, ‘I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to leave her!’ And it left at that very moment.” Acts 16:16-18
“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world… I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.” 1 John 2:1-2, 12
“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for the witness of God is this, that He has borne witness about His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has this witness in himself. The one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness which God has borne witness about His Son. And the witness is this, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have that life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.” 1 John 5:9-13
V. The Holy Spirit Is God
Equated with God/the Lord
Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17-18
Has the incommunicable attributes of God
Eternal: Heb. 9:14; this poses a problem for anyone suggesting that the Holy Spirit is something other than God (implies someone or something else besides God is eternal)
Omnipresent: Ps. 139:7
Omniscient: 1 Cor. 2:10-11
Involved in all the works of God
Creation: Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:30
Incarnation: Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35
Resurrection: Rom. 1:4; 8:11
Salvation: Rom. 8:1-27
Is a person
Has a name: Matt. 28:19; note that even though “name” might be used of a nonperson, here, in conjunction with the Father and the Son, it must be used of a person.
Is the “Helper”
Is another Helper: John 14:16, cf. 1 John 2:1; note also that “Helper” (paraklêtos) was used in Greek always or almost always of persons.
Is sent in Jesus’ name, to teach: John 14:26.
Will arrive, and then bear witness: John 15:26-27.
Is sent by Christ to convict of sin, will speak not on his own but on behalf of Christ, will glorify Christ, thus exhibiting humility: John 16:7-14.
Is the Holy Spirit, in contrast to unholy or unclean spirits: Mark 3:22-30, cf. Matt. 12:32; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 3:24–4:6.
Speaks, is quoted as speaking: John 16:13; Acts 1:16; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2; 16:6; 20:23; 21:11; 28:25-27; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:7-11; 10:15-17; 1 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22.
Can be lied to: Acts 5:3
Can make decisions, judgments: Acts 15:28
Intercedes for Christians with the Father: Rom. 8:26
“Impersonal” language used of the Spirit paralleled by language used of other persons
The Holy Spirit as fire: Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16; cf. Ex. 3:2-4; Deut. 4:24; 9:3; Heb. 12:29
The Holy Spirit poured out: Acts 2:17, 33; cf. Is. 53:12; Phil. 2:17; 2 Tim. 4:6
Being filled with the Holy Spirit: Eph. 5:18, etc.; cf. Eph. 3:17, 19; John 14:10
VI. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Are Each Someone Distinct from the Other Two (i.e., they are three “persons”)
Matt. 28:19
“the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”: use of definite article before each personal noun indicates distinct persons unless explicitly stated otherwise; compare Rev. 1:17; 2:8, 26
The views that “Father” and “Son” are distinct persons but not the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is not a person at all, or that all three are different offices or roles of one person, are impossible in view of the grammar (together with the fact that in Scripture a “spirit” is a person unless context shows otherwise).
Does singular “name” prove that the three are one person? No; cf. Gen. 5:2; 11:14; 48:6; and esp. 48:16. Thus, the word “name” can apply distinctly to each of the three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and does not imply that they have only one name.
“Name” need not be personal name, may be title: Is. 9:6; Matt. 1:23.
Acts 2:38 and Matt. 28:19
Neither passage specifies that certain words are to be spoken during baptism; nor does the Bible ever record someone saying, “I baptize you in the name of….”
Those said to be baptized in the name of Jesus (whether or not the formula “in the name of Jesus” was used) were people already familiar with the God of the OT:
Jews: Acts 2:5, 38; 22:16
Samaritans: Acts 8:5, 12, 16
God-fearing Gentiles: Acts 10:1-2, 22, 48
Disciples of John the Baptist: Acts 19:1-5
The first Christians in Corinth were Jews and God-fearing Gentiles: Acts 18:1-8; 1 Cor. 1:13
Trinitarian formula for baptism (if that is what Matt. 28:19 is) was given in context of commissioning apostles to take the gospel to “all the nations,” including people who did not know of the biblical God
Cross-referencing Acts 2:38 and other Acts references to baptism “in Jesus’ name” with Matthew 28:19 to prove that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is hermeneutically flawed, since none of these passages is seeking to make such a point and none of them is claiming that baptism must be performed using a particular formula.
God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ are two persons
The salutations: Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1, 2; 1 Tim. 1:1, 2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Philem. 3; James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:2; 2 John 3
Two witnesses: John 5:31-32; 8:16-18; cf. Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15
The Father sent the Son: John 3:16-17; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:10; etc.; cf. John 1:6; 17:18; 20:21
The Father and the Son love each other: John 3:35; 5:20; 14:31; 15:9; 17:23-26; cf. Matt. 3:17 par.; 17:5 par.; 2 Pet. 1:17
The Father speaks to the Son, and the Son speaks to the Father: John 11:41-42; 12:28; 17:1-26; etc.
The Father knows the Son, and the Son knows the Father: Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 7:29; 8:55; 10:15
Jesus our Advocate with the Father: 1 John 2:1
Jesus is not God the Father
Is. 9:6: “Father of eternity” means eternal; compare other names formed with word “father”: Abialbon, “father of strength” = strong (2 Sam. 23:31); Abiasaph, “father of gathering” = gatherer (Ex. 6:24); Abigail, a woman’s name (!), “father of exultation” = exulting (1 Chron. 2:16).
John 10:30
Jesus did not say, “I am the Father,” nor did he say, “the Son and the Father are one person.”
The first person plural esmen (“we are”) implies two persons.
The neuter word for “one” (hen) is used, implying essential unity but not personal unity.
John 10:30 in context is a strong affirmation of Christ’s deity, but does not mean that he is the Father.
John 5:43: Jesus’ coming in his Father’s name means not that he was the Father because he had the Father’s name, but that, while others come in their own name (or their own authority), Jesus does not; he comes in his Father’s name (on his Father’s authority).
John 8:19; 16:3: Ignorance of Jesus is indeed ignorance of the Father, but that does not prove that Jesus is the one he calls “My Father.”
John 14:6-11
Jesus and the Father are one being, not one person.
Jesus said, “I am in the Father,” not “I am the Father.”
The statement, “the Father is in me,” does not mean Jesus is the Father; compare John 14:20; 17:21-23.
John 14:18: An older adult brother can care for his younger siblings, thus preventing them from being “orphans,” without being their father.
Colossians 2:9: Does not mean that Jesus is the Father, or that Jesus is an incarnation of the Father; rather, since “Godhead” (theotês) means Deity, the state of being God, the nature of God, Jesus is fully God, but not the only person who is God. “The Godhead” here does not = the Father (note that Jesus is in the Father, John 10:38; 14:10, 11; 17:21), but the nature of the Father. See II.B.3.
The Father and the Son are both involved in various activities: raising Jesus (Gal. 1:1; John 2:19-22), raising the dead (John 5:21; 6:39-40, 44, 54, 1 Cor. 6:14), answering prayer (John 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23), sending the Holy Spirit (John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7), drawing people to Jesus (John 6:44; 12:32), etc. These common works do prove that the two persons are both God, but not that Jesus is the Father.
The Son existed before his Incarnation, even before creation
Prov. 30:4: This is not predictive prophecy; “prophecy” in 30:1 translates massa, which is rendered elsewhere as “burden.”
The Son created all things, requiring of course that he existed when he did so: See above, IV.E.1.
Jesus was “with” (pros or para) God the Father before creation: John 1:1; 17:5; pros in John 1:1 does not mean “pertaining to,” although it does in Hebrews 2:17; 5:1 (which use pros with ta).
Jesus, the Son of God, existed before John the Baptist (who was born before Jesus): John 1:15, cf. 1:14-18, 29-34.
Jesus, the Son, came down from heaven, sent from the Father, and went back to heaven, back to the Father: John 3:13, 31; 6:33, 38, 41, 46, 51, 56-58, 62; 8:23, 42; 13:3; 16:27-28; cf. Acts 1:10-11; cf. the sending of the Holy Spirit, John 16:5-7; 1 Pet. 1:12
Jesus, speaking as the Son (John 8:54-56), asserts His eternal preexistence before Abraham: John 8:58
The Son explicitly said to exist “before all things”: Col. 1:17, cf. 1:12-20
These statements cannot be dismissed as true only in God’s foreknowledge
We are all “in God’s mind” before creation; yet such passages as John 1:1 and John 17:5 clearly mean to say something unusual about Christ.
To say that all things were created through Christ means that He must have existed at creation.
No one else in Scripture is ever said to have been with God before creation.
Texts which speak of the Son being begotten “today” do not mean he became the Son on a certain day, since they refer to his exaltation at his resurrection (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:3-5; 5:5; cf. Ps. 2:7; cf. also Rom. 1:4).
Jesus is not the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is “another Comforter”: John 14:16; compare 1 John 2:1.
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit: John 15:26; 16:7.
The Holy Spirit exhibits humility in relation to, and seeks to glorify, Jesus (John 16:13-14).
The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinguished as two persons in Matt. 28:19.
The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus: Luke 3:22.
Is Jesus the Holy Spirit?
2 Cor. 3:17: the Spirit is here called “Lord” in the sense of being Yahweh or God, not Jesus (cf. v. 16, citing Ex. 34:34; cf. v. 17 in the Revised English Bible); note Acts 28:25-27, cf. Is. 6:8-10.
1 Cor. 15:45: Jesus is “a life-giving Spirit,” not in the sense that he is the Holy Spirit whom he sent at Pentecost, but in the sense that he is the glorified God-man; and as God he is Spirit by nature. All three persons of the Trinity are Spirit, though there are not three divine Spirits; and only one person is designated “the Holy Spirit.”
Rom. 8:27, 34: the fact that two persons intercede for us is consistent with the fact that we have two Advocates (John 14:16; Rom. 8:26; 1 John 2:1).
John 14:18: Jesus here refers to his appearances to the disciples after the resurrection (compare 14:19), not to the coming of the Spirit.
Jesus and the Holy Spirit are both involved in various activities: raising Jesus (John 2:19-22; Rom. 8:9-11), raising the dead (John 5:21; 6:39-40, 44, 54, Rom. 8:9-11), dwelling in the believer (John 14:16; 2 Cor. 13:5; Col. 1:27), interceding for the believer (Rom. 8:26; Heb. 7:25), sanctifying believers (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 1:2), etc. These works prove that the two persons are both God, but not that Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit
The Father sent the Holy Spirit: John 14:15; 15:26.
The Holy Spirit intercedes with the Father for us: Rom. 8:26-27.
The Father and the Holy Spirit are distinguished as two persons in Matt. 28:19.
Is the Father the Holy Spirit?
Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35: It is argued that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the incarnate Son of God; this argument ignores the fact that the “conception” is not a product of physical union between a man and a woman!
The Father and the Holy Spirit are both said to be active in various activities; the resurrection of Jesus (Gal. 1:1; Rom. 8:11), comforting Christians (2 Cor. 1:3-4; John 14:26), sanctifying Christians (Jude 1; 1 Pet. 1:2), etc. The most these facts prove is that the two work together; they do not prove the two are one person.
VII. Conclusion: The Bible teaches the Trinity
All the elements of the doctrine are taught in Scripture
One God who is one divine being (see Part I and Part II).
The Father is God (see Part III).
The Son is God (see Part IV).
The Holy Spirit is God (see Part V).
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons, i.e., they are not each other, nor are they impersonal; they relate to one another personally (see Part VI).
The New Testament presents a consistent triad of Father, Son, Holy Spirit (God, Christ, Spirit): Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; also Luke 1:35; 3:21-22 par.; 4:1-12; John 4:10-25; 7:37-39; 14-16; 20:21-22; Acts 1:4-8; 2:33, 38-39; 5:3-4, 9, 30-32; 7:55-56; 10:36-38, 44-48; 11:15-18; 15:8-11; 20:38; 28:25-31; Rom. 1:1-4; 5:5-10; 8:2-4, 9-11, 14-17; 1 Cor. 6:11; 12:4-6, 11-12, 18; 2 Cor. 1:19-22; 3:6-8, 14-18; Gal. 3:8-14; 4:4-7; Eph. 1:3-17; 2:18, 21-22; 3:14-19; 4:4-6, 29-32; 5:18-20; Phil. 3:3; 1 Thess. 1:3-6; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Tit. 3:4-6; Heb. 2:3-4; 9:14; 10:28-31; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 3:21-24; 4:13-14; Jude 20-21; Rev. 2:18, 27-29.
Therefore, the Bible does teach the Trinity.
VIII. What Difference Does the Doctrine of the Trinity Make?
Sovereignty: Because the three persons have each other, we can be assured that God created us only to share the love they have and not as a means to his own end: Acts 17:25; John 17:21-26.
Mystery: The triune God is totally unlike anything in our world, and therefore greater than anything we can comprehend: Rom. 11:33-36; Isa. 40:18.
Salvation: God alone planned our salvation, came to save us, and dwells in us to complete our salvation: 1 Pet. 1:2; Eph. 1:3-18; etc.
Prayer: We pray to the Father through the Son, and also pray to the Son directly, in the Spirit: John 14:13-14; Eph. 2:18; etc.
Worship: We worship Father and Son in the Spirit: John 4:23-24; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 1:8; etc.
Love: The love among the three persons is the basis and model for our love for one another: John 17:26.
Unity: The unity of the three persons is the basis and model for the unity of the church: John 17:21-23.
Humility: As the persons of the Trinity seek the glory of each other, so we should seek the interests of others above our own: Phil. 2:5-11; John 16:13-14.
Sonship: We are “sons of God” as we are united with the Son of God by the work of the Holy Spirit and the adoption of the Father: John 1:12-23; Rom. 8:14-17.
Truth: All those who wish to worship and love God must seek to know Him as He is in truth, for God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is truth: John 4:24; 14:6, 17; 15:26; 16:13.
The NT further states that true believers were/are to be called Christians, since they have been commanded to bear the Name of Christ:
“If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you… but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be put to shame, but is to glorify God in this name.” 1 Peter 4:14, 16
Again, this is an astonishing claim in light of the OT witness that believers were called after/by YHWH’s Name:
“So all the peoples of the earth will see that you are called by the name of Yahweh, and they will be afraid of you.” Deuteronomy 28:10
“and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their evil ways, then I will listen from heaven, I will forgive their sin, and I will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14
The foregoing shows that Christ now is and/or bears the Name, and in so doing he is being described as YHWH God Almighty who became Man for the redemption of his creation.
In this post I will be excerpting a section from St. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, in which the blessed saint sets out to prove the following:
1. The Scriptures are inerrant, having no real contradictions.
2. The Jewish elders reject specific verses from the Greek version of the Old Testament, which was composed by a group of seventy Jewish scribes, claiming that they were never a part of the sacred text.
3. The Hebrew Bible prophesied that the Messiah is the Lord God who will be born as a man from a holy Virgin, citing Isaiah 7:14 as proof.
4. Rejects the claim that Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a young woman conceiving, not a virgin, and denies that this refers to Hezekiah.
5. Employs Genesis 1:26, 3:22 and Proverbs 8 to demonstrate that the Son was there with Father where they created all things together.
6. Quotes Joshua 5:13-6:2, Psalms 45, 72 and 99 to prove that all of these are statements and/or messianic prophecies about Christ being the Lord God that appeared as and would eventually become Man, worthy of all worship, and that his Church is one and universal.
7. Argues that Isaiah 42:8 proclaims that God swears to only give his glory to the Christ, and to none else, thereby further proving that both the Father and the Christ are worthy to be called Lord, God and to receive worship.
All emphasis will be mine.
Chapter 61. Wisdom is begotten of the Father, as fire from fire
Justin: I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot BEFORE ALL CREATURES a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun).
For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.
The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following:
If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He had made the earth, and before He had made the deeps, before the springs of the waters had issued forth, before the mountains had been established. Before all the hills He begets me. God made the country, and the desert, and the highest inhabited places under the sky. When He made ready the heavens, I was along with Him, and when He set up His throne on the winds: when He made the high clouds strong, and the springs of the deep safe, when He made the foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging. I was that in which He rejoiced; daily and at all times I delighted in His countenance, because He delighted in the finishing of the habitable world, and delighted in the sons of men. Now, therefore, O son, hear me. Blessed is the man who shall listen to me, and the mortal who shall keep my ways, watching daily at my doors, observing the posts of my ingoings. For my outgoings are the outgoings of life, and [my] will has been prepared by the Lord. But they who sin against me, trespass against their own souls; and they who hate me love death.
Chapter 62. The words Let Us make man agree with the testimony of Proverbs
Justin: And the same sentiment was expressed, my friends, by the word of God [written] by Moses, when it indicated to us, with regard to Him whom it has pointed out, that God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words:
‘Let Us make man after our image and likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creeping things that creep on the earth. And God created man: after the image of God did He create him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and said, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and have power over it.’
And that you may not change the [force of the] words just quoted, and repeat what your teachers assert — either that God said to Himself, ‘Let Us make,’ just as we, when about to do something, oftentimes say to ourselves, ‘Let us make;’ or that God spoke to the elements, to wit, the earth and other similar substances of which we believe man was formed, ‘Let Us make,’— I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being.
These are the words:
‘And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.‘
Genesis 3:22 In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us,’ [Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, WAS WITH the Father BEFORE ALL CREATURES, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning BEFORE ALL HIS CREATURES and as Offspring by God, who has also declared this same thing in the revelation made by Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). Listen, therefore, to the following from the book of Joshua, that what I say may become manifest to you; it is this:
‘And it came to pass, when Joshua was near Jericho, he lifted up his eyes, and sees a man standing over against him. And Joshua approached to Him, and said, Are you for us, or for our adversaries? And He said to him, I am Captain of the Lord’s host: now have I come. And Joshua fell on his face on the ground, and said to Him, Lord, what do You command Your servant? And the Lord’s Captain says to Joshua, Loose the shoes off your feet; for the place whereon you stand is holy ground. And Jericho was shut up and fortified, and no one went out of it. And the Lord said to Joshua, Behold, I give into your hand Jericho, and its king, [and] its mighty men.’
Chapter 63. It is proved that this God was incarnate
Trypho: This point has been proved to me forcibly, and by many arguments, my friend. It remains, then, to prove that He submitted to become man by the Virgin, according to the will of His Father; and to be crucified, and to die. Prove also clearly, that after this He rose again and ascended to heaven.
Justin: This, too, has been already demonstrated by me in the previously quoted words of the prophecies, my friends; which, by recalling and expounding for your sakes, I shall endeavour to lead you to agree with me also about this matter. The passage, then, which Isaiah records, ‘Who shall declare His generation? For His life is taken away from the earth,’ Isaiah 53:8— does it not appear to you to refer to One who, not having descent from men, was said to be delivered over to death by God for the transgressions of the people?— of whose blood, Moses (as I mentioned before), when speaking in parable, said, that He would wash His garments in the blood of the grape; since His blood did not spring from the seed of man, but from the will of God.
And then, what is said by David, ‘In the splendours of Your holiness have I begotten You from the womb, before the morning star. The Lord has sworn, and will not repent, You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,’ — does this not declare to you that [He was] from of old, and that the God and Father of all things intended Him to be begotten by a human womb? And speaking in other words, which also have been already quoted, [he says]:
‘Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of rectitude is the sceptre of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and have hated iniquity: therefore God, even your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows. [He has anointed You] with myrrh, and oil, and cassia from Your garments, from the ivory palaces, whereby they made You glad. King’s daughters are in Your honour. The queen stood at Your right hand, clad in garments embroidered with gold. Hearken, O daughter, and behold, and incline your ear, and forget your people and the house of your father; and the King shall desire your beauty: because he is your Lord, and you shall worship Him.’
Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ. Moreover, that the word of God speaks to those who believe in Him as being one soul, and one synagogue, and one church, as to a daughter; that it thus addresses the church which has sprung from His name and partakes of His name (for we are all called Christians), is distinctly proclaimed in like manner in the following words, which teach us also to forget [our] old ancestral customs, when they speak thus:
‘Hearken, O daughter, and behold, and incline your ear; forget your people and the house of your father, and the King shall desire your beauty: because He is your Lord, and you shall worship Him.’
Chapter 64. Justin adduces other proofs to the Jew, who denies that he needs this Christ
Trypho: Let Him be recognised as Lord and Christ and God, as the Scriptures declare, by you of the Gentiles, who have from His name been all called Christians; but we who are servants of God that made this same [Christ], do not require to confess or worship Him.
Justin: If I were to be quarrelsome and light-minded like you, Trypho, I would no longer continue to converse with you, since you are prepared not to understand what has been said, but only to return some captious answer; but now, since I fear the judgment of God, I do not state an untimely opinion concerning any one of your nation, as to whether or not some of them may be saved by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth.
Therefore, although you act wrongfully, I shall continue to reply to any proposition you shall bring forward, and to any contradiction which you make; and, in fact, I do the very same to all men of every nation, who wish to examine along with me, or make inquiry at me, regarding this subject.
Accordingly, if you had bestowed attention on the Scriptures previously quoted by me, you would already have understood, that those who are saved of your own nation are saved through this [man], and partake of His lot; and you would not certainly have asked me about this matter. I shall again repeat the words of David previously quoted by me, and beg of you to comprehend them, and not to act wrongfully, and stir each other up to give merely some contradiction. The words which David speaks, then, are these:
‘The Lord has reigned; let the nations be angry: [it is] He who sits upon the cherubim; let the earth be shaken. The Lord is great in Zion; and He is high above all the nations. Let them confess Your great name, for it is fearful and holy; and the honour of the king loves judgment. You have prepared equity; judgment and righteousness have You performed in Jacob. Exalt the Lord our God, and worship the footstool of His feet; for He is holy. Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name; they called on the Lord, and He heard them. In the pillar of the cloud He spoke to them; for they kept His testimonies and His commandments which He gave them.’
And from the other words of David, also previously quoted, which you foolishly affirm refer to Solomon, [because] inscribed for Solomon, it can be proved that they do not refer to Solomon, and that this [Christ] existed before the sun, and that those of your nation who are saved shall be saved through Him. [The words] are these:
‘O God, give Your judgment to the king, and Your righteousness unto the king’s son. He shall judge Your people with righteousness, and Your poor with judgment. The mountains shall take up peace to the people, and the little hills righteousness. He shall judge the poor of the people, and shall save the children of the needy, and shall abase the slanderer: and He shall co-endure with the sun, and before the moon unto all generations;’ and so on until, ‘His name endures before the sun, and all tribes of the earth shall be blessed in Him. All nations shall call Him blessed. Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who only does wondrous things: and blessed be His glorious name for ever and ever: and the whole earth shall be filled with His glory. Amen, Amen.’
And you remember from other words also spoken by David, and which I have mentioned before, how it is declared that He would come forth from the highest heavens, and again return to the same places, in order that you may recognise Him as God coming forth from above, and man living among men; and [how it is declared] that He will again appear, and they who pierced Him shall see Him, and shall bewail Him. [The words] are these:
‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night shows knowledge: They are not speeches or words whose voices are heard. Their sound has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. In the sun has he set his habitation; and he, like a bridegroom going forth from his chamber, will rejoice as a giant to run his race: from the highest heaven is his going forth, and he returns to the highest heaven, and there is not one who shall be hidden from his heat.’
Chapter 65. The Jew objects that God does not give His glory to another. Justin explains the passage
Trypho: Being shaken by so many Scriptures, I know not what to say about the Scripture which Isaiah writes, in which God says that He gives not His glory to another, speaking thus
‘I am the Lord God; this is my name; my glory will I not give to another, nor my virtues.’
Isaiah 42:8
Justin: If you spoke these words, Trypho, and then kept silence in simplicity and with no ill intent, neither repeating what goes before nor adding what comes after, you must be forgiven; but if [you have done so] because you imagined that you could throw doubt on the passage, in order that I might say the Scriptures contradicted each other, you have erred.
But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other], since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself. With what intent, then, you have brought forward the difficulty, God knows.
But I shall remind you of what the passage says, in order that you may recognise even from this very [place] that God gives glory to His Christ alone. And I shall take up some short passages, sirs, those which are in connection with what has been said by Trypho, and those which are also joined on in consecutive order. For I will not repeat those of another section, but those which are joined together in one. Do you also give me your attention. [The words] are these:
Thus says the Lord, the God that created the heavens, and made them fast, that established the earth, and that which is in it; and gave breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them who walk therein: I the Lord God have called You in righteousness, and will hold Your hand, and will strengthen You; and I have given You for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out them that are bound from the chains, and those who sit in darkness from the prison-house. I am the Lord God; this is my name: my glory will I not give to another, nor my virtues to graven images. Behold, the former things have come to pass; new things which I announce, and before they are announced they are made manifest to you. Sing unto the Lord a new song: His sovereignty [is] from the end of the earth. [Sing], you who descend into the sea, and continually sail [on it]; you islands, and inhabitants thereof. Rejoice, O wilderness, and the villages thereof, and the houses; and the inhabitants of Cedar shall rejoice, and the inhabitants of the rock shall cry aloud from the top of the mountains: they shall give glory to God; they shall publish His virtues among the islands. The Lord God of hosts shall go forth, He shall destroy war utterly, He shall stir up zeal, and He shall cry aloud to the enemies with strength. Isaiah 42:5-13
And when I repeated this, I continued:
Justin: Have you perceived, my friends, that God says He will give Him whom He has established as a light of the Gentiles, glory, and to no other; and not, as Trypho said, that God was retaining the glory to Himself?
Trypho: We have perceived this also; pass on therefore to the remainder of the discourse.
Chapter 66. He proves from Isaiah that God was born from a virgin
And I, resuming the discourse where I had left off at a previous stage, when proving that He was born of a virgin, and that His birth of a virgin had been predicted by Isaiah, quoted again the same prophecy. It is as follows:
And the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord your God, in the depth or in the height. And Ahaz said I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And Isaiah said, Hear then, O house of David; Is it no small thing for you to contend with men? And how do you contend with the Lord? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat; before he knows or prefers the evil he will choose out the good. For before the child knows ill or good, he rejects evil by choosing out the good. For before the child knows how to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus, and the spoil of Samaria, in presence of the king of Assyria. And the land shall be forsaken, which you shall with difficulty endure in consequence of the presence of its two kings. But God shall bring on you, and on your people, and on the house of your father, days which have not yet come upon you since the day in which Ephraim took away from Judah the king of Assyria.
Justin: Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born [of a virgin], save this our Christ.
Chapter 67. Trypho compares Jesus with Perseus; and would prefer [to say] that He was elected [to be Christ] on account of observance of the law. Justin speaks of the law as formerly
Trypho: The Scripture has not, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,’ but, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,’ and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather [should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ, [it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks.
Justin: Trypho, I wish to persuade you, and all men in short, of this, that even though you talk worse things in ridicule and in jest, you will not move me from my fixed design; but I shall always adduce from the words which you think can be brought forward [by you] as proof [of your own views], the demonstration of what I have stated along with the testimony of the Scriptures. You are not, however, acting fairly or truthfully in attempting to undo those things in which there has been constantly agreement between us; namely, that certain commands were instituted by Moses on account of the hardness of your people’s hearts. For you said that, by reason of His living conformably to law, He was elected and became Christ, if indeed He were proved to be so.
Trypho: You admitted to us that He was both circumcised, and observed the other legal ceremonies ordained by Moses.
Justin: I have admitted it, and do admit it: yet I have admitted that He endured all these not as if He were justified by them, but completing the dispensation which His Father, the Maker of all things, and Lord and God, wished Him [to complete]. For I admit that He endured crucifixion and death, and the incarnation, and the suffering of as many afflictions as your nation put upon Him. But since again you dissent from that to which you but lately assented, Trypho, answer me: Are those righteous patriarchs who lived before Moses, who observed none of those [ordinances] which, the Scripture shows, received the commencement of [their] institution from Moses, saved, [and have they attained to] the inheritance of the blessed?
Trypho: The Scriptures compel me to admit it.
Justin: Likewise I again ask you, did God enjoin your fathers to present the offerings and sacrifices because He had need of them, or because of the hardness of their hearts and tendency to idolatry?
Trypho: The latter the Scriptures in like manner compel us to admit.
Justin: Likewise, did not the Scriptures predict that God promised to dispense a new covenant besides that which [was dispensed] in the mountain Horeb?
Trypho: This, too, had been predicted.
Justin: Was not the old covenant laid on your fathers with fear and trembling, so that they could not give ear to God?
Trypho: He admitted it.
Justin: What then? God promised that there would be another covenant, not like that old one, and said that it would be laid on them without fear, and trembling, and lightnings, and that it would be such as to show what kind of commands and deeds God knows to be eternal and suited to every nation, and what commandments He has given, suiting them to the hardness of your people’s hearts, as He exclaims also by the prophets.
Trypho: To this also, those who are lovers of truth and not lovers of strife must assuredly assent.
Justin: I know not how you speak of persons very fond of strife, [since] you yourself oftentimes were plainly acting in this very manner, frequently contradicting what you had agreed to.
Chapter 68. He complains of the obstinacy of Trypho; he answers his objection; he convicts the Jews of bad faith
Trypho: You endeavour to prove an incredible and nearly impossible thing; [namely], that God endured to be born and become man.
Justin: If I undertook to prove this by doctrines or arguments of man, you should not bear with me. But if I quote frequently Scriptures, and so many of them, referring to this point, and ask you to comprehend them, you are hard-hearted in the recognition of the mind and will of God. But if you wish to remain for ever so, I would not be injured at all; and for ever retaining the same [opinions] which I had before I met with you, I shall leave you.
Trypho: Look, my friend, you made yourself master of these [truths] with much labour and toil. And we accordingly must diligently scrutinize all that we meet with, in order to give our assent to those things which the Scriptures compel us [to believe].
Justin: I do not ask you not to strive earnestly by all means, in making an investigation of the matters inquired into; but [I ask you], when you have nothing to say, not to contradict those things which you said you had admitted.
Trypho: So we shall endeavour to do.
Justin: In addition to the questions I have just now put to you, I wish to put more: for by means of these questions I shall strive to bring the discourse to a speedy termination.
Trypho: Ask the questions.
Justin: Do you think that any other one is said to be worthy of worship and called Lord and God in the Scriptures, except the Maker of all, AND Christ, who by so many Scriptures was proved to you to have become man?
Trypho: How can we admit this, when we have instituted so great an inquiry as to whether there is any other than the Father alone?
Justin: I must ask you this also, that I may know whether or not you are of a different opinion from that which you admitted some time ago.
Trypho: It is not, sir.
Justin: Since you certainly admit these things, and since Scripture says, ‘Who shall declare His generation?’ ought you not now to suppose that He is not the seed of a human race?
Trypho: How then does the Word say to David, that out of his loins God shall take to Himself a Son, and shall establish His kingdom, and shall set Him on the throne of His glory?
Justin: Trypho, if the prophecy which Isaiah uttered, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ is said not to the house of David, but to another house of the twelve tribes, perhaps the matter would have some difficulty; but since this prophecy refers to the house of David, Isaiah has explained how that which was spoken by God to David in mystery would take place. But perhaps you are not aware of this, my friends, that there were many sayings written obscurely, or parabolically, or mysteriously, and symbolic actions, which the prophets who lived after the persons who said or did them expounded.
Trypho: Assuredly.
Justin: If therefore, I shall show that this prophecy of Isaiah refers to our Christ, and not to Hezekiah, as you say, shall I not in this matter, too, compel you not to believe your teachers, who venture to assert that the explanation which your seventy elders that were with Ptolemy the king of the Egyptians gave, is untrue in certain respects? For some statements in the Scriptures, which appear explicitly to convict them of a foolish and vain opinion, these they venture to assert have not been so written. But other statements, which they fancy they can distort and harmonize with human actions, these, they say, refer not to this Jesus Christ of ours, but to him of whom they are pleased to explain them. Thus, for instance, they have taught you that this Scripture which we are now discussing refers to Hezekiah, in which, as I promised, I shall show they are wrong. And since they are compelled, they agree that some Scriptures which we mention to them, and which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and [to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer indeed to Christ, but they venture to assert that this man is not Christ. But they admit that He will come to suffer, and to reign, and to be worshipped, and to be God; and this opinion I shall in like manner show to be ridiculous and silly. But since I am pressed to answer first to what was said by you in jest, I shall make answer to it, and shall afterwards give replies to what follows. (Chapters 55-68)
The “Son of God” Text (4Q246)
A pre-Christian Aramaic document was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), dated to the late first century B.C., which describes the Danielic Son of Man as the Son of God Most High. I quote here the late Jewish scholar Geza Vermes’ English rendering of this specific scroll:
For the edition princeps, see E. Puech, DJD, XXII, 165-84.
I … [the spirit of God] dwelt on him, he fell down before the throne … O [K]ing, you are angry for ever and your years … your vision and all. For ever you … [the gre]at ones. An oppression will come to the earth … a great massacre in the provinces … the king of Assyria [and E]gypt … he will be great on earth … will make and all will serve … he will be called (or: call himself) [gran]d … and by his name he will be designated (or: designate himself). II The son of God he will be proclaimed (or: proclaim himself) and the son of the Most High they will call him. Like the sparks of the vision, so will be their kingdom. They will reign for years on the earth and they will trample all. People will trample people (cf. Dan. vii, 23) and one province another province vacat until the people of God will arise and all will rest from the sword. Their (the people of God’s) kingdom will be an eternal kingdom (cf. Dan. vii, 27) and all their path will be in truth. They will jud[ge] the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth, and all the provinces will pay homage to them. The Great God (cf. Dan. ii, 45) is their helper. He will wage war for them. He will give peoples into their hands and all of them (the peoples) He will cast before them (the people of God). Their dominion will be an eternal dominion (Dan. vii, 14) and all the boundaries of… (Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English [Penguin Books, Revised Edition 2004], 4Q246. An Aramaic Scroll, p. 673; emphasis mine)
Here’s another English translation:
Column 1 Column 1
aysrk µdq lpn trv yhl[[ … 1 1 … up]on him rested. He fell before the throne
ûwnvw zygr hta aml[[l] akl[m … 2 2 … k]ing, [for]ever you are angry, and [your features] are changed
aml[ d[ hta alkw ûwzj a … 3 3 … your vision and you forever
a[ra l[ att hl[ ÷ybrb[r … 4 4 … the m]ighty. Affliction will come on earth
atnydmb br ÷wryvjnw … 5 5 … and great carnage among countries
÷yrx[mw] rwta ûlm … 6 6 … the king of Assyria [and Eg]ypt
a[ra l[ hwhl br … 7 7 … will be great on earth
÷wvmvy alkw ÷wdb[ … 8 8 … will serve, and all will minister
hnkty hmvbw arqty ab[r … 9 9 … will be called [gr]eat, and by his name will be called
Column 2 Column 2
ayqyzk hnwrqy ÷wyl[ rbw rmaty la yd hrb 1 1 Son of God he will be called and Son of the Most High they will name him. Like the flashes
l[ ÷wklmy [÷y]nv ÷htwklm ÷k atyzj yd 2 2 that you saw, so will their kingdom be. They will rule for year[s] on
hnydml hnydmw vwdy µ[l µ[ ÷wvdy alkw a[ra 3 3 earth, and they will trample all. People will trample people and province, province
brj ÷m jyny alkw la µ[ µwqy d[ vacat 4 4 [vacat] until the people of God arises and all rests from the sword.
[÷]ydy fwvqb htjra lkw µl[ twklm htwklm 5 5 His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom and all his ways in truth. He will jud[ge]
¹sy a[ra ÷m brj µlvl db[y alkw fwvqb a[ra 6 6 the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth
hlyab abr la ÷ydgsy hl atnydm lkw 7 7 and all provinces will worship him. The great God will be his patron.
÷hlkw hdyb ÷tny ÷ytt[ brq hl db[y awh 8 8 He will make war for him. He will give peoples into his hand and all of them
…ymwht lkw µl[ ÷flv hnflv yhwmdq hmry 9 9 he will cast down before him. His sovereignty is everlasting sovereignty, and all deeps …
Remarkably, the document alludes to God’s promise to David that one of his sons would rule forever on YHWH’s throne as God’s very own son, and identifies him with the heavenly Son of Man figure whom the prophet Daniel saw and spoke of:
“And I will appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place and not be disturbed again; and the unrighteous will not waste them anymore as formerly, even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel. And I will subdue all your enemies. And I tell you that Yahweh will build a house for you. And it will be that when your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up one of your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build for Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; and I will not remove My lovingkindness from him, as I removed it from him who was before you. But I will cause him to stand in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.” 1 Chronicles 17:9-14
“Why do the nations rage And the peoples meditate on a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against Yahweh and against His Anointed, saying… I will surely tell of the decree of Yahweh: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like a potter’s vessel.’” Psalm 2:1-2, 7-9
“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And came near before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory, and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations, and men of every tongue Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not be taken away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:13-14
Reputable liberal biblical scholar John J. Collins gives reasons why he believes the royal figure of the scroll is supposed to be the Messiah:
If you look at column 2 in the photograph, you will see that there is a blank space (vacat, in scholarly jargon) in the middle of the column, before the phrase “until the people of God arises.” Several scholars have taken this break as an indication of the turning point of the text. Everything before the break, then, would pertain to the rule of the nations, and would be viewed negatively from a Jewish point of view. So Milik, in his lecture at Harvard, argued that the one who would be called “Son of God” was a Syrian king, Alexander Balas, son of the notorious Antiochus IV Epiphanes who had persecuted the Jews in the time of the Maccabees (167–164 B.C.E.). Balas is called theopator (god-begotten) and Deo patre natus (born of a divine father) on coins. Puech, in his publication of our Dead Sea Scroll text, also allowed as one possibility that the reference might be to a Syrian king, although he preferred the better-known Epiphanes.
It was not uncommon in antiquity for pagan kings to be regarded as gods or sons of gods. In a Jewish context, however, “Son of God” is a highly honorific title. If this reference was to a Syrian king, we would expect to find some indication in this Jewish text that the title was inappropriate. If the Son of God was viewed negatively, we would expect the text to tell of his eventual downfall. In fact, however, there is no indication in the extant text that the Son of God was regarded with disapproval.5
True, the blank space in the second column of the Son of God text marks the transition to the final stage of the drama, the rise of the people of God. It does not follow, however, that everything before this is negative. This text belongs to the category of apocalyptic literature, broadly defined; that is, literature that reports visions about the end of days. It is very closely related to the Book of Daniel, which is itself a classic apocalyptic text. It is typical of apocalyptic literature that it does not tell its story in simple sequential order, but often goes over the same ground again and again to make its point. For example, Daniel 7 recounts a famous vision in which “one like a son of man” comes on the clouds of heaven (verse 13) and is given a kingdom. An interpretation follows, which says that “the holy ones of the Most High” receive the kingdom (verse 18). Finally, there is an elaboration of this interpretation, according to which the kingdom is given to “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” (verse 27). The giving of the kingdom, then, is narrated three times, but these are not three separate events.
The “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7 represents the “people of the holy ones,” and receives the kingdom on their behalf. The Son of God text should be read in a similar way. The figure who is called the Son of God is the representative, or agent, of the people of God. That is why he is not mentioned again after the rise of the people of God in column 2. His career and the rise of the people of God are simply two aspects of the same event…
It may be well at this point to pause for a moment to comment on the word “messiah.” As is well known, the Hebrew word for messiah, mashiach, means simply “anointed.” Kings were anointed in ancient Israel, and so were some other figures, notably high priests. Originally, the word had no special reference to the future. When the Psalmist wrote in Psalm 2:2 that the kings of the earth take counsel “against the Lord and his anointed,” he was speaking of the king of the day, not of someone who was expected in the future. In later times, however, when there was no longer a Davidic king in Jerusalem and when the Jewish people looked increasingly to the future, the word “messiah” took on a new meaning. It now referred to the one who would restore the kingdom of Israel, and who was often conceived in a highly idealized way. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not restrict the word “messiah” to the one who would restore the Davidic kingship; they also speak of a priestly “messiah of Aaron” and use the word “messiahs” with reference to prophets. But they also attest the use of “messiah” with reference to the “branch of David.” Eventually the word “messiah” came to mean primarily the Davidic messiah in both Jewish and Christian traditions: Passages in the Psalms and in the Prophets that spoke of a messiah or of a Davidic king were commonly interpreted as referring to this figure who would come in the future. At the turn of the era, an heir to the Davidic throne, in an apocalyptic context, cannot be distinguished from the Davidic messiah, and we are fully justified in speaking of a messiah here, even though the word does not appear in the text.
The Hebrew Bible provides a clear basis for referring to the Davidic messiah as Son of God. Psalm 2, which uses the word “messiah,” or “anointed,” with reference to the king, goes on to say “I will tell of the decree of the Lord: he said to me, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you’” (Psalm 2:7). In Psalm 89:27, God says of the king “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” In 2 Samuel 7:14, the Lord promises that he will establish the kingdom of David’s offspring: “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.” This latter passage is cited in the document known as 4Q174, or the Florilegium, from Qumran (this document consists of biblical citations followed by explanations; the citation commented on is from 2 Samuel 7:11–14):
“‘The Lord declares to you that He will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you. I will establish the throne of his kingdom (for ever). I (will be) his father and he shall be my son.’ He is the branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law (to rule) in Zion (at the end) of time.”
This passage from the Florilegium is a good illustration of how Scripture was read at Qumran. A text that originally referred to Solomon and the historical Davidic line now refers to the end of days. The son in question is now the branch of David who will appear in the future, or, in common parlance, the Davidic messiah.
In view of this background, it is not surprising that the Davidic messiah should be called “Son of God” or “Son of the Most High.” Indeed the Davidic association of these phrases is explicit in the verses previously quoted from the Gospel of Luke: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David.” Our scroll text from Qumran (4Q246) is probably the oldest extant text that explicitly uses the title “Son of God” with reference to a future messianic king. (John J. Collins, A Pre-Christian “Son of God” Among the Dead Sea Scrolls; emphasis mine)
Collins writes elsewhere:
The Messianic Interpretation
The individual most often designated as “the son of God” in the Hebrew Bible is undoubtedly the Davidic king, or his eschatological counterpart.47 The adoption of David as God’s son is clearly stated in 2 Samuel 7:14 (“I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me”) and in Psalm 89:26-27 (“He shall cry to me: ‘You are my Father’… I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”). The relationship is expressed in more mythological terms in Psalm 2:7 (“I will tell of the decree of the Lord: he said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you'”). The statements in the Son of God text, that the great God will be his strength and will give peoples into his hand, can apply equally well to the king in the psalm. Psalm 2 also refers to the king as “His (the Lord’s) anointed (meshicho)” (2:2).
The title “Son of God” takes on a clear messianic connotation in the New Testament, notably in the Lukan infancy narrative cited earlier. Fitzmyer, however, argues strongly that “Per se, the titles do not connote ‘messiah’ in the Old Testament, and only a naive interpretation emerging from tradition espouses that connotation. Nor do they do so in any Qumran texts.”48 He further adds that “There were undoubtedly other kings in Israel’s history, who had sat on the Davidic throne, but were not accorded the title mashiach much less “Messiah” in the proper sense.”49 I believe that these statements show confusion in regard to the Old Testament evidence, and fail to do justice to the evidence from Qumran.
First, in the context of the Hebrew Bible, 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 refer to the historical Davidic kings. They are not eschatological, and so not “messianic” in the sense in which we have been using the word. Fitzmyer’s strictures against naive traditionalists who read these texts as predictions of the messiah are fair enough if one is speaking about the original meaning of the text. Confusion arises, however, when he claims, without any supporting evidence, that some kings “were not accorded the title mashiach.” The word mashiach, anointed one, is an epithet applied to the king, in virtue of the fact that he was anointed.50 Whether it is regarded as a title is a matter of definition, but the term was clearly applicable to any anointed king. There is no evidence that any king of Israel or Judah was not anointed. Fitzmyer here seems to load the term mashiach, anointed, with a special significance that it does not have in the Hebrew Bible. Correspondingly, a future “successor to the Davidic throne” in an apocalyptic or eschatological context is by definition a Davidic messiah. Fitzmyer’s notion of “a sectarian affirmation of God’s provision and guarantee of the Davidic dynasty” by a king who is not a “messiah” makes no sense in the context of ancient Judaism.51
Second, the claim that “Son of God” does not have messianic significance in any Qumran text overlooks the clear evidence of the Florilegium (4Q174). There we have an exposition of 2 Sam 7:14:
The Lord declares to you that He will build you a House. I will raise up your seed after you. I will establish the throne of his kingdom [for ever]. I [will be] his father and he shall be my son. He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of days.
The citation from 2 Samuel 7 provides an explicit basis for identifying the Branch of David as the Son of God. Since the Branch is explicitly called the Messiah of Righteousness in the Patriarchal Blessings (4Q252 = 4QpGen), it is surely justified to speak of him as a Davidic messiah.52 Fitzmyer’s insistence that “There is nothing in the OT or Palestinian Jewish tradition that we know of to show that ‘Son of God’ had a messianic nuance”53 cannot be maintained unless “messianic nuance” is equated with explicit use of the word “messiah” in the same passage. (Collins, “The Messiah as the Son of God”, in The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls [William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge, U.K.: second edition, 2010], pp. 183-185; emphasis mine)
Collins bolsters his case for a Messianic interpretation by appealing to additional evidence from that time period:
The attestation of “Son of God” as a messianic title in Jewish texts of the Hellenistic and Roman periods is not extensive, but an important instance is found in 4 Ezra. The Latin and Syriac texts of this pseudepigraphon refer to the messiah as “my son” in a number of passages, in chapters 7 and 13 and finally in 14:9.59 The originality of this reading has been disputed. Some versions use words that mean “servant” in a few instances, and there are other textual variations.60 Michael Stone has argued that the Greek version, which has not been preserved, read pais, and reflected an original Hebrew “servant” rather than “son.”61 Yet the scene in chapter 13, where the messianic figure takes his stand on a mountain and repulses the attack of the nations, is clearly dependent on Psalm 2, where God sets his anointed king on Zion, his holy mountain, and terrifies the nations, and where the king is also told “You are my son, today I have begotten you.” Even if the Greek read pais, as the versions that read “servant” require, this term, too, could be used for “son,” as is evident from The Wisdom of Solomon, where the righteous man calls himself a child of God {pais theou, 2:13) and boasts that God is his father (2:16). The Latin and Syriac reading, “my son,” should be accepted as a faithful rendering of the original, at least in chapter 13.
4 Ezra 13 is of considerable interest for the interpretation of the Son of God text from Qumran. Ezra’s vision of a man coming up out of the heart of the sea and flying with the clouds is evidently inspired by Daniel 7. In the preceding chapter, 4 Ezra 12, Ezra had seen an eagle coming up from the sea, and was told that this was “the fourth kingdom that appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel, but it was not explained to him as I now explain to you or have explained it” (4 Ezra 12:11-12). A similar comment might be made about the man from the sea in chapter 13, who must equally be identified with the “one like a son of man” from Daniel’s vision, but is also interpreted in a new way. As in the Qumran text, the advent of this figure is preceded by conflict between the nations: “They shall plan to make war against one another, city against city, place against place, people against people and kingdom against kingdom” (13:31).
In 4 Ezra 13, the messiah repulses the attack of the Gentiles with a fiery breath (cf. Isa 11:4) and gathers the dispersed of Israel. He is also said to reprove the assembled nations for their ungodliness (13:37). In the preceding vision of the eagle, the messiah has a more prominent judicial function: “First he will bring them alive before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them he will destroy them” (12:33). It is clear then that the messiah has taken over some of the function of judging the nations, which was usually reserved for God in the Hebrew Bible. There is no place here, however, for worship of this figure by the nations, since they are destroyed after the judgment, like the fourth beast in Daniel.
The eschatology of 4 Ezra is considerably different from that of a document like the Qumran War Scroll. It has no place for an angelic deliverer, although the messiah has a transcendent character (he rises from the heart of the sea and flies with the clouds). Heavenly savior figures (Michael, Melchizedek) play a part in the Scrolls, but as we have seen the Davidic messiah also has an established place there. Since Michael or the Prince of Light is never called “Son of God,” and since there is a clear basis for applying this title to the Davidic king, whether past or future, the messianic interpretation of 4Q246 should be preferred. Indeed the parallel in Luke points strongly in this direction: “He will be great and will be hailed as Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will bestow on him the throne of his father David.”62 (Ibid., pp. 186-187)
Collins then cautiously concludes:
It is difficult to say whether the Son of God figure should be regarded as an interpretation of the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7. If so, it would probably be the oldest surviving interpretation. No other adaptation or interpretation of that chapter has yet been identified in the Qumran corpus. The two earliest Jewish interpretations of Daniel 7 are found in the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra 13. Both these passages assume that Daniel’s “one like a son of man” is an individual, and both use the term “messiah” with reference to him. In both these documents, the Son of Man figure is pre-existent, and therefore transcendent in some sense. The Son of God in the Qumran text is not identical with either of these figures, but he has much in common with them. It should be emphasized that the extant fragment from Qumran lacks clear allusions to Daniel’s “one like a son of man” such as we find in the Similitudes and in 4 Ezra. Nonetheless, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the author had Daniel’s figure in mind. The Danielic paradigm becomes an important factor in messianism in the first century of the Common Era. The Son of God text suggests that the messianic interpretation of Daniel 7 had begun already in the Hasmonean period. (Ibid., p. 188; emphasis mine)
By combining these specific OT motifs together, the document is in basic agreement with the NT proclamation that Jesus is both the Davidic Son of God and the Danielic Son of Man:
“Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming in, he said to her, ‘Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.’ But she was very perplexed at this statement, and was pondering what kind of greeting this was. 30 And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of His kingdom.’ But Mary said to the angel, ‘How will this be, since I am a virgin?’ The angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.’” Luke 1:26-35
“And as the day came, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their Sanhedrin, saying, ‘If You are the Christ, tell us.’ But He said to them, ‘If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask a question, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.’ And they all said, ‘Are You the Son of God, then?’ And He said to them, ‘You yourselves say that I am.’ Then they said, ‘What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.’” Luke 22:66-71 – cf. Acts 4:23-31; 7:55-56; 13:32-33; Hebrews 1:3-9, 13; 5:5-6
I cite at length what liberal biblical scholar Karl A. Kuhn wrote in regards to the implications that this scroll has on NT Christology, particularly Luke’s, as well as on pre-Christian Jewish notions of a heavenly, even divine, Messianic figure:
Following the publication of the full text, scholars have remained divided over whether the personage designated “Son of God” in the apocalypse should be viewed as a negative or a positive figure, with a slight majority favoring the latter.8 Among this majority, most view the figure as a Davidic, eschatological redeemer who will overthrow God’s enemies and establish the dominion of God’s people. This reading of the fragment is maintained in slightly different forms by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John J. Collins, Frank Moore Cross, and Johannes Zimmermann, among others.10 All but Fitzmyer argue that the figure should be understood as a messianic redeemer. Fitzmyer resists such an interpretation because the word “messiah” itself does not appear in the fragment.11
I too hold that the figure designated as Son of the Most High and Son of God is best regarded as a Davidic (messianic), eschatological redeemer. In what follows, I present several reasons for adopting this position. The subject of this study, however, is the nature of the literary relationships between the fragment found near Qumran and the two canonical texts, Daniel 7 and Luke 1:31b-35, and what those relationships suggest concerning pre- and early Christian perspectives on divine sonship. Several scholars have argued that the author of 4Q246 drew from Daniel 7 and that Luke in some fashion made use of the Aramaic Apocalypse in composing Luke 1:31b-35.12 I first attempt to demonstrate that the Aramaic Apocalypse not only borrows from Daniel 7 but also offers an interpretation of that text by designating the Danielic “one like a son of man” as the “Son of the Most High” and “Son of God.” These titles, I claim, cast Daniel’s eschatological redeemer against the royal background of the Davidic monarchy, and yet also mark a development in the transcendent character of this heavenly figure by attributing to him divine sonship. Next, by laying out in detail the evidence for Luke’s dependence on the Aramaic Apocalypse or on a close reproduction of it in another source, I attempt to strengthen the claim of Collins that Luke either directly or indirectly drew on the text now partially extant in 4Q246 when composing Gabriel’s announcement to Mary of Jesus’ birth (1:31b-35). Finally, I propose that Luke’s use of this text at the very point in his Gospel at which he establishes Jesus’ divine sonship (Luke 1:31b35) suggests, in tandem with other considerations, that Jewish apocalyptic traditions about a heavenly, eschatological redeemer served as important sources for early Christian understandings and expressions of the Messiah’s divinity. (The “One like a Son of Man” Becomes the “Son of God”, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Published by the Catholic Biblical Association of America, Volume 69, Number 1, January, 2007, pp. 23-24; emphasis mine)
9 A few scholars have followed Hengel’s suggestion in regarding the figure collectively as a reference to Israel. See, e.g., Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (4th ed.; New York: Penguin, 1995) 332; Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: Harper, 1996) 268-70. As noted above, both Steudal (“Eternal Reign,” 507-25) and Puech (“Remarks,” 545-51) view the figure of 4Q246 2:1 as Antiochus IV Epiphanes. but interpret the third person singular references in 2:4-9 as referring collectively to Israel. Several factors tell against a collective interpretation, however. First, both Fitzmyer and Collins point to the reference to judgment in 2:6 as indicative of an individual redeemer, with Collins (Scepter, 154) arguing that “there is no parallel for the notion that the people, collectively, will judge the earth.” Similarly, the listing of attributes of the coming idyllic rule in 2:5-9 are in the Hebrew Scriptures much more commonly found in reference to an individual ruler than to God’s people in general: e.g., Isa 11:1-9, which describes the coming Davidic king as one who, guided by God’s wisdom and righteousness, will judge (vv. 1-4), kill the wicked (v. 4), and usher in a paradisiacal era of peace (vv. 5-9). Psalm 2 speaks of the Davidic king as God’s son (v. 7), who will be granted victory over the nations by God. Psalm 72 records a petition to God that the king may judge with righteousness (vv. 1-4), overthrow and receive homage from the nations (vv. 8-11), and establish an era of peace (v. 7). Moreover, two of the earliest interpretations of Daniel 7, the Similitudes(1 Enoch 37-71) and 4 Ezra, both refer to the Danielic son of man as an individual. (Ibid., p. 23; emphasis mine)
Kuhn goes on to say:
V. A Suggestion: Eschatological Redeemer Traditions and Early Christian Expressions of Jesus’ Divine Sonship
Rudolf Bultmann’s oft-cited view that Hellenistic influence was one of the key forces shaping the development of early Christian conceptions of Jesus’ divine sonship has remained influential to the present day.45 The discovery of 4Q246, however, has led some to consider that the titular use of “Son of God” in Palestinian Judaism may be important for understanding its later employment in the NT.
Fitzmyer argues that “the Palestinian attestation of the title, Son of God, in a pre-Christian text makes it at least possible that this title was part of the early Christian kerygma that was carried abroad from its Jerusalem matrix to the Hellenistic world.”46 Collins adds:
One need not subscribe to all aspects of Bultmann’s theories to grant that the title “Son of God” took on a new and more exalted meaning in Hellenistic Christianity. Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that even in the Hebrew Bible the king could be addressed as a “god.” The titles “Son of God” and “Son of the Most High” imply that this figure stands in special relationship to the Deity, and that he is not an ordinary mortal. This is not to deny the great difference between a text like 4Q246 and the later Christian understanding of the divinity of Christ. But the notion that the messiah was Son of God in a special sense was rooted in Judaism, and so there was continuity between Judaism and Christianity in this respect, even though Christian belief eventually diverged quite radically from its Jewish sources.47
The significance that Fitzmyer and Collins, among others, attach to the Palestinian Jewish background for these titles constitutes a helpful corrective to the previously prevailing view that emphasized nearly exclusively their supposed Hellenistic coloring. But one wonders if this corrective has gone far enough. Although the need to consider the Palestinian background of the title “Son of God” is rightly noted, the common notion that in the NT writings and among early Christians “Son of God” took on meanings and associations far removed from its earlier Jewish usage continues to prevail. For instance, Collins echoes this perspective in the quotation above when he claims that “this is not to deny the great difference between a text like 4Q246 and the later Christian understanding of the divinity of Christ,” and that “Christian belief diverged quite radically from its Jewish sources.” Similarly, he later adds that the designation “Son of God” in 4Q246, as well as in the Gospel of Mark,
reflects the status rather than the nature of the messiah. He is the Son of God in the same sense that the king of Israel was begotten by God according to Psalm 2….The Gospels of Matthew and Luke, despite the common language in the latter and the Son of God text, have a more developed notion of what the Sonship of the messiah entailed, and express it in a narrative of Jesus’ birth.48
Despite providing what may appear to be an attractive means of categorization, the purported distinction (utilized by a number of scholars) between “status” and “nature”–when applied to these early Jewish and Christian texts–is, in my mind, problematic. To be sure, clear distinctions between status and nature were made during the christological controversies four to five hundred years later. But the concepts themselves are somewhat ambiguous, and it is difficult to imagine how ideas related to “status” and “nature” would have been separated in the minds of these early Jews and Christians of the first century C.E. and before. Although “status,” in a general sense, refers to the appointment of authority and power (in this case, by God unto a messiah/redeemer), and “nature” to ontology (the kind of “stuff” [essence] of which the redeemer is comprised), the higher the status claimed of an individual the more we are led to wonder how the individual’s nature would have been perceived. In the case of 4Q246, what kind of mortal person could wield the sort of power (God’s) and enact the sort of reign (eternal) assigned to its redeemer? Collins’s comment above that “this figure stands in special relationship to the Deity, and that he is not an ordinary mortal” is telling. But is it only his status that is unique? Again, how many mortals could accomplish this calling without some major adjustments to their nature? Whether such a change takes place during the redeemer’s conception (as in the case of Matthew and Luke) or later on in life is not as important as is the recognition that such redeemer figures could have been viewed by early Jewish writers as having a transcendent character that made them more like God than like mortals. In other Qumran texts, as pointed out by García Martínez, the heavenly redeemer known as Michael, Melchizedek, or the Prince of Light is cast as an angelic figure.49 Although we cannot know whether the author of 4Q246 had any knowledge of these Dead Sea texts, they at least demonstrate that some Jews of that time conceived of an awaited redeemer figure who would be more than, or other than, simply human.
Indeed, these visionaries, unlike Christians debating christology four to five hundred years down the road, were probably not much concerned with distinctions between status and nature. But from this it does not follow that they held ideas relating only to the former and not the latter. Still, the angelic announcement to Joseph in Matthew, Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary in Luke, and John’s prologue are commonly identified as marking the point at which Christians began to be concerned with Jesus’ identity in terms of his ontology (nature), beyond simply his status. Yet there is another way to regard the development apparent in these gospel traditions. Instead of marking a major shift beyond matters of status to ontology, these traditions could just as well be offering more sophisticated ways of expressing their understanding of Jesus’ nature in terms of how–in Jesus–divine nature ended up in human form.50 Collins’s claim, cited above, that these NT texts reflect “a more developed notion of what the Sonship of the messiah entailed” is, of course, at least partly true. But the development reflected in these NT texts need not be a sudden interest in the nature of the redeemer they proclaim beyond simply his status. The traditions they report are just as likely concerned to express how this carpenter’s son from Nazareth is also the transcendent, divine son of God.
Thus, although the Gospels-especially Matthew, Luke, and John-likely mark a development in the portrayal of Jesus’ divine sonship, it does not follow that they express an understanding of God’s awaited redeemer that categorically diverges from that of Mark or of texts such as 4Q246 and the Similitudes.51 Perhaps it is because these texts collectively share significant points of contact in the presentation of their respective agents of salvation that Luke thought it apt to draw on the Aramaic Apocalypse‘s recasting of Daniel’s “one like a son of man” at the very point in his Gospel at which he was laying the foundation for Jesus’ identity as the Son of God. Luke’s decision to do so suggests that he perceived the Apocalypse as foretelling the coming of an eschatological redeemer figure who, now fulfilled in Jesus, was unique in terms of his transcendence, his eternal dominion, and his filial relationship to God. (Ibid., pp. 38-42; emphasis mine)
47 Collins, Scepter, 168-69. Similarly, Zimmermann (“Observations,” 188) concludes: “As we attempted to show, much favors seeing 4Q246 as testimony that, already in pre-Christian times, the ‘son of man’ of Daniel 7 could be understood as ‘Son of God.’ This would also provide a plausible background, I submit, for the New Testament’s juxtaposition of the ‘son of man’ and ‘Son of God’ titles in connection with Jesus–and in the process, make unnecessary many of the speculations of recent decades.” Zimmermann, however, does not go on to specify what speculations he has in mind. (Ibid., p. 39; emphasis mine)
And:
III. The “One like a Son of Man” as “Son of the Most High” and “Son of God”
The nature and extent of the correspondences between these two texts indicate that the writer of the Aramaic Apocalypse intended to recast the Danielic “one like a son of man” as a figure to be known by the titles “Son of the Most High” and “Son of God.” Such a recasting suggests two significant developments in the portrayal of this eschatological redeemer. First, these titles present him in the royal tradition of the Davidic kingship. That the royal tradition is here in view is also argued by Fitzmyer, Kim, Collins, Cross, and Zimmermann. The latter four scholars all consider the character to be presented as a Davidic and messianic redeemer by virtue of the title “Son of God,” which they take as an allusion to 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7-8; and Ps 89:26-27.23 Fitzmyer, while rejecting the messianic interpretation, concludes that this apocalyptic text speaks “positively of a coming Jewish ruler, perhaps a member of the Hasmonean dynasty, who will be a successor to the Davidic throne.”24
A second element introduced by 4Q246 in its recasting of the Danielic figure–and the one more crucial to the present discussion–also resides in the author’s use of the titles “Son of God” and “Son of the Most High.” In adopting the language of these earlier royal traditions and forming it into a pair of titles (“he shall be called… he will be named…” [2:1]), the author of 4Q246 has focused attention on the divine sonship of the redeemer figure as a central feature of his personhood. This raises the question of what exactly such expressions of “divine sonship” were meant to convey. Collins argues that the titles simply continue to present the “adoptionist sonship” presented in 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7-8; and Ps 89:26-27; while implying a special relationship to the deity.25 Yet the titular use of these expressions suggests that something other than adoptionist divine sonship may be in view. Beyond connecting Daniel’s transcendent “one like a son of man” to the royal, Davidic tradition, the titular form of these designations may also be meant to emphasize the exalted and unique character of the awaited redeemer. He is to be seen not merely as the adopted son of Yhwh as the other kings before him, but as the unique and transcendent divine Son, through whom God’s salvation is finally to achieve victory among God’s people.
Two additional factors commend this way of regarding the function of the titles in 4Q246. First, the transcendence of the figure portrayed in 4Q246 is suggested already by the fact that the fragment is recasting the heavenly (transcendent) personage of Daniel 7.26 The author of the fragment further signals the wish to maintain this sense by also attributing to the redeemer of 4Q246 an eternal kingdom. Second, the portrayal of an eschatological redeemer as uniquely transcendent, and even as possessing characteristics that are normally assigned only to God in Hebrew tradition, is not out of character for Jewish writings of this era. In fact, 4Q246 appears to belong to a trajectory of Jewish apocalyptic tradition that presents Daniel’s “one like a son of man” as possessing quasi-divine characteristics. The Dead Sea fragment shares with these other texts a host of details concerning the character of the awaited figure, recasting Daniel’s eschatological agent of salvation in starkly exalted terms.27… (Ibid., pp. 30-32; emphasis mine)
26 On the transcendent character of Daniel’s “one like a son of man,” see Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (WUNT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986) 71-80; Collins, Scepter, 182; and Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Origin ofthe Designation of Jesus as ‘Son of Man,” HTR 80 (1987) 391-407, esp. 406. The transcendence of Daniel’s eschatological agent, however, has recently been disputed by Douglas R. A. Hare (Son of Man Tradition [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990] 10-21). Hare argues, citing Testament of Abraham (Rec. A, 10:1; B, 8:3); Rev 11:12 and 1 Thess 4:16-17, that there is ample evidence that the use of the clouds as a means of transport was not reserved for God in Jewish tradition, and “it is entirely unlikely that a second god was here portrayed by the Jewish apocalyptist” (p. 11). In these texts Hare cites as evidence for his view, however, it is God who transports the figures of Abraham (Testament of Abraham), the two prophets (Revelation 11), and the risen believers to heaven in a cloud. This is in contrast to Daniel, in which the figure himself appears to be in command of his transport and is said to be coming “with the clouds of heaven” rather than “up to” heaven. (Ibid., p. 31; emphasis mine)
Kuhn further speaks of the significance of the titles “Son of the Most High,” and “Son of God” both appearing together only in Luke 1:32, 35 and the Son of God scroll:
Even more noteworthy, it is only in these two texts, 4Q246 and Luke 1:31b-35, that both titles appear together. Although both are present in Mark, they do not occur in close proximity to each other. “Son of God” is found in Mark 1:1; 3:11; and 15:39, and the one instance of the title “Son of the Most High” appears in 5:7, in the slightly different form “Son of the Most High God.” Furthermore, “Son of the Most High” has not been found in any of the canonical, apocryphal, or Jewish intertestamental writings, and virtually the same can be said of the titular use of “Son of God” with reference to an individual prior to the NT and other early Christian writings.37 Although the title “Son of God” occasionally occurs in extant Hellenistic sources, “Son of the Most High” is not found in Greco-Roman literature.38 (Ibid., p. 35; emphasis mine)
37 It is commonly known that the expression “sons of God” occurs in reference to heavenly beings (Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss 29:1; 82:6; 89:6), and the Davidic king is three times related to Yhwh as “son” (2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27); likewise, the Israelites are at times referred to collectively as “my son” (e.g., Exod 4:22; Hos 11:1). None of these occurrences, however, indicates the titular use of “Son of God.” The closest parallel is found in Wis 18:13, where the singular θεοῦ υἱόν refers to Israel. Yet it is doubtful that this is a title, since it functions as an allusion to Exod 4:22. Similarly, the expression “sons of the Most High” in Ps 82:6 is a collective designation that appears to be used as a poetic description rather than as a title.
3 Concerning the Hellenistic use of υἱὸς θεοῦ, Hengel (Son of God, 28-30) states: “the designation υἱὸς θεοῦ, son of God, is relatively rare in the Hellenistic world, and, with one exception, is never used as a title. The exception is the Greek translation of divi filius, son of the divinized, a title which Augustus took soon after the murder of Caesar and which is reproduced on Greek inscriptions as viὸς θεοῦ.” Τοo be sure, there were many stories in the Hellenistic world about rulers and heroes who were said to be begotten by divine beings. And perhaps Hengel overstates the case when he concludes, “there is no link between these παίδες Διός οf Hellenistic nature religion and the early Christian confession of the one Son of the one God” (p. 24). Nevertheless, his point that the meaning behind the titular use of “Son of God” is more discontinuous than similar to Hellenistic conceptions of the divinity of certain individuals is worthy of our attention (see discussion below). (Ibid., pp. 35-36; emphasis mine)
And here is what Kuhn notes in respect to Mark’s Christology:
51 Mark’s portrayal of “Jesus Christ the Son of God” as the fulfillment of the awaited, eschatological coming of God would seem to reflect a much more complex understanding of Jesus’ divine sonship than the adoptionist sonship of Psalm 2 and related texts. In the conflated quotation of Mark 1:2-3, the insertion of the second person singular possessive pronoun in v. 2 takes the place of the first person singular possessive pronoun in Mal 3:1, where God is speaking, and the insertion of “his” takes the place of “God” as in Isa 40:3. Similar to what occurs in 11QMelch, where Melchizedek appears as an eschatological deliverer over all the powers of evil and ushers in the eschatological year of the jubilee (see Hengel, Son of God, 80), Mark or the compilers of these testimonia transfer to Jesus the eschatological deliverance that was previously prophesied to be fulfilled by God. In light of the fact that Jesus is further portrayed in the Gospel as one who wields the Holy Spirit (1:8); overthrows the chaos of creation, demons, disease, and even death (4:35-5:43); is identified repeatedly by evil spirits as the divine son; and will return after his death, coming in the clouds with great power and glory (13:26-27; 14:6), it is better to conclude that Mark, like 4Q246, transcends the adoptionist sonship of the Davidic traditions and follows the tendencies of the Jewish apocalyptic texts in assigning to Jesus activities and power (and hence, aspects of personhood) that were traditionally attributed only to God. (Ibid., p. 41; emphasis mine)
The Messianic Lord of Creation
There’s one particular scroll that speaks of the heavens and earth obeying God’s Messiah:
A Messianic Apocalypse
(4Q521)
Commonly referred to as the ‘Resurrection fragment’, this writing consists of sixteen fragments. The script is dated to the beginning of the first century BCE. Whether the designation ‘apocalypse’ is fully justified is a moot point: the writing comes across as a composition in verse akin to the poetry of the late biblical period. The surviving fragments do not appear to include anything patently sectarian. The term ‘Messiah’, probably in the singular, is used without the addition of Aaron or Israel, and the noun ‘hasidim’, absent from the big scrolls and little attested elsewhere, figures in lines 5 and 7. The divine name ‘Lord’ represents, not the Tetragram, but Adonai (four times). The poem incorporates Ps. cxlvi, 6-7 and Isa. lxi, 1, the latter cited also in the New Testament (Lk. iv, 18). As in the Gospels, healing and resurrection are linked to the idea of the Kingdom of God. Line 12 furnishes the most explicit evidence concerning the raising of the dead. Fragment 7, line 6, repeats the same idea, referring to God as ‘He who will raise the dead of His people’.
For the editio princeps, see E. Puech, DJD, XXV, 1—38; cf. G. Vermes, ‘Qumran Forum Miscellanea I’, JJS 43 (1992), 303-4.
Fr. 2
II … [the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones.
Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service!
All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this?
For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name.
Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power.
And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom. He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent] (Ps. cxlvi, 7-8).
And f[or] ever I will clea[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy …
And the fr[uit … ] will not be delayed for anyone And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He … ] For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news to the poor (Isa. lxi, 1).
… He will lead the uprooted and make the hungry rich …
Fr. 7
… [the ear]th and all that is on it; and the sea [and all that is in it] and all the ponds of water and rivers who are doing good before the Lor[d] … … like those who curse and are (destined) for death [when] the Lifegiver will raise the dead of His people.
And we will thank and proclaim to you the righteousness of the Lord, who … (Vermes, pp. 471-472; emphasis mine)
The document is also in harmony with the NT since the latter presents Jesus the Messiah as possessing total control and absolute sovereignty over all creation:
“But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’” Matthew 28:16-20
“And when He got into the boat, His disciples followed Him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being covered with the waves; but Jesus Himself was sleeping. And they came to Him and got Him up, saying, ‘Save us, Lord; we are perishing!’ And He said to them, ‘Why are you so cowardly, you men of little faith?’ Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became perfectly calm. And the men marveled, and said, ‘What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?’” Matthew 8:23-27
“Immediately He made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of Him to the other side, while He sent the crowds away. And after He had sent the crowds away, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray; and when it was evening, He was there alone. But the boat was already many stadia away from the land, being battered by the waves; for the wind was against them. And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea. Now when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, ‘It is a ghost!’ And they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.’ And Peter answered and said to Him, ‘Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.’ And He said, ‘Come!’ And getting out of the boat, Peter walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, ‘Lord, save me!’ And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, ‘You of little faith, why did you doubt?’ And when they got into the boat, the wind stopped. And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘You are truly God’s Son!’” Matthew 14:22-33
Jesus is even depicted as performing the very miracles, which the OT proclaims will be carried out by YHWH God himself on the day that he appears to his people:
“Praise Yah! Praise Yahweh, O my soul! I will praise Yahweh throughout my life; I will sing praises to my God while I have my being. Do not trust in nobles, In merely a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his plans perish. How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, Whose hope is in Yahweh his God, Who made heaven and earth, The sea and all that is in them; Who keeps truth forever; Who does justice for the oppressed; Who gives food to the hungry. Yahweh sets the prisoners free. Yahweh opens the eyes of the blind; Yahweh raises up those who are bowed down; Yahweh loves the righteous; Yahweh keeps the sojourners; He helps up the orphan and the widow, But He bends the way of the wicked. Yahweh will reign forever, Your God, O Zion, from generation to generation. Praise Yah!” Psalm 146:1-10
“The wilderness and the desert will be delighted, And the Arabah will rejoice and flourish; Like the crocus It will flourish profusely And rejoice with rejoicing and shout of joy. The glory of Lebanon will be given to it, The majesty of Carmel and Sharon. They will see the glory of Yahweh, The majesty of our God. Strengthen limp hands, and give courage to the knees of the stumbling. Say to those with an anxious heart, ‘Be strong, fear not. Behold, your God will come with vengeance; The recompense of God will come, But He will save you.’ Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, And the tongue of the mute will shout for joy. For waters will break forth in the wilderness And streams in the Arabah.” Isaiah 35:1-6
Now contrast this with the signs and wonders that Jesus did to prove that he is indeed the One whom the prophets announced was to come to deliver his people:
“And it happened that soon afterwards He went to a city called Nain, and His disciples were going along with Him, accompanied by a large crowd. Now as He approached the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a sizeable crowd from the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, He felt compassion for her and said to her, ‘Do not cry.’ And He came up and touched the coffin, and the bearers came to a halt. And He said, ‘Young man, I say to you, arise!’ And the dead man sat up and began to speak. And Jesus gave him back to his mother. And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, ‘A great prophet has arisen among us!” and, ‘God has visited His people!’ And this report concerning Him went out all over Judea and in all the surrounding district. And the disciples of John reported to him about all these things. Summoning two of his disciples, John sent them to the Lord, saying, “Are You the One who is to come, or should we look for someone else?’ When the men came to Him, they said, ‘John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, “Are You the One who is to come, or should we look for someone else?”’ At that very time He cured many people of diseases and afflictions and evil spirits, and He granted sight to many who were blind. And He answered and said to them, ‘Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them. Blessed is he who does not take offense at Me.’” Luke 7:11-23
What the scrolls show is that the notion of a Divine Messiah whom the heavens and earth submit to is not alien or foreign to the OT and/or Jewish tradition. The Christian proclamation that the anointed Davidic King is both distinct from and yet identical with God is a thoroughly Jewish belief. It did not originate from pagan mythologies and traditions, nor did Christian messianism flourish or get its traction amongst the Gentiles due to it having been formed and shaped by pagan influences.
Concerning the similarities between the Philonic and Johnannine Logoi, we can say the following:
(a) Eternal and preexistent. The Logos is co-eternal with God and preexists the created realm. Philo makes this clear with the Logos sharing in the immortality and eternality of God (Conf. 41). John accents preexistence at several points by placing the Logos with God in the beginning (John 1.1-2), with Jesus sharing in God’s own name and self-existence (John 5.26; 8.58), and possessing a glory before the creation of the world (John 17.4 [sic]).
(b) Heightened proximity. The Logos is close to God in a way that no other intermediary figure is ever described. Philo declared the Logos to be the divine image and therefore the nearest one to God with no intervening figure between them (Fug. 101), which corresponds to John’s remark that the Word was with/ towards God with nothing between or beside (John 1.1, 18).
(c) God and with God. The Logos is part of the divine executive yet distinguishable from God. Both Logoi are identified with God and God’s actions, yet they never act independently of God, and they do not compromise God’s unity and oneness. Philo declared there to be “one true God,” and the Logos can appear in his place because the title “God” is given to his “chief Word” (Somn. 1.229-30). Philo contends that the “God” and “Lord” whom Abraham saw at Mamre (Gen 18.1) was none other than the “Holy Logos” (Abr. 70-71; Mut. 16-17). That corresponds with the Johannine Jesus’ remark that Abraham had a vision of his own day and even of him, precisely because Jesus is the “I am” who was before Abraham (John 8.56-58). John thus claims that Abraham encountered a heavenly being, the divine Logos, whom Moses also encountered as a heavenly figure bearing the divine name, and with whom Jesus is identified.127 Philo also says that Moses calls the Logos “God” as the divine Creative power (Fug. 97; QE 2.62,68), and he even labels it a “second God” (QG 2.62). John designates the Logos as “God” in a strong sense and attaches the title to the risen Jesus too (John 1.1; 20.28). In fact, Thomas’ attribution of the titles “Lord” and “God” to the risen Jesus is parallel to Philo dividing the Logos into two parts, the creative (God) and sovereign powers (Lord) within the one true God (Fug. 95; 103; cf. QG 2.16; QE 2.62, 68; Abr. 121; Mos. 2.99-100; Her. 165-66). Justin too identifies the Logos as “another God and Lord under the Creator of all things” (Dial. 56.4), and Origen is also comfortable with describing Jesus as “a second God” even though he qualifies it (Cels. 5.39; 6.61; 7.57). Philo, John, Justin, and Origen all have a strong belief in one God and maintain that the Logos is not an independent deity; nonetheless, they do struggle for conceptual clarity in how to precisely explain that the Logos is intrinsic to God’s being while functionally distinct and derivative.
(d) Demiurge. The Logos is God’s instrument of creation. Philo and John both identify God as the Creator, yet the act of creation is undertaken through the Logos, even though neither of them applies the term demiourgos to the Logos (Sacr. 8; Cher. 127; Fug. 95, 97; Opif. 20; 24; Migr. 6; QE 2.68; Leg. all. 3.96; Her. 119; Spec. leg. 1.81). John is clear that God creates “all things” through the Logos and nothing “apart from him” (John 1.3). This Johannine language meant very different things, as the debates between the proto-orthodox and Gnostics illustrate. For the former, this meant that the Logos was not part of creation and not an ordinary intermediary, for the latter, the Logos was at best the curator of the pleroma.
(e) Light and life. God’s Creative work through the Logos abounds in life and light. Philo says as much in his narration of the creation story (Opif. 24, 30, 33). John’s Logos is the bearer of life and light for ail people (John 1.4) and so John associates the Logos with God’s role as life-giver and revealer in creation.128
(f) Adoption. The Logos makes people children of God. Philo identifies the Logos as the agent of adoption, for while not everyone is learned enough to be considered “sons of God” (Deut 14.1), even so, he contends that everyone willing to put aside polytheism and pleasures can take their place under “God’s firstborn, the Word … For if we have not yet become fit to be thought sons of God yet we may be sons of his invisible image, the most holy Word” (Conf. 146-47). John is analogous in his claim that receiving the Word, believing in him, gives one the power to become children of God, begotten of God and not of human procreative process (John 1.12-13).
(g) The Logos with and in human beings. The Logos comprises the heavenly archetype of human existence. In regard to Gen 1.27, “Let us make man in our image,” Philo discerns in the plural pronoun “us” not an angelic assembly, but God and his Logos. He argues, “nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe but only in that of the second God, who is his Logos” (QG 2.62). Humans were created according to an archetypal seal, which corresponds to the divine image, which is the Word of God (Opif. 24-25; Conf. 147; Leg. all. 3.96; QG 1.4). The Logos is, then, the archetype of humanity, with the titles “man according to the image of God” (Conf. 146) and “the true man” (Somn. 1.215). Philo does make the interesting allegorical interpretation of Lev 16.17 with the high priest offering sacrifices as “not a man, but the word of God” (Fug. 108). John’s testimony is far stronger than this with the Word becoming flesh and identifying with the human life of the man Jesus of Nazareth (John 1.14).
(h) Exclusive mediator. Philo believes that the Logos fulfills a role like Moses in Deut 5.5 (LXX): “I stood between the Lord and you.” The Logos is the “chief messenger” who “pleads with the immortal as supplicant for afflicted mortality and acts as ambassador of the ruler to the subjects” (Her. 205-6). In regard to Exod 23.20-21, the angel whom God sends before the Hebrews is the Logos who is “judge and mediator” (QE 2.13) or “mediator and arbitrator” (QE 2.68). The Logos is also the “interpreter and prophet” of the divine will (Deus 138). God’s transcendence is such that none can see God in his essence, but only his Word as he dispatches it, the “angel of his Logos” (Somn. 1.65-69, 239). Matching this is a strong emphasis on the Logos as the exclusive revelation of God (Somn. 1.18; 3.13; 8.19; 14.7-9; 16.3; 17.24) and a special mediator (Somn. 1.51; 14.6; 15.5), which parallels similar Johannine assertions (John 1.18; 3.13; 14.6; 17.3).
(i) Philo and Christian tradition. Philo describes the Logos with terms that were to have currency in Christian circles (esp. Conf. 146). Labeling the Logos as “son of God” coalesces with early Christian tradition, particularly acute in John, where Jesus is the Son of God par excellence with a messianic vocation and unique filial relationship to God the Father. Likewise, his designation of the Logos as “firstborn” corresponds to Col 1.15, which was frequently married to Johannine christological discourse in the second century. Even the titles “Beginning” and “name of God” popped up in Gnostic and proto-orthodox narratives for Jesus as well. In addition, it was very common among a diverse range of authors to describe the Logos as an angel, as Philo does at several points. Philo anticipates in his Logos many of the christological titles that were to be used in apostolic and sub-apostolic Christology, and he intimates the Platonic possibilities that emerge when the Logos is situated as the primary actor in a hierarchy of subordinate powers where God is supreme, but kept at arm’s length from creation.
The Philonic and Johannine Logoi intersect most acutely at the point of postulating a supreme cosmological and intermediary agent who traverses the universal and the particular of creation and révélation.130 They demonstrate how philosophical traditions could be interrogated and applied to biblical exegesis in such a way as to cogently explain Gods movement towards the world without forfeiting divine transcendence. They both exposit God’s revelation in his creation with a view to attaining true knowledge of God’s being through the Logos.131
Yet, for ail the many similarities between Philo and John on the Logos, it is the differences that remain stark.
(a) God, Logos, and creation. To put it simply, Philo’s Logos explains creation, whereas John’s Logos explains God. 132 Unlike Philo, John’s Logos is not a divine form, intellect, archetype, or imprint impressed upon creation and creatures; rather, it belongs intrinsically to the one God and is sent into creation. Philo separates the invisible and visible worlds via the Logos, whereas John unites them in the Logos. Philo’s Logos is imprinted upon the physical world, whereas John’s Logos enters the physical world and is the Savior of the world. Philo’s Logos begets a cosmos and other powers, as do some Gnostic Logoi. But in Johannine and proto-orthodox discourse, the Logos does not generate anything; instead, the cosmos is addressed by the Logos rather than expressed within it.133
(b) Relationship with God. Philo’s Logos is close to God, as close as any entity can get, between a divine hypostasis and an archangel. The Logos constitutes God’s creative and sovereign power in heavens of which there is an equality with God (Her. 166), and no other being can be equal in honor with God (Conf. 170). Similarly, John accents the Logos’ parity with God as cocreator and Jesus’ own oneness and equality with God (John 5.18; 10.30). Even so, while Philo and John both attribute to the Logos a sense of subordination (QG 2.62; John 14.28), Philo’s subordination is premised on a cosmic Platonic hierarchy, whereas the Johannine Jesus’ subordination is rooted in his messianic obedience to the Father’s redemptive will. In addition, even though Philo and John both call the Logos “God,” there are more features of divine sovereignty attributed to John’s Logos in the prologue and to Jesus in the narrative, not the least in the receipt of worship and divine prerogatives in salvation and judgment.131
(c) Mediation without participation. Philo’s Logos is explicitly described as a “mediator,” even a cosmic priest, because it is neither “uncreated” as God nor “created” as humanity (Her. 206; Fug. 101; Somn. 1.215; QE 2.13, 68). It exists genuinely between both types of being and operates between the two realms. In contrast, John’s Logos participates in God’s God-ness and in the form and flesh of humanity. The Johannine Logos is a mediator and priest precisely because he participates in God’s being and human nature. Philo’s Logos might better be understood as a cipher or conduit between the noumenal and phenomenal horizons rather than comprising an actual mediator.135
(d) Incarnation. Philo regards the Logos as the archetype of humanity, sometimes a divine personification, otherwise a supreme angelic figure, but nothing here is analogous to incarnation nor even conducive to it. In fact, Philo stresses much the opposite: “Let no one represent the [divine] likeness as one to bodily form; for neither is God in human form, nor is the human body God-like” (Opif. 69). If that is not enough, regarding Caligula’s divine pretentiousness to deity, he charges, “Sooner could God change into a man than a man into a god” (Legat. 118). Elsewhere, he says “to declare the created uncreated, the mortal immortal, the destructible indestructible” is “blasphemy” as it tries to make “man” into “God” (Mut. 181). In which case, John 1.14 would be blasphemous to Philo because the unbegotten God cannot himself ever be begotten without forfeiting his immutable and impassible essence. Celsus, in fact, made the very same objections (Cels. 4.14, 18). True, Philo would agree with John that “no one has ever seen God,” but he would either balk or treat as blasphemous the following claim that “it is God the only Son, who is close to the Fathers heart, who has made him known” (John 1.18).136 For John, the ineffable and imperceptible divine being becomes knowable and perceptible exclusively in the Word/Son. Thus, despite some minor terminological affinities, “in Philo, the Logos is never fully personal, certainly never incarnate, and never the object of faith and love.”137
Finally, what should also be taken into account is how the Johannine Logos was diversely appropriated and augmented by Christian authors. John the Seer accents the worshipability of Jesus the Word and his proximity to God the Father even as he engages in an angelomorphic Christology. The Epistula Apostolorum similarly describes the Logos as divine but amiable to adopting angelic form. Justin deploys angelic types from the Septuagint to explain the Logos’ preexistence in Israel’s sacred history. Irenaeus can offer a robust intensification of Johnannine Logos Christology even as he identifies Christ with one of the cherubim. Justin and Origen define the Logos as definitively divine, but still subordinate to the Father. Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, and the author of Diognetus consider Jesus to be God’s Word, the instrument of creation, who sits on the divine side of the God-creature dichotomy, and is set apart from other intermediaries. Many Gnostics distinguished the Logos of God from the Logos of creation. Indeed, there were considerable variations within Gnostic schemes as to the Savior’s proximity to God the Father within the cosmic pleroma. The Johannine Logos was generally interpreted by Gnostics cosmologically, that is, in light of a stark separation between the true God and the pleroma contrasted with the demiurge and his creation.138 The overall impression is that Johns Logos generated diverse yet intensified identifications of Jesus as a divine figure by the proto-orthodox and heterodox alike.
To conclude, the Logos Christology of the early church, beginning with the evangelist John, was significant in several respects:
(1) It demonstrates a convergence between Jewish discourses about divine Wisdom and a messiah with a Christian Son of God tradition in a way that resources and resonates with Middle Platonic and Stoic philosophy. John’s Logos has affinities with Heraclitus, Cornutus, Philo, or Plutarch. Yet John’s identification of the Logos as becoming the man Jesus is without parallel, and his Christology is of such a character as to imply that Jesus is one with the God of Israel and he is an “uncreated” deity.139
(2) Logos Christology in ail its varieties, often combined with angelomorphism or pleromatic exegesis, attempted to offer a conceptually coherent account of how God is to be identified with the man Jesus of Nazareth by identifying Jesus with the preexistent Logos.
(3) Notwithstanding the questions that Logos Christology threw up for interpreters, such as whether the Logos was 100 percent divine or only 99.9 percent divine, Logos Christology represented the most serious and sublime effort of the church to know its own mind and to explain its own kerygma to itself. Logos Christology was the attempt to explain what it meant to say that “God sent his Son” (Gal 4.4; Rom 8.3), that “God was in Christ” (2 Cor 5.19), and that the Son is “the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Heb 1.3).140
137 McHugh, John 1-4, 94. Cf. Evans, Word and Glory, 104; and Frey, “Between Jewish Monotheism,” 207. According to Dunn (Christology in the Making, 243 [italics original]), John “has taken language which any thoughtful Jew would recognize to be the language of personification and has identified it with a particular person, as a particular person, that would be so astonishing: the manifestation of God become man! God’s utterance not merely come through a particular individual, but actually become that one person, Jesus of Nazareth!”
Boyarin (“Gospel of the Memra,” 261) notes: “I would like to propose that what marks the Fourth Gospel as a new departure in the history of Judaism is not to be found in its Logos theology at all but in its incarnational Christology, and that that very historical departure, or rather advent, is iconically symbolized in the narrative itself. When the text announces in v. 14 that ‘the Word became flesh,’ that announcement is an iconic representation of the moment that the Christian narrative begins to diverge from the Jewish Koine and form its own nascent Christian kerygma.” (Ibid., p. 169)
YHWH
The Old Testament repeatedly emphasizes that YHWH alone is seated on high and that he alone is far exalted above all the gods:
“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God… See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand… Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries. He repays those who hate him and cleanses his people’s land.” Deuteronomy 32:8, 39, 43 English Standard Version (ESV)
“When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God… Behold, behold that I am [he] (ego eimi), and there is no god beside me: I kill, and I will make to live: I will smite, and I will heal; and there is none who shall deliver out of my hands… Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him (kai proskynesatosan auto pantes angeloi theou); rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge (ekkathariei) the land of his people.” LXX
“Let all those be ashamed who serve graven images, Who boast of idols; Worship Him, all you gods!… For You are Yahweh Most High over all the earth; You are exalted far above all gods.” Psalm 97:7, 9
“Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels (proskynesate auto, pantes hoi angeloi autou)… For thou art Lord most high over all the earth; thou art greatly exalted above all (hyperhypsothes hyper pantas) gods.” Psalm 96:7, 9 LXX
“Who is like Yahweh our God, The One who sits on high,” Psalm 113:5
“Who is as the Lord our God? who dwells in the high places (en hypselois),” Psalm 112:5 LXX
JESUS
What makes this so remarkable is that the New Testament writings ascribe this very unique status to Jesus, even going as far as to employ the very same language which the Greek versions use in describing YHWH’s exaltation over all creation:
“who is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power; who, having accomplished cleansing (katharismon) for sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (en hypselois)… And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him (kai proskynesatosan auto pantes angeloi theou).’” Hebrews 1:3, 6
Note here that the inspired author has taken the very terms of the Greek of Deuteronomy 32:43 and Psalm 112:5, and applied them to the risen Christ.
The writer has Jesus making purification for sins and as receiving the worship of all the angels. And yet in Deuteronomy it is YHWH who cleanses all sins and he is the One whom all the angelic gods are supposed to worship.
Hebrews even states that Christ is now seated on high, despite knowing that the verse in the Psalm is clear that YHWH alone sits enthroned on high.
Christ is further portrayed as receiving the name or authority that is above all names and as having been exalted far above all creatures:
“and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe according to the working of the might of His strength, which He worked in Christ, by raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, FAR ABOVE ALL (hyperano pases) rule and authority and power and dominion, and EVERY (pantos) name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put ALL THINGS (panta) in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head OVER ALL THINGS (hyper panta) to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Ephesians 1:19-23
“Therefore, God also highly exalted (hyperhypsosen) Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is ABOVE EVERY (hyper pan) name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:9-11
Once again, the aforementioned texts are employing virtually the same words that the LXX uses in respect to YHWH’s exalted status over all creation.
The Highest Ones
This leads me to my next point.
The prophet Daniel saw and spoke of the Most Highs, plural, as reigning over the earth:
“But the holy people of the Elyonin will take possession of the kingdom and keep it forever and ever… It did this until the Ancient One, who has lived for endless years, came and judged in favor of the holy people of the Elyonin. The time came when the holy people took possession of the kingdom… He will speak against the Elyonin, oppress the holy people of the Illah-ah, and plan to change the appointed times and laws. The holy people will be handed over to him for a time, times, and half of a time… The kingdom, along with the power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven, will be given to the holy people of the Elyonin. Their kingdom is eternal. All other powers will serve and obey them.” Daniel 7:18, 22, 25, 27 Names of God Bible (NOG)
Elyonin is the plural form of Elyon, and literally means “Highest Ones” or “Most Highs”.
It makes sense that the prophet spoke of the Most Highs/Highest Ones since in his vision he sees two distinct entities ruling upon thrones over all nations, receiving the exclusive worship which God alone is to receive from all the inhabitants of the earth:
“I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His clothing was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with fire, Its wheels were a burning fire. A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him; Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; The court sat, And the books were opened… I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And came near before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory, and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations, and men of every tongue Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not be taken away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14
The Ancient of Days and the one like the Son of Man are not the same Person, since the latter is said to ride the clouds into heaven in order to be brought into the presence of the Ancient of Days. And yet this Son of Man reigns forever and is supposed to be worshiped or served by all peoples in all their various languages throughout all eternity (Cf. 3:12, 14, 17-18, 28; 6:16, 20, 26).
This glorious figure even rides the clouds, which is a function that the Hebrew Bible ascribes to God Most High:
“Yahweh is slow to anger and great in power, And Yahweh will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet.” Nahum 1:3
“Sing to God, sing praises to His name; Lift up a song for Him who rides through the deserts, Whose name is Yah, and exult before Him… To Him who rides upon the highest heavens, which are from ancient times; Behold, He gives forth His voice, a voice that is strong. Ascribe strength to God; His majesty is over Israel And His strength is in the skies.” Psalm 68:4, 33-34
“Bless Yahweh, O my soul! O Yahweh my God, You are very great; You are clothed with splendor and majesty, Wrapping Yourself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out the heavens like a tent curtain. He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He sets up the clouds to be His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind;” Psalm 104:1-3
The NT identifies this second divine figure as the Lord Jesus Christ:
“But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him and said to Him, ‘Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’” Mark 14:61-62
“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay each one according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Matthew 16:27-28 – Cf. 25:31-46; 26:1-2; Luke 17:24-25; 21:29, 36; 22:47-48; Acts 7:55-56; Rev. 1:7-18; 14:14-16
Therefore, since Jesus is that Son of Man whom Daniel beheld, and since this is the divine figure who shares in the reign of the Ancient of Days as one of the Highest Ones, this means that Jesus is indeed the Most High God!
As the following biblical commentator explains:
“These considerations lead to a final observation about the way Daniel deploys language to communicate what he saw in this Daniel 7 vision. Caragounis (1986: 74) observes that once Daniel has seen the vision (Dan. 7:1-14), curious lacunae stand in the interpretation (7:15-28):
Of the vision elements which are not interpreted by name, the most conspicuous are the Ancient One and the [one like a son of man] … Why is [the one like a son of man] not interpreted? Or, is he perhaps interpreted, though without being named expressly, but implicitly, by way of associations made in the text?
“Caragounis (1986: 75) next observes that the normal Aramaic term used in Daniel to refer to God as ‘Most High’ is… ‘illaya’ (Dan. 3:26, 32; 4:14, 21, 22, 29, 31; 5:18, 21; 7:25). In contrast with this, in the phrase ‘saints of the Most High’ (7:18, 22, 25, 27), Daniel always uses the form… ‘elyonin. Gentry (2003: 73) builds on these observations from Caragounis, noting that… (‘illaya‘)
is an Aramaic adjective, definite and singular, and may be rendered the Highest One or Most High. It refers to Yahweh, the one God of Israel and is standard in the Aramaic part of the book either as a modifier of God or as a title for God … By contrast [… ‘elyonin] is an honorific plural or plural of majesty of [… ‘elyon], the Hebrew adjective for highest plus the Aramaic plural ending.
“Daniel uses the two terms side by side in 7:25, ‘He shall speak words against the Most High [… ‘illaya’],/and shall wear out the saints of the Most High [… ‘elyonin]’, prompting Gentry (2003: 73) to ask:
Why does the author use a Hebrew expression (with Aramaic ending) for the Most High in the Aramaic section and side by side with the expression standard in Aramaic? It seems a deliberate attempt to draw some distinction between a divine figure associated with the saints and yet perhaps distinguished from Yahweh in some way.
“Because of the similarity of the statements in Daniel 7:14 and 7:27, we can be certain that the Most High referred to with (… ‘elyonin) and associated with the saints in the phrase ‘saints of the Most High’ is the ‘one like a son of man‘. Considering these two texts side by side will bring out their similarity (see table 6.2).
“The referent of the two third-person masculine singular pronoun at the end of Daniel 7:27, ‘his kingdom … obey him‘, is the Most High [… ‘elyonin]. The word ‘people’ [… ‘am] is also singular and thus could be the referent of these third-person pronouns, but for the following reasons Most High is more probably the referent. First, ‘Most High’ stands between the third singular pronouns and ‘people’, and the nearer substantive is more probably the referent. Secondly, the ‘people’ are referred to throughout the passage with the plural ‘saints’ (Dan. 7:18, 22, 25, 27), and ‘saints’ is closer to the pronoun than ‘people’. If the pronouns referred to the ‘people of the saints’, they might be plural rather than singular. Finally, the reuse of a phrase from Daniel 7:13 in 27 identifies the ‘one like a son of man’ with the ‘Most High’. Daniel 7:14 states that peoples, nations and languages will ‘serve’ the son of man, and the same Hebrew phrase is used in 7:27 (… leh yiplechun) to state that all dominions will serve the Most High. This is language used elsewhere in Daniel to refer to the kind of service one renders to what one worships (cf. the use of the verb in 3:12, 14, 17-18, 28; 6:17, 21 [MT]), and it is more probable that such service would be rendered to the Most High than to the people. Here again, Daniel used the Hebrew adjective with the Aramaic plural ending (… ‘elyonin) to refer to the ‘one like a son of man’ as Most High, distinguishing him from the Ancient of Days, for whom he used the normal Aramaic expression (… ‘illaya’) when designating him as Most High.
“By using these distinct forms for ‘Most High’ consistently, Daniel identified BOTH the Ancient of Days AND THE ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN AS THE MOST HIGH, even as he distinguished them from one another. In this passage, Daniel communicates that the one like a son of man will be enthroned alongside the Ancient of Days, that he comes with the clouds AS YAHWEH DOES ELSEWHERE (e.g. Pss 18:10; 97:2; 104:3, etc.), that he receives service and worship – described with terms ONLY elsewhere used for describing obeisance done for deity (Gentry 3003: 72-73), and that he will receive the everlasting kingdom which shall not pass away, which is exactly how God’s kingdom is described. The Ancient of Days is described as the Most High with one term, while the one like a son of man is described with another. And the term used to describe the one like a son of man as Most High is always used in the phrase ‘saints of the Most High’, apparently because the Psalm 8:5 son of man who receives dominion over the beasts, the Psalm 110:1 Lord of David who sits enthroned at Yahweh’s right hand, will be king over the saints, their representative who is somehow both identified with and distinguished from the Ancient of Days, even as he is both a descendant of David and a divine figure.” (James M. Hamilton Jr., With the Clouds of Heaven: The Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology (New Studies in Biblical Studies) [IVP Academic, Downers Grove, IL 2014], pp. 151-153; emphasis mine)
Hamilton’s concluding remarks are most pertinent to our discussion, and we therefore cite them in full:
“In this chapter I have argued that none of the other heavenly beings in Daniel can be confidently identified with the ‘one like a son of man’ in 7:13. Apart from such an identification, it is difficult to imagine Daniel intending his audience to understand that the figure he saw in that heavenly throne room scene in chapter 7 was the same figure who delivered his friends in the fiery furnace in chapter 3 or who appeared to him in chapter 10. Having examined the way that Daniel describes these other heavenly beings, the remarkable features of Daniel 7 present a figure both human and divine, identified with and distinguished from the Ancient of Days, who represents the saints as their king.
“In Daniel 7, Daniel recounts his vision of the way that the Ancient of Days will be enthroned once the four kingdoms have enjoyed their appointed time and season, a vision of the way that the Davidic king will defeat the little horn from the fourth kingdom and receive the everlasting kingdom with his saints (7:21-27). The one like a son of man is called Most High by using a different expression from the one used to designate the Ancient of Days as Most High. He is clearly the Davidic king, and he is clearly a participant in the heavenly scene, traveling as Yahweh does, on the clouds of heaven.
“This does not demand that Daniel understood the Trinity as that doctrine progressively came to be revealed. Everyone was surprised when Jesus began to exercise divine prerogatives. What Daniel saw and described, however, fits perfectly with what would later be revealed with greater clarity. The New Testament even speaks of Jesus as begotten of the Father (1 John 5:18; cf. John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; cf. John 5:26), another concept that fits well with there being an Ancient of Days and ‘one like a son of man’ (cf. Caragounis 1986).” (Ibid., pp. 153-154; emphasis mine)
YHWH Most High Incarnate
The final line evidence which confirms Jesus’ identity as the Most High God, who isn’t the Father or the Spirit, comes from the NT application of YHWH texts to him.
For instance, Isaiah prophesied that God would send an emissary to announce to Judah that YHWH was about to appear among them:
“A voice is calling, ‘Prepare the way for Yahweh in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God. Let every valley be lifted up, And every mountain and hill be made low; And let the rough ground become a plain, And the rugged terrain a broad valley; Then the glory of Yahweh will be revealed, And all flesh will see it together; For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.’” Isaiah 40:3-5
The New Testament teaches that John was the envoy sent to prepare for the visible manifestation of YHWH, and yet the YHWH he came to pave the way for was actually the Lord Jesus Christ!
“Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zechariah, in the wilderness. And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins; as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness, “Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight. Every ravine will be filled, And every mountain and hill will be brought low; The crooked will be straight, And the rough roads smooth. 6 And all flesh will see the salvation of God.”’… Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ, John answered, saying to them all, ‘As for me, I baptize you with water, but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the strap of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor and to gather the wheat into His barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.’” Luke 3:1-6, 15-17
“Then Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’” Acts 19:4
“He said, ‘I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, “Make straight the way of the Lord,” as Isaiah the prophet said.’… John answered them, saying, ‘I baptize with water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. This One is He who comes after me, of whom I am not worthy to untie the strap of His sandal.’ These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. On the next day, he saw Jesus coming to him and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, “After me comes a man who has been ahead of me, for He existed before me.” I did not know Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing with water.’ And John bore witness saying, ‘I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He abided on Him. And I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “The One upon whom you see the Spirit descending and abiding on Him, this is the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I myself have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.’ On the next day, John again was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as He walked, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God!’” John 1:23, 26-36
What this means is that Jesus is YHWH God who became a Man for the redemption of his creation, being the very God of Israel whom Isaiah announced was coming to dwell in the midst of Israel.
As such, Jesus must be by his very nature the Most High God since, as we’ve seen earlier, the OT writings emphatically teach that YHWH alone is the Most High:
“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High… Then Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to Yahweh God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth,” Genesis 14:18, 22
“I will give thanks to Yahweh according to His righteousness And will sing praise to the name of Yahweh Most High.” Psalm 7:17
“Yahweh also thundered in the heavens, And the Most High gave forth His voice, Hailstones and coals of fire.” Psalm 18:13
“That they may know that You alone—Your name is Yahweh— Are the Most High over all the earth.” Psalm 83:18
At the same, Jesus is said to be the Son of the Most High:
“And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him; and crying out with a loud voice, he said, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.’” Mark 5:6-7 Revised Standard Version
“31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of His kingdom.”” Luke 1:31-33
This simply confirms what the prophet Daniel stated, namely, the one true God is not a singular Person. Rather, YHWH is a multi-personal (in fact, tri-Personal) Being who eternally subsists as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Notice how this logically works out, with all of the premises based entirely on the plain exegesis of the God-breathed Scriptures:
YHWH is the Most High God.
Jesus is the incarnation, the human enfleshment of YHWH.
Jesus is, therefore, the Most High God YHWH.
Jesus is not the Father (or the Holy Spirit).
The Father is identified as the only true God.
Therefore, the Most High God is not a singular Person, but a multi-personal Being who eternally exists as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
To YHWH, the one true Most High Triune God, be the glory forever and ever. Amen!
Unless indicated otherwise, scriptural references taken from the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB).
JUSTIN MARTYR
Before proceeding, we want to make mention of the fact that in our first rebuttal we had quoted Justin regarding Jesus’ preincarnate appearances in the OT. The fact that Justin believed that Christ actually appeared to the OT saints should have alerted the authors that the claim that Justin held to an Adoptionist view of Christ is blatantly false. Justin wholeheartedly believed that Jesus is the eternal Word of God, co-equal to the Father in essence, and was begotten not made as the following citations prove:
The Word … He is Divine. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.166 (p. 94)
The Father of the Universe has a Son. And He, being the First-Begotten Word of God, IS EVEN GOD. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.184. (Ibid.)
Next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.193. (Ibid.)
For Christ is King, Priest, GOD, LORD, Angel, and MAN. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.211. (Ibid.)
He deserves to be worshiped AS GOD and as Christ. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.229. (Ibid.)
David predicted that He would be born from the womb before the sun and moon, according to the Father’s will. He made Him known, being Christ, AS GOD, and to be worshiped. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.237. (Ibid.)
The Son ministered to the will of the Father. Yet, nevertheless HE IS GOD, in that He is the First-Begotten of all creatures. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.262. (Ibid.)
If you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that HE WAS GOD, Son of the Only, Unbegotten, Unutterable God. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.263. (Ibid.)
We assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1170. (p. 101)
His Son … also was with Him and was begotten BEFORE the works, when at first He created ALL THINGS BY HIM. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.190. (Ibid.) (p. 104)
And Trypho [a Jew] said, “For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For example, you say that this Christ EXISTS AS GOD BEFORE THE AGES.” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.219. (Ibid.)
This is He WHO EXISTED BEFORE ALL, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.247. (Ibid.)
We know Him to be the First-Begotten of God, AND TO BE BEFORE ALL CREATURES … Since we call Him the Son, we have understood that, BEFORE ALL CREATURES, He proceeded from the Father by His power and will. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.249. (Ibid.)
I will give you another testimony … from Scriptures, that God begat BEFORE ALL CREATURES A BEGINNING, a certain Power … who is called by the Holy Spirit, sometimes the Glory of the Lord, sometimes the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then GOD, then LORD, and Logos. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.227. (p. 107)
God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” … From this, we can indisputably learn that God conversed with someone numerically distinct from Himself, and was also a rational Being … For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you Jews is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that God spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father BEFORE ALL CREATURES. And the Father communed with Him. It is even clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom was begotten as a Beginning BEFORE ALL HIS CREATURES. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.228. (pp. 109-110)
HIPPOLYTUS
Although He endured the cross, yet AS GOD He returned to life, having trampled upon death. For His God and Father addresses Him and says, “Sit at my right hand.” Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.166, 167. (p. 96)
By the Ancient of Days, he means, none other than the Lord God, and Ruler of all – even of Christ Himself, who makes the days old and yet does not become old Himself by times and days. “His dominion is an everlasting dominion.” The Father, having put all things in subjection to His own Son – both things in heaven and things on earth – presented Him as the First-Begotten of God. He did this in order that, along with the Father, He might be approved before angels as the Son of God and be manifested as also the Lord of angels. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.189. (Ibid.)
Christ’s body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity. Rather, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father. Yet, He was also in the body and in Hades. For the Son of God IS NOT CONTAINED IN SPACE, JUST AS THE FATHER IS NOT. And he comprehends ALL THINGS IN HIMSELF. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.194. (pp. 96-97)
Who, then, was in heaven but the Word unincarnate – who was sent to show that He was upon the earth and WAS ALSO IN HEAVEN? Hippolytus (c. 205, W) 5.225. (p. 97)
Having been made man, HE IS STILL GOD FOREVER. For to this effect, John also said, “Who is, and who was, and who is come- THE ALMIGHTY.” And He was appropriately called Christ “the Almighty”. For in this, he has said only WHAT CHRIST TESITIFIES ABOUT HIMSELF. For Christ gave this testimony about and said, “All things are delivered unto me by my Father.” Hippolytus (c 205, W) 5.225. (Ibid.)
Interestingly, we had quoted this reference in our first rebuttal. This should have signified to the authors that for Hippolytus to call Jesus Christ the Almighty of Revelation 1:8 implies that the latter clearly believed in Christ’s eternal Deity and essential unity with the Father. This should have then further indicated that Hippolytus’ statement regarding God being alone wasn’t referring to the Son or the Holy Spirit, but to all created things. Hippolytus clearly believed that both the Son and the Spirit existed eternally within the very being of the Father, as the following passages demonstrate.
“God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world… Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, YET EXISTED IN PLURALITY… Thus, then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one God made all things… For Christ is THE GOD ABOVE ALL… He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father.’ He who is over all, God blessed, has been born…” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225 (Source)
The Father begat the Word as the Author, Fellow-Counselor, and Framer of the things that have been created. He uttered the first Voice, begetting Him as Light of Light. And He sent forth to the world as its Lord. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5:227. (p. 101)
You will say to me, “How is He begotten?” … You cannot explain with accuracy the economy in His case. For you do not have it in your power to acquaint yourself with the skilful and indescribable are of the Maker, but only to see, understand, and believe that man is God’s work. Moreover, you are asking an account of the generation of the Word, whom God the Father begat as He willed, in His good pleasure … Is it enough for you to learn that the Son of God has been manifested to you for salvation (if you believe) – but do you also inquire curiously how He was begotten after the spirit [i.e., His heavenly birth]? … Are you then so bold as to seek the account after the spirit, which the Father keeps with Himself, intending to reveal it then to the holy ones and those worthy of seeing His face? … For He speaks in this manner: “From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you.” Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5:229. (p. 102)
This solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first … Him alone did [the Father] produce from existing things. For the Father constituted existence, and the Being born from Him was the cause of ALL THINGS that are produced. The Logos was IN [the Father] HIMSELF, bearing the will of His Begetter and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.150, 151. (Ibid.)
Hippolytus claims that Christ existed within the Father and was begotten from him. He goes on to say that Christ is the cause of all things. That Christ is the cause of all creation means that Christ is before creation, and therefore eternal. That is why Hippolytus insists that Christ was begotten from existing things, i.e. from the Father who is existence, and was not made from nothing.
He who was CO-EXISTENT WITH HIS FATHER BEFORE ALL TIME, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Divinity. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.167. (p. 105)
He was born the Word, of the heart of the Father, BEFORE ALL. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.189. (Ibid.)
They killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is CO-ETERNAL with the Father. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.220. (Ibid.)
Thus there appeared another One beside Himself. But when I say “another,” I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one Power which is from the All. And the Father is the All, from whom comes this Power, the Word. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.227. (p. 108)
The Logos alone of this One is from God Himself. For that reason also, He is God, being of the substance of God. IN CONTRAST, the world was made from nothing. Therefore, it is not God. Hippolytus (c. 205, W),5.151. (p. 110)
ORIGEN
In his A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, David W. Bercot comments on Origen’s Christology:
V. Origen’s understanding of the Son
It has become quite commonplace today for Origen to be singled out among pre-Nicene writers as holding heterodox views of the Son. This is quite unjust, as Origen’s teachings on the Son are essentially the same as the rest of the early church. This can clearly be seen from the many preceding quotations from Origen, which show that he held to a Nicene understanding of the deity of the Son. Of course, like the rest of the early Christians, Origen can be SELECTIVELY quoted to make him appear either Arian, Monarchian, or anything else that is desired. One of the quotations that has often been misunderstood and misquoted is the following passage:
We next notice that John’s use of the article in these sentences [John 1:1]. He does not write without care in this respect. Nor is he unfamiliar with the subtleties of the Greek language. In some cases, he omits it. He adds the article before the word “Logos.” But to the name, “God,” he adds it only sometimes. That is, he uses the article when the word, “God,” refers to the uncreated cause of all things [i.e., the Father]. But he omits it when the Logos is called “God.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.323.
There are many persons who are sincerely concerned about religion and who here fall into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods. As a result, their fear drives them into doctrines that are false and wicked. They sometimes deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own, besides that of the Father. They thereby make Him whom they call the Son to be the God, all but in name. Or else, they deny the divinity of the Son – giving Him a separate existence of His own and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that the God on the one hand is Autotheos [God of Himself]. For that reason, the Savior says in his prayer to the Father, “That they may know you, the only true God.” But all other Persons beyond this Autotheos are made Divine [Gr. theos] by participation in His divinity. They are not to be simply called “the God” [Gr. ho theos], but rather, “God” [or “Divine” [Gr. theos]. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.323.
Furthermore, preceding the first passage quoted above, Origen had already stated:
The Word was always with the Father. And so it is said, “And the Word was with God.” … He was in the beginning at the same time when He was with God – neither being separated from the beginning, nor bereft of His Father. And again, neither did He come to be in the beginning after He had not been in it. Nor did He come to be with God after not having been with him. For BEFORE ALL TIME AND THE REMOTEST AGE, the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.322.
So in no sense can Origen be accused of holding to an Arian understanding of the Son. The passage that follows is sometimes also misunderstood in an Arian sense:
The Son of God, “the First-Born of all creation,” although He seemed recently to have become incarnate, is not by any means recent on account of that. For the Holy Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creation. For it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Origen (c. 248, E), 4.560.
Again, we must remember (as discussed above under 11.E. “Begotten, not made”) that most of the pre-Nicene writers used “begotten” [Gr. gennetos] and “created” [Gr. ktizein] interchangeably as synonyms. When Origen refers to the Son as a “work of creation,” he does not mean it in the sense of the Son’s being created out of nothing. He means in the sense of begetting. As quoted above, Origen distinctly says that “the Word was always with the Father.” The following passage shows that Origen was not including the Son among those things that were created out of nothing:
The Word of God, knowing the Father, reveals the Father whom He knows. And NO CREATED BEING can approach the Father without a guide. For no one knows the Father except the Son and he to whomever the Son reveals Him. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.320. (Ibid., pp. 127-128)
The following quotations confirm the author’s assessment of Origen’s Christology:
The Canaanite woman came and worshiped Him as God, saying, “Lord help me.” Origen (c. 245, E), 9.446. (p. 98)
He is perceived as being the Word, for He was GOD in the beginning with God. He reveals the Father. Origen (c. 245, E), 9.452. (Ibid.)
Every prayer, supplication, intercession, and thanksgiving is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest-the living Word and God, who is above all angels. And to the Word himself will we also pray, make intercessions, and offer thanksgiving. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.544. (Ibid.)
Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God take care that he is not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father himself. For he denies that He had always been a Father, or had always generated the Word, or had possessed Wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.246, 247. (p. 105)
The Father generates an UNCREATED SON and brings forth a Holy Spirit – NOT AS IF HE HAD NO PREVIOUS EXISTENCE, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or the Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.270. (Ibid.)
The Word was not made in the beginning. There was NO TIME when the beginning was devoid of the Word. For that reason it is said, “In the beginning was the Word.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.334. (p. 106)
The Word that was in the beginning with God (WHO IS ALSO VERY GOD) may come to us. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.499. (p. 108)
According to John, “God is light.” The Only-Begotten Son, therefore, is the glory of this light. He proceeds INSEPARABLY from the [God] Himself, as brightness proceeds from light, illuminating the whole creation. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.248. (p. 109)
The Savior is here called simply “Light.” But in the catholic Epistle of this same John, we read that God is Light. This, it has been maintained, furnishes further proof that the Son is not different from the Father IN SUBSTANCE. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.336. (Ibid.)
Whatever is a property of physical bodies cannot be attributed to either the Father or the Son. What belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and Son. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.245. (p. 112)
It is an attribute of the divine nature ALONE – of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – to exist without any material substance, and without partaking in any way with an adjoining body … Origen (c. 225, E), 4.262. (Ibid.)
Christ is, in a manner, THE CREATOR, to whom the Father says, “Let there be light.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.307. (p. 113)
The following citations are taken from The Classics of Western Spirituality : Origen – An Exhortation To Martyrdom, Prayer And Selected Works, Paulist Press, 1979. All bold and capital emphasis ours:
As well, my Hebrew teacher used to impart the following tradition. With regard to the fact that neither the beginning nor the end of all things can be understood by anyone, unless only by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit, he used to say that Isaiah by the type of his vision had spoken of two seraphim alone who with two wings cover the face of God, with two wings His feet, and with two wings fly, crying to one another and saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of your glory” (Is. 6:2-3). Thus, because the two seraphim alone have their wings over God’s face and His feet, we must dare to say that not even the nations, principalities, and powers (cf. Col. 1:16) can correctly know the beginning of everything and the ends of the universe. But we must understand that those holy beings whom we have listed are spirits and powers near the first principles themselves and touch upon them to a degree the others are not strong enough to attain. Nevertheless, whatever those powers say by the revelation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and however many truths they have been able to overtake, the higher much more than the powers below them, it is impossible for them to understand everything, since it is written, “Most of God’s works are concealed” (Sir. 16:21). (pp. 203-204)
… The Greeks call it asomaton, that is, “incorporeal”; but the divine Scriptures use the word ‘invisible,’ since the Apostle proclaims that God is ‘invisible’ and says that Christ is ‘the image of the invisible God.’ Moreover, he says further that through Christ “all things, visible and invisible, were created” (Col. 1:15-16). By this is made clear that even among creatures there are some that are “invisible” substances by their own properties. But although they are not corporeal, they nevertheless make use of bodies, though they are themselves better than corporeal substances. But THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TRINITY, which is the first principle and cause of everything, from which are all things (Rom. 11:36), must not be believed to be a body or to exist in a body, but to be completely incorporeal. (p. 204)
1. The time has now come in our discussion to sum up one by one, so far as we are able, the subjects we have treated and that we have discussed in a scattered way, and first of all to repeat what we have said about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Since God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated by a production from Him, as some think. For if the Son is a production of the Father and production is defined as the sort of generation by which the offspring of animals or of men are accustomed to come into existence, then necessarily both He who produces and He who is produced will be bodies. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that any part of God’s substance has been turned into the Son, or that the Son has been generated from the Father from no substance at all, that is, OUTSIDE HIS OWN SUBSTANCE, SO THAT THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT. But we remove all notion of corporeality and say that the Word and Wisdom is generated from the invisible and incorporeal God apart from any corporeal passion, as will proceeds from mind. Nor will it seem absurd if it is thought of by the analogy of will, since He is said to be “the Son of His Love” (Col. 1:13). Moreover, John points out that “God is light” (1 John 1:5), and Paul points out that the Son is “the splendor of eternal light” (cf. Heb. 1:3). Therefore, just as light can never exist without splendor, SO NEITHER CAN THE SON, who is said to be “the express stamp of His substance” (Heb. 1:3) and His Word and Wisdom, ever be understood without the Father. Therefore, how can it be said THAT THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THE SON WAS NOT? For that would be no different from saying that there was a time when truth was not, when wisdom was not, when life was not, since it should be judged that the substance of God the Father involves all of these things. They cannot be separated from Him, nor can they ever be cut off from His substance. And what are said to be many by intellectual apprehension, nevertheless are one in fact and in substance; and in them there exists the fullness of Godhead (cf. Col. 2:9). (pp. 205-206)
But what we have said, that there never was a time when He was not, must be taken with qualification. For the very words “when” and “never” bear a meaning implying the notion of time. But what is said about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit must be understood ABOVE ALL TIME, ABOVE ALL AGES, AND ABOVE ALL ETERNITY. For that only is the Trinity which surpasses every sense of our understanding, not only temporal BUT ALSO ETERNAL. It is other things that are outside the Trinity that must be measured in ages and times. Therefore, as to the Son of God, because He is the Word WHO IS GOD and who was in the beginning with God (Jn. 1:1-2), no one will rightly think that He is contained in any place, nor will he draw that conclusion because He is wisdom or because He is truth or because He is life or righteousness or sanctification or redemption. None of these things require a place to be able to do something or to act, but they must be understood individually, when they refer to those who partake of the Word’s power and operation. (p. 206)
2. But perhaps someone will say that through those who are participants (cf. Heb. 3:14) in God’s Word or His Wisdom or truth or life the Word and Wisdom appears Himself to be in a place. The answer must be given that there is no doubt that Christ insofar as He is Word and Wisdom and all the rest was in Paul, because of which he said, “Or do you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me?” (2 Cor. 13:3). And again, “But it is no longer I who lives but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). Then, therefore, since He was in Paul, who will doubt that He was likewise in Peter, in John, and in each one of the saints, and not only in those on earth but also in those in the heavens? For it is absurd to say that Christ was in Peter and in Paul, but not in Michael the Archangel and in Gabriel. From this it is clearly discovered that the divinity of the Son of God was not confined to any place, since He was not so much in one as not to be in another. Rather, since He is not confined in any place because of the majesty of His incorporeal nature, He is further understood not to be absent from any place. (pp. 206-207)
3. Now that we have briefly repeated our account of the Trinity, we must go on in the same way to remind the reader that through the Son “all things” are said to be “created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers – all things were created through Him and in Him. He is before all things; in Him who is the head all things hold together” (Col. 1:16-18). John in his Gospel also agrees with this and says that “all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made” (Jn. 1:3). And David points out the mystery of the entire Trinity in the creation of everything when he says, “By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their power by the Spirit of His mouth” (Ps. 33:6).
Next we shall properly call to mind the corporeal coming and incarnation of the Only Begotten Son of God. In it we must not take the view that the entire majesty of His divinity was shut up in the confines of one small body so that the entire Word of God and His Wisdom and substantial truth and life was cut off from the Father or forced within the small compass of that body and contained by it, and He should be thought active in no other way than this. Rather, the confession of our religion ought to be aware of two extremes, so that neither should any lack in the divinity of Christ be believed, nor should any division be supposed to have taken place from within the Father’s substance, which is everywhere. And John the Baptist points to some such conclusion when in Jesus’ corporeal absence he said to the crowds, “Among you stands one who you do not know, even He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie” (Jn. 1:26-27). John could not have said He stood in the midst of those among whom He was not corporeally present about Him who was absent so far as His corporeal presence was concerned. Thus, it is clear that the Son of God was both wholly present in the body and wholly present everywhere. (pp. 207-208)
But just as a person receives the adoption of sons by participation in the Son of God and is made wise by participation in God’s Wisdom, so also he is made holy and spiritual by participation in the Holy Spirit. For it is one and the same thing to receive participation in the Holy Spirit as to receive it in the Father and the Son, since, of course, the nature of the Trinity IS ONE and incorporeal. And what we have said about the participation of the soul must be understood to apply to angels and heavenly powers, just as it does to souls, since every rational creature requires participation in the Trinity. (p. 210)
… Not only this, but since the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, from whose intelligible light alone the entire creation draws participation, is itself incorruptible and ETERNAL, it certainly both follows and is necessary that every substance that draws participation from that ETERNAL NATURE also endures itself forever both incorruptible and eternal … (p. 215)
… And although God knows everything and nothing related to intelligible things escapes His notice (for only God the Father with His Only Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit holds knowledge not only of what He created BUT ALSO OF HIMSELF) … (p. 216)
TRINITY
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Matt. 28:19.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1.
Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does. John 5:19, 20.
For us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 1 Cor. 8:6.
I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. 11:3.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. 2 Cor. 13:14.
According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 1:2.
Do we not have one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? Clement of Rome (c. 96, W), 1.17.
The most true God, is the Father of righteousness. . . . We worship and adore Him, the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, along with the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like Him), and the prophetic Spirit. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.164.
Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men called atheists who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order? Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.133.
Christians know God and His Logos. They also know what type of oneness the Son has with the Father and what type of communion the Father has with the Son. Furthermore, they know what the Spirit is and what the unity is of these three: the Spirit, the Son, and the Father. They also know what their distinction is in unity. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.134.
We acknowledge a God, and a Son (His Logos), and a Holy Spirit. These are united in essence—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Now, the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, and Wisdom of the Father. And the Spirit is an emanation, as light from fire. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.141.
The three days which were before the luminaries are types of the Triad of God, His Word, and His Wisdom. Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.101.
It is the Father who anoints, and it is the Son who is anointed by the Spirit. The Spirit is the unction. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.446.
I have also largely demonstrated that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father. Now, that Wisdom also, who is the Spirit, was present with Him before all creation, He declares by Solomon: “God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding He has established the heaven. By His knowledge, the depths burst forth, and the clouds dropped down the dew.” And again: “The Lord created me the beginning of His ways in His work. He set me up from everlasting, in the beginning, before He made the earth.” . . . There is therefore one God, who by His Word and Wisdom created and arranged all things. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.488.
God is powerful in all things. At that time, He was seen prophetically through the Spirit and adoptively through the Son. However, he will be seen paternally in the kingdom of heaven. The Spirit truly prepares a man in the Son of God, and the Son leads him to the Father. Finally, the Father confers upon him incorruption for eternal life. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.489.
It is after the image and likeness of the uncreated God: the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.521, 522.
One God the Father is declared, who is above all, through all, and in all. The Father is indeed above all, and He is the Head of Christ. But the Word is through all things and is Himself the Head of the church. While the Spirit is in us all, and He is the living water. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.546.
They ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father. And in due time, the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.567.
The universal Father is one. The universal Word is one. And the Holy Spirit is one. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.220.
Thank the one only Father and Son, Son and Father. The Son is the Instructor and Teacher, along with the Holy Spirit. They are all in One, in whom is all, for whom all is One, for whom is eternity. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.295.
It is protected by the power of God the Father, and the blood of God the Son, and the dew of the Holy Spirit. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.601.
We pray at a minimum not less than three times in the day. For we are debtors to Three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Tertullian (c. 198, W), 3.690.
For the very church itself is—properly and principally—the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Tertullian (c. 212, W), 4.99.
We . . . believe that there is only one God, but under the following dispensation or “economy” [Gr. oikonomia], as it is called. We believe that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the virgin, and to have been born of her—being both man and God, the Son of man and the Son of God. . . . And the Son also sent from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.598.
This heresy [Monarchianism] supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in only one God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also One were not All, in that All are of One, by unity of substance. In this manner, the mystery of the “economy” is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, this is not in condition, but in degree. It is not in substance; but in form. It is not in power, but in aspect. Yet, they are of one substance, one condition, and one power—for as He is one God from whom these degrees, forms, and aspects are reckoned under the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. How they are susceptible of number without division will be shown. . . . The simple, . . . who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the “economy,” on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the only true God. They do not understand that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own “economy.”
. . . How does it come to pass that God is thought to suffer division and severance in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, who have the second and the third places assigned to them, and who are so closely joined with the Father in His substance? . . . Do you really suppose that those, who are naturally members of the Father’s own substance, pledges of His love, instruments of His might, . . . are the overthrow and destruction thereof? You are not right in thinking so. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.598, 3.599.
As for me, I derive the Son from no other source than from the substance of the Father. And I believe He does nothing without the Father’s will and that He received all power from the Father. So how can I possibly be destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? . . . Likewise with the Third Degree, for I believe the Spirit is from no other source than from the Father through the Son. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.599.
For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares. This is just as the root puts forth the tree, the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are emanations of the substances from which they proceed. I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root; or the river, that of the fountain; or the ray, that of the sun. . . .
Now, the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son. Just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source from which it derives its own properties. In like manner, the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the “Monarchy,” while it at the same time guards the state of the “Economy.” Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.603.
1276 I testify that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other. . . . My assertion is that the Father is one, the Son is one, and the Spirit is one—and that they are all distinct from each other. . . . The Father is not the same as the Son, for they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.603, 604.
However, that there are two Gods or two Lords, is a statement that at no time proceeds out of our mouths. Not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and each is God. . . . Now, if there were found in the Scriptures but one Personality of Him who is God and Lord, Christ would justly enough be inadmissible to the title of God and Lord. For there was declared to be none other than one God and one Lord. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.608.
In the “Economy” itself, the Father willed that the Son should be regarded as being on earth, and the Father Himself as being in heaven. Actually, however, He is everywhere present. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.619.
Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, distinct one from another. These Three are one in essence—not one in Person. For it is said, “I and my Father are One,” in respect of unity of substance, not singularity of number. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.621.
He commands them to baptize into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiritnot into a unipersonal God. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.623.
The earth is moved by three things: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.174.
Who will not say that there is one God? Yet, he will not on that account deny the Economy. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.224.
Therefore, a man . . . is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God—who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject (Himself excepted)—and the Holy Spirit; and that these are three [Persons]. However, if he desires to know how it is shown that there is still one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the Economy, there is a threefold manifestation. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.226.
We accordingly see the incarnate Word. And we know the Father through Him. We also believe in the Son, and we worship the Holy Spirit. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.228.
If, then, the Word was with God and was also God, what follows? Would one say that I speak of two Gods? I will not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one. I speak of two Persons, however, and of a third Economy—the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the Father indeed is one, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son. And then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The Economy of harmony is led back to one God. For God is one. It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding. The Father is above all, the Son is through all, and the Holy Spirit is in all. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.228.
“Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” By this, He showed that whoever omits any one of these three, fails in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, and the Spirit manifested. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.228.
However, many of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other not only on small and trifling matters but also on subjects of the highest importance. I mean, for example, the things concerning God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit. . . . For that reason, therefore, it seems necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these [Persons]. . . . The particular points that are clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follows: First, that there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being. . . .
Secondly, that Jesus Christ Himself, who came, was born of the Father before all creatures and that—after He had been the minister of the Father in the creation of all things (“for by Him all things were made”), He in the last times divested Himself and became a man. He was incarnate although still God. . . .
And thirdly, the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in His case it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as born or unborn—or also as a Son of God nor not. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.240.
The Savior Himself rightly says in the Gospel: “There is no one good but only one, God the Father.” By such an expression, it should be understood that the Son is not of a different goodness, but of that one goodness that exists in the Father, of whom He is rightly called the Image. For He proceeds from no other source than from that primal goodness. Otherwise, there might appear to be in the Son a different goodness than that which is in the Father. . . . Therefore it is not to be imagined that there is a kind of blasphemy, as it were, in the words, “There is no one good except one only, God the Father.” For it is not as if thereby it might be supposed to be denying that either Christ or the Holy Spirit are good. Rather, as we have already said, the primal goodness is to be understood as residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.251.
Saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all. That is, it is made complete by naming the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this, we join the name of the Holy Spirit to the Unbegotten God (the Father) and to His Only-Begotten Son. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.252.
Having made these declarations regarding the Unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, let us return to the order in which we began the discussion. God the Father bestows existence upon all. Participation in Christ, in respect of His being the Word of reason, renders them rational beings. . . . To begin with, they derive their existence from God the Father. Secondly, they derive their rational nature from the Word. Thirdly, they derive their holiness from the Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.255.
There is no nature, then, that may not admit of good or evil—except the nature of God, the Fountain of all good things, and of Christ. . . . In like manner also, the nature of the Holy Spirit—being holy—does not allow pollution. For it is holy by nature, or essential being. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.266.
The Father generates an uncreated Son and brings forth a Holy Spirit—not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.270.
As to what movements of their will leads God so to arrange all these things, this is known to God alone, and to His Only-Begotten Son (through whom all things were created and restored), and to the Holy Spirit (through whom all things are sanctified). He proceeds from the Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.344.
Isaiah, too, knowing that the beginnings of things could not be discovered by a mortal nature—not even by those natures which are more divine than human, yet were nevertheless created or formed themselves. . . . For my Hebrew teacher also used to teach in this same manner. [He said] that the beginning or end of all things could be comprehended by no one, except only our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.375, 376.
Let everyone, then, who cares for truth not be concerned about words and language. For in every nation there prevails a different usage of speech. Rather, let him direct his attention to the meaning conveyed by the words (rather than to the nature of the words that convey the meaning), especially in matters of such importance and difficulty. . . . The “substance” of the Trinity that is the beginning and cause of all things . . . is altogether incorporeal. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.376.
All things that exist were made by God and there was nothing that was not made—except for the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. . . . For the Father alone knows the Son. And the Son alone knows the Father. And the Holy Spirit alone searches even the deep things of God. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.380.
The Savior and the Holy Spirit were sent by the Father for the salvation of men. Origen (c. 245, E), 9.486.
We are not ignorant that there is one God; and one Christ, the Lord (whom we have confessed); and one Holy Spirit. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.323.
“Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” He suggests the Trinity, in whose sacrament the nations were to be baptized. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.380.
If a person baptized by heretics were sanctified, he would also be made the temple of God. I ask, “of what God?” If of the Creator, he could not be. For he has not believed in Him. If of Christ, he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father? For the three are one. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.382.
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one.” And, again, it is written of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: “And these three are one.” Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.423.
The three children, along with Daniel, . . . observed the third, sixth, and ninth hours (as it were) for a sacrament of the Trinity, which was to be manifested in the last times. For the first hour in its progress to the third declares the completed number of the Trinity. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.456.
. . . baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The very same Trinity who operated figuratively through the dove in Noah’s days, now operates spiritually in the church through the disciples. Treatise against Novatian (c. 255, W), 5.658.
The false and wicked baptism of heretics . . . is a blasphemy of the Trinity. Seventh Council of Carthage (c. 256, W), 5.568.
. . . the invocation of the Trinity—of the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Firmilian (c. 256, E), 5.392.
The individual names uttered by me can neither be separated from one another, nor parted. . . . They are ignorant that the Father, in that He is a father, cannot be separated from the Son. For that name is the obvious grounds of bonding. . . . Nor can the Son be separated from the Father, for the word “father” indicates an association between them. Furthermore, there is obviously a Spirit who can not be disjoined from the One who sends. . . . Thus, indeed, we expand the indivisible Unity into a Trinity. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.93, as quoted by Athanasius.
As the next two quotations illustrate, eastern pre-Nicene writers often used the Greek word hypostasis to mean “person,” while western writers often used it to mean “substance.” This caused much confusion between east and west.
If there are three Persons [Gr. hypostases], this does not mean that they are divided. There are three whether they like it or not. Otherwise, let them get rid of the divine Trinity altogether. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.94, as quoted by Athanasius.
It would be just to dispute against those who destroy the Monarchy by dividing and rending it . . . into three powers and distinct substances [Gr. hypostases] and deities. . . . In a certain manner, these men declare three Gods, in that they divide the Holy Unity into three different substances, absolutely separated from one another. For it is essential that the Divine Word should be united to the God of all, and that the Holy Spirit should abide and dwell in God. Therefore, the Divine Trinity should be reduced and gathered into one, into a certain Head—that is, into the Omnipotent God of all. For the doctrine of the foolish Marcion, which cuts and divides the Monarchy into three elements, is certainly of the devil. It is not of Christ’s true disciples, . . . for these indeed correctly know that the Trinity is declared in the divine Scripture. However, the doctrine that there are three Gods I find neither taught in the Old nor in the New Testament. Dionysius of Rome (c. 265, W), 7.365, as quoted by Athanasius.
That admirable and divine unity, therefore, must not be separated into three divinities. Nor must the dignity and eminent greatness of the Lord be diminished by the name of creation. Rather, we must believe on God the Father omnipotent, and on Christ Jesus His Son, and on the Holy Spirit. Dionysius of Rome (c. 265, W), 7.365, 366, as quoted by Athanasius.
The thousand two hundred and sixty days [Rev. 12:6] . . . is the accurate and complete understanding concerning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. . . . A thousand embraces a full and perfect number and is a symbol of the Father Himself. He made the universe by Himself and rules all things for Himself. Two hundred embraces two perfect numbers united together, and it is the symbol of the Holy Spirit. For He is the Author of our knowledge of the Son and the Father. Sixty is composed of the number six multiplied by ten, and it is a symbol of Christ. . . . He came from the fullness of Godhood into a human life. For having emptied Himself and taken upon Him the form of a slave, He was restored again to his former perfection and dignity. Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.339.
Methodius thinks that the following are types of the holy and consubstantial Trinity: the innocent and unbegotten Adam is a type and resemblance of God the Father Almighty, who is uncaused and is the cause of all. Adam’s begotten son [Abel or Seth] pictures the image of the begotten Son and Word of God. And Eve, who proceeded forth from Adam, signifies the person and procession of the Holy Spirit. Reference to Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.402, from a post-Nicene writer.
The Father is the God over all. Christ is the Only-Begotten God—the beloved Son, the Lord of glory. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, who is sent by Christ, taught by Him, and proclaimed by Him. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.431.
Now, God, who alone is Unbegotten, and the Maker of the whole world . . . grants to you eternal life with us, through the mediation of His beloved Son, Jesus Christ, our God and Savior. With whom glory be to You, the God over all and the Father, in the Holy Spirit, the Comforter. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.505; extended discussion: 3.597–3.627.
The following passages reveal that the early church believed in the divinity of the Holy Spirit. They also reveal that, while believing in the consubstantiality of all three persons of the Trinity, the early church also believed in a hierarchy of order among the members of the Trinity.
The Holy Spirit Himself, who operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.133.
He [Isaiah] attributes the Spirit as unique to God, whom in the last times He pours forth upon the human race by the adoption of sons. But that breath [of life] was common throughout the creation, and he points it out as something created. Now that which has been made is a different thing from the one who makes it. The breath, then, is temporal, but the Spirit is eternal. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.538.
God here assumed the likeness, not of man, but of a dove, for He wished, by a new apparition of the Spirit in the likeness of a dove, to declare His simplicity and majesty. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.578.
You would have been refuted in this matter by the Gospel of John, when it declares that the Spirit descended in the body of a dove and sat upon the Lord. When the said Spirit was in this condition, He was as truly a dove as He was also a spirit. Nor did He destroy His own proper substance by the assumption of an extraneous substance. Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.523.
He says, “I will pray the Father, and He will send you another Comforter even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father. So He showed a third degree in the Paraclete. For we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the “Economy.” Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.604.
He has received from the Father the promised gift, and has shed it forth, even the Holy Spirit—the third name in Divinity, and the third degree of the Divine Majesty. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.627.
The apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in His case it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as born or unborn—or also as a Son of God or not. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.240.
In the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit was given by the imposition of the apostles’ hands in baptism. From which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all. . . . Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy Spirit when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope for forgiveness, but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness—either in the present world or in that which is to come. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.252.
Up to the present time, we have been able to find no statement in Holy Scripture in which the Holy Spirit could be said to be made or created—not even in the way in which we have shown above that the Divine Wisdom is spoken of by Solomon. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.252.
We must understand, therefore, that as the Son (who alone knows the Father) reveals Him to whom He wills, so the Holy Spirit (who alone searches the deep things of God) reveals God to whom He wills. “For the Spirit blows where He wills.” We are not, however, to suppose that the Spirit derives His knowledge through revelation from the Son. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.253.
It was not by progressive advancement that He came to be the Holy Spirit. . . . For if this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be counted in the unity of the Trinity—along with the unchangeable Father and His Son—unless He had always been the Holy Spirit. Indeed, when we use such terms as “always,” or “was,” or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.253.
Let no one indeed suppose that we . . . give a preference to the Holy Spirit over the Father and the Son, or assert that His dignity is greater, which certainly would be a very illogical conclusion. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.254, 255.
The Gospel shows Him to be of such power and majesty that—until the coming of the Holy Spirit—it says the apostles could not yet receive those things that the Savior wished to teach them. For, pouring Himself into their souls, He might enlighten them regarding the nature and faith of the Trinity. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.285.
The Paraclete has received from Christ what He may declare. But if He has received from Christ what He may declare to us, Christ is greater than the Paraclete. For the Paraclete would not receive from Christ unless He were less than Christ. But the very fact that the Paraclete is less than Christ proves Christ to be God. So the testimony of Christ’s divinity is immense in the Paraclete being found to be less than Christ in this economy. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.625, 626.
The source of the entire Holy Spirit remains in Christ, so that from Him could be drawn streams of gifts and works, while the Holy Spirit dwelled richly in Christ. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.641.
C. Difference in order
To sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father. Matt. 20:23.
When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. John 8:28, 29.
I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. John 12:49, 50.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus. Acts 3:13.
For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together. Acts 4:27.
I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. 11:3.
When all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. 1 Cor. 15:25–28.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants. Rev. 1:1.
The Lord did nothing without the Father, for He was united to Him. . . . [There is] one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father. He is with one Father, and He has gone to one Father.
Ignatius (c. 105, E), 1.62.
Be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father.
Ignatius (c. 105, E), 1.84.
He is the Lord of the people, having received all authority from His Father.
Hermas (c. 150, W), 2.35.
They proclaim our madness to consist in this: that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all. For they do not discern the mystery that is herein.
Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.167.
He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from the One who made all things. I mean, he is numerically distinct; He is not distinct in will. For I assert that He has never at anytime done anything that the One who made the world (above whom there is no other God) has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with.
Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.224.
I will repeat the whole Psalm, in order that you may hear His reverence for the Father. Listen to how He refers all things to Him, and prays to be delivered by Him from this death. . . . “O God, my God, attend to me: why have You forsaken me? . . . O my God, I will cry to you in the daytime.”
Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.248.
The Son performs the good pleasure of the Father. For the Father sends, and the Son is sent, and comes.
Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.468.
For His Offspring and His Image do minister to Him in every respect. That is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom—whom all the angels serve and to whom they are subject.
Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.470.
The Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man in God. The Mediator executes the Father’s will. For the Mediator is the Word, who is common to both man and God. He is the Son of God, but the Savior of men. He is God’s Servant, but our Teacher.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.271.
We have heard it said, “The Head of Christ is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” . . . The Son sees the goodness of the Father. God the Savior works, for He is called the First Principle of all things. He first imaged forth from the invisible God, before the ages. He fashioned all things that came into being after Himself.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.453.
Xenocrates the Chalcedonian mentions the supreme Zeus and the subordinate Zeus. In doing so, he leaves an indication of the Father and the Son.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.471.
Jesus is the Lord of all and serves above all the will of the Good and Almighty Father.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.524.
He Himself proclaimed that He did not do His own will, but that of the Father.
Tertullian (c. 198, W), 3.682.
However, with regard to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that He was never visible, according to the word of Christ. . . . He means that the Father is invisible, in whose authority and in whose name was He God who appeared as the Son of God.
Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.319.
In addition to the title of Son, He was the Sent One. The authority, therefore, of the Sender must necessarily have first appeared in a testimony of the Sent. That is because no one who comes in the authority of another declares things for himself, that is, on his own assertion.
Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.321, 322.
He Himself received from the Father the ability of uttering words in season: “The Lord has given to me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season.” However, Marcion introduces to us a Christ who is not subject to the Father.
Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.415.
No directive about the salvation of angels did Christ ever receive from the Father. And that which the Father neither promised nor commanded, Christ could not have undertaken.
Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.533.
The Son of God has faith’s protection absolutely committed to Him. He beseeches it of the Father—from whom He receives all power in heaven and on earth.
Tertullian (c. 212, W), 4.117.
No one, therefore, will impair [the monarchy of God] on account of admitting the Son. For it is certain that it has been committed to Him by the Father. Eventually, it has to be delivered up again by Him to the Father.
Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.600.
With us, however, the Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded the Father’s bosom. He has also heard and seen all things with the Father. And what He has been commanded by the Father, that also is what He speaks. And it is not His own will, but the Father’s that He has accomplished. He had known this fact most intimately, even from the beginning. . . . The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father (as He says, “I am in the Father”) and is always with God (according to what is written, “And the Word was with God”). He is never separated from the Father, or different from the Father, since “I and the Father are one.”
Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.603.
Consider whether the Son also is not indicated by these designations, who in His own right is God Almighty, in that He is the Word of Almighty God and has received power over all. He is the Most High, in that He is exalted at the right hand of God, as Peter declares in the Acts. He is the Lord of hosts, because all things are made subject to Him by the Father.
Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.613.
He accordingly says Unum, a neuter term, which does not imply singularity of number, but unity of essence, likeness, and conjunction. It implies affection on the Father’s part, who loves the Son. And it implies submission on the Son’s part, who obeys the Father’s will.
Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.618.
It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding. The Father is above all, the Son is through all, and the Holy Spirit is in all.
Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.228.
He is called the “image of the invisible God and the First-Born of every creature.” “In Him all things were created, visible and invisible, . . . and He is before all things and by Him all things were made.” So He is the head of all things, having God the Father alone as His head. For it is written, “The head of Christ is God.”
Origen (c. 225, E), 4.281.
He became obedient to the Father—not only by the death of the cross—but also in the end of the world. For He embraces in Himself all whom He subjects to the Father, and who by Him come to salvation. For He Himself (along with them, and in them) is said to also be subject to the Father. . . . Consequently, this is what the apostle says of Him: “And when all things will be subjected to Him, then will the Son also Himself be subject to Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Indeed, I do not know how the heretics—not understanding the meaning of the apostle in these words consider the term “subjection” to be degrading when applied to the Son. . . . Now, according to their view, the language of the apostle means . . . that He who is not now in subjection to the Father will become subject to Him when the Father will have first subdued all things unto Him. However, I am astonished how it can be conceived that the meaning is that He who is not Himself in subjection at the present (when all things have not been subjected to Him) will later be made subject once all things have been subjected to Him.
Origen (c. 225, E), 4.343.
Nor must we forget to mention the Word, who is God after the Father of all.
Origen (c. 228, E), 9.303.
He will be at no loss to account for the Father’s saying to Him, “You are My Servant,” and a little further on, “It is a great thing that you should be called My Servant.” For we do not hesitate to say that the goodness of Christ appears in a greater and more divine light . . . because “He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” than if He had judged it a thing to be grasped to be equal with God, and had shrunk from becoming a servant for the salvation of the world. He desires to teach us that in accepting this state of servitude, He had received a great gift from His Father. Hence, He says, “And My God will be My strength.”
Origen (c. 228, E), 9.316.
Just as Christ is our head, so God is His head.
Origen (c. 228, E), 9.318.
The Word of God, who is called Faithful, is also called True. In righteousness, He judges and makes war. For He has received from God the faculty of judging.
Origen (c. 228, E), 9.326.
The Unbegotten God commanded the First-Born of all creation, and they were created.
Origen (c. 228, E), 9.331.
First, then, stands the Father, being without any turning or change. And then stands also His Word, always carrying on His work of salvation.
Origen (c. 228, E), 9.369.
We say that the visible world is under the government of Him who created all things. We do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father—but subordinate to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus himself, “The Father who sent me is greater than I.” And none of us is so insane as to declare that the Son of man is Lord over God. But we regard the Savior as God the Word, and Wisdom, Righteousness, and Truth. And we certainly do say that He has dominion over all things that have been subjected to Him in this capacity. But we do not say that His domain extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all.
Origen (c. 248, E), 4.645.
Who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father?
Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.636.
The divine Scripture (not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament) everywhere demonstrates Him to be born of the Father. By Him all things were made and without Him nothing was made. He always has obeyed and still obeys the Father. He always has power over all things—but these have been delivered, granted, or permitted to Him by the Father Himself. And what can be so evident proof that He is not the Father, but is the Son, than that He is shown as being obedient to God the Father.
Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.637.
He declares that He was sanctified by His Father. Therefore, in receiving sanctification from the Father, He is secondary to the Father. Obviously, then, He who is secondary to the Father is not the Father, but the Son. For had He been the Father, He would have given, and not received, sanctification. . . . Besides, He says that He is sent. So in being obedient as to His coming, being sent, He proved to be the Son—not the Father. If he had been the Father, He would have done the sending. But being sent, He was not the Father. Otherwise, in being sent, the Father would be proved to be subjected to another God.
Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.638.
He also is the image of God the Father. . . . And the Son is an imitator of all the Father’s works. Therefore, everyone may regard it just as if he saw the Father, when he sees Him who always imitates the invisible Father in all His works.
Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.639.
Christ received that very power by which we are baptized and sanctified from the same Father whom He called greater than Himself. This is the same Father by whom He desired to be glorified, whose will He fulfilled even unto the obedience of drinking the cup and undergoing death.
Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.384.
He who is called a confessor of Christ should imitate Christ whom he confesses. . . . For He Himself has been exalted by the Father. For, as the Word, the Strength, and the Wisdom of God the Father, He humbled Himself upon earth. . . . And He Himself received the highest name from the Father as the reward for His humility.
Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.428.
“I came down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me.” Now, if the Son was obedient to do His Father’s will, how much more should the servant be obedient to do his Master’s will.
Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.451.
Of this mercy and grace, the Word and Son of God is sent as the Dispenser and Master. . . . He is the Power of God. He is the Logos. He is His Wisdom and Glory. He enters into a virgin. Through the Holy Spirit, He is clothed with flesh. God is mingled with man. This is our God, this is Christ, who, as the Mediator of the two, puts on man that He may lead them to the Father. What man is, Christ was willing to be—so that man may also be what Christ is.
Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.468.
Assuredly, the will of the Son is not one thing, and the will of the Father another. For He who wills what the Father wills, is seen to have the Father’s will. So He is speaking figuratively when He says, “Not my will, but yours.” For it is not that He wishes the cup to be removed, but that He refers the correct issue of His passion to the Father’s will. He thereby honors the Father as the First [Gr. arche].
Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.94, as quoted by Athanasius.
On the head, the whiteness is shown. “But the head of Christ is God.”
Victorinus (c. 280, W), 7.344.
The prophets and apostles spoke more fully concerning the Son of God. They assigned to Him a divinity above other men. They did not refer their praises of Him to the teaching of angels, but to Him upon whom all authority and power depend. For it was fitting that He, who was greater than all things after the Father, should have the Father as His witness—who alone is greater than Himself.
Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.331.
When God began the fabric of the world, He set over the whole work that first and greatest Son. He used Him at the same time as a Counsellor and Artificer, in planning, arranging, and accomplishing. For the Son is complete both in knowledge, judgment, and power.
Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.53.
Jesus displayed faith towards God. For He taught that there is but one God, and this one God alone should be worshipped. Nor did He at any time say that He Himself was [the] God. For He would not have maintained His faithfulness if He had introduced another God besides that One. For He was sent to abolish the false gods and to assert the existence of the one God. This would not have been to proclaim one God nor to do the work of Him who sent Him. . . . He was so faithful because He arrogated nothing at all to Himself. On account of this, in order to fulfill the commands of Him who sent Him, He received the dignity of everlasting Priest, the honor of supreme King, the authority of Judge, and the name of God.
Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.114.
We Christians are nothing else than worshippers of the Supreme King and Head, under our Master, Christ.
Arnobius (c. 305, E), 6.419.
It will be revealed from what realms He has come, of what God He is the Minister.
Arnobius (c. 305, E), 6.426.
He who does not receive Christ does not receive His God and Father.
Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.404.
Let the deacon minister to the bishop as Christ does to His Father. And let him serve him unblamably in all things. For Christ does nothing of Himself, but always does those things that please His Father.
Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.410.
Christ does nothing without his Father. . . . And as the Son is nothing without His Father, so is the deacon nothing without his bishop. And as the Son is subject to His Father, so is every deacon subject to his bishop.
Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.411.
He . . . blesses and glorifies the Lord God Almighty, the Father of the Only-Begotten God.
Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.477; see also 2.227, 3.438.
The numerous quotations above make it clear that the early church believed the Logos of God to be eternal. The statements of some of the writers, however—when taken out of context or read carelessly—make it sound as though they thought the Son came into existence from nothing.
They sometimes speak of God the Father having originally been alone. They sometimes also speak of the Father as begetting the Word or the Son at some time or interval.
Yet those same writers state that the Father has always had his Logos or Wisdom with him. Upon more careful examination, one finds that those writers are distinguishing between the internal Logos and the external Word (who are one and the same person).
They are saying that, technically speaking, the title of “Word” (and perhaps “Son”) do not apply to the Logos until he went forth from the Father to create the universe. They will sometimes speak of this going forth from the Father as the begetting of the Son, distinguishing it from the eternal generation of the Logos from the Father.
For example, the following passage from Tatian sounds quite Arian at first glance:
God was in the beginning. . . . For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground of all being, was alone. For no creature was in existence yet. Tatian (c. 160, E), 2.67.
When a person reads the entire passage, however, he or she soon realizes that Tatian believed the Logos to be eternal. But he distinguishes between the eternal existence of the Logos and the point at the beginning of time when the Logos went forth to create the universe:
Nevertheless, inasmuch as the Father was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things. The Logos Himself was in Him and subsists with Him by Logos-Power. And by His simple will, the Logos springs forth. So the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. We know the Logos to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission. For what is cut off is separated from the original substance. However, that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom he is taken. From one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches. It is the same with the Logos. His coming forth from the Logos-Power of the Father has not divested Him who begat Him of the Logos-Power. Tatian (c. 160, E), 2.67.
In the following quotation, Tertullian says that there was a time when the Son did not exist. At first glance, this sounds like an Arian statement:
He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son. Tertullian (c. 200, W), 3.478.
Again, however, when a person reads all of what Tertullian says about the Father and the Son (as illustrated in the passage that follows), it becomes clear that Tertullian was not Arian. Rather, in his view, the title of “Son” did not apply to the eternal Logos until He went forth from the Father to create the universe.
I am led to other arguments derived from God’s own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things, God was alone—being in Himself and for Himself universe, space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet, even then He was not [completely] alone. For He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself—that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him. And so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought, which the Greeks call logos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse. Therefore, it is now usual with our people—owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term—to say that the Word was in the beginning with God. Although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient. For God did not have “Word” from the beginning. But He did have Reason even before the beginning. . . . For although God had not yet sent out His “Word,” He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason—as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything that He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now, while He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word. . . . I may therefore without rashness first lay this down that even then before the creation of the universe, God was not alone. For He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself. …
Now, as soon as it pleased God to [begin creation], . . . He first put forth the Word himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things could be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed. . . . Then, therefore, does the Word also himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, “Let there be light.” This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God—formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom—“The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways,” then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect: “When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.” He thus makes His Son equal to Him. For, by proceeding from Himself, He became His First-Begotten Son. For He was begotten before all things. And He is His Only-Begotten also, for He was alone begotten of God in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of [the Father’s] own heart. This is just as the Father Himself testifies. He says, “My heart has emitted my most excellent Word.” The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a mutual gladness in the Father’s presence. “You are my Son. Today I have begotten you.” Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.600, 601.
We need not dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name of both Wisdom and Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became also the Son of God and was begotten, when He proceeded forth from Him. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.602.
The following passage from Hippolytus illustrates this same concept of distinguishing between the eternal Logos (Reason) and his going forth from the Father as the Word of God.
God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world. . . . For us, then, it is sufficient simply to know that there was nothing contemporaneous with God. Beside Him, there was nothing. However, He—while existing alone—yet existed in plurality. For He was neither without Reason, nor Power, nor Counsel. And all things were in Him, and He was the All. When He willed, and as He willed, He manifested His Word in the time determined by Him. And by Him He made all things. . . . And, as the Author, Fellow-Counselor, and Framer of the things that have been created, He begat the Word. He uttered the first voice, begetting Him as Light of Light. And He sent Him forth to the world as its Lord. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.227.
These citations show that the early Christians differentiated the three Divine Persons by the unique personal properties they possessed in distinction from one another. For instance, the Father is unbegotten and derives his substance from no one. The Son, on the other hand, is begotten and therefore derives his divine substance from the Father without any beginning, since he is eternal and uncreated. Similarly, the Spirit is differentiated by virtue of His timeless spiration by Father through the Son.
From this understanding of the internal relations of the Trinity the early Christians saw a type of subordination among the Divine Persons. These holy men of faith saw the Son and Spirit being subordinate to the Father due to his being their Cause, not in a temporal sense where the Father brought them into existence from/out of nothing. These early writers, theologians, apologists, etc., all taught and affirmed that both the Son and Spirit are uncreated and possessed the fullness of the divine nature.
This type of subjection is known as relational subordination in contrast to ontological subordination, which teaches that the Son and Spirit are in subjection by virtue of being creatures that possess a different and inferior essence from the Father. The true orthodox Christians condemned this kind of subjection, which was actually held by the heretics such as Arius and his followers.
With the foregoing in perspective I now cite from Bercot’s work. All emphasis will be mine.
B. Difference in personal attributes
But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mark 13:32.
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained Him. John 1:18 [NAS].
Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does. John 5:19, 20.
If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, “I am going to the Father,” for My Father is greater than I. John 14:28.
I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God. John 20:17.
For us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 1 Cor. 8:6.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor. 1:3.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Col. 1:15.
He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. 1 Tim. 6:15, 16.
[God] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.” But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You.” Heb. 1:2–9.
He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God. Rev. 3:12.
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Polycarp (c. 135, E), 1.35.
The Son foretells that He will be saved by the same God. He does not boast of accomplishing anything through His own will or might. For when on earth, He acted in the very same manner. He answered to man who addressed Him as “Good Master”: “Why do you call me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.249.
You must not imagine that the Unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of everything neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place. . . . He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made. How, then, could He talk with anyone, or be seen by anyone, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth? . . . Therefore, neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man saw the Father, who is the inexpressible Lord of all, including Christ. Rather, they saw One who was the Father’s Son, according to the Father’s will. The Son is also God and the Angel, for He ministered to His [Father’s] will. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.263.
Even the Lord, the very Son of God, acknowledged that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment. For He plainly declares, “But of that day and that hour no man knows, neither the Son, but the Father only.” If, then, the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only (but declared what was true regarding the matter), neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions that may occur to us. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.401.
For if anyone asks about the reason why the Father, who has fellowship with the Son in all things, has been declared by the Lord alone to know the hour and the day, he will find at present no more suitable, becoming, or safe reason than this (since, indeed, the Lord is the only true Master): that we may learn through Him that the Father is above all things. For He says, “The Father is greater than I.” The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.402.
He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father. He founded and formed all things. . . . He has fitted and arranged all things by His Wisdom. He contains all things, but He Himself can be contained by no one. . . . But there is one only God, the Creator. He is above every principality, power, dominion, and virtue. He is Father; He is God; He is Founder; He is Maker; He is Creator. He made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom. . . . He is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. . . . He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Through His Word, who is His Son, through Him, He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed. For [only] those know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. But the Son, eternally coexisting with the Father, from of old, yes, from the beginning, always reveals the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.406.
Everyone saw the Father in the Son. For the Father is the invisible [archetype] of the Son. But the Son is the visible [image] of the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.469.
It is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, “No man has seen God at any time”. . . . As also the Lord said: “The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.” Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.491.
He has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.508.
John the apostle says: “No man has seen God at any time. The Only-Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Here he calls invisibility and inexpressible glory “the bosom of God.” . . . No one can rightly express Him wholly. For on account of His greatness, He is ranked as the All. He is the Father of the universe. . . . If we name Him, we cannot do so properly. For example, we can call Him the One, or the Good, or Mind, or Absolute Being, or Father, or God, or Creator, or Lord. . . . For each one by itself does not express God. However, all together, they are indicative of the power of the Omnipotent. . . . But there is nothing prior to the Unbegotten. It is sufficient, then, that we understand the Unknown by divine grace and by the Word alone who proceeds from Him. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.463, 464.
The Unoriginated Being is one, the Omnipotent God. One, too, is the First-Begotten. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.493.
All benefit pertaining to life, in its highest reason, proceeds from the Sovereign God, the Father. He is over all. He is consummated by the Son, who also on this account “is the Savior of all men.” . . . This is in accordance with the command and injunction of the One who is nearest the First Cause, that is, the Lord. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.518.
From the Son, we are to learn the remoter Cause of the universe, the Father. He is the most ancient and the most beneficent of all. He is not capable of expression by the voice. Rather, He is to be worshipped with reverence, silence, and holy wonder, and to be supremely venerated. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.523.
The object of our worship is the One God, He who by His commanding Word, His arranging Wisdom, His mighty Power, brought forth from nothing this entire mass of our world. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.31.
For He who ever spoke to Moses was the Son of God Himself, who, too, was always seen. For no one ever saw God the Father and lived. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.163.
How can it be that anything—except the Father—could be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the Only-Begotten and First-Begotten Word? Tertullian (c. 200, W), 3.487.
He calls Christ “the image of the invisible God.” We, in like manner, say that the Father of Christ is invisible, for we know that it was the Son who was seen in ancient times. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.470.
The Father is not the same as the Son, for they differ from each other in the manner of their being. For the Father is the entire substance. However, the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole. He Himself acknowledges this: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm, His subordination is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus, the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.604.
You reply, “If He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created . . . two Gods are declared.” If you are so venturesome and harsh, reflect awhile. . . . Listen to the Psalm in which two are described as God: “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of righteousness. . . . Therefore, God, even your God, has anointed You.” Now, since He here speaks to God, and affirms that God is anointed by God, He must have affirmed that Two are God. . . . “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” A much more ancient testimony we have also in Genesis: “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” . . . That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement that at no time proceeds out of our mouths. I will therefore not speak of Gods at all, nor of Lords, but I will follow the apostle. So that if the Father and the Son are both to be invoked, I will call the Father “God” and invoke Jesus Christ as “Lord.” But when Christ alone [is spoken of], I will be able to call Him “God,” as the same apostle says: “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever.” For I should give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam, when considered by itself. But if I were to mention the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I do not make two suns, still I will reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance—just as God and His Word, the Father and the Son. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.608.
It will therefore follow that by Him who is invisible we must understand the Father in the fullness of His majesty. At the same time, we recognize the Son as visible because of the dispensation of His derived existence. For example, it is not permitted us to contemplate the sun in the full amount of its substance which is in the heavens. Rather, we can only endure with our eyes a ray of the sun. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.609.
The Word was in the beginning “with God,” the Father. It was not the Father who was with the Word. For although the Word was God, he was with God, for He is God of God. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.610.
Of the Father, however, he says to Timothy: “Whom no one among men has seen, nor indeed can see.” And he adds to the description in still fuller terms: “Who alone has immortality and dwells in the light that no man can approach.” It was of Him, too, that he had said in a previous passage: “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to the only God.” So that we might apply even the contrary qualities to the Son Himself. . . . It was the Son, therefore, who was always seen, and the Son who always conversed with men. This is the Son who has always worked by the authority and will of the father. For “the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do.” Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.611.
[The Father] is named without the Son whenever He is defined as the Principle in the character of its First Person. In those situations, He had to be mentioned before the name of the Son. For it is the Father who is acknowledged in the first place. And after the Father, the Son is named. Therefore, “there is one God, the Father,” and without Him, there is no one else. And when He Himself makes this declaration, He does not deny the Son. . . . For as this Son in undivided and inseparable from the Father, so is He to be reckoned as being in the Father (even when He is not named). . . . Suppose the sun were to say, “I am the sun, and there is none other besides me, except my ray.” Would you not have remarked how useless such a statement was, as if the ray were not itself reckoned in the sun? Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.613.
The Father, however, has no origin. For He proceeds from no one. Nor can He be seen, since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.614.
Christ is also ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only. He awards the kingdom to His disciples, as He says it had been appointed to Him by the Father. He has power to ask, if He wishes, legions of angels from the Father for His help. He exclaims that God had forsaken Him. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.623.
“This is God, and no other can be considered in comparison to Him.” He said that rightly. For in comparison to the Father, who will be accounted of? . . . “He has found out all the way of knowledge and has given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved.” He spoke well. For who is Jacob His servant? Who is Israel His beloved? It is He of whom He cries, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him.” So having received all knowledge from the Father, the perfect Israel (the true Jacob) afterwards showed himself upon earth. . . . This, then, is He to whom the Father has given all knowledge. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.225.
“Then He Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” If, therefore, all things are put under Him with the exception of Him who put them under Him, the Son is Lord of all, and the Father is Lord of Him. Thereby, there is manifest in all one God, to whom all things are made subject together with Christ, to whom the Father has made all things subject—with the exception of Himself. And this, indeed, is said by Christ Himself, as when in the Gospel He confessed Him to be His Father and His God. For Christ speaks in this manner: “I go to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.226.
The Father generates an uncreated Son and brings forth a Holy Spirit—not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.270.
By His spiritual healing aids, the Son disposes all things to receive at the end the goodness of the Father. It was from His sense of that goodness that He answered him who addressed the Only-Begotten with the words, “Good Master.” In reply, Jesus said, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but one, God the Father.” This we have discussed elsewhere, especially in dealing with the question of the One who is greater than the Creator. Christ we have taken to be the Creator, and the Father is the One who is greater than He. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.318.
The archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God—who was in the beginning and who by being with God is at all times Divine, not possessing divinity of Himself, but by His being with the Father. . . . The Father is the fountain of divinity; the Son is the fountain of reason [Gr. logos]. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.323.
If all things were made (as in this passage also) through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos—but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father? Origen (c. 228, E), 9.328.
Life, in the full sense of the word, especially after what we have been saying on the subject, belongs perhaps to God and to no one but Him. . . . It says about God . . . “who alone has immortality.” No living being besides God has life free from change and variation. Why should we be in further doubt? Even Christ did not share the Father’s immortality. For He “tasted death for every man.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.333.
The Savior is here called simply “Light.” But in the catholic Epistle of this same John, we read that God is Light. This, it has been maintained, furnishes a proof that the Son is not different from the Father in substance. Another student, however, looking into the matter more closely and with a sounder judgment, will say that the Light that shines in darkness and is not overtaken by it is not the same as the Light in which there is no darkness at all. The Light that shines in the darkness comes upon this darkness, as it were, and is pursued by it. Yet, in spite of attempts made upon it, it is not overtaken. But the Light in which there is no darkness at all neither shines on darkness, nor is at first pursued by it. . . . But in proportion as God, since He is the Father of truth, is more and greater than truth, and since He is the Father of wisdom, is greater and more excellent than wisdom. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.336.
Let no one suppose that we say this from any lack of piety towards the Christ of God. For as the Father alone has immortality and our Lord took upon Himself the death He died for us (out of His love of men), so also to the Father alone the words apply, “In Him there is no darkness,” since Christ took upon Himself our darkness—out of His goodwill towards men. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.338.
“No one has seen God at any time. The Only-Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.343.
[John the Baptist] answers by exalting the superior nature of Christ—that He has such virtue as to be invisible in His deity, though present to every man and extending over the whole universe. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.365, 366.
The Father sent the One who is the God of the living. . . . The Father also alone is good, and He is greater than He who was sent by Him. . . . He who first of all was girded about with the whole creation, in addition to the Son’s being in Him, granted to the Savior to pervade the whole creation. For He [the Word] was second after him and was God the Word. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.370.
Pay careful attention to what follows, where He is called God: “For your throne, O God, is forever and ever. . . . Therefore, God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” Observe that the prophet, speaking familiarly to God, . . . says that this God had been anointed by a God who was His God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.421.
We charge the Jews with not acknowledging Him to be God, to whom testimony was borne in many passages by the prophets. Those passages testify to the effect that He was a mighty Power and a God next to the God and Father of all things. For we maintain that it was to Him that the Father gave the command . . . “Let there be light.” . . . We say that to Him were also addressed the words, “Let Us make man in Our own image and likeness.” The Logos, when commanded, obeyed all of the Father’s will. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.433.
Our Lord and Savior, hearing himself on one occasion addressed as “Good Master,” referred the person who used it to His own Father, saying, “Why do you call me good? There is no one good but one, that is, God the Father.” It was in accordance with sound reason that this was said by the Son of His Father’s love, for He was the image of the goodness of God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.548.
Our Savior, also, does not partake of righteousness. Rather, being “Righteousness” Himself, he is partaken of by the righteous. . . . It is also a question for investigation, whether the “Only-Begotten” and “First-Born of every creature” is to be called “substance of substances,” . . . while above all there is his Father and God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.602, 603.
But the God and Father of all things is not the only Being who is great in our judgment. For He has imparted Himself and His greatness to His Only-Begotten and First-Born of every creature, in order that He—being the image of the invisible God—might preserve, even in His greatness, the image of the Father. For it was not possible that there could exist a well-proportioned, so to speak, and beautiful image of the invisible God unless it also preserved the image of His greatness. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.605.
He to whom God bore testimony through the prophets, and who has done great things in heaven and earth, should receive on those grounds honor that is second only to that which is given to the Most High God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.634.
Again Celsus [a pagan critic] proceeds: “If you were to tell the Christians that Jesus is not the Son of God, but that God is the Father of all, and that He alone should be truly worshipped, they would not consent to discontinue their worship of Him who is their leader in the sedition. And they call Him the Son of God, not out of any extreme reverence for God, but from an extreme desire to extol Jesus Christ.” . . . [ORIGEN’S REPLY:] There is nothing extravagant or unbecoming to the character of God in the doctrine that He should have begotten such an only Son. And no one will persuade us that such a One is not a Son of the unbegotten God and Father. . . . He is the Son who has been most highly exalted by the Father. Granted, there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us [i.e., the Monarchists]. They incautiously assert that the Savior is the Most High God. However, we do not concur with them. Rather, we believe Him when He says, “The Father who sent me is greater than I.” We would not, therefore, make him whom we call Father inferior to the Son of God—as Celsus accuses us of doing. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.644.
The rule of truth requires that we should first of all believe on God the Father and Lord Almighty. He is the absolutely perfect Founder of all things. . . . Over all these things, He has left room for no superior God (such as some people conceive). For He contains all things, having nothing vacant beyond Himself. . . . He is always unbounded, for nothing is greater than He. He is always eternal, for nothing is more ancient than He. For He who is without beginning can be preceded by no one, in that He has no time. On that account, He is immortal . . . and He excludes the mode of time. . . . If He could be understood, he would be smaller than the human mind that could conceive Him. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.611, 612.
The Lord rightly declares Him alone to be good. . . . He is declared to be one, having no equal. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.614.
Although He was in the form of God, He did not think of robbery—that He should be equal with God. For although He remembered that He was God from God the Father, He never either compared or associated Himself with God the Father. He was mindful that He was from His Father and that He possessed that very thing that He is because the Father had given it to Him. . . . He yielded all obedience to the Father and still yields it as ever. From that it is shown that He thought that the claim of a certain divinity would be robbery—to wit, that of equalling himself with God the Father. Rather, on the other hand, obedient and subject to all His Father’s rule and will, He even was content to take on Himself the form of a servant. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.633.
If He were not the Son . . . and if He were designated to be as great as the Father, He would have caused two Fathers. Thereby, He would have proved the existence of two Gods. Had He been invisible, as compared with the Invisible and thereby declared equal, He would have shown forth two Invisibles. Thus, once again, He would have proved there to be two Gods. . . . But now, whatever He is, He is not of Himself, because He is not unborn. Rather, He is of the Father, because He is begotten. . . . He is not from any other source than the Father, as we have already said before. Owing His origin to His Father, He could not make a disagreement in the divinity by the number of two Gods. For His beginning was in being born of Him who is one God. . . . Therefore, He declared that God is one, in that He proved God to be from no source or beginning. Rather, He is the beginning and source of all things. Moreover, the Son does nothing of His own will, nor does He do anything of His own determination. Likewise, He does not come from Himself, but obeys all His Father’s commands and precepts. So, although birth proves Him to be a Son, yet obedience even to death declares Him to be the Servant of the will of His Father, of whom He is. . . . He is indeed proved to be the Son of His Father. But He is found to be both Lord and God of all else. All things are put under Him and delivered to Him. For He is God, and all things are subjected to Him. Nevertheless, the Son refers all that He has received to the Father. He remits again to the Father the whole authority of His divinity. The true and eternal Father is manifested as the one God, from whom alone this power of divinity is sent forth. . . . So reasonably, God the Father is God of all. And He is the source, also, of His Son Himself, whom He begot as Lord. Moreover, the Son is God of all else, because God the Father put Him whom He begot over all. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.644.
There are two types of formative power. . . . The one works by itself whatever it chooses . . . by its bare will, without delay, as soon as it wills. This is the power of the Father. The other [type of power] adorns and embellishes the things that already exist, by imitation of the first. This is the power of the Son, who is the Almighty and Powerful hand of the Father. Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.381, as quoted by Photius.
We must say that the Beginning, out of which the most upright Word came forth, is the Father and Maker of all things, in whom He was. And the words, “the same was in the beginning with God,” seem to indicate the position of authority of the Word, which He had with the Father before the world came into existence. “Beginning” signifies His power. And so, after the unique unbeginning Beginning, who is the Father, He is the Beginning of other things, by whom all things are made. Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.381, as quoted by Photius.
Someone may perhaps ask how we say that we worship only one God. For we declare that there are two—God the Father and God the Son. This declaration has driven many into the greatest error. . . . When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate them. Because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father. That is because the name of Father cannot be applied without the Son. Nor can the Son be begotten without the Father. Since, therefore, the Father makes the Son, and the Son the Father, they both have one mind, one spirit, one substance. However, the Father is, as it were, an overflowing fountain. The Son is, as it were, a stream flowing forth from it. The Father is as the sun; the Son is, as it were, a ray extended from the sun. And since the Son is both faithful to the Most High Father and beloved by Him, He is not separated from Him. Just as the stream is not separated from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun. For the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the light of the sun is in the ray. Similarly, the voice cannot be separated from the mouth, nor the strength or hand from the body. So, when He is also spoken of by the prophets as the Hand, the Strength, and Word of God, there is plainly no separation. . . .
We may use an example more closely connected with us. Suppose someone has a son whom he especially loves—who is still in the house and in the power of his father. Now although the father may give to him the name and power of a master, by civil law, the house is one. Only one person is called master. Likewise, this world is the one house of God. And the Son and the Father, who unanimously inhabit the world, are one God. For the one is as two and the two are as one. Nor is that unbelievable, for the Son is in the Father, as the Father loves the Son. And the Father is in the Son, for the Son faithfully obeys the will of the Father. He has never done, nor will He do, anything other than what the Father either willed or commanded. So the Father and the Son are but one God. . . . For there is one God alone—free, Most High, without any origin. For He Himself is the origin of all things. And in Him both the Son and all things are contained. Therefore, since the mind and will of the one is in the other—or rather, since there is one in both—both are justly called one God. For whatever is in the Father flows on to the Son. And whatever is in the Son descends from the Father. Accordingly, that Highest and Matchless God cannot be worshipped except through the Son. He who thinks that he worships only the Father, and will not worship the Son—he does not even worship the Father. However, he who receives the Son and bears His name—he truly worships the Father together with the Son. For the Son is the Ambassador, Messenger, and Priest of the Most High Father. Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.132, 133.
The following two quotations are from Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, who was the primary opponent of Arius leading up to the Council of Nicaea.
He is equally with the Father unchangeable and immutable, lacking in nothing. He is the perfect Son, and, as we have learned, He is like the Father. In this alone is He inferior to the Father: that He is not unbegotten. For He is the very exact image of the Father and differs from Him in nothing. . . . But let no one take the word “always” in a manner that raises suspicion that He is unbegotten. . . . For neither are the words, “he was,” “always,” or “before all worlds,” equivalent to unbegotten. For the human mind cannot use any synonyms to signify “unbegotten.” . . . For these words do not at all signify unbegotten. Rather, these words seem to denote simply a lengthening out of time. Still, they cannot properly signify the divinity and antiquity of the Only-Begotten. Nevertheless, they have been used by holy men, while each according to his capacity—seeks to express this mystery, asking patience from the hearers and pleading a reasonable excuse, in saying, “This is as far as we can come.” . . .
In short, whatever word we use is not equivalent to “unbegotten.” Therefore, to the Unbegotten Father, indeed, we should preserve His proper dignity, in confessing that no one is the cause of His being. However, to the Son must be also given His fitting honor, in assigning to Him . . . a generation from the Father without beginning and assigning worship to Him. . . . We by no means reject His Godhood, but ascribe to him a likeness that exactly answers in every respect to the image and example of the Father. Still, we must say that to the Father alone belongs the property of being unbegotten. For the Savior Himself said, “My Father is greater than I.” Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.294, 295.
Concerning Him, we believe in this manner, even as the apostolic church believes: In one Father, unbegotten, who has the cause of His being from no one, who is unchangeable and immutable. He is always the same and can have no increase or diminution. He gave the Law to us, the Prophets, and the Gospels. He is Lord of the patriarchs, apostles, and all the saints. And we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God. He is not begotten of things that are not, but of him who is the Father. Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.295.
Begetting of the Son
One of the key tenets of Nicene orthodoxy is that the Son is begotten of the Father. The Nicene Creed states: “I believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God; Begotten of His Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made.” As can be seen from the quotations that follow, each phrase of the Creed was taken verbatim from the writings of the pre-Nicene church.
A. Begotten of His Father
The Lord has said to Me, “You are My Son, today I have begotten You.” Ps. 2:7.
My heart has uttered a good matter. Ps. 45:1 (LXX).
The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. . . . Before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begets me. . . . When he prepared the heaven, I was present with him. . . . I was by him, suiting myself to him, I was that wherein he took delight. Prov. 8:22, 23 (LXX).
The Word . . . after God, who begat Him. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.166.
We assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.170.
Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word, His First-Begotten, and His Power. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.170.
[Christians] call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men. But they maintain that this Power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens. . . . They say that the Father, when He chooses, causes His Power to spring forth. And when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. . . . This power, which the prophetic word calls God . . . is indeed something numerically distinct [from the Father]. . . . This Power was begotten from the Father by His power and will, but not by division, as if the essence of the Father were divided. For all other things that are partitioned and divided are not the same after the partition as they were before they were divided. And, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from the original fire. Yet, the fire from which many fires can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.264.
God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own Wisdom before all things. Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.98.
When God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word. He uttered the First-Born of all creation. However, He Himself was not emptied of the Word, but having begotten the Word, and always conversing with His Word. And hence the holy writings, and all the Spirit-bearing men, teach us this. One of these men, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing that at first God was alone, and the Word was in Him. Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.103.
If anyone, therefore, says to us, “How then was the Son produced by the Father?” we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation—or by whatever other name one may describe His generation. For it is in fact altogether indescribable. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.401.
The Son reveals the Father, who begat the Son. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.469.
As He was born of Mary in the last days, so did He also proceed from God as the First-Begotten of every creature. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/ W), 1.576.
The perfect Word born of the perfect Father was begotten in perfection. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.215.
The Father, by loving, became “feminine.” The great proof of this is He whom He begot of Himself. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.601.
The Father begat the Word as the Author, Fellow-Counselor, and Framer of the things that have been created. He uttered the first Voice, begetting Him as Light of Light. And He sent Him forth to the world as its Lord. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.227.
You will say to me, “How is He begotten?” . . . You cannot explain with accuracy the economy in His case. For you do not have it in your power to acquaint yourself with the skilful and indescribable art of the Maker, but only to see, understand, and believe that man is God’s work. Moreover, you are asking an account of the generation of the Word, whom God the Father begat as He willed, in His good pleasure. . . . Is it not enough for you to learn that the Son of God has been manifested to you for salvation (if you believe)—but do you also inquire curiously how He was begotten after the spirit [i.e., His heavenly birth]? . . . Are you then so bold as to seek the account after the spirit, which the Father keeps with Himself, intending to reveal it then to the holy ones and those worthy of seeing His face? . . . For He speaks in this manner: “From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you.” Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.229.
This solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first. . . . Him alone did [the Father] produce from existing things. For the Father Himself constituted existence, and the Being born from him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Logos was in [the Father] Himself, bearing the will of His Begetter and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. Hippolytus (c. 225, W), 5.150, 151.
Now, we believe that Christ did ever act in the name of God the Father. . . . We believe that He was the Son of the Creator and that He was His Word. God made Him His Son by emitting Him from Himself. He thereafter set the Son over every dispensation of His will. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.318.
I am therefore of the opinion that the will of the Father should be sufficient by itself for the existence of whatever He wishes to exist. . . . And thus also the existence of the Son is generated by Him. For this point must above all others be maintained by those who allow nothing to be unbegotten—unborn—except God the Father only. And we must be careful not to fall into the absurdities of those who picture to themselves certain emanations, so as to divide the divine nature into parts. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.248.
There is a meaning of “beginning” [Gr. arche] referring to a matter of origin, as might appear in the saying: “In the beginning, God made the heaven and the earth.” . . . This meaning of the word “beginning” in the sense of “origin” will serve us also in the passage in which Wisdom speaks in the Proverbs. We read, “God created me the beginning of His ways, for His works.” Here the term could be interpreted as in the first application we spoke of—that of a way. It says, “The Lord created me the beginning of His ways.” One might assert with good reason that God Himself is the beginning of all things. And one could go on to say—as is plain—that the Father is the origin [arche] of the Son. The Creator is the beginning of the works of the Creator. In a word, God is the beginning of all that exists. This view is supported by “In the beginning, was the Word.” In the Word, one may see the Son. And because He is in the Father, He may be said to be in the beginning. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.306.
No one can worthily know the One without genealogy, the First-Born of all created nature, who is like the Father who begat Him. Nor can anyone know the Father as does the living Word, His Wisdom, and Truth. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.581.
The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the Father, also on the Son of God—Christ Jesus. He is the Lord our God, but He is the Son of God, out of that God who is both one and alone. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.618.
God the Father is the Founder and Creator of all things. He alone knows no origin [arche]. He is invisible, infinite, immortal, eternal, and is one God. To his greatness, majesty, or power, not only can nothing be preferred, nothing can be compared. The Son, the Word, was born of Him, when He [the Father] willed it. The Word is not received in the sound of the stricken air, or in the tone of voice forced from the lungs. Rather, He is acknowledged in the substance of the power put forth by God. The mysteries of His sacred and divine nativity have not been learned by any apostle, nor discovered by any prophet, nor known by any angel, nor comprehended by any creature. They are known to the Son alone, who has known the secrets of the Father. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.643.
Thus, He could not make two Gods, because He did not make two beginnings. For from Him who has no beginning [arche], the Son received the source of His nativity before all time. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.644.
Christ is the First-Born. He is the Wisdom of God, by whom all things were made. Solomon says in the Proverbs: “The Lord made me in the beginning of His ways, into His works. He founded me before the world. In the beginning, . . . the Lord begot me. . . . When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.” . . . Also, in the same, in Ecclesiasticus: “I went forth out of the mouth of the Most High, First-Born before every creature.” Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.515.
I said that the plant . . . is different from the [seed or root] from which it sprouted. Yet, it is absolutely of the same nature. Similarly, a river flowing from a spring takes another form and name. For neither is the spring called the river, nor the river the spring. . . . The spring is the father, so to speak, and the river is the water from the spring. . . . God is the spring of all good things, but the Son is called the river flowing from Him. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.92, 93, as quoted by Athanasius.
I do not think that the Word was a thing made. Therefore, I do not say that God was His Maker, but rather his Father. Nevertheless, if at any time, in speaking about the Son, I may have casually said that God was His Maker, even this manner of speaking would not be without defense. For the wise men among the Greeks call themselves the “makers” of their books, although the same are “fathers” of their books. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.93, as quoted by Athanasius.
God was possessed of the greatest foresight for planning. . . . So before He commenced this business of the world, . . . He produced a Spirit like Himself, who could be endowed with the perfection of God the Father. God did this in order that goodness might spring as a stream from Him and might flow forth afar. Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.52.
In the thirty-second Psalm: “By the word of God were the heavens made firm. And all their power by the breath of His mouth.” And also again in the forty-fourth Psalm: “My heart has given utterance to a good word.” . . . Solomon also shows that it is the Word of God, and no other, by whose hands these works of the world were made. He says, “I came forth out of the mouth of the Most High before all creatures. I caused the light that does not fail to arise in the heavens” [Sir. 24:3]. John also taught in this manner: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.107.
In the 109th Psalm, David teaches the same, saying, “Before the morning star, I begot you.” Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.113.
Not that the Word is unbegotten. For the Father alone is unbegotten. Rather, the unexplainable subsistence of the Only-Begotten Son is beyond the understanding of the evangelists and perhaps also of the angels. For that reason, I do not think that he is to be considered pious who presumes to inquire into anything beyond these things. . . . To the Father alone belonged the knowledge of this most divine mystery. He says, “For no man knows the Son, but the Father.” Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.292, 293.
Concerning Him we believe in this manner, even as the apostolic church believes: In one Father, unbegotten, who has the cause of His being from no one, who is unchangeable and immutable. . . . And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God. He is not begotten of things that are not, but of Him who is the Father. He is not begotten in a physical manner, nor by excision or division (as Sabellius and Valentinus thought), but in a certain unexplainable and unspeakable manner. In the words of the prophet cited above: “Who will declare His generation?” Because of His subsistence, no begotten nature can investigate Him—just as no one can investigate the Father. The nature of rational beings cannot comprehend the knowledge of His divine generation by the Father. Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.295.
We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God; Light of Light; very God of very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father. Nicene Creed (A.D. 325), 7.524; extended discussion: 4.2454.251. (Pp. 215-221)
And:
B. Before all worlds
Out of you shall come forth to me the One to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Mic. 5:2.
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” John 8:58.
Jesus Christ was with the Father before the ages, and in the end, He was revealed. Ignatius (c. 105, E), 1.61.
The Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a Fellow-Counselor with the Father in His work of creation. Hermas (c. 150, W), 2.47.
His Son . . . also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.190.
And Trypho [a Jew] said, “For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For example, you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages.” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.219.
This is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.247.
We know Him to be the First-Begotten of God, and to be before all creatures. . . . Since we call Him the Son, we have understood that, before all creatures, He proceeded from the Father by His power and will. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.249.
“The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth.” . . . You perceive . . . that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created. Now, everyone will admit that He who is begotten is numerically distinct from Him who begets. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.264.
This Being is perfect Reason, the Word of God. He was begotten before the light. He is Creator, together with the Father. He is the Fashioner of man. . . . He is God who is from God. He is the Son who is from the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the King for evermore. . . . This was the First-Born of God, who was begotten before the sun. Melito (c. 170, E), 8.756, 757.
Moreover, we are worshippers of His Christ, who is truly God the Word, existing before all time. Melito (c. 170, E), 8.759.
Being at once both God and perfect man, He gave us sure indications of His two natures. . . . He concealed the signs of His Deity, although he was the true God existing before all ages. Melito (c. 170, E), 8.760.
What is meant by the Son? I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father. I do not mean that He was brought into existence. For, from the beginning, God, who is the eternal Mind, had the Logos in Himself. From eternity, He is instinct with Logos. However, [the Son is begotten] inasmuch as He came forth to be the Idea and energizing Power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes. . . . The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. “The Lord,” it says, “made me the beginning of His ways to His works.” Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.133.
Each of those things to which divinity is ascribed is conceived of as having existed from the first. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.137.
But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse, but as truth expounds, the Word who always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being, He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.103.
But the Son has been eternally co-existing with the Father. From of old, yes, from the beginning, He always reveals the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/ W), 1.406.
For not only before Adam, but also before all creation, the Word glorified His Father, remaining in Him. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.478.
For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things. He speaks to this one, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness.” . . . I have also largely demonstrated that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.487, 488.
He was with the Father from the beginning. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.489.
He is prior to all creation. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/ W), 1.526.
Solomon also says that before heaven, earth, and all existences, Wisdom had arisen in the Almighty. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.512.
The timeless and unoriginated First Principle and Beginning of existences the Son—from whom we are to learn the remoter Cause of the universe, the Father, the most ancient and the most beneficent of all. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.523.
The presbyter explained what is meant by “from the beginning,” to this effect: That the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, “That which was from the beginning,” he refers to the generation of the Son, that is without beginning, for He is co-existent with the Father. There was, then, a Word signifying an unbeginning eternity. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.574, excerpted from a post-Nicene translation made by Cassiodorus.
He signifies by the title of Father, that the Son also existed always, without beginning. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.574, excerpted from a post-Nicene translation made by Cassiodorus.
He who was co-existent with His Father before all time, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Divinity. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.167.
He was born the Word, of the heart of the Father, before all. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.189.
They killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is co-eternal with the Father. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.220.
We have always held that God is the Father of His Only-Begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning—not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself. . . . And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can either be comprehended or expressed. And since all the creative power of the coming creation was included in this very existence of Wisdom . . . does Wisdom say, in the words of Solomon, that she was “created the beginning of the ways of God.” For she contained within herself either the beginnings, forms, or species of all creation. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.246.
Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God take care that he is not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father himself. For he denies that He had always been a Father, or had always generated the Word, or had possessed Wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.246, 247.
The Father generates an uncreated Son and brings forth a Holy Spirit—not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.270.
John also indicates that “God is Light.” . . . Since light could never exist without splendor, so neither can the Son be understood to exist without the Father. For He is called the “express image of His person” and the Word and Wisdom. How, then, can it be declared that there was once a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when he was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life. . . . Now, this expression that we use—“that there never was a time when He did not exist” is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words—“when” and “never”—have a meaning that relates to time. However, the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all times, all ages, and all eternity. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.377.
It is not only the Greeks who consider the word “beginning” [Gr. arche] to have many meanings. Let anyone collect the Scripture passages in which the word occurs and . . . note what it stands for in each passage. He will find that the word has many meanings in sacred discourse, as well. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.305.
“You are My Son. This day have I begotten You.” This is spoken to Him by God, with whom all time is today. For there is no evening with God . . . and there is no morning. There is nothing but time that stretches out, along with His unbeginning and unseen life. The day is today with Him in which the Son was begotten. Accordingly, the beginning of His birth is not found, nor is the day of it. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.314.
The Word was always with the Father. And so it is said, “And the Word was with God.” . . . He was in the beginning at the same time when He was with God—neither being separated from the beginning, nor being bereft of His Father. And again, neither did He come to be in the beginning after He had not been in it. Nor did He come to be with God after not having been with him. For before all time and the remotest age, the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.322.
He was in the beginning with God. The term “beginning” may be taken as the beginning of the world, so that we may learn from what is said that the Word was older than the things that were made from the beginning. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.325.
The Word was not made in the beginning. There was no time when the beginning was devoid of the Word. For that reason it is said, “In the beginning was the Word.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.334.
He is therefore God, because He was before the world, and held His glory before the world. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.626.
Since He was begotten of the Father, He is always in the Father. In saying “always,” I do not mean Him to be unborn, but born. Yet, He who is before all time must be said to have been always in the Father. For no time can be assigned to Him who is before all time. He is always in the Father, unless the Father is not always the Father. Yet, the Father also precedes him in a certain sense. For it is necessary, in some degree, that He should be before He is Father. For it is essential that He who knows no beginning must go before Him who has a beginning. Just as the Son is the less, as knowing that He is in the Father, having an origin because He is born. And He is of like nature with the Father in some measure because of His nativity. He has a beginning in that He is born, inasmuch as He is born of that Father who alone has no beginning. He, then, when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father. He who was in the Father came forth from the Father. And He who was in the Father because He was of the Father, was subsequently with the Father, because He came forth from the Father. I am speaking of the Divine substance whose name is the Word. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.643.
There certainly was not a time when God was not the Father. . . . Because the Son has existence from the Father, not from Himself, it does not mean that God afterwards begot the Son. . . . Being the brightness of the eternal Light, He Himself also is absolutely eternal. If the light is always in existence, it is manifest that its brightness also exists. . . . God is the eternal Light, which has neither had a beginning, nor will it ever fail. Therefore, the eternal brightness shines forth before Him and coexists with Him. Existing without a beginning, and always begotten, He always shines before Him. He is that Wisdom that says, “I was that in which He delighted, and I was daily his delight before his face at all times.” Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.92, as quoted by Athanasius.
Now, this word, “I am,” expresses His eternal subsistence. For if he is the reflection of the eternal light, he must also be eternal Himself. For if the light subsists forever, it is evident that the reflection also subsists forever. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.120.
Neither are they less to be blamed who think that the Son was a creation, determining that the Lord was made—just as one of those things that really were made. For the divine declarations testify that He was begotten (as is fitting and proper), but not that He was created or made. It is therefore not a trifling thing—but a very great impiety—to say that the Lord was in any way made with hands. For if the Son was made, there was a time when He was not. However, He always was, if (as He Himself declares) He is undoubtedly in the Father. And if Christ is the Word, the Wisdom, and the Power (for the divine writings tell us that Christ is these, as you yourselves know), assuredly these are powers of God. Wherefore, if the Son was made, there was a time when these were not in existence. And thus there was a time when God was without these things, which is utterly absurd. Dionysius of Rome (c. 265, W), 7.365, as quoted by Athanasius.
He had neither recently attained to the relationship of Son, nor again, having begun before, had an end after this. Rather, He had previously been begotten, and He was to be, and was the same. But the expression, “This day I have begotten you,” means that he willed that He who existed before the ages in heaven should be begotten on the earth. Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.338.
Since the Son is always with Him, the Father is always complete, being destitute of nothing as regards good. He has begotten His Only-Begotten Son—not in time, nor after an interval, nor from things that are not. How, then, is it not unholy to say that the Wisdom of God once was not. . . . Or that the Power of God once did not exist? . . . Therefore, one may see that the Sonship of our Savior has nothing at all in common with the sonship of the rest. Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.293.
How can He be made of things that are not, when the Father says, “My heart belched forth a good Word”? And, “From the womb, before the morning, I have begotten you”? Or how can He be unlike the substance of the Father—He who is the perfect image and brightness of the Father and who says, “He that has seen Me has seen the Father”? Furthermore, if the Son is the Word, Wisdom, and Reason of God, how can there be a time when he was not? It is the same as if they said there was a time when God was without reason and wisdom. Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.297. (Pp. 221-226)
THE TRIUNE CREATOR AND LIFE-GIVER
1:1 God the Father made heaven and earth. “I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” (Creed).
1:2 The Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit (BasilG; EphS). He proceeds from the Father, and is “the Lord and Giver of Life” (Creed). Since He is Lord, He is coequal with the Father, and is His Coworker in making heaven and earth.
1:3 God the Father spoke to His Word and Only-begotten Son, through whom He made the light (AthanG). Since the Son, too, is Lord, He is coequal with the Father, and is His Coworker in making heaven and earth.
The Holy Fathers teach that the Father made heaven and earth through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Trinity made heaven and earth, and the Church sings, “We glorify the Father, we exalt the Son, and we worship the Holy Spirit—the indivisible Trinity who exists as One—the Light and Lights, the Life and Lives, who grants light and life to the ends of the world” (CanonAnd).
1:4–25 Since the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit made heaven and earth, They also made everything mentioned in these verses.
1:26–30 The Holy Trinity also made man. God the Father is speaking to God the Son (JohnChr), and He uses the personal pronouns Us and Our. These pronouns indicate three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as noted in 1:1–3.
The word image is in the singular, and shows the three distinct Persons of the Holy Trinity are one in nature and undivided. For it does not say, “Our images” (HilryP). Therefore, the Holy Trinity is one undivided nature in three distinct Persons.
Man is not one in nature with the Holy Trinity. But He was made in the image and likeness of the Holy Trinity; and he was made male and female. Therefore, the dignity of each man and each woman is this image and likeness.
2:1–3 God finished the making of heaven and earth for man’s sake. He rested from His creative activity on the seventh day to show His love and providential care for man, and to invite man to enjoy this Sabbath-rest. For as Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27).
Man failed to keep this Sabbath-rest. But Jesus fulfilled it for man by resting in the tomb on Great and Holy Saturday, after He said on the cross, “It is finished” (Jn 19:30). For He destroyed sin and death, and rose again on the first day of the week. Through His saving work on man’s behalf, He is man’s Sabbath-rest, and He now invites all to find rest in Himself (Mt 11:28–30).
2:4 Here the Book of Genesis refers to itself by name.
2:7 God formed Adam’s body out of dust from the ground. The breath of life is the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life (the Creed). God breathed the breath of life into man’s body, and he became a living soul. Therefore, Adam was a living soul because he possessed a body, a soul, and the grace of the Holy Spirit.
After He rose from the dead, Jesus breathed on His disciples, and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:22). For man failed to keep the grace of the Spirit, but through His Resurrection Jesus supplies His disciples abundantly with the life-giving grace of the Spirit. A disciple’s responsibility is to live by this grace. (Pp. 4-5)
Creation
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible.”
These opening words of the Nicene Creed, the central doctrinal statement of Christianity, affirm that the One True God is the source of everything that exists—both physical and spiritual, both animate and inanimate. The Holy Scriptures begin with a similarly striking assertion: “In the beginning God made heaven and earth.” St. Basil the Great declares:
The ever-existent Almighty God was not forced to create the universe. Rather, in His goodness and lovingkindness, He freely chose to do so. And the fact that the Lord created the universe out of nothing stands in clear contrast to the creation myths of the surrounding cultures in the ancient world.
The central role of Jesus Christ, the Word of the Father, in the creation of all things is plainly stated in the first chapter of the apostle John’s gospel, where it is written, “In the beginning was the Word, . . . All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” And the specific role of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Undivided Trinity, in the creation of the world is seen in Genesis 1:2 (see also Ps 103:30; 32:6).
Regarding questions about the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account of creation, and about various viewpoints concerning evolution, the Orthodox Church has not dogmatized any particular view. What is dogmatically proclaimed is that the One Triune God created everything that exists, and that man was created in a unique way and is alone made in the image and likeness of God (Gn 1:26, 27). The Church Fathers also consistently affirm that each species of the animate creation came into existence instantaneously, at the command of God, with its seed within itself.
The development of life was not by accident. Rather, Supreme Intelligence and Impenetrable Wisdom were at work in the creation and sustenance of all that exists. In discussing various scientific theories of his day, St. Basil the Great declared, “If there is anything in this [or any other] system which seems probable to you, keep your admiration for the source of such perfect order—the wisdom of God.” He also wrote, “We must still remain faithful to the principle of true religion and recognize that all that exists is sustained by the Creator’s power.”
The repeated affirmation “and God saw that it was good” in Genesis 1 underscores the intrinsic, fundamental goodness of matter and the whole created order, even after the Fall. This understanding is the basis for a sacramental world-view—that the created order not only is good, but also can be a means for communion with God, by virtue of being created by the All-Good God. Moreover, the astounding beauty, intricate order, and sublime harmony of all aspects of Creation, as well as the tremendously vast expanse of the universe, are intended to draw mankind to an awareness of and appreciation for the Creator, and to the worship of Him—and Him alone (see Ps 18:1–4; Rom 1:20). (P. 3)
The Holy Trinity
The Holy Trinity is revealed both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the Trinity is revealed in subtle ways; in the New Testament, the Trinity is revealed fully and plainly, beginning at the Baptism of our Lord.
The Holy Trinity is one God in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These Persons are distinct, but not separate, and are not three gods. They are One God because They are one in essence or nature. The Father is the unbegotten Fountainhead of Deity. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father (Jn 1:18; 3:16; 16:28). The Holy Spirit is the Helper (Jn 14:16) and Spirit of Truth (Jn 14:17; 16:13), Who proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26).
The Holy Trinity Created the World
Genesis 1:1—God the Father created the heavens and the earth. The Creed says: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.”
Genesis 1:2—The Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit. He hovered over creation in creative power and equality with the Father. He co-created with the Father.
Genesis 1:3—As the Word of God, the Son made the light (Jn 1:1–3). With creative power and equality with the Father, He also co-created with the Father and the Spirit.
Genesis 1:26—The pronouns “Us” and “Our” reveal a plurality of divine Persons. These Persons are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit operating in complete unity out of the one divine Nature.
The Holy Trinity Saves the World
Isaiah 63:16—The Father is our Redeemer. He not only created the world but redeems it as well.
Psalm 2:7, 8—The Father’s decree reveals the Son as inheriting the world. This inheritance is the people saved by the Son.
Isaiah 6:1–3—The words “Holy, Holy, Holy” declare the three Persons who save us. The name “Lord” declares the one essence of the Three.
Isaiah 44:3—The Father pours out His Spirit on people like water on dry ground. The Holy Spirit quenches the thirst of the person who thirsts for salvation.
Isaiah 48:16, 17—The Son declares that the Father and the Spirit sent Him to redeem the world. Although the Son alone became a Man, all three Persons save mankind.
The New Testament Affirms the Holy Trinity in the Old Testament
John 1:1–3—The Word is the Son of God, who was present with the Father at the beginning of creation. He was Co-worker with the Father in creating the world.
John 8:58—Jesus identifies Himself as having existed before Abraham. Before His coming in the flesh as Man, Jesus existed as the eternal Son of the Father, for He is begotten from the Father before all time and ages. He appeared to Moses in the burning bush and proclaimed Himself as “I Am” (Ex 3).
Acts 2:17—The Holy Spirit’s descent at Pentecost affirms His presence in the Old Testament (Joel 3:1–5).
Hebrews 1:8–10—This Scripture affirms the Father is speaking to the Son in Psalms 44:7 and 101:26–28, in which the Father acknowledges the Son as God and Creator of the world. For the Son was the Father’s Co-worker in creation.
The Incarnate Son Fully Reveals the Holy Trinity
Luke 1:35—At the Annunciation, the Holy Spirit, the “power” of God the Father (“the Highest”), overshadowed the Virgin Mary; and she gave birth to the Son of God in His flesh.
Matthew 3:16–17—When the Son of God was baptized in the Jordan by John, the Father’s voice was heard from heaven, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove. As the main hymn for the Feast of Theophany says, “When You, O Lord, were baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest.” (P. 4)
[Exodus] 31:3 The divine Spirit is the Holy Spirit (BasilG; GrgTheo; CyrJer).
31:18 The finger of God is the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). (Pp. 105-106)
THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IS THE PREHUMAN JESUS
16:7 The Lord is the Father, and the Angel is His Son (HilryP). And the prophet Isaiah calls Him “the Angel of Great Counsel” (Is 9:5). “The Son is called Angel because He alone reveals the Father” (AthanG).
16:8 The Lord asked Hagar questions, not because He was ignorant, but for Hagar’s sake and for ours. After He became Man, He also asked questions in the four Gospels, not because He was ignorant, but for the sake of the immediate listeners and of the faithful. For He is God in the flesh, and therefore, never ignorant of anything (JohnDm).
16:9 Since He is God, the Angel commanded Hagar. She obeyed (v. 15). This Angel is the Word of God.
16:10 This statement by the Angel COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY A CREATED ANGEL, for only God can say, “I will surely multiply your seed exceedingly, that it may not be counted because of its multitude.” NO CREATED ANGEL CAN DO THIS. THE ANGEL IS GOD THE SON.
16:11 The Angel then spoke to Hagar concerning the Father and said, “The Lord has taken notice of your humiliation.”
16:13 Hagar called the Angel who appeared to her both Lord and God. The Church knows Him as the Only-begotten of the Father (Jn 1). As the Father’s Only-begotten, He is “true God of true God” (Creed).
One meaning of the name God is, You are the God who sees me. The Only-begotten sees everything. So do God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.
17:1 Thirteen years after the birth of Ishmael (16:16), the Lord appeared to Abram again and identified Himself as God, for He said to him, “I am your God.” This appearance is another of the personal appearances of the Son of God to Abraham.
17:2–4 The covenant is that established “in Christ” (Gal 3:17). God established it before the Mosaic covenant. Therefore, the Law of Moses, which came later, could not cancel it. Abraham’s faith is multiplied exceedingly in the Church. For he is the father of many nations (see also Rom 4:16, 17).
17:5 Abram’s name (meaning “exalted father”) was changed to Abraham (“father of many”). This very name change proves the gospel of salvation is for many nations, the Gentiles as well as the Jews.
17:7 The God of the everlasting covenant is the Holy Trinity, for the Son is God of God, the Only-begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit is also God of God, for He “proceeds from the Father” (Creed).
17:10–14 The rite of circumcision was not the covenant itself. It was a sign of the covenant (v. 11). It was a temporary sign, because it applied only to Abraham’s genealogy (v. 12), that is, to Abraham’s physical lineage, and also to those born in his house or bought with his money. Thus, the rite did not apply to the “many nations,” or Gentiles, to be made righteous by faith in the gospel (v. 3; see also Rom 4:9–17). Christ Himself fulfilled this rite and brought it to an end when He was circumcised on the eighth day after His birth from the Virgin (Lk 2:21). (Pp. 21-22)
18:1–3 The Holy Spirit says through the prophet Moses that God appeared to Abraham. This is another personal appearance of the Son of God to him. He saw three men standing before him, but he worshiped only one of them as Lord, for He is Lord and God. The other two are called “angels” (19:1). The Son of God is the Lord of all the angels.
18:4–8 The hospitality of Abraham was a virtue that should be shared by his spiritual children.
18:9 The Lord was not ignorant of Sarah’s location. He asked the question for Abraham’s sake and for that of those who read the Scriptures. He also asked questions for the same reason after He became incarnate, for example, concerning the location of Lazarus’s grave (Jn 11:34).
18:14 The Lord speaks of God the Father, who does not will everything He can do, but He can do everything He wills. For nothing is impossible with Him. Likewise, nothing is impossible with His Son, for the Father works all things through the Son. As St. Athanasius the Great said, “He is the Will of the Father.” Therefore, the Son would strengthen Abraham and Sarah, and Sarah would conceive to bear Isaac, the child of promise.
19:1 The Holy Spirit through the prophet Moses calls two of the three men angels. When they arrived in Sodom, they met Lot at the city gate.
19:2 Lot paid the angels due respect by calling them lords, but he did not worship them, for they were created beings.
19:13 The third man was the Lord, the Son of God, and he sent the other two to Sodom to destroy it.
19:18 Lot spoke to all three men, but prayed to the Lord in particular.
19:21 The Lord granted his request (I have acquiesced to you) to escape to a small city, called Zoar. The Son is the Will of the Father; thus He said, “I will not overthrow this city.” The Son is also the Word, Wisdom, and Power of the Father (Jn 1:1–3 and 1Co 1:24).
19:22 The Lord can do anything He wills to do. But He would not will to destroy Sodom before Lot arrived in Zoar.
19:24 The Lord rained brimstone and fire . . . from the Lord out of heaven, that is, the Son rained brimstone and fire from the Father (AthanG, BasilG, AmbM, and HilryP). Both have the name “Lord” because of Their equality and oneness of lordship. For in Their essence, the Two are One and undivided (Creed). The Holy Spirit, who spoke this Scripture through the prophet Moses, is also one in lordship with the Father and the Son, for as the Creed says, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord . . . who proceeds from the Father.”
The destruction of Sodom and the adjoining city of Gomorrah is a warning to the ungodly concerning the Day of Judgment (2Pt 2:6, 9; Jude 7). (Pp. 23-25)
21:1 The Son of God visited Sarah and fulfilled the promise He had given in 18:10 (HilryP). Abraham and Sarah would have a son in their old age.
21:2 Thus, Sarah conceived, based on the word of promise. She did not conceive based on the power of the flesh, for both she and Abraham were past the time of childbearing. Therefore, it is not the children of the flesh—that is, Abraham’s offspring through procreation—who are the children of God. Rather, the children of this promise are counted as Abraham’s seed (Rom 9:8). These children are those who embrace Abraham’s faith through the Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 3:16).
21:17 The Angel of God IS THE SON OF GOD. He told Hagar that God, that is, God the Father, had heard Ishmael’s crying. “The Son is called Angel because He alone reveals the Father” (AthanG).
21:18 The Angel told Hagar He Himself (I will make) would make a great nation of Ishmael. Therefore, this Angel is God (see also vv. 19, 20), for God alone could do such a thing. This Angel IS NOT A CREATED ANGEL, BUT THE SON OF GOD HIMSELF. And why would He make a great nation of Ishmael? Because after His Incarnation, Ishmael’s descendants would embrace Abraham’s faith based on the word of promise. (P. 27)
22:1 God the Word tested Abraham (AthanG).
22:2 The Word is the Son of God, and by calling Isaac Abraham’s beloved son, He is teaching Abraham concerning HIS ETERNAL BIRTH FROM GOD THE FATHER (AthanG). For He is “the Only-begotten from the Father” (Creed). He is also teaching Abraham that He Himself would be offered up as a whole burnt offering for the world’s salvation, and be raised from the dead.
22:3 Abraham’s faith was tested, and he obeyed the Son of God. Such faith and obedience made Abraham righteous and a friend of God (Jam 2:22–23).
22:12 Abraham received Isaac back alive. This prefigured the Resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection from the dead, in which Abraham believed (Heb 11:19).
22:14, 15 The Angel of the Lord is the Son of God, and He appeared to Abraham. The Lord is God the Father.
22:16 Abraham and Abimelech counseled together and swore by the greater, namely, by the name of God (21:23, 24). The seven ewe lambs confirmed the oath, and Abraham named the place the Well of Oath. So they were reconciled. However, God cannot swear by anyone greater; therefore, He swore by Himself. He confirmed the oath by His Lamb, the Son of God, through whom God’s eternal covenant is established (Heb 6:13–20). The Well of Oath foreshadows the reconciliation of man to God through Jesus Christ.
22:17 Abraham’s seed would be as the stars of heaven and as the sand on the seashore. These are Abraham’s seed based on the word of promise. This seed is Christ and His Church begotten from Him (Gal 3:16). It does not refer to Israel according to the flesh. It refers to both Jews and Gentiles who are the children of the promise. (Pp. 28-29)
24:7 The Lord’s Angel IS THE SON OF GOD. The word angel also means messenger. In this meaning it is also akin to the term word. The Son of God is called both Angel and Word, for “He alone reveals the Father” (AthanG). Both names emphasize that the Son is the Will of God the Father. Thus, God spoke to Abraham through His Will, and told him to leave his father’s house for the land of promise. The words He will send His Angel before you were prophesied by Abraham to his servant. He spoke these words by the Holy Spirit, as the Creed says: “I believe in the Holy Spirit . . . who spoke by the prophets.” (P. 30)
24:62, 63 At the Well of the Vision, the Son of God appeared to Hagar (16:7–14). Isaac was meditating on this vision. (P. 32)
25:11 Isaac dwelt at the Well of the Vision, where the Son of God appeared to Hagar (16:7–14). He knew the Son of God. (P. 33)
26:2 The Word, who is the Son of God, appeared to Isaac and told him not to go down to Egypt, but to live in the land promised to Abraham. For Egypt was a type of the fallen world, whereas the land promised to Abraham was a type of the world to come. It reminded Isaac to keep his focus on Abraham’s faith.
26:3 The Word also told Isaac to sojourn in this land. A sojourner is one who sees the world to come as the land of promise (Creed). The land of Canaan was only a land in which to sojourn. Like his father, Abraham, he saw the world to come as his true inheritance. “By faith he [Abraham] dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb 11:9, 10).
26:4 The phrase your seed includes both Jews and Gentiles (all the nations) who embrace the promise given to Abraham. The phrase “in your seed” is a reference to Christ (Gal 3:16). For both Jews and Gentiles who believe are joined together as one body in Christ, that is, in Christ and His Church.
26:5 All who believe are blessed with Abraham, because he obeyed the voice of God the Son and kept what He commanded him to do. The faithful are those who obey the voice of the Son of God (Jn 10). (P. 34)
26:24 God the Son appeared to Isaac at the Well of Oath and swore to him concerning the promise made to Abraham. This swearing emphasized the unchangeableness of the Lord’s will and purpose (Heb 6:17, 18). The Lord will fulfill His purpose in the world to come and give it to the heirs of promise. Isaac laid hold of this oath and the hope it gave him (Heb 6:19, 20).
26:25 Isaac worshiped the Son of God at the altar he built. At the altar, the Church worships the Son, and together with Him, the Father and the Spirit.
26:34, 35 The wives of Esau represent those who contend with Christ and His Church. (P. 35)
31:3 The Lord is the Word and Son of God. He told Jacob to return to the land of his father, for this land was a type of the world to come. Laban’s country was not Jacob’s permanent residence (Heb 11:14–16, 21). 31:3–16 This passage is read during Tuesday Vespers in the sixth week of Great Lent.
31:11 The Word IS ALSO CALLED THE ANGEL OF GOD, because it is He alone who reveals the Father, and also because when the Son is beheld, so is the Father, for He is the Father’s Radiance; therefore, the Father and the Son are one (AthanG).
31:13 In verse 11, the name “God” refers to the Father. But in this verse, the Angel is called the God who appeared. Thus, the Son is “true God of true God” (Creed).
31:24 The Son of God came to Laban in a dream, and warned him to do Jacob no harm.
31:29 Laban calls the Word the God of Jacob’s father, that is, the God of Isaac. Laban’s problem was his unbelief, for he did not believe in the very One who appeared to him in a dream.
31:42 Jacob believed in the Son of God and thanked Him for rebuking Laban for his injustice. Laban was a liar and a cheat, for he had changed Jacob’s wages ten times (v. 7). In all this, Jacob, so to speak, had stepped aside and allowed the Lord to fight his battles over the twenty-year period (v. 38).
31:45 The stone set up as a pillar was a type of the Incarnate Son, for He is the foundation stone and pillar of the Church (1Co 3:11).
31:46 These stones are types of the living stones in the Church (1Pt 2:4, 5). (Pp. 41-42)
31:48, 49 The pillar and the stones were called This-Heap-Witnesses and The Vision. This vision was the vision of God the Word who appeared to both Laban and Jacob (vv. 11, 24). The pillar and stones foreshadow the Incarnation and the Church.
JACOB’S LADDER
28:10–17 This passage is read on the Feasts of the Theotokos: the Annunciation (March 25); the Dormition (August 15); and the Nativity (September 8).
28:12 The ladder that reached to heaven speaks of the Mother of God and of the Son of God born of her. The icon in the apse of the church is called the Platytera, which means wide, broad, spacious. It reveals Christ in her womb, and she connects heaven and earth through Him for our salvation. 28:17 The house of God speaks of the Church, and the gate of heaven is the Mother of God (Kairon and Akathist Services). Because the Son was conceived in her womb, she opened the gate of heaven to those who embrace the faith of Abraham.
28:18 The stone is Christ, the foundation stone of the Church (Mt 21:42–44; Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17, 18; Acts 4:11; Rom 9:32, 33; 1Co 3:10, 11; 1Pt 2:4–8). The oil signifies Christ, whose human nature was anointed by the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:18; 3:16; Heb 1:9). 28:22 God’s house speaks of the Church. Jacob gave a tithe of all God gave him. A tithe is ten percent given to the Church. (Pp. 37-38)
35:1 God speaks, and it is God of whom He speaks. Two distinct Persons own the same name, God. For the Father who is true God SPEAKS OF HIS SON WHO IS ALSO TRUE GOD, for the Son is begotten from the Father as true God (Creed). Thus, the God who appeared to Jacob at Bethel WAS THE SON, who is true God of true God (HilryP).
35:9 The God who appeared to Jacob again IS TRUE GOD OF TRUE GOD, that is, THE SON OF THE FATHER. In Him the Father is revealed, for He alone reveals the Father (AthanG).
35:11 The God who appeared to Jacob also calls Himself Jacob’s God, for He is true God of true God, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER. It was He who changed Jacob’s name to Israel.
35:13 The Only-begotten appeared to Jacob temporarily as a man, then ascended from him. After He became incarnate in the Mother of God, He ascended to the Father. (P. 46)
46:1 The Well of Oath foreshadowed the reconciliation of man to God through the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ (see note at 22:16).
46:2 God spoke to Israel IN AND THROUGH HIS WORD AND SON, for He alone reveals the Father (AthanG). Therefore, Israel’s vision WAS A PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE SON OF GOD TO HIM. The Son is also called the Angel of God. As He spoke to Abraham and said, “Abraham! Abraham!” (22:11), so now He speaks to Jacob, saying, “Jacob, Jacob!” Therefore, Jacob went to Egypt by divine revelation from the Father through the Son. (P. 58)
48:3 The God who appeared to Jacob at Luz was the Son and Word of God, also called the Angel of God. It was He who blessed Jacob, FOR NO CREATED ANGEL COULD DO THIS (AthanG).
48:4 God the Word speaks of His Incarnation, by which the Church (a gathering of nations) would be established. He would give His Church the world to come (this land as an everlasting possession). Jacob’s seed would be Christ, and with Him, His Church (Gal 3).
48:5 Ephraim and Manasseh were born to Joseph as his natural sons, born from his nature. So too, the Son and Word is the natural Son and Word of the Father, born from His nature (AthanG).
48:15, 16 The Holy Spirit spoke by the prophet Jacob (Creed), who identified the Angel as God. He is the Son and Word of God. For NO CREATED ANGEL could redeem Jacob from all evil (AthanG). Therefore, the Holy Trinity is revealed TO A CERTAIN EXTENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, and fully in the New. (Pp. 60-61)
[Exodus] 3:2 GOD THE WORD REVEALED HIMSELF TO MOSES in the burning bush to forecast His coming Incarnation (JohnDm, AthanG, JohnChr, GrgTheo, AmbM). He is called the Angel of the Lord because He is the Angel or Messenger of the Father who reveals the Father’s will. For He is the Will of the Father (AthanG). He is the Only-begotten God because He is begotten from the Unbegotten Father before all time and ages (GrgNy). Isaiah the prophet called the Son “the Angel of Great Counsel” (Is 9:5).
The bush was on fire but was not consumed, for the Son of God became Man to save man and not to consume him. He became Man in the womb of the Mother of God, for the bush itself typifies her.
3:3 Moses was shown this great sight of the Lord’s coming Incarnation because he was detached from the fleeting pleasures of this world (JohnDm, AmbM). For he was looking to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come (Creed).
3:4 The Angel is called Lord and God, for He is the Speaker. Since He is begotten from the Father BFPRE ALL TIME AND AGES, He is therefore the Only-Begotten God.
3:5 Moses was to remove his sandals. This indicates that nothing dead is to stand between God and man, for He is the God of the living (AmbM).
3:6 The Angel also called Himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For the Son is true God of true God, and He reveals the Father in Himself. He who sees the Son also sees the Father. He who sees the Only-begotten God also sees the Unbegotten Father.
3:7 The Lord loves His people and knows their pain and suffering, and His Incarnation is the remedy for all their sorrows.
3:14 The name I AM the Existing One is the name for the Essence of God, which is one and undivided (AthanG, JohnDm). This Essence is like a boundless sea, containing all things yet not contained by anything. The Son is eternally begotten from the Essence of the Father. WHEN JESUS SAID HE WAS THE EXISTING ONE, the Jews who were listening took up stones to stone Him, for they knew this passage in Exodus (Jn 8:57–59). He is acknowledged as the Existing One in every Vespers service of the Church. (Pp. 68-69)
14:19, 24 The Angel of God the Father is the Lord, who looked down through the pillar of fire and cloud. HE IS THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD, because He is begotten from the Unbegotten Father before all time and ages (GrgNy). Thus, the Son of God troubled the army of the Egyptians. (P. 82)
19:4 The Son of God brought Israel to Himself from Egyptian bondage. This prefigures His Incarnation, by which He brings the Church to Himself as the Great High Priest (AmbM).
19:17, 20, 21 Moses brought out the people to meet with God, THAT IS, WITH GOD THE SON. He is the Lord who came down on Mt. Sinai, and He is God, for it was He who spoke to Moses on the mountain (HilryP).
20:2 It is not enough to be brought out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage into freedom. Far greater than this, Christ gave Himself for us to free us from our sins and to lead us into the true freedom of the children of God (Rom 8:21; AmbM).
20:3 The Lord our God is the true Son of the true Father; thus we do not worship any false god (GrgNy). However, false gods do not exist in themselves, for this commandment refers to the future, and what is in the future does not yet exist (AthanG). But the Son is true God of true God; therefore, He exists eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit. We worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, our one God.
20:4, 23 An idol, or image, depicts some god as having a form or shape, but the true God has no form or shape. Why therefore did Israel use images in their worship? Because all these foreshadowed the Incarnation of the Son of God, whom we worship both as God and Man. Also, icons used in Church worship do not depict the divine nature. They draw attention to the Incarnation.
20:21 The Son of God humbled Himself to allow Moses to see and talk with Him (GrgTheo), and He humbled Himself to the extreme by becoming Man to be crucified for us. He, the Father, and the Holy Spirit dwell in the thick darkness, that is, They cannot be comprehended in Their nature or essence. We cannot know God in His essence; we can only know Him through the revelation of the Son. (Pp. 88-89, 91)
23:20 This is the Angel WHO SAID TO Moses, “I AM the Existing One” (3:14). He is the Only-begotten God, because He is begotten from the Unbegotten Father BEFORE ALL TIME AND AGES. He is called Angel to distinguish Him from the Father. The word angel means messenger, and this Angel reveals the will of the Father to man. MOSES BELIEVED IN THE HOLY TRINITY (GrgNy). Thus, “My” refers to the Father, and “Angel” refers to the Son.
23:21 This Angel has the authority to forgive sins, for the Father’s name is in Him. The Father’s name is the Lord; therefore, the Son is also called by this name (AmbM). When He became incarnate, He also forgave sins. But the Jews challenged His authority in vain, because they did not believe He was the Son of God (Mt 9:1–7).
23:22 Israel was to be a royal priesthood and a holy nation based on obedience to the Lord. The Lord speaking to Israel WAS THE WORD, and when He became Incarnate, the nation disobeyed Him. Therefore, He took the kingdom away from Israel and gave it to a nation bearing the fruits of it (Mt 21:43). This nation consists of the obedient in the Church, both Jews and Gentiles (1Pt 2:9, 10).
23:23 Again, My Angel is the Son of the Father. He led Israel into the land of promise (JohnCas). He also became incarnate to lead us into the world to come. Moses believed in the Holy Trinity and in the Incarnation.
23:25 The Word commanded them to serve the Lord their God, who is the Father. The Word incarnate now draws all who obey Him into the service of His Father. (Pp. 95-96)
32:34 My Angel is the Only-begotten God and Son of the Father. He is called “Angel” (or “Messenger”) because He reveals the Father’s will to man (GrgNy). For He is the Will of the Father (AthanG).
33:3, 12–17 My Angel IS THE SON OF THE FATHER, and He sent Him to lead Israel to the promised land (GrgNy). “Angel” means “messenger,” for the Son is the Will and Word of the Father (AthanG). He is the Angel WHO APPEARED TO MOSES in Exodus 3 AND SAID, “I AM the Existing One” (3:2, 14). The Father also sent Him to become incarnate for the salvation of the world (1Jn 4:14).
33:7 Moses pitched the tabernacle outside the camp, far from the camp. Everyone who sought the Lord went outside the camp. When the Lord became incarnate, He suffered on the Cross outside Jerusalem. Those who wish to find Him must leave the earthly Jerusalem to find Him in the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 13:12–14; AmbM).
33:20 No man can see THE ESSENCE OF THE FATHER (“My face”), either in this world or in the one to come (JohnChr; GrgNy). The Apostle John also said the same thing: “No one has seen God at any time” (Jn 1:18). But the Son is one in essence with the Father, and therefore fully sees and knows the Father’s essence (AthanG; JohnChr).
33:21 A place refers to the Holy Spirit, for He is often called the place of those being sanctified. Moses as well gained some knowledge of God by the Spirit (BasilG).
33:22 The Son of the Father is the rock and the hand. The rock reveals the mystery of the Incarnation (1Co 10:4; AmbM). The hand reveals the oneness in essence of the Son with the Father. For as the hand is one in essence with the body, similarly, the Son is one in essence with the Father (AthanG). Therefore, He reveals the Father and makes Him known to man.
33:23 My back refers to the glory of God, for man can see His glory if his heart is pure. For Moses saw His glory to the extent he was capable, as is the case with any man. This glory is also called His energy. Man can know God in His energy, but not in His essence.
34:5 The Lord who descended in the cloud IS THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN LORD, and He called upon the name of the Lord, who is the Father. Thus, the Son speaks of the Father.
34:6, 7 The Lord proclaimed the Lord, that is, THE SON AND WORD PROCLAIMED THE FATHER and revealed things concerning Him. For example, the Father is true, that is, he is the True God. The Son and Word is “True God of True God” (Creed).
34:9, 11 Moses requested that the Lord Himself lead Israel to the promised land, and his prayer was answered. The Lord IS THE ANGEL OF THE FATHER, mentioned in previous chapters. “Angel” means “messenger,” for the Son is the Word of the Father. He interpreted the Father’s will through Moses to Israel.
34:14 THE WORD CALLS HIS FATHER a jealous God. He does not mean the Father has passion in His nature. He uses “jealous” by way of analogy with human nature. For example, as a loving father is intolerant toward bad things happening to his children, so the loving Father is intolerant of the evil things that happen to His children when they go astray to worship other gods. (Pp. 107-109)
JESUS WRESTLES JACOB
32:24 The man who wrestled with Jacob WAS THE SON OF GOD, who appeared to him as a weak man (AthanG and HilryP). When He became incarnate, He assumed the weakness of human flesh for man’s salvation.
32:28 Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, which means “God prevails.” In this meaning, Jacob was a type of the Son of God, who became Man and prevailed as God and Man for man’s salvation.
32:30, 31 The Form of God WAS THE SON AND WORD OF GOD, who revealed Himself to Jacob (AthanG and HilryP). He is the Radiance of the Father who reveals the Father in Himself, for as He said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). The rising and radiating of the sun on Jacob illustrated this relation of the Son to the Father. (P. 45)
MARY: GOD’S HOLY TABERNACLE
40:1–38 Here the Lord directs Moses to set up the tabernacle for liturgical worship on the first day of the first month—one year after Israel came out of Egypt (v. 15). Now the Lord manifested His presence in a cloud by day and in fire by night. The tabernacle was filled with the Lord’s glory (vv. 28–32). Both these items speak of type and prophecy. For the physical manifestations of cloud and fire typify His human nature. The glory typifies His divine nature—both of which are united in His one Person. And the Lord—the source of the glory—is the Father. Thus when He became incarnate, the Cloud and the Fire “tabernacled” or dwelt among us (Jn 1:14). And just as some Israelites in the Old Testament could see the cloud and the fire—but not the glory within it—so too, some saw Jesus in the flesh, but did not see the glory of His divinity. They failed to see Him as the very Lord God who spoke to Moses and directed him in establishing the tabernacle of Testimony.
At His conception, the Son of God (“the Power”) “overshadowed” the Virgin Mary and became a Man in her womb (Lk 1:35). When He overshadowed the tabernacle, this became a type of His overshadowing Mary at His conception. And as He led Israel by the cloud and the fire (vv. 30–32), the Incarnate Lord now leads His Church. For the Church hears His voice and follows Him, as Israel did when they heard His voice speaking in and through Moses.
40:1–5, 9, 10, 16, 34, 35 These verses are read during the Feast of the Entry of the Most Holy Mother of God into the Temple.
40:28 The tabernacle was a type of the Mother of God, and the cloud was the presence of the Holy Trinity. When God the Word was conceived in her womb, the Holy Spirit came upon her, and the Power of the Highest overshadowed her (Lk 1:35). The Power was the Son and the Highest was the Father. The Son became incarnate, but all three Persons were actively involved. (Pp. 115-116)
The Tabernacle
On Mt. Sinai Moses received not only the Ten Commandments, but also precise and detailed instructions for building the tabernacle—a moveable tent—where God met the assembly of the people Israel (Ex 25:1–27:21). Consequently, the tabernacle is built according to the divine blueprints (Ex 35:4–40:33). Here God’s Presence, His Glory, will be made manifest through the shining cloud filling the holy place (Ex 40:34–38). The importance of God’s Presence in the tabernacle is apparent in the prayers of the Psalms, which express a longing to be with God, a fervent desire to be in His tabernacle (Pss 26:4–6; 60:4; 64:4; 83:14, 10; see also 22:6; 25:8). Indeed, the Lord promises that at the tabernacle, “I shall be known to you to speak to you. There I shall give directions to the children of Israel, and I shall be sanctified in My glory” (Ex 29:42–43; see also Ezk 37:26–28). While the tabernacle is the specific place where God was encountered in Israel, this did not exhaust His Presence, for as Almighty God, He has always been everywhere present, filling all things.
Israel’s most sacred objects were kept in the ark of the covenant, located in the holy of holies (Heb 9:2–5). Each object it held was prophetic of Christ: the tablets of the Law inscribed by God (Ex 25:15) prefigure Christ the Lawgiver; the manna (Ex 16:31–34) points to Christ as the Bread of Life (Jn 6:3058); and Aaron’s staff that budded (Nm 17:16–26) prefigures the life-giving Cross of Christ. Further, the veil separating the holy place from the holy of holies foreshadows the Incarnation (Heb 10:19, 20).
The tabernacle as a whole prefigures Christ, the eternal Word of God, who “became flesh and tabernacled (the usual English translation is ‘dwelt’) among us” (Jn 1:14; see also Col 2:9). St. Gregory of Nyssa observes, “Moses was earlier instructed by a type in the mystery of the tabernacle, which encompasses the universe. This tabernacle would be Christ, who is the power and the wisdom of God (1Co 1:24).” The tabernacle also prefigures Mary the Theotokos, whose womb will be the tabernacle in which the Lord will dwell as He takes His flesh from her.
On the cross, Jesus offers the ultimate sacrifice of His body, which the New Testament calls “the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands” (Heb 9:11). St. John Chrysostom comments that by this greater tabernacle St. Paul “means the flesh [of Christ]. And well did he say, ‘greater and more perfect,’ since God the Word and all the power of the Spirit dwell therein.”
In time, the moveable tabernacle of the wilderness is superseded by the permanent temple in Jerusalem. The temple, in turn, is superseded by Christ (Jn 2:18–21) and the Church, which is His Body (Eph 1:22, 23). Moreover, in Baptism every Christian becomes a tabernacle, a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. As St. Paul exclaims, “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit?” (1Co 6:19). St. Isaac of Nineveh declares, “Lord, I give praise to Your holy nature, for You have made my nature a sanctuary for Your hiddenness, a tabernacle for Your Mysteries, a place where You can dwell, and a holy temple for Your divinity.”
In his vision of the kingdom of heaven, St. John writes, “But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple” (Rev 21:22). All earthly types vanish as the redeemed behold God and the Lamb in unmediated glory (2Pt 1:4). The ultimate promise of the tabernacle, the temple and the Church is for God Himself to dwell in each believer forever (Jn 14:16, 17, 23; 17:20–23; see also Rev 3:20). (P. 110)
HONORABLE MENTIONS
I also include the notes to Daniel 3:91-92 where the Son of God appeared in the fire to rescue Daniel’s three friends. and their section on Christ’s appearances throughout the OT.
3:91, 92 St. Hippolytus writes that the king’s recognition of the fourth man in the furnace was a sign that the Gentiles would recognize the Incarnate Word when He came. “The three youths he thus called by name. But he found no name by which to call the fourth. For He was not yet that Jesus born of the Virgin.” St. Jerome comments that the presence of the Son of God in the furnace is a type of Christ’s descent into Hades, where the souls of the dead were imprisoned, that He might deliver the righteous faithful by breaking the chains of death. (P. 1247)
Theophanies of Christ
The word “theophany” derives from the Greek words theos (“God”), and phainesthai (“to show forth, appear”). Hence, a theophany is an appearance or manifestation of God. While types of Christ in the Old Testament prefigure His coming in the flesh, theophanies are recognized by the Church as being actual appearances of the pre-incarnate Son and Word of God. How this happens remains a mystery. But because the Son of God took on human nature in the fullness of time, each theophany directly prefigures Christ’s Incarnation. St. John of Damascus wrote, “No one saw the divine nature, but rather the image and figure of what was yet to come. For the invisible Son and Word of God was to become truly Man.”
Three Theophanies of Christ
An often cited theophany of Christ occurs in the visit of the “three men” to Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 18:1–16: “Then God appeared to him at the oak of Mamre” (v. 1). Though three men are there, Abraham addresses them in the singular, “Lord.” He responds in the singular (vv. 9–15). As St. Ephraim the Syrian says, “Therefore the Lord . . . now appeared to Abraham clearly in one of the three.” The three are generally considered to be Christ the Lord, along with two attending angels.
At Genesis 32:25–31, Christ is the “man” who wrestles with Jacob, after which Jacob says, “I saw God face to face” (v. 30). St. Cyril of Jerusalem asks the Jews concerning these theophanies to Abraham and Jacob, “What strange thing do we announce in saying that God was made Man, when you yourselves say that Abraham received the Lord as a guest? What strange thing do we announce, when Jacob says, ‘For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved’? The Lord, who ate with Abraham, also ate with us.”
In the Book of Daniel, a heathen king bears witness to another theophany of Christ. When King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon peers into the fiery furnace, upon seeing a “fourth man” he exclaims, “The vision of the fourth is like the Son of God” (Dan 3:92).
Other Appearances of God
At times Christ appears as “the Angel of the Lord” or “the Angel of God.” At Exodus 3:1–4:17, “the Angel of the Lord” appears to Moses in the burning bush and identifies Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex 3:6, 15, 16; 4:5). He also says that His name is “I AM HE WHO IS” (Ex 3:14), which in Greek is represented by the three letters placed around Christ’s head in the holy icons. St. Ambrose of Milan observes, “Christ therefore is, and always is; for He who is, always is. And Christ always is, of whom Moses says, ‘He that is has sent me.’”
The Incarnation
When God the Son became incarnate, this can be called an everlasting theophany. For having assumed human nature, Christ not only manifests God to the world during His earthly life (Jn 1:14; see also 14:9; Col 2:9; 1Jn 1:1–3), but He ascends into heaven in the same glorified flesh in which He will return at His Second Coming (see Acts 1:9–11).
At the baptism of Christ (Mt 3:13–17), a further theophany occurs, as all three Persons of the Holy Trinity are made known: the Father in the voice from heaven, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and the Incarnate Son. Hence, the feast day commemorating this event is known as Holy Theophany. On this day the Church sings, “When Thou, O Lord, wast baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest.”
Additionally, at Christ’s Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor (Mt 17:1–9), the Father again is heard, the Holy Spirit is present in the brightness of the cloud, and the Son shines with the gleaming radiance of His Divinity. (P. 1242)
CHURCH FATHER QUOTES ON THE MESSENGER/ANGEL OF YAHWEH
Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.)
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 34
“..although the words of the Psalm expressly proclaim that reference is made to the everlasting King, i.e., to Christ. For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel, and man, and captain (Josh. 5:13-15), and stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and He is preached as having the everlasting kingdom: so I prove from all the Scriptures.”
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 58
“It is again written by Moses, my brethren, that He who is called God and appeared to the patriarchs is called both Angel and Lord, in order that from this you may understand Him to be minister to the Father of all things, as you have already admitted, and may remain firm, persuaded by additional arguments.”
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 58 (Continued):
“The word of God, therefore, [recorded] by Moses, when referring to Jacob the grandson of Abraham, speaks thus:… And the Angel of God said to me in the dream, Jacob, Jacob. And I said, What is it, Lord? And He said, Lift up thine eyes,… I have seen what Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God who appeared to thee in Bethel, where thou anointedst a pillar and vowedst a vow unto Me (Gen. 31:11-13).”
Ch. 58 Continued:
But Jacob was left behind alone, and the Angel wrestled with him until morning. And He saw that He is not prevailing against him, and He touched the broad part of his thigh; and the broad part of Jacob’s thigh grew stiff while he wrestled with Him (Gen. 32; Hosea 12:2-5).…thou hast prevailed with God, and with men shalt be powerful. And Jacob asked Him, and said, Tell me Thy name. But he said, Why dost thou ask after My name (Gen. 32:29)? And He blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of that place Peniel, for I saw God face to face, and my soul rejoiced.’
Ch. 58 Continued:
And when all had agreed on these grounds, I continued: “Moreover, I consider it necessary to repeat to you the words which narrate how He who is both Angel and God and Lord, and who appeared as a man to Abraham (Gen. 22 & 15), and who wrestled in human form with Jacob (Gen. 32), was seen by him when he fled from his brother Esau.
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 59
When I had spoken these words, I continued: “Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same One, who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man, and who appeared in human form to Abraham and Isaac, appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses (Exo. 3).”
(Can read Ch. 60)
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 61
“I shall give you another testimony, my friends,” said I, “from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun)
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 76
Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty counsel (Isaiah 9:6 LXX),…
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 86
‘Therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.’ For indeed all kings and anointed persons obtained from Him their share in the names of kings and anointed: just as He Himself received from the Father the titles of King, and Christ, and Priest, and Angel, and such like other titles which He bears or did bear.
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 126
“who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel (Isaiah 9:6 LXX), and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner-Stone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again, and then your twelve tribes shall mourn.
Ch. 126 Continued
“Then I went on to say what I had not said before: “And so, when the people desired to eat flesh, and Moses had lost faith in Him, who also there is called the Angel, and who promised that God would give them to satiety, He who is both God and the Angel, sent by the Father, is described as saying and doing these things. For thus the Scripture says: ‘And the Lord said to Moses, Will the Lord’s hand not be sufficient? thou shalt know now whether my word shall conceal thee or not.’ And again, in other words, it thus says: ‘But the Lord spake unto me, Thou shalt not go over this Jordan: the Lord thy God, who goeth before thy face, He shall cut off the nations.’
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 127
“Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but [saw] Him who was according to His will His Son, being God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will; whom also it pleased Him to be born man by the Virgin; who also was fire when He conversed with Moses from the bush (Exo. 3). Since, unless we thus comprehend the Scriptures, it must follow that the Father and Lord of all had not been in heaven when what Moses wrote took place: ‘And the Lord rained upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven (Gen. 19:24);’ and again, when it is thus said by David: ‘Lift up your gates, ye rulers; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting gates; and the King of glory shall enter;’ and again, when He says: ‘The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool (Psalm 110:1).’
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 128
“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.”
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 128
“..but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father,..”
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue w/ Trypho Ch. 128
And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun, but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.
Irenaeus of Lyons 102-220 A.D.
(A student of Polycarp of Smyrna who was the disciple of the Apostle John)
Against Heresies Book III, Ch. 6:
“And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, I have come down to deliver this people.”
Fragments of Irenaeus Ch. 23:
And he mounted upon his ass. Numbers 22:22-23 The ass was the type of the body of Christ, upon whom all men, resting from their labours, are borne as in a chariot. For the Saviour has taken up the burden of our sins. Now the Angel who appeared to Balaam was the Word Himself; and in His hand He held a sword, to indicate the power which He had from above.
Fragments of Irenaeus Ch. 53:
“With regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the evangelists have proclaimed that He was born of a virgin, that He suffered upon a beam of wood, and that He appeared from the dead; that He also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God, who was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe, along with it (light), and the Maker of man; that He is All in all: Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the laws; Chief Priest among priests; Ruler among kings; the Prophet among prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father; God in God; King to all eternity. For it is He who sailed [in the ark] along with Noah, and who guided Abraham; who was bound along with Isaac, and was a Wanderer with Jacob; the Shepherd of those who are saved, and the Bridegroom of the Church; the Chief also of the cherubim, the Prince of the angelic powers; God of God; Son of the Father; Jesus Christ; King for ever and ever. Amen.“
Fragments of Irenaeus Ch. 54:
“He is the First-begotten, after a transcendent manner, the Creator of man; All in all; Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the law; the Priest among priests; among kings Prime Leader; the Prophet among the prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father; God in God; King to all eternity… the Leader of the angelic host; God of God; Jesus Christ our Saviour.”
Melito of Sardis (120-185 A.D.)
Melito of Sardis’ Fragments Ch. 4
“..our Lord Jesus Christ, that we may prove to your love that this Being is perfect reason, the Word of God; He who was begotten before the light; He who is Creator together with the Father; He who is the Fashioner of man; He who is all in all; He who among the patriarchs is Patriarch; He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler; among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and ever. For this is He who was pilot to Noah; He who was guide to Abraham; He who was bound with Isaac; He who was in exile with Jacob; He who was sold with Joseph; He who was captain of the host with Moses;
Tertullian (145-220 A.D.)
Tertullian Against Praxeas Ch. 16
It is the Son, therefore, who has been from the beginning administering judgment, throwing down the haughty tower, and dividing the tongues, punishing the whole world by the violence of waters, raining upon Sodom and Gomorrha fire and brimstone, as the Lord from the Lord (Gen. 19:24)..
Ch. 16 Continued:
“..and at Abraham’s tent should have refreshed Himself under an oak; and have called to Moses out of the burning bush (Exo. 3); and have appeared as the fourth in the furnace of the Babylonian monarch (Dan. 3:25) — unless all these events had happened as an image, as a mirror, as an enigma (of the future incarnation)?”
Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.)
Clement of Alexandria’s “The Instructor” Ch. 5
“The Spirit calls the Lord Himself a child, thus prophesying by Esaias: “Lo, to us a child has been born, to us a son has been given, on whose own shoulder the government shall be; and His name has been called the Angel of great Counsel.” Who, then, is this infant child?”
Clement of Alexandria’s “The Instructor” Ch. 5
“For since Scripture calls the infant children lambs, it has also called Him–God the Word–who became man for our sakes, and who wished in all points to be made like to us–“the Lamb of God”–Him, namely, that is the Son of God, the child of the Father.”
Clement of Alexandria’s “The Instructor” Ch. 7
“Who, then, would train us more lovingly than He? Formerly the older people had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the people with fear, and the Word was an Angel; but to the fresh and new people has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear is turned to love, and that Mystic Angel is born–Jesus… Now the law is ancient grace given through Moses by the Word. Wherefore also the Scripture says, “The law was given through Moses,” not by Moses, but by the Word, and through Moses His servant.”
Novation (200-258 A.D.)
Novation On the Trinity Ch. 18
“Moreover Also, from the Fact that He Who Was Seen of Abraham is Called God; Which Cannot Be Understood of the Father, Whom No Man Hath Seen at Any Time; But of the Son in the Likeness of an Angel.”
Novation On the Trinity Ch. 18
“And since this cannot be applicable or fitting to the Father, who is God only, but may be applicable to Christ, who is declared to be not only God, but angel also, it manifestly appears that it was not the Father who thus spoke to Hagar, but rather Christ, since He is God; and to Him also is applied the name of angel, since He became the “angel of great counsel (Isaiah 9:6 LXX).”
Novation On the Trinity Ch. 19
“That God Also Appeared to Jacob as an Angel; Namely, the Son of God… If the Angel of God speaks thus to Jacob, and the Angel himself mentions and says, “I am God, who appeared unto thee in the house of God (Gen. 31:11-13),” we see without any hesitation that this is declared to be not only an angel, but God also; because He speaks of the vow directed to Himself by Jacob in the place of God, and He does not say, in my place. It is then the place of God, and He also is God.”
Novation On the Trinity Ch. 19 Continued
“Moreover, if this is Christ, as it is, he is in terrible risk who says that Christ is either man or angel alone, withholding from Him the power of the divine name,—an authority which He has constantly received on the faith of the heavenly Scriptures, which continually say that He is both Angel and God.”
Novation On the Trinity Ch. 19 Continued
“And yet, even after this, the same divine Scripture justly does not cease to call the Angel God, and to pronounce God the Angel…”
“he said, “The God which fed me from my youth even unto this day, the Angel who delivered me from all evils, bless these lads (Gen. 48:15-16).”
Novation On the Trinity Ch. 31
“He therefore is God, but begotten for this special result, that He should be God. He is also the Lord, but born for this very purpose of the Father, that He might be Lord. He is also an Angel, but He was destined of the Father as an Angel to announce the Great Counsel of God (Isaiah 9:6 LXX). And His divinity is thus declared, that it may not appear by any dissonance or inequality of divinity to have caused two Gods. For all things being subjected to Him as the Son by the Father, while He Himself, with those things which are subjected to Him, is subjected to His Father, He is indeed proved to be Son of His Father; but He is found to be both Lord and God of all else.”
Eusebius (265-339 A.D.)
Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 1 Ch. 1
IT seems now time to say what I consider to be desirable at present to draw from the prophetic writings for the proof of the Gospel. They said that Christ, (Whom they named) the Word of God, and Himself both God and Lord, and Angel of Great Counsel, would one day dwell among men, and would become for all the nations of the world, both Greek and Barbarian, a teacher of true knowledge of God, and of such duty to God the Maker of the Universe, as the preaching of the Gospel includes.
Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 1 Ch. 5
Remember how Moses calls the Being, Who appeared to the patriarchs, and often delivered to them the oracles afterwards written down in Scripture, sometimes God and Lord, and sometimes the Angel of the Lord. He clearly implies that this was not the Omnipotent God, but a secondary Being, rightly called the God and Lord of holy men, but the Angel of the Most High His Father.
Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 1 Ch. 5
To which he adds: “16. And Jacob arose in the morning, and took the stone, which he had put under his head, and set it up as a pillar.” Then further on he calls this God and Lord Who appeared to him the Angel of God. For Jacob says: “11. For the Angel of God said to me in a dream, Jacob. And I said, What is it? ” And then: “12. I have seen, he says, all that Laban does to thee. I am the God that was seen by thee in the place of God, where thou anointedst for me there a pillar, and thou vowedst to me there a vow.”
Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 4 Ch. 10
He is called as well Eternal High Priest, and also the Anointed (Christ) of the Father, for so among the Hebrews they were called Christs, who long ago symbolically presented a copy of the first (Christ). And when as Captain of the Angels He heads them (Rev. 19:11-19), He is called: “The Angel of Great Counsel (Isaiah 9:6 LXX),” and as Leader of the Armies of Heaven: “Captain of the Host of the Lord (Joshua 5:13-15).”
Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 4 Ch. 17
From Exodus. How Jesus, the Successor of Moses, called the Angel, and about to be the Leader of the People, is said to bear the Name of Christ. “20. And behold, I send my angel before thy face, that he may keep thee in the way, that he may bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Take heed to thyself and hearken unto him and disobey him not; for he will not give way to thee, for my name is upon him (Exodus 23:20-21).”
Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 10
That the same Prophet shews more clearly in the Matter of Jacob the said Person to be Lord, Whom also He calls God, and an Angel of God Most High, in addressing Him. THIS Being who here answers him at such length, you will find, if you read on, to be Lord and God, and the Angel of God, from the words Jacob himself says to his wives: “And the angel of the Lord said to me in sleep, Jacob. And I said, Here am I.” And also: “I have seen, he says, all that Laban doeth to thee. I am the God, that was seen of thee in the place where thou anointedst the pillar for me, and offeredst prayer to me.”
Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 10
Therefore He that said before, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father, and the God of Isaac, to whom godly Jacob raises the pillar, was indeed God and Lord: for we must believe that which He Himself says. Not of course the Almighty, but the Second to Him, Who ministers for His Father among men, and brings His Word. Wherefore Jacob here calls Him an Angel: “The Angel of God said to me, speaking in my sleep, ‘ I am the God who was seen by thee in this place.’ ” So the same Being is clearly called the Angel of the Lord, and God and Lord in this place. And by Isaiah the Prophet he is called “Angel of Great Counsel,” as well as God and Ruler and Potentate, where His Incarnation is prophesied in the words: “For unto us a child is born, and to us a son is given, on whose shoulder shall be the rule, and his name shall be called the Angel of Great Counsel, Prince of Peace, the Mighty God, the Potentate, the Father of the Age to Come.”
Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 13
..clearly shewing that the Almighty God Himself, Who is One, was not seen in His own Person; and that He did not give answers to the fathers, as He did to Moses by an angel, or a fire, or a bush, but “as a sufficient God”: so that the Father was seen by the fathers through the Son, according to His saying in the Gospels, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.” For the knowledge of the Father was revealed in Him and by Him. But in cases when He appeared to save men, He was seen in the human form of the Son,..
Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 15
That it was not an Angel, who gave Answers to Moses, but Some One More Excellent than an Angel. IT will be plain to all that these could not be the words of a mere angel of God. But of what God could they be, but of the One seen by the forefathers, whom Jacob clearly called the Angel of God? And He we know was the Word of God, being called both the Servant of God, and God Himself and Lord.
Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 19
So, then, the command that was given shews that the God Who answered on both occasions was one and the same. Though here He prophesies through the Chief and Captain of His power, and to Moses by the vision of the angel… …what other could be highest of all but the Word of God, His Firstborn Wisdom, His Divine Offspring? Rightly, then, He is here called Chief Captain of the Power of the Lord, as also elsewhere “Angel of Great Counsel,” “Throned with the Father,” “Eternal and Great High Priest.” And it has been proved that the same Being is both Lord and God, and Christ anointed by the Father with the oil of gladness.
Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 28
THIS, too, is like the former prophecies. For the Lord God Himself, the Almighty, says that a Lord will come in His own temple, speaking of another: And He surely means God the Word. And after this also He names Him “the Angel of the Covenant (Malachi 3:1)” of Whom, too, Almighty God teaches that He will Him send forth before His face, saying, “Behold, I send forth my angel before my face.” And this same Being, Whom He has called “My angel,” He calls Lord directly after, and adds, “The Lord shall suddenly come, and the Angel of the Covenant (Malachi 3:1).”
Eusebius’ The Proof of the Gospel Book 5 Ch. 29
HE that has often been named Lord, and God, and Angel, and Chief Captain, Christ and Priest, and Word and Wisdom of God, and Image, this same Being is now called Sun of Righteousness. And we see that the Father that begat Him proclaims that He will rise not on all, but only on those that fear His Name, giving them the light of the Sun of Righteousness as a reward for their fear. He, then, must be God the Word, Who said, “I am the Light of the world”; for He was “the light that lighteth every man coming into the world.”
Eusebius’ “Preparation for the Gospel” Book 7 Ch. 15
“And this Beginning is before all originate things which followed, on which account also they are wont to call it the Image of God, and Power of God, and Wisdom of God, and Word of God, nay further the Great ‘Captain of the host of the Lord,’ and ‘Angel of the great Counsel.’”
Origen (184-253 A.D.)
(Was a student of Hippolytus of Rome, the student of Irenaeus of Lyons, the student of Polycarp of Smyrna, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself).
Contra Celsum Book 5 Ch. 53
And this was the work of one who, as the prophecy regarding Him said, was not simply an angel, but the Angel of the great counsel: for He announced to men the great counsel of the God and Father of all things regarding them, (saying) of those who yield themselves up to a life of pure religion,
Contra Celsum Book 5 Ch. 58
I do not speak of the desire of those who conspired against the Word, and who wished to put Him to death, and to show to all men that He was dead and non-existent, that His tomb should not be opened, in order that no one might behold the Word alive after their conspiracy; but the Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men, with the help of another angel, proved more powerful than the conspirators, and rolled away the weighty stone, that those who deemed the Word to be dead might be convinced that He is not with the departed, but is alive, and precedes those who are willing to follow Him, that He may manifest to them those truths which come after those which He formerly showed them at the time of their first entrance (into the school of Christianity), when they were as yet incapable of receiving deeper instruction.
Contra Celsum Book 8 Ch. 27
“He who by his piety possesses the favour of the Most High, who has accepted the guidance of Jesus, the Angel of the great counsel, being well contented with the favour of God through Christ Jesus, may say with confidence that he has nothing to suffer from the whole host of demons.”
Contra Celsum Book 8 Ch. 34
“Jesus has taught us not to despise even the little ones in His Church, saying, Their angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in heaven. And the prophet says, The Angel of the Lord encamps round about them that fear Him, and delivers them (Psalms 34:7).”
Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-270 A.D.)
Gregory Thaumaturgus’ “Symposium Book 3 Ch. 4
“Christ Himself became the very same thing, because the Eternal Word fell upon Him. For it was fitting that the first-born of God, the first shoot, the only-begotten, even the wisdom of God, should be joined to the first-formed man, and first and first-born of mankind, and should become incarnate. And this was Christ, a man filled with the pure and perfect Godhead, and God received into man. For it was most suitable that the oldest of the Æons and the first of the Archangels, when about to hold communion with men,”
Athanasius of Alexandria (293-373 A.D.)
Against the Arians Discourse 3 Ch. 25
“yet none of created and natural Angels did he join to God their Creator, nor rejecting God that fed him, did he from Angel ask the blessing on his grandsons; but in saying, ‘Who delivered me from all evil (Gen. 48:15-16),’ he showed that it was no created Angel, but the Word of God, whom he joined to the Father in his prayer, through whom, whomsoever He will, God does deliver. For knowing that He is also called the Father’s ‘Angel of great Counsel”
Against the Arians Discourse 3 Ch. 30
“He here has altered the terms and said, ‘Mine is understanding’ and ‘Mine strength,’ so while He says, ‘Mine is counsel,’ He must Himself be the Living Counsel of the Father; as we have learned from the Prophet also, that He becomes ‘the Angel of great Counsel Isaiah 9:6,’”
St. Hilary of Poitiers (315-368 A.D.)
To discriminate clearly between the Persons, He is called the Angel of God; He Who is God from God is also the Angel of God, but, that He may have the honour which is His due, He is entitled also Lord and God. -On the Trinity IV
Novations’ Apostolic Constitutions (Between 375 & 390 A.D.)
Apostolic Constitutions Ch. 16:
the prophecies which were written concerning Him. For that He was to be born of a virgin, they read this prophecy:.. and His name is called the Angel of His Great Council (Isaiah 9:6 LXX), the Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Potentate,..
Ch. 20:
Ezekiel also, and the following prophets, affirm everywhere that He is the Christ, the Lord, the King, the Judge, the Lawgiver, the Angel of the Father, the only-begotten God. Him therefore do we also preach to you, and declare Him to be God the Word, who ministered to His God and Father for the creation of the universe. By believing in Him you shall live, but by disbelieving you shall be punished.
Gregory Nyssa (335-394 A.D.)
Gregory of Nyssa’s “Against Eunomius” Book 11 Ch. 3
“Who, by being called ‘Angel,’ clearly showed by Whom He published His words, and Who is the Existent, while by being addressed also as God, He showed His superiority over all things. For He Who is the God of all things that were made by Him, is the Angel of the God over all.”
Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius Book 11 Ch. 3
“He Who sent Moses was the Existent Himself, but He by Whom He sent and spoke was the Angel of the Existent, and the God of all else.”
Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius Book 11 Ch. 3
“For we too say plainly, that the prophet, wishing to make manifest to men the mystery concerning Christ, called the Self-Existent Angel,..”
Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius Book 11 Ch. 3
“But just as our word is the revealer and messenger (or angel) of the movements of the mind, even so we affirm that the true Word that was in the beginning, when He announces the will of His own Father, is styled Angel (or Messenger), a title given to Him on account of the operation of conveying the message. And as the sublime John, having previously called Him Word, so introduces the further truth that the Word was God, that our thoughts might not at once turn to the Father, as they would have done if the title of God had been put first, so too does the mighty Moses, after first calling Him Angel, teach us in the words that follow that He is none other than the Self-Existent Himself, that the mystery concerning the Christ might be foreshown, by the Scripture assuring us by the name Angel, that the Word is the interpreter of the Father’s will, and, by the title of the Self-Existent, of the closeness of relation subsisting between the Son and the Father. And if he should bring forward Isaiah also as calling Him the Angel of mighty counsel”
Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius Book 11 Ch. 3
“For as the Angel (or Messenger) gives information from some one, even so the Word reveals the thought within, the Seal shows by Its own stamp the original mould, and the Image by Itself interprets the beauty of that whereof It is the image, so that in their signification all these terms are equivalent to one another. For this reason the title Angel is placed before that of the Self-Existent, the Son being termed Angel as the exponent of His Father’s will, and the Existent as having no name that could possibly give a knowledge of His essence, but transcending all the power of names to express.”
Ambrose of Milan (340-397 A.D.)
Ambrose’s Exposition of the Christian Faith Book 1 Ch. 13
“The heathen king saw in the fire, together with the three Hebrew children, the form of a fourth, like as of an angel, (Daniel 3:25) and because he thought that this angel excelled all angels, he judged Him to be the Son of God, Whom he had not read of, but in Whom he believed.
Ambrose’s Exposition of the Christian Faith Book 1 Ch. 13
“He, therefore, Who said, This is My Son, said not, This is a creature of time, nor This being is of My creation, My making, My servant, but This is My Son, Whom you see glorified. This is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, Who appeared to Moses in the bush, (Exodus 3:14) concerning Whom Moses says, He Who is has sent me. It was not the Father Who spoke to Moses in the bush or in the desert, but the Son. It was of this Moses that Stephen said, This is he who was in the church, in the wilderness, with the Angel (Acts 7:38). This, then, is He Who gave the Law, Who spoke with Moses, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob. This, then, is the God of the patriarchs, this is the God of the prophets.”
Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457 A.D.)
The whole passage (Exodus 3) shows that it was God who appeared to Moses. But Moses called Him an “angel” in order to let us know that it was not God the Father whom he saw — for whose angel could the Father be? — but the Only-begotten Son, the Angel of Great Counsel.”
“IN HIM ALL THINGS WERE CREATED” (COLOSSIANS 1:16)
Colossians 1 presents a theologically rich confession of Christ as the maker and sustainer of all things:
The Father rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, things seen and unseen, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and all things hold together in him. (Col. 1:13–17 EHV)
In this passage, Paul undeniably uses the specific language of creation: “. . . the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth . . .” (Col. 1:15–16 NIV). Note the following four elements in this short span of text:
• A reference to “all creation” (1:15)
• An immediately following use of the verb “were created” (ektisthē)
• The conventional expression “all things” (ta panta) standard in Hellenistic Jewish usage for the entirety of creation
• The stock Old Testament way of referring to the created world as encompassing both heaven and earth (starting of course in Gen. 1:1; see Exod. 20:11; Neh. 9:6; Ps. 115:15; Prov. 3:19; Isa. 37:16; Zech. 12:1; also Acts 4:24; Rev. 14:7)
Any one of these four elements in another context might have a different reference; however, integrated into one statement, they can plausibly be understood only to refer to the original creation of the world. James Dunn, who on other grounds argues against Christ’s preexistence in this passage, agrees that ta panta here denotes “everything, the universe, the totality of created entities . . . including, as the appended phrases make clear, everything within that totality.”36
Colossians 1 speaks not just of the Son’s role in the initial creation but also of his sustaining all things: “in him all things hold together” (1:17). The word translated “hold together” (sunestēken, a perfect active indicative form of sunistēmi) is one of several words that C. John Collins has shown were used more or less interchangeably in ancient Greek philosophy and in Hellenistic Jewish texts to express the idea that the cosmos was held together by God, the Logos, or Wisdom.37 The first-century BC work De Mundo said that “all things [panta] are from God and hold together [sunestēken] for us through God” (397b, 14–15).38 Although De Mundo espoused a pagan view of the divine, the obvious similarity of this statement to Colossians 1:17b (even using the same form of the verb) is instructive for understanding what the word meant in this sort of “cosmic” context. Likewise, in the first century AD, the Jewish philosopher Philo wrote that nothing can “hold together” (sustēnai, the aorist active infinitive form of sunistēmi) apart from God (Mos. 2.132; see also Josephus, Ant. 12.22).
Similar statements using synonymous verbs occur in Jewish wisdom literature. Sirach (second century BC) says that “by his word all things hold together [sugkeitai ta panta]” (Sir. 43:26 NRSV). The phrase “by his word” translates en logō autou, literally “in his word,” making the parallel to Colossians 1:17b (“in him,” en autō) all the more striking. Wisdom (first century BC), also called the Wisdom of Solomon, states:
For wisdom is a kindly spirit,
but it will not free blasphemers from the guilt of their words . . .
the spirit of the Lord has filled the world
and that which holds all things together [to sunechon ta panta]
knows what is said. (Wis. 1:6–7 NRSV)
The words “that which holds together” (to sunechon) likely refer to “the spirit [pneuma] of the Lord,” since both expressions are grammatically neuter, rather than to “wisdom,” which in Greek is a feminine noun (sophia). Yet wisdom and spirit are intimately connected here; indeed, wisdom is called a “spirit” in the immediate context. Jewish texts could speak of God, his word, his wisdom, or his spirit “holding together” the universe (“all things”). In Colossians 1:17b, Paul credits the Father’s “beloved Son” (1:12–13) with this divine work of holding all things together. What Hellenistic Jewish thinkers said about God’s word or wisdom (generally thought of as an aspect of God’s own being), Paul says directly and explicitly about a person, God’s Son.
As in Romans 11:36 and 1 Corinthians 8:6, in Colossians 1:16 Paul employs the prepositional metaphysic language he picked up from Hellenistic Jewish adaptation of Greek philosophical discourse: “In him [en autō] all things were created . . . all things have been created through him [di’ autou] and for him [eis auton]” (Col. 1:16 NIV). As in Romans 11:36, Paul speaks of “all things” (ta panta) and uses three prepositional phrases with the personal pronoun, and two of these are identical to those in Romans 11:36 (di’ autou . . . eis auton). Yet here the person credited with these divine roles in making and sustaining all things is the Father’s beloved Son. We should interpret these two prepositional phrases in Colossians 1:16 to have the same meaning as in Romans 11:36, that he is the agent and goal of all creation:
Romans 11:36 Colossians 1:16
For from him [ex autou] and through him [di’ autou] and for him [eis auton] all things [ta panta] In him [en autō] all things [ta panta] were created . . . all things [ta panta] were created through him [di’ autou] and for him [eis autou]
Paul also says that all things were created “in him,” that is, in the Son. Commentators have offered a variety of explanations of the phrase en autō, which occurs three times in quick succession in this passage (Col. 1:16, 17, 19). In the immediate context, this phrase parallels Paul’s frequent expression “in Christ” (and equivalents), which typically conveys the idea of dependence on Christ for salvation (Col. 1:2, 4, 14, 28; 2:3, 6–7, 10–12). We might also compare Colossians 1:16 with another threefold description of God as Creator and Sustainer, this one in Paul’s speech in Athens: “In him [en autō] we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).
What Paul says about Christ as the preexistent agent (Col. 1:16) and present sustainer (1:17) of creation is difficult to explain away. In his commentary on Colossians, James Dunn expresses as well as anyone the most common theory to circumvent the conclusion that Paul regarded Christ as eternal deity. Regarding verse 16, he writes:
What does such language mean when applied to Messiah Jesus? Not, presumably, that the Christ known to his followers during his ministry in Palestine was as such God’s agent in creation; in the first century no less than the twentieth that would be to read imaginative metaphor in a pedantically literal way. It must mean rather that that powerful action of God, expressed by the metaphor of the female Wisdom, in and through whom the universe came into being, is now to be seen as embodied in Christ, its character now made clear by the light of his cross and resurrection (1:18, 20).39
Dunn’s argument here is question-begging in the extreme, as such language as “presumably” and “it must mean” lets slip. The whole point of the New Testament is that “the Christ known to his followers during his ministry in Palestine” turned out to be much more than they had known at that time. The Gospels themselves make this point repeatedly, as does Paul himself (2 Cor. 5:16). The historic, traditional Christian reading of Colossians 1 and of the other passages we are discussing here is not “pedantically literal,” since that reading fully recognizes the use of such metaphorical language as “firstborn” and “head of the body” (Col. 1:15, 18). Paul could easily have said something like what Dunn claims he meant, but he did not. The term “wisdom” does not even appear in the passage. Paul does use the word elsewhere in the epistle, but never in a cosmic or creational sense (1:9, 28; 2:3, 23; 3:16; 4:5). Nor does he use it in such a sense in any of its other twenty-two occurrences in his epistles (Rom. 11:33; 1 Cor. 1:17–2:13; 3:19; 12:8; 2 Cor. 1:12; Eph. 1:8, 17; 3:10).
Dunn labors especially hard to account for the statement that “in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). He frames the problem as a choice between two extreme ways of reading the text: “This is not the language of clinical analysis but of poetic imagination,”40 and since it cannot be the former (which no one claims) it must be the latter. Dunn reasons that the statement affirms that “the wisdom which holds the universe together is most clearly to be recognized in its distinctive character by reference to Christ.” He concludes that Paul means “that the fundamental rationale of the world is ‘caught’ more in the generous outpouring of sacrificial, redemptive love (1:14) than in the greed and grasping more characteristic of ‘the authority of darkness (1:12).”41 It’s a nice thought, but it’s not a plausible interpretation of what “in him all things hold together” means. Had Paul said that in God “all things hold together,” no one would question that Paul credited God with providing the stable order and coherence of the cosmos. What shocks many people to this day is that Paul says this about Jesus.
“ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING THROUGH HIM” (JOHN 1:3)
John’s prologue not only calls Christ “God” (John 1:1, 18), it contains two explicit affirmations of Christ’s role in creation:
All things [panta] came into being through Him [di’ autou], and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him [en autō] was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it.
. . . He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him [di’ autou], and yet the world did not know him. (John 1:3–5, 10 NASB)
Interestingly, John uses two of the three prepositional phrases found in Colossians 1:16 (“through him” and “in him”). Evidently such prepositional metaphysics very quickly became stock ways of expressing Christ’s relation to the universe as its maker and sustainer.
Most English versions reflect the traditional interpretation of John 1:3, whether they say that all things “came into being” (CEB, LEB, NASB, NJB, NRSV), “were made” (ESV, NIV, NKJV), or “were created” (CSB, NET). Nearly all commentators and other scholars agree with this interpretation. The most notable exception is John Ashton, a Johannine scholar who argues that the Greek verb egeneto does not mean “were made” or “were created” and should be translated “happened” or “came to pass.” Ashton also points out that John uses the word panta without the article, rather than ta panta, the usual wording when referring to creation as “all things.” He acknowledges that the opening words of John 1:1, “In the beginning” (en archē), allude to Genesis 1:1, but he maintains this is the only allusion to Genesis 1, and therefore an insufficient basis for reading John 1:3 as referring to creation. Combining this exegesis with an impersonal interpretation of the Logos, Ashton paraphrases John 1:3–4 as follows:
From the very beginning God held his thought (the Logos) close to him, and his thought was a facet of his divinity. All human history, every single thing that has ever happened, took place through the mediation of the Logos, but what has come about in the Logos (that is, the special events of God’s intervention on behalf of his people), this was life, a life that it was God’s prerogative to bestow, a life that was also light—illumination and revelation.42
Ashton’s arguments may offer some valid qualifications to the standard interpretation of John 1:3, but they do not overturn it. As Ashton himself acknowledges,43 the statement just a few verses later that “the world came into being [egeneto] through Him” (1:10 NASB) must refer to or at least include the original creation. Moreover, contrary to Ashton’s claim, there are multiple allusions in John 1:1–5 to Genesis 1:1–5:
• The opening words of the two books are the same, “In the beginning” (en archē, Gen. 1:1 LXX; John 1:1).
• Both texts repeatedly use the same common divine title “God” (theos, six times in Gen. 1:1–5; three times in John 1:1–2).
• The term “Word” (ho logos, John 1:1, 14) alludes to God speaking to perform his creative acts (Gen. 1:3, etc.), an allusion made explicit in later texts, e.g., “By the word [tō logō] of the Lord the heavens were made firm. . . . Because it was he that spoke, and they came to be [egenēthēsan]” (Ps. 32:6a, 9a NETS [33:6a, 9a]; see also 2 Peter 3:5).
• The verb egeneto occurs repeatedly in Genesis 1, including in the first of those creative acts: “And God said, ‘Let light come into being [genēthētō].’44 And light came into being [egeneto]” (Gen. 1:3 LES). Although the other occurrences of egeneto in Genesis 1 LXX have a different sense (especially in the refrain “and there was [egeneto] evening and there was [egeneto] morning”), in Genesis 1:3 the verb clearly denotes creation. Moreover, the passage ends (or the next major unit begins) with the word again denoting creation: “This is the book of the origin of the heavens and the earth, when they came into being [egeneto], on the day when the Lord God made the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 2:4 LES; cf. Ps. 32:9a quoted above).
• Both passages draw a sharp contrast between “the light,” to phōs, and “the darkness,” to skotos (Gen. 1:3–5; John 1:4–5).
These parallels taken cumulatively prove that creation is a dominant theme throughout John 1:1–5. However, Ashton raises a legitimate question about John’s use of panta without the article, since Jewish and Christian works in Greek most commonly use the article ta with panta when referring to creation (not always, e.g., Isa. 44:24 LXX; Philo, Opif. 28; Josephus, J.W. 5.218). It may be, as many commentators have suggested, that John omits the article to express the idea that every individual thing came into being through the Word, rather than simply the universe as a whole.45 Perhaps John uses panta to refer to everything that has come to be, not just the “creation” of the world and the objects in it but also the events in history. Ashton interprets John 1:3 to refer to God’s activity through the Word “starting, of course, from the creation,” including Israel’s history “right up to the Incarnation.”46 The translation of egeneto as “came to be” (CJB, NABRE) captures this wider sense that includes the ideas of things being made and events happening. Read this way, John 1:3 attributes to the Word’s agency not just the initial creation of the world but the divine work of providence—sustaining the world and making possible everything that happens in it—as well as the “new creation” work of bringing life and light to the world (see 1:4–5, 9). It is a sobering thought that even those people who reject Jesus Christ owe their very existence to him (1:10).
“THROUGH WHOM ALSO HE MADE THE WORLD” (HEBREWS 1:2)
Like John 1, Hebrews 1 contains two statements about Christ’s role in creation, the first in its introductory statement about the Son (Heb. 1:1–3) and the second in its quotation from Psalm 102 (Heb. 1:10–12):
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.
. . . And,
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the works of Your hands;
They will perish, but You remain;
And they all will wear out like a garment,
And like a robe You will roll them up;
Like a garment they will also be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not come to an end.” [Ps. 102:25–27] (Heb. 1:1–3, 10–12 NASB)47
The statement that God made the world through his Son (1:2) is supported later with a quotation from Psalm 102:25–27 that begins, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands” (Heb. 1:10 NIV, quoting Ps. 101:26 LXX). Here we find in Hebrews 1:1–2 the common title “God” for the Creator and the common verb “made” (epoiēsen) for God’s creative work, and in 1:10 a reference to “the beginning,” “the earth,” and “the heavens,” all of which are quoted from the Psalm and which also occur in Genesis 1:1. One could hardly ask for more.
An analysis of the whole passage confirms that the quotation from Psalm 102 is meant to provide scriptural support for the statement that it was through the Son that God made the world (Heb. 1:2).48 It turns out that all of the Old Testament quotations in Hebrews 1:5–13 offer such support for the statements about the Son in the opening lines (1:1–3), and in the same order, as Table 19 shows (with 1:4 a summary “thesis” that all the quotations support).49
Table 19. Affirmation and Proof in Hebrews 1
Affirmation (1:1–3 NRSV) Old Testament Proof (1:5–13 NRSV)
God . . . has spoken to us by a Son (1:1–2a). For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”? (v. 5, quoting Ps. 2:7; 2 Sam. 7:14).
whom he appointed heir of all things (1:2b) And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him” (v. 6, quoting Deut. 32:43/ Ps. 97:7).
through whom he also created the worlds (1:2c) And, “In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands” (v. 10, quoting Ps. 102:25).
He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word (1:3a). “They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like clothing; like a cloak you will roll them up, and like clothing they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never end” (vv. 11–12, quoting Ps. 102:26–27).
When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (1:3b). And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? (v. 13, quoting Ps. 110:1).
Despite the clarity of the passage, Unitarians generally dispute that Hebrews 1 refers to the original creation of the world. We quoted earlier Kegan Chandler’s comment that in Hebrews 1:2 the Son is “the one through whom God has established the new age after Christ’s resurrection.”50 Anthony Buzzard devotes a seven-page appendix in one of his books to the problem. He speculates (offering no evidence in support) that Hebrews 1:2 “could refer to future ages, or it may refer to Jesus being the reason for God’s creation of everything.” His main focus is on Hebrews 1:10, which he says refers to “the new political order of the age to come.” In support of this explanation, Buzzard cites the later reference to “the world to come, of which we are speaking” (2:5).51
The term translated “world(s)” (ESV, NASB, NET, NRSV) or “universe” (NABRE, NIV, NLT) in Hebrews 1:2 differs from the word in Hebrews 2:5, oikoumenē, which generally denotes the human world, “the inhabited earth.”52 The writer used this word when he said that God commanded the angels to worship the Son when he brought him “into the world” (1:6). Interpreters have understood this statement to refer either to the inhabited earth (at Christ’s first coming in the incarnation), the heavenly realm (at Christ’s ascension), or the future inhabited realm of the new heavens and new earth (at Christ’s second coming).53 In any case, oikoumenē designates an inhabited realm of some kind, a world system. As F. F. Bruce comments, the “world” in 2:5 “is the new world-order inaugurated by the enthronement of Christ at the right hand of God.”54 When the writer refers to “the world to come, of which we are speaking,” he is referring broadly to the new system being brought about by Christ’s death, resurrection, and exaltation to the throne of God. Elsewhere he calls this forthcoming new world, already inaugurated but not fully consummated, as “the age to come” (6:5) and “the city that is to come” (13:14).
Hebrews 1:2, on the other hand, says that God made tous aiōnas through the Son. This term, which literally means “the ages,” refers unmistakably to the original creation later in the same epistle: “By faith we understand that the worlds [tous aiōnas] were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made out of things which are visible” (11:3 NKJV). The position of this statement at the head of a recitation of the faith of Old Testament saints leading with Abel, Enoch, and Noah (11:4–7, cf. Genesis 4–9) makes it quite certain that the original creation (Genesis 1–2) is meant. This later usage confirms that the original creation is also in view in Hebrews 1:2, whether we translate tous aiōnas as “the universe” (CSB, ESV, NABRE, NIV, NLT), “the world” (CEV, NASB), or “the worlds” (LEB, NET, NKJV, NRSV). If we use the literal translation, “the ages” would include not just “the age to come” (6:5) or “the world to come” (2:5), as Unitarians would have it, but all ages. (Buzzard and Chandler take no notice of the relevance of Hebrews 11:3 to the meaning of 1:2.) Most interpreters, however, argue that in this unusual usage in Hebrews 1:2 and 11:3 the author is referring to the whole universe both temporally and spatially.55 We might express the idea with a paraphrase such as “the temporal realm” to accentuate the temporal denotation of the term while making clear that in context it encompasses the whole of creation. Thus, while the world of redeemed humanity to come that Christ came to inaugurate is the epistle’s major theme, it presents Christ as the Son who was also responsible for bringing the present world or age into existence.
The application of Psalm 102:25 to the Son in Hebrews 1:10 is especially challenging for views that deny that Christ created the world. Buzzard’s claim that Hebrews 1:10 refers to “the new political order of the age to come” might have had more plausibility had the verse used the word oikoumenē, which as we saw usually referred to the world of humanity. Indeed, oikoumenē could refer to the Roman Empire (e.g., Luke 2:1), the political order that dominated much of the known human world in the first century. Instead, Hebrews 1:10, quoting Psalm 102:25, uses standard Jewish language for the creation of the universe. The language of “founding” is standard biblical rhetoric for God’s work as Creator (Job 38:4; Pss. 8:3; 24:1–2; 78:69; 89:11; 104:5; 119:90; Prov. 3:19; 8:29; Isa. 40:21; 48:13; 51:13, 16; Amos 9:6; Zech. 12:1). The parallel description of creation as “the work of your hands” is also language used elsewhere of God’s work in creation (Ps. 8:6; Isa. 64:8; cf. Isa. 40:12) and more broadly of all that God does (e.g., Pss. 28:5; 92:4; 111:7; 138:8; 143:5; Isa. 45:11). Notably, these two descriptions of God’s work, found in parallel lines in Psalm 102:25, are especially prevalent elsewhere in the Psalms. Put these two stock expressions together with “the earth” and “the heavens” as the result of this activity (also common in the Psalms, see 78:69; 89:11; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 146:6), and Hebrews 1:10 credits the Son with the work of creation as explicitly as biblical language allows.
One other statement in Hebrews 1 demands our attention. After stating that God made the ages or worlds through the Son (1:2), the author asserts also that the Son “upholds all things by the word of His power” (1:3 NASB). The word translated “upholds” (pherōn) means that the Son bears, supports, or sustains all things—and again “all things” (ta panta) refers to everything in creation. Whereas in Colossians 1:17 Paul states that Christ “holds together” all things, the writer of Hebrews states that Christ “holds up” all things. As shown previously, the author cites Psalm 102:26–27 in support of this point. The earth and the heavens are perishing and wearing out; but the Son, as the Lord who made it, will change them, while he remains ever the same (Heb. 1:11–12).
The Son performs this work of sustaining all things “by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3), which we might more idiomatically translate “by his powerful word.” Whether we understand “his” (autou) here to refer back to God (1:1) or to the Son himself, the text explicitly attributes to the Son the work of wielding the divine, powerful word in sustaining all things. The Jewish wisdom book Sirach had stated that “by his word,” that is, by God’s word, “all things hold together” (Sir. 43:26). This was the standard Jewish position; and it is in that theological milieu that Hebrews asserts that the Son sustains all things by the divine word.
THE WORK OF THE FATHER AND THE SON IN CREATION
All four passages we have examined in this chapter credit the Son, the preincarnate Jesus Christ, with the divine works of making and sustaining the universe. As we also saw, the New Testament repeatedly acknowledges God as Maker and Sustainer of all things. Remarkably, the New Testament uses much the same language for the roles of both the Father and the Son in these divine works (see Table 20).
Table 20. Roles of the Father and the Son in Creation
God (the Father) The Lord Jesus (the Son)
ek (ex): “from” Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; 11:12; cf. 2 Cor. 5:18
dia (di’) + genitive: “through” Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10 John 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2
en: “in” Acts 17:28; Eph. 3:9 Col. 1:16; cf. John 1:4
eis: “for” Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6 Col. 1:16
It is true that the New Testament never says that all things are “from” (ek) the Son. On this basis, Jehovah’s Witnesses and occasionally others argue that the Son plays an inferior, subservient role in the work of creation.56 This particular wording occurs only a few times, however, in the entire New Testament with reference to all things in creation coming from God or the Father (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; 11:12; cf. 2 Cor. 5:18). The absence of this wording with reference to Jesus is therefore too slender an argument from silence to prove any inferiority of the Son’s role in creation.
Some sort of “economic” distinction between the roles of the Father and the Son (as well as the Holy Spirit) in creation is consistent with both Scripture and the historic doctrine of the Trinity. Many if not most orthodox Christian theologians would say that there is a sense in which God the Father uniquely is the Source of all things. Yet any such distinction falls short of implying that the Son performs an inferior role. We have already shown that the prepositional phrases Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:16 closely parallel Romans 11:36, where those phrases all refer to God. The issue here is not merely the use of this or that preposition or their lexical meanings, but the use of such phrases as “prepositional metaphysics” in the context of statements about the dependence of the universe on its Creator and Sustainer.
Finally, we should recall that in the broader theological context of biblical, Jewish thought, Yahweh is the sole Maker and Sustainer of all things (Neh. 9:6; Isa. 37:16; 44:24). In this context, it is simply not coherent to regard the Son as a created, angelic being who performed the work of making the universe on behalf of his own Creator. Given that the Son participates in creating and providentially sustaining all things, he must be no less than Yahweh himself.
THE FATHER IS “THE ONLY TRUE GOD” (JOHN 17:3)
In a lengthy prayer after the Last Supper, Jesus opened with these words: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you” (John 17:1b).
The Father had given the Son “authority over all flesh” with regard to the giving of eternal life (John 17:2), so that eternal life is dependent on our knowing both the Father and the Son (John 17:3).
The earthly phase of Jesus’ mission is all but complete and the Father has been glorified in all that Jesus has done (v. 4).
“Now” Jesus asks the Father to see to it that both of them are glorified, as Jesus, through his death and resurrection, is about to return to the Father (see John 13:3; 16:28).
In this context Jesus prays, “So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed” (John 17:5 NRSV).
The Father and the Son are two divine persons who seek to glorify each other, who are the source of eternal life to those who know them, and who shared divine glory even before creation (see pp. 237–45 for discussion of these texts).
Answering Critics’ Use of John 17:3 Against the Deity of Christ
Despite the rich implications of this passage for the deity of Christ, most non-Trinitarians think that John 17:3 is proof that the Father alone, and not Jesus Christ, is God in the full sense: “And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (NRSV).
They argue that this text clearly denies that Jesus Christ is the true God.
For example, Unitarian author Anthony Buzzard cites John 17:3 more than any other biblical text in his main book critiquing the doctrine of the Trinity (some twenty-five different pages throughout his book).11
Shabir Ally, though recognizing that the Gospel of John teaches that Christ existed as a heavenly figure prior to the creation of the world, cites John 17:3 three times as a proof text against the deity of Christ.12
Nabeel Qureshi, a convert from Islam to Christianity, recalls that John 17:3 was one of his favorite proof texts against Christianity when he was a Muslim. It seemed to him at the time to make a confession parallel to the shahada, the first pillar of Islam: “There is no god but Allah [God], and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah [God].”13
The seeming parallel between John 17:3 and the shahada is more a similarity in form than in substance, though both statements affirm a form of monotheism. Rodney Whitacre’s comment is especially on target:
Both religions claim to honor the only true God, a theme from the Old Testament as well (e.g., Ex 34:6 LXX; Isa 37:20), and both speak of the great revealer of God. But they differ radically in what is said of this revealer. Jesus is a prophet—indeed, the revealer of God par excellence. But this verse, in keeping with the whole of this Gospel, says Jesus is far more than just a prophet. For eternal life is not just a knowledge of God as revealed by the Son; it includes a knowledge of the Son himself.14
Simply reading John 17:3 in its immediate context amply confirms Whitacre’s point. Jesus refers to himself as “the Son” twice at the beginning of his prayer (v. 1) and addresses his prayer to the “Father” twice in the immediate context (vv. 1, 5) as well as four times more in the rest of the prayer (vv. 11, 21, 24, 25). He says that the Father gave him authority over all humanity (v. 2) and that eternal life “is” knowing the Father and him (v. 3). One can hardly imagine a prayer by Jesus more contrary to Muslim beliefs.
The affirmation that eternal life consists in knowing the Father and Jesus Christ is quite startling if Christ is just a creature, no matter how great a creature. Eternal life is all about knowing God—that is, about having a relationship with him in which we enjoy life with him forever. John 17:3 gives an expanded statement of this truth—without changing it—to say that eternal life consists in knowing both the Father and Jesus Christ.
Although critics claim that John 17:3 disproves the doctrine of the Trinity, in actuality what John 17:3 says is perfectly consistent with it. The fact is that the doctrine of the Trinity affirms that the Father is the only true God. This is not a concession—it is an essential element of the doctrine.
After all, if there is only one true God, and the Father is really God, then the Father must be that God—that is, the only true God. It is also perfectly consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity to affirm that the Father sent Jesus Christ. Thus, the verse can be analyzed as expressing the following three propositions:
1. Eternal life consists in knowing the Father and Jesus Christ.
2. The Father is the only true God.
3. The Father sent Jesus Christ.
Orthodox Christianity agrees with all three of these statements; indeed, it insists on the truth of all three statements. So, what’s the problem?
First, those who deny the deity of Christ argue that the words “you, the only true God,” spoken to the Father, identify the Father exclusively as the true God. Although this interpretation seems like common sense to the point of obviousness to non-Trinitarians, from a Trinitarian perspective their argument misreads the text.
There is an important, if subtle, difference between saying that only the Father is the true God (to the exclusion of the Son) and saying that the Father is the only true God. John 17:3 says the latter, not the former. Unfortunately, the New English Bible (NEB) mistranslates the line as “to know thee who alone art truly God.”15 John 17:3 does not say, as Ally, for example, claims, that “the Father alone is the only true God.”16
Here’s why this difference is significant. If we knew in advance that the true God is unipersonal (a singular, undifferentiated divine person), then it would follow from what John 17:3 says that the Father alone, to the exclusion of the Son (or the Holy Spirit), is the only true God.
However, that is precisely what is at issue here! In short, anti-Trinitarians are assuming that the doctrine of the Trinity is false when they infer from John 17:3 that Christ is not the true God.
Second, non-Trinitarians claim that the sentence in John 17:3 creates a disjunction between “the only true God” and “Jesus Christ,” implying that Jesus Christ is not the only true God. But this is not quite correct.
John 17:3 does distinguish between the Father (“you”) and “the one whom you have sent” (named in the text as “Jesus Christ”). This distinction does militate against the Oneness view, according to which Jesus Christ is the Father incarnate. On the other hand, the text does not clearly assert that Jesus Christ is not the true God. Although this idea may seem a reasonable inference from the text, it is not required by the text, nor is it consistent with the rest of what John teaches about Christ.
Throughout this chapter we have emphasized that Jesus, the incarnate Son, spoke of the Father as God and humbly acknowledged his dependence on the Father. John 17:3 must be understood in this context.
Christ’s affirmation that the Father was “the only true God” was an expression of honor made in the context of the Son’s humility in becoming a man for the Father’s glory. We are not reading into the passage this idea of Jesus being humble; the idea is explicit in the immediate context.
Jesus immediately goes on to affirm that he had devoted his time on earth to glorifying the Father (v. 4) and to ask the Father in turn to glorify him (v. 5). Frederick Dale Bruner, after noting that John calls Jesus Christ “God” (1:1, 18; 20:28) and that John quotes Jesus as affirming his oneness with the Father (10:30), explains that Jesus humbly avoided speaking directly of himself as God but instead consistently honored the Father as his God:
But throughout his incarnate historical ministry Jesus, for his part, consistently points away from himself to his Father as his Source, Superior, and now as the only True God (see, e.g., Matt. 19:17; Mark 10:17–18; esp. John 5:19–47 and passim). There is mystery here and, so, appropriate human mystification, but the outcome is clear: Jesus Christ, the one God’s full revelation in human form, is himself fully one with God and so, himself, fully God. But in his incarnate ministry he often points to his one and only Source, his Father.17
John 17:3 as a Problem for Critics
Not only is John 17:3 consistent with orthodox Christian theology, it poses a serious problem for most non-Trinitarian views of Jesus Christ. Here’s why.
Yet other texts in John and elsewhere in the New Testament reveal that Jesus Christ is God. This poses no problem for the doctrine of the Trinity, but it creates a serious problem for anyone who wishes to affirm everything Scripture teaches while denying that Jesus is truly God.
Christ with Israel in the Wilderness ( 1 Corinthians 10:1–9 )
In 1 Corinthians, written about 54 or 55, Paul makes two statements about the relationship to Christ of the Israelites in the wilderness following the exodus. Here is the first one:
For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. (1 Cor. 10:1–4)
Paul assumes here that his readers have some knowledge of the account in Exodus. The Israelites escaped from Egypt, led by a pillar of “cloud” representing God’s presence (Exod. 13:21–22; 14:19–20, 24), and they “all passed through the sea,” that is, the Red Sea (14:21–29). Paul is speaking figuratively when he says that they “all were baptized into Moses,” comparing the Israelites’ covenant relationship with God through Moses to Christians’ covenant relationship with God through Jesus Christ. After the Israelites entered the wilderness, Yahweh’s glory “appeared in the cloud” (Exod. 16:10). On that occasion, God provided manna for them to eat (16:12–36). Soon afterward, God began providing water for the Israelites (17:1– 7). Paul calls the manna and the water “spiritual” food and drink, meaning not that they were immaterial but that God provided them supernaturally. Here is how Yahweh told Moses to get the water: “I will be standing there in front of you on the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it, so that the people may drink” 17:6 NRSV). This is the first Old Testament text that uses the word “rock” (ṣûr). Later, the Song of Moses actually calls Yahweh “the Rock” five times (Deut. 32:4, 15, 18, 30, 31). The implication of these texts is that God himself was “the Rock” from which the water ultimately came.
It is in this context of God as “the Rock” that Paul says, “and the Rock was Christ” ( 1 Cor. 10:4b). An allusion here to Deuteronomy 32 is confirmed a few verses later when Paul makes a strong allusion to Deuteronomy 32:16–17 (1 Cor. 10:21–22).37 Of course, as Ben Witherington III comments, “Paul is not discussing an earlier incarnation of the Christ on earth as a rock!”38 In Paul’s day, a Jewish tradition was developing that later described a rock-shaped “well” of water that followed the Israelites around in the wilderness. Scholars debate whether the “well” was an explicit part of the tradition in Paul’s day and whether his statement assumes that idea. We may safely say that Paul was part of the same broader theological community within which the moving well motif developed, but we should probably not read that motif into 1 Corinthians.39
Whatever the precise interpretive tradition concerning “the Rock” known to Paul, what he says in 1 Corinthians 10:4b indicates that Christ was a divine person present with the Israelites in the wilderness. Buzzard vehemently objects to this understanding of the text, mostly on a priori grounds that it would contradict what he claims the Bible teaches elsewhere. However, he also objects that Paul meant only that the “rock” was a type of Christ, quoting (twice) Paul’s statement, “Now these things happened to them as an example” (1 Cor. 10:11a), which Buzzard translates, “These things happened to them typically.”40 Here Buzzard has things a bit muddled. Of course, the inanimate, literal rock in the wilderness was a type, as were the cloud, the sea, the manna, and the water. However, “the Rock” in Deuteronomy 32 is not a type but a metaphorical name for God.
When Paul uses the Old Testament typologically or allegorically, he does so in the present tense: “Now Hagar is [estin] Mount Sinai in Arabia” (Gal. 4:25), interpreting Hagar in Genesis 16 as symbolic of the Mosaic covenant enacted at Mount Sinai. That is not what Paul does in 1 Corinthians 10. Instead, he writes, “and the Rock was [ēn] Christ.”41 Thus, a sound exegesis of the passage leads to the conclusion that Paul was identifying Christ as “the Rock” to whom the Israelites were supposed to look in faith. This conclusion, which for some people will be difficult to accept, is confirmed just a few sentences later, when Paul warns the Corinthian Christians: “We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents” (1 Cor. 10:9). Here Paul states in a matter-of-fact manner that some of the Israelites in the wilderness “put Christ to the test,” and he warns the Corinthians not to make the same mistake!
Not all of the extant Greek manuscripts containing 1 Corinthians 10:9 have the name “Christ” there; some say “Lord” instead. The reading “Christ” (christon) has the earliest, most diverse, and most numerous manuscript support (starting with P46, dated about AD 200), and it is also better attested by early translations into other languages (such as Coptic and Latin) and in other early Christian writings. It is the reading given in most contemporary critical editions of the Greek New Testament (notably NA28 and SBLGNT). It was the reading followed in the KJV and is followed by most contemporary English versions (CSB, ESV, LEB, NABRE, NET, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV).
The reading “Lord” (kyrion) does have the support of two major codices from the fourth century (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), which led Tregelles (1879) and Westcott and Hort (1881) to prefer this reading in their critical editions of the Greek New Testament. The recent edition published by Tyndale House (THGNT), which was based on the Tregelles edition, also accepts the reading kyrion. However, the rest of the manuscript support for kyrion is quite weak compared with the evidence for christon. Moreover, while it would be understandable for scribes to change the strange sounding “Christ” to “Lord” here, it is highly unlikely that scribes would change “Lord” to “Christ.”
For these reasons, the reading kyrion is followed by only a few English versions today (NASB, NJB). Manuscript discoveries in the twentieth century, especially P46 (which was rediscovered and published for scholars to study in the 1930s) have convinced nearly all textual critics and other scholars that “Christ” is the correct reading.42
Predictably, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible version follows the less likely reading kyrion in 1 Corinthians 10:9 and then substitutes Jehovah there, so that Paul is made to say, “Neither let us put Jehovah to the test” (1 Cor. 10:9 NWT). The Watchtower’s online study Bible cites the Westcott–Hort and THGNT editions of the Greek New Testament in support of the reading kyrion. Of course, no Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians use any form of the name YHWH (“Jehovah”). The Watchtower therefore speculates that “the divine name was originally used in this verse and later replaced with the title ‘Lord’ or ‘the Christ.’”43 Even granting the baseless assumption that the text originally had YHWH here, it is extremely implausible to claim that scribes might have replaced that name with “the Christ.” Thus, one must accept three implausible claims in order to defend the NWT rendering: that kyrion is better attested than christon; that kyrion originated as a substitute by apostate scribes for YHWH; and that some scribes would also have substituted christon for YHWH (or even for kyrion).
The Watchtower’s zeal to avoid having Paul say that the Israelites put Christ to the test in the wilderness is understandable. What Paul says here about Christ is what the Old Testament said about the Lord Yahweh: that the Israelites had put him to the test, resulting on one occasion in some of them dying from poisonous serpents (Num. 14:22; 21:5–6; Pss. 78:18–20; 95:9).44 Once again, the New Testament not only affirms Christ’s preexistence, but affirms his divine preexistence.
Jesus the Savior and Judge of Israel ( Jude 5 )
A similar statement appears in the epistle of Jude. He warns his readers about those “who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). Immediately after that warning, he starts giving examples from Jewish history, beginning with the Israelites’ apostasy in the wilderness. This text has come down to us mainly in two forms, with variations similar to what we saw in 1 Corinthians 10:9. We will quote two different translations to illustrate the difference:
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 5 ESV; similarly, CSB, LEB, NET, NLT, NRSV).
Now I want to remind you, though you know everything once and for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 5 NASB; similarly, KJV, NABRE, NIV, NJB, NKJV)45
These two translations reflect the fact that many manuscripts have “Jesus” here, while many others have “Lord” (kyrios). A third reading comes from the earliest extant manuscript, a papyrus known as P72 and dated to the third or fourth century. In P72, Jude 5 has “God Christ” (theos christos) instead of either “Lord” or “Jesus.” This is so far the only extant manuscript containing this reading, which is one reason why virtually no one argues that it is the original reading. If it were, of course, it would mean that Jude was explicitly affirming the preexistence of Christ as God! Not only is this an isolated reading, but it appears in a manuscript that scholars regard as particularly unreliable.46
Deciding between “Lord” and “Jesus” in Jude 5 is not so easy. On the one hand, most scholars acknowledge that the manuscript evidence for “Jesus” is significantly better than for “Lord.” On the other hand, many scholars find it hard to accept that Jude actually wrote “Jesus” here. In his textual commentary first written in 1971 and revised in 1994, Bruce Metzger, writing for the committee that produced the Greek New Testament for the United Bible Societies, famously explains: “Despite the weighty attestation supporting Iēsous . . . a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility.”47 Yet this was a bare majority ruling, with three committee members taking this position and two (including Metzger) dissenting. Normally the more difficult reading is preferred on the grounds that scribes were more likely to amend a difficult reading than to create one, but in this case many scholars think “Jesus” is just too difficult a reading.48
Other scholars have defended the reading “Jesus” as difficult but not too difficult, arguing that it is most likely correct.49 When Metzger produced the two editions of his textual commentary for the United Bible Societies, their published Greek New Testament, through its fourth edition, reflected the committee’s majority ruling and had kyrios in Jude 5. However, the fifth edition (as well as NA28, which presents the same Greek text) changed its reading to Iēsous (“Jesus”). In addition, the other two main critical texts of the Greek New Testament, the SBLGNT and the THGNT, also both favor “Jesus.” In keeping with this shift in favor of the reading Iēsous, the updated edition of the NRSV changed its translation of Jude 5 from “the Lord” to “Jesus.”
We think that the reading “Jesus” in Jude 5 is more likely to be correct, based on the currently available evidence. If that is true, then Jude 5 undeniably affirms that Jesus preexisted his human life and was involved in Israel’s history. However, even if one prefers the reading “Lord,” in context the statement would still refer to Jesus Christ because in the immediately preceding sentence Christ is called “our only Master and Lord” (Jude 4). Reading the two sentences together (and using a translation with the reading “Lord” in verse 5) should make the point clear:
For certain people have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into indecent behavior and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I want to remind you, though you know everything once and for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 4–5 NASB)
After speaking of Jesus as “our only Master and Lord,” Jude can hardly have referred immediately to someone other than Jesus as “the Lord” without qualification. The Lord who delivered his people out of Egypt, then, must be the Lord Jesus.
Who Led the Israelites Out of Egypt?
The statements we have just examined from Paul (1 Cor. 10:4, 9) and Jude (Jude 4–5) indicate that Jesus Christ was the divine figure who led the Israelites out of Egypt and through the wilderness on their way to the promised land. Yet both authors, of course, in those same epistles differentiated the Lord Jesus Christ from God the Father (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:6; Jude 1, 25). How, then, are we to understand their statements about Christ’s role in the Israelite exodus in relation to the Old Testament narrative? Who is it exactly that Paul and Jude thought the preincarnate Christ was?
When we turn to the book of Exodus, we find a likely answer. It turns out that there is a similar complexity, even paradox, in what Exodus says about the divine deliverer of the Israelites. The divine figure who appeared to Moses from a burning bush is first called “the angel of the Lord” (Exod. 3:2), but the one whom Moses sees and hears in the bush is identified repeatedly by the names “the Lord” (Yahweh) and “God” (3:4–16). Once the Israelites begin their journey out of Egypt, we are told that “God” led them out and that “the Lord went before them” in a pillar of cloud and fire (13:18, 21). When the Egyptian army attempted to overtake the Israelites, “the angel of God who was going before the host of Israel moved and went behind them, and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them” (14:19). In these passages, the angel of the Lord, also called the angel of God, is both distinguished from and equated with God, the Lord. Elsewhere, the Old Testament tells the people of Israel both that “the Lord” brought them out of Egypt (Exod. 20:1–2; Lev. 11:45; Deut. 20:1; Neh. 9:18) and that “the angel of the Lord” did so (Judg. 2:1). In other places, especially in the early narrative books of the Bible, the angel of the Lord speaks to human beings as though he were the Lord himself, and those who see him confess that they saw God (e.g., Gen. 16:7–13; 21:17–18; 22:1, 11–18; 31:11–13; Judg. 6:11–24; 13:2–23).
These and many other texts evidently refer to a divine person called God’s “angel” who is somehow distinct from God and yet is himself God. Keep in mind that the words translated “angel” (Hebrew malʾak, Greek angelos) literally meant “messenger,” which meant that the word could be used for human messengers, created spirit messengers, and evidently a divine messenger. Perhaps the richest example of this phenomenon comes in Jacob’s prayer for blessing over Joseph’s two sons:
The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day,
the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys . . . (Gen. 48:15–16a)
As Jewish commentator Nahum Sarna observes, the parallelism of these three lines “strongly suggests that ‘angel’ is here an epithet of God.”50 This triadic blessing recalls the famous priestly blessing given later in the Bible:
The Lord bless you and keep you;
the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. (Num. 6:24–26)
Jacob’s crediting the angel with redeeming him from evil also implies the angel’s deity, especially since elsewhere in Genesis, Jacob prays to God and receives protection from God (Gen. 28:15, 20; 31:3; 32:10–13; 35:3). As Sarna also acknowledges, “no one in the Bible ever invokes an angel in prayer.”51 That the angel in Genesis 48:16 is God is confirmed by the singular form of the verb barak (“bless”).
Why, then, does Jacob use the term “angel” in his prayer for blessing over his grandsons? The answer is that the “man” with whom Jacob had famously wrestled, whom he then realized was God (Gen. 32:24–30), was the same figure called “the angel of the Lord” earlier in Genesis. The prophet Hosea later stated this explicitly: “In his manhood he strove with God. He strove with the angel and prevailed” (Hosea 12:3–4).
A strong case can be made on the basis of these and other passages that the figure called “the angel of the Lord” (and “the angel of God”) was himself God, yet in some way distinct from God. The traditional Christian view on this matter is that the angel of the Lord was in fact the preincarnate Son of God, and this view has received noteworthy defenses and expositions in recent years.52 Two New Testament passages we discussed earlier in this chapter, 1 Corinthians 10:4–9 and Jude 5–7, although they do not actually use the term “angel” for Christ, do seem to allude to Exodus passages about the angel of the Lord, as several scholars have argued.53
Not everyone agrees. On the one hand, some interpreters argue that the Old Testament texts in question refer to created angels who spoke and acted as God’s agents or representatives.54 This theory can appear to account for a few of the passages, but it just does not fit many of them, with Genesis 48:16 being one of the most compelling. The created angel interpretation also struggles to make sense of the passages in which a human being, when seeing the angel of the Lord, is afraid that he or she might die because of seeing God (Gen. 32:30; Exod. 3:6; Judges 6:22–23; 13:21–23). The point here is not merely that they feared for their life, but that they feared for their life because they understood that in seeing the angel of the Lord, they had seen God.55 In the light of such texts, evidently what the Lord meant when he warned that people could not see God and live (Exod. 33:20) was that they could not see him in an unfiltered or direct fashion.
The debate over the identity of the angel of the Lord will continue.56 For those who accept the interpretation that the “angel” in the Old Testament is a divine person who is somehow “God” and yet also distinct from “God,” this finding easily correlates with the New Testament revelation that Jesus Christ existed as a divine person distinct from the Father who was active in the history of the patriarchs and ancient Israel.
On the other hand, the view that the “angel” of the Lord was a created angel does nothing to overturn or weaken the evidence from the New Testament for the preexistence of Christ. Our study in this chapter has found passages in four different parts of the New Testament, written by four different authors, that clearly speak of the Lord Jesus as having been involved in the Old Testament history of Israel (Matt. 23:34–37; John 12:37–41; 1 Cor. 10:1–9; Jude 5).
It is especially striking that Paul and Jude—two quite different authors— in different ways both refer to Christ as involved specifically in the judgment of the faithless Israelites in the wilderness. Since Jude (whom everyone agrees wrote after Paul) shows no signs of literary dependence on any of Paul’s writings, both authors evidently were drawing from a common Christian understanding of Christ’s role in the history of Israel. That is an especially significant finding because it shows that Paul did not invent this idea. Together with the evidence from Matthew and John, we may conclude that the belief in a preexistent, divine Christ actively involved in the Old Testament history of Israel apparently had arisen among Christians even earlier than Paul’s epistles.
FATHER | SON | HOLY SPIRT | |
| GOD | John 17:3; 20:17; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3, 17; 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 Tim. 2:5; 2 Pet. 1:3, 17; 2 John 1:3 | Matt. 1:23; Luke 8:39; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8-9; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20 | 2 Sam. 23:2-3 |
YHWH | Exod. 4:22-23; Deut. 14:1; Ps. 2:7; 110:1; Isa. 63:16; 64:8 | Matt. 1:21 (cf. Ps. 130:8); Matt. 16:27 (cf. Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Isa. 40:10; 62:11); Mark 1:3 (cf. Isa. 40:3); Matt. 21:15-16 (cf. Ps. 8:1-2); John 12:39-41 (cf. Isa. 6:1-10); Acts 7:59-60 (cf. Ps. 31:5; Eccl. 12:7); Rom. 10:9-13 (cf. Joel 2:32); 1 Cor. 1:2 (cf. Gen. 21:33; Ps. 99:6-7; 116:2,4, 13, 17); Rev. 1:17-18, 2:8 (Cf. Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12); Rev. 2:18-23 (Cf. Jer. 17:10; 11:20; 29:23); Rev. 17:14; 19:16 (cf. Deut. 10:17; Psalm 136:3; Dan. 2:47); Rev. 22:12-13, 16, 20 (Cf. Isa. 40:10; 62:11) | Acts 28:25-27 (cf. Isa. 6:1-10); 2 Cor. 3:17-18; Heb. 3:7-11 (cf. Ps. 96:7-11); Heb. 10:15-17 (cf. Jer. 31:33-34) |
CREATOR AND SUSTAINER | Acts 17:24-31; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Rev. 4:11 | John 1:1-4, 10, 14; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12; Rev. 3:14 | Gen. 1:2; Job 26:13; 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 104:30; Matt. 1:18, 20 |
LIFE | John 5:21, 26; Acts 17:24-28; 1 Tim. 6:13 | John 5:21, 26; 11:25; 14:6 | John 6:63; 2 Cor. 3:6 |
RESURRECTOR | John 5:21; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14 | John 5:25, 28-29; 6:39-44, 54; 11:25-26 | Ezek. 37:12-14; Rom. 8:11-13; 1 Pet. 3:18-19 |
OMNISCIENT | Acts 15:8; Romans 8:27; 1 John 3:20 | Mark 2:6-8; John 2:23-25; 16:29-31; 21:17; 1 Cor. 4:3-5; Rev. 2:18, 23 | Isa. 40:13-14; Rom. 8:26-27; 1 Cor. 2:10-12; 12:3-4, 7-14 |
OMNIPRESENT | Acts 17:24-29; 2 Cor. 6:16-18; Eph. 3:19; 4:6 | Matt. 18:20; 28:20; 2 Cor. 13:5; Eph. 1:23; 4:7-10 (cf. Ps. 68:18; Jer. 23:23-24); Col. 1:17, 27; 3:11; Heb. 1:3 | Ps. 139:7-12; John 14:16-17; Rom. 8:9-17, 26-27; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 12:3-4, 7-14; Gal. 4:6 |
OMNIPOTENT | Mark 14:36; Luke 1:37; 18:27; John 10:29; Eph. 3:9 | John 1:3-4, 10; John 10:27-28; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:3, 10-12 | Ps. 104:30; Ezek. 36:25-27; 37:12-14; 39:29; Rom. 15:18-19; 1 Cor. 12:3-4, 7-14 |
SAVIOR/FORGIVER | Matt. 6:14-15; 18:35; Eph. 4:32; Tit. 1:3; 2:10; 3:4 | Mark 2:5, 10; Matt. 1:21; Luke 2:11; 7:48-49; John 3:17; 4:42; 12:47; Acts 13:23; Eph. 5:23; Tit. 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Pet. 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; 1 John 2:1-2, 12; 4:14 | Isa. 63:11, 14; Heb. 10:15-17 |
LOVES/EMOTIONS | John 3:16; 15:9-10; 17:23, 26; 16:26; Rom. 5:5; 8:39 | John 13:34-35; 14:31; 15:9-13; Rom. 8:35 | Ps. 106:32-33; Isa. 63:10; Mic. 2:7; Acts 15:28; Rom. 15:30; Eph. 4:30 |
SPEAKS/TESTIFIES | Mark 1:11; 9:7; Matt. 12:17-21; John 8:17-18; 12:28-30; 2 Pet. 1:17-18; 1 John 5:9-11 | John 8:17-18; 12:28-30; 17:1-5 | 2 Sam. 23:2-3; Neh. 9:20, 30; John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:12-13; Acts 5:32; 8:29; 10:19-20; 11:12; 13:2, 4; 16:6-7; 20:22-23; 21:10-11; 28:25-27; 1 Cor. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 14:13; 22:17 |
HAS A WILL | Matt. 6:10; Luke 22:42; John 6:38, 40; Rom. 8:27; 2 Pet. 3:9 | Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 6:38; Luke 22:42 | 1 Cor. 12:11 |
HAS A MIND | Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16 | 1 Cor. 2:16 | Rom. 8:27 |
HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH | 1 John 1:3 | 1 Cor. 1:9; 1 John 1:3 | Phil. 2:1 |
| PRAYING TO/SERVING | Matt. 6:8-9; John 15:16; 16:23; Rev. 1:4; 4:1-11; 7:11-12 | John 14:13-14; Acts 1:2, 6, 21, 24-25; 7:59-60; 9:13-14, 21; 1 Cor. 1:2-3; 16:22-23; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 1:5-6; 5:8-14; 22:21 | 2 Cor. 13:14; Phil. 3:3 |
| ETERNAL | Dan. 7:9-10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Heb. 1:2; 3:5-6; 11:3; Rev. 21:6-7 | Mic. 5:2; John 1:1-2; 8:56-59; 17:5; 1 John 1:2; 5:20; Rev. 1:12-18; 2:8; 22:13 | Gen. 1:1-2; Heb. 9:14 |
(LSB)
The Greek rendering (typically known as the Septuagint [LXX]) contains an interest variant reading where, instead of YHWH speaking in the singular, “I will make,” it has him speaking in the plural instead:
Then the Lord God said, “it is not good that the man is alone; let US make (poiesomen) him a helper corresponding to him.” Genesis 2:18
(Genesis, translated by Robert J. V. Hiebert, found in A New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS], published by Oxford University Press in 2009, including corrections and emendations made in the second printing (2009) and corrections and emendations made in June 2014, p. 7)
And the Lord God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone, let US make for him a help suitable to him. (GENESIS, in Brenton’s LXX)
Poiesomen is the first person plural active verbal form of poieo.
This same rendering of Genesis 2:18 is found in the Deuter-canonical writing (labeled “Apocrypha” by Protestants) called Tobit:
And Tobias began to say, “Blessed are you, O God of our ancestors, and blessed be your holy and glorious name for the ages. Let the heavens and all your creatures bless you. You made Adam and gave him a helper, Heua, a support–his wife. From them the human race has come. You said, ‘It is not good for the mane to be alone; let US make (poiesomen) for him a helper like himself.’” Tobit 8:5-6 Gr I
So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that safety be theirs. And he began to say, “Blessed are you, O God of our ancestors, and blessed be your name for all the ages forever. Let the heavens and all your creation bless you for all the ages. You made Adam and made him a helper, a support–his wife Heua. And from the two of them the human race has come. And you said, ‘It is not good for the mane to be alone; let US make (poiesomen) for him a helper like himself.’” Gr II
(Tobit, translated by Alexander A. Di Lella, in NETS, p. 469)
Then began Tobias to say, Blessed art thou, O God of our fathers, and blessed is thy holy and glorious name for ever; let the heavens bless thee, and all thy creatures. Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for an helper and stay: of them came mankind: thou hast said, It is not good that man should be alone; let US make unto him an aid like unto himself. (TOBIT, in Brenton’s LXX)
The variant may have been motivated by the way Genesis 1:26 describes God creating mankind, since both the Hebrew and the Greek have God speaking in the plural:
“Then God said, ‘Let US make (na’aseh) man in Our image (salmenu), according to Our likeness (demutenu), so that they will have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’” Genesis 1:26 LSB
Then God said, let US make (poiesomen) humankind according to OUR image (eikona hemeteran) and according to likeness and let them rule the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and the cattle and all the earth and all the creeping things that creep upon the earth.” (Hiebert, Genesis, in NETS, p. 6)
And God said, Let US make man according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of heaven, and over the cattle and all the earth, and over all the reptiles that creep on the earth. (Brenton’s LXX)
THE TRIUNE CREATOR
The reason why God is described as a plural Creator and Maker is because the inspired Scriptures teach that God created all things by and through his uncreated begotten Word/Wisdom, and his Holy Spirit:
“O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy, who have made all things by your word (ho poiesas ta panta en logo sou) andby your wisdom (te Sophia sou) have formed humankind to have dominion over the creatures you have made and rule the world in holiness and righteousness and pronounce judgment in uprightness of soul… Who has learned your counsel unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high?”
Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-3, 17 New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE)
“By the word of the Lord (to logo tou Kyriou) the heavens were established; and all the host of them by the breath (to pneumatic [Spirit]) of his [mouth].” Psalm 32
[Heb. 33]:6 (Brenton’s LXX)
“Let all thy creatures serve thee, for thou didst speak, and they were made. Thou didst send forth thy Spirit, and it formed them; there is none that can resist thy voice.” Judith 16:14 Revised Standard Version
(RSV)
The aforementioned texts present God as having employed his very own Word/Wisdom and Spirit to create and fashion all creation.
This accounts for God using plural verbs to describe his creating mankind, e.g., God was addressing his divine Word/Wisdom and Spirit since he personally involved and used them in the creation and fashioning of all things.
CHRIST: THE INCARNATE WORD & WISDOM PERSONIFIED
Remarkably, the inspired NT writings portray Jesus Christ as God’s very own uncreated Word who became flesh, and as the personification of that very Wisdom which God possessed from before creation.
This explains why the work of creation is ascribed to the prehuman Christ. I.e., being God’s Word/Wisdom Jesus was the Agent who brought the entire creation into being and who is personally, actively sustaining it:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people… The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, yet the world did not know him… And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.” John 1:1-4, 9-14 NRSVUE
“but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”1 Corinthians 1:23-24 NRSVUE
“yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” 1 Corinthians 8:6 NRSVUE
“for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself IS before all things, and IN HIM all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.” Colossians 1:16-20 NRSVUE
“And, ‘In the beginning, Lord [the Son], you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like clothing; like a cloak you will roll them up, and like clothing they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never end.’” Hebrews 1:10-12 NRSVUE
Jesus is further depicted as possessing the very qualities which the Deutero-canonical writings attribute to God’s Word/Wisdom.
For example, Wisdom/Word are said be seated alongside God on his throne from which they descend.
“give me the wisdom that sits by your throne, and do not reject me from among your children… With you is wisdom, she who knows your works and was present when you made the world; she understands what is pleasing in your sight and what is right according to your commandments. Send her forth from the holy heavens, and from the throne of your glory send her, that she may labor at my side and that I may learn what is pleasing to you. For she knows and understands all things, and she will guide me wisely in my actions and guard me with her glory. Then my works will be acceptable, and I shall judge your people justly and shall be worthy of the throne of my father…” Wisdom 9:4, 12-17 NRSVUE
God’s Almighty Word was also responsible for striking down the firstborn of the Egyptians with his sword during the Exodus:
“For though they had disbelieved everything because of their magic arts, yet when their firstborn were destroyed they acknowledged your people to be God’s child. For while gentle silence enveloped all things and night in its swift course was now half-gone, your all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed, a stern warrior carrying the sharp sword of your authentic command, and stood and filled all things with death and touched heaven while standing on the earth.”
Wisdom of Solomon 18:13-16 NRSVUE
According to the NT, Jesus is that Word who sits enthroned with his Father, who was personally present during the Exodus, and who slays God’s enemies with the sword of his mouth!
“I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.” 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 NRSVUE
“To the one who conquers I will give a place with me on my throne, just as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.” Revelation 3:21 NRSVUE
“Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and wages war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a scepter of iron; he will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, ‘King of kings and Lord of lords.’… Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to wage war against the rider on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed in its presence the signs by which he deceived those who had received the brand of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were killed by the sword of the rider on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.” Revelation 19:11-16, 19-21 NRSVUE – Cf. 1:16; 2:12, 16; 17:14
Amazingly, Divine Wisdom is depicted as possessing a host of qualities,
“I learned both what is secret and what is manifest, for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me. There is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique (monogenes), manifold, subtle, agile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, all-powerful, overseeing all, and penetrating through all spirits that are intelligent, pure, and altogether subtle. For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection (apaugasma) of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image (eikon) of his goodness. Although she is but one, she can do all things, and while remaining in herself, she renews all things; in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God and prophets, for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom. She is more beautiful than the sun and excels every constellation of the stars. Compared with the light she is found to be more radiant, for it is succeeded by the night, but against wisdom evil does not prevail.” Wisdom 7:21-30 NRSUE
Many of which are the very characteristics that the NT ascribe to Christ.
For instance, Jesus is the uniquely begotten One:
“No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son (monogenes), himself God, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.” John 1:18
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son (ton hyion ton monogene), so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life… Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God (tou monogenous hyiou tou theou).” John 3:16, 18
“God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son (ton hyion autou ton monogene) into the world so that we might live through him.” 1 John 4:9
Jesus is the image of the invisible God:
“In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing clearly the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image (eikon) of God. 5 For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’s sake. For it is the God who said, ‘Light will shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” 2 Corinthians 4:4-6 NRSVUE
“He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation,”
Colossians 1:13-15 NRSVUE
In fact, even the unique Greek word apaugasma found in Wisdom 7:26 is used to depict Jesus as the radiance/splendor of God’s own glory!
“Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection (apaugasma) of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” Hebrews 1:1-3 NRSVUE
Jesus is also said to be the pure, undefiled, spotless, sinless and holy One, who is completely separate from sinners and transcends the heavens themselves:
“Furthermore, the former priests were many in number because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”
Hebrews 7:23-26 NRSVUE
The inspired epistle to the Hebrews quotes the Father conversing with the Son where he glorifies Jesus as the God who reigns forever:
“But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God (ho theos), is forever and ever, And the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions.’” Hebrews 1:8-9
When we look at the initial context of the Psalm, we see that this royal figure is not a mere human authority. Rather, he is depicted as not only being distinct from God but also one who exists as God in an absolute sense:
“Your throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever. The scepter in your kingdom is a scepter for justice. You have loved what is right and hated what is wrong. That is why Elohim, your Elohim, has anointed you, rather than your companions, with the oil of joy… The king longs for your beauty. He is your Lord (Adonayik). Worship him.” Psalm 45:6-7, 11 Names of God Bible (NOG)
Notice that the King is worshiped by the queen because he is her Lord. Compare how the Greek renders the verse in question:
“because the king desired your beauty because he is your lord (ho kyrios sou). And daughters of Tyre will do obeisance to him (proskynesousin auto) with gifts; your face the rich of the people will entreat.” Psalm 44[Heb. 45]:12-13
(“Psalms (and Prayer of Manasses),”, translated by Albert Pietersma, A New English Translation of the Septuagint, published by Oxford University Press in 2009, including corrections and emendations made in the second printing (2009) and corrections and emendations made in June 2014, p. 569)
It is interesting to point out that the Hebrew term used here is employed only one other time, and in reference to YHWH himself!
“Thus says your Lord (Adonayik), Yahweh, even your God (Elohayik) Who contends for His people, ‘Behold, I have taken out of your hand the cup of reeling, The chalice of My wrath; You will never drink it again’.” Isaiah 51:22
Moreover, the King’s reign is described similarly to that of YHWH’s rule:
“You, O Yahweh, sit enthroned forever; Your throne is from generation to generation.” Lamentations 5:19
A further indication of how glorious this figure is, proving he isn’t merely human, comes from his being eternally praised by all the nations.
“I will perpetuate your memory through all generations; therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever.” Psalm 45:17 New International Version (NIV)
Here’s another rendering of the passage:
“ I will make your name known through all generations; thus the peoples will praise you forever and ever.” Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Remarkably, the King receives the same worship that YHWH receives, and for the same duration!
“In God we make our boast all day long, and we will praise your name forever.” Psalm 44:8 NIV
“All the kings of the earth, O Yahweh, will give You thanks, When they hear the words of Your mouth. And they will sing of the ways of Yahweh, For great is the glory of Yahweh.” Psalm 138:4-5
Seeing that Jesus is identified as the Divine King spoken of in this Psalm, it should therefore come as no surprise that the NT writings ascribe to him eternal praise and glory:
“whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” Romans 9:5
“I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom… In the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing… The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will save me unto His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.” 2 Timothy 4:1, 8, 18
“but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” 2 Peter 3:18
“and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood— 6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the might forever and ever. Amen.” Revelation 1:5-6
We are even told that every created thing in the entire creation must (and eventually shall do so) give Jesus the exact same worship that the Father receives:
“Therefore, God also highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:9-11
“And when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one having a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are You to take the scroll and to open its seals, because You were slain and purchased for God with Your blood people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And You made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign upon the earth.’ Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.’ And EVERY CREATED THING which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and ALL THINGS IN THEM, I heard saying, ‘To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.’ And the four living creatures kept saying, ‘Amen.’ And the elders fell down and worshiped.” Revelation 5:8-14
PSALM 110
According to Jesus, the Holy Spirit revealed to David that the Messiah is the Lord whom YHWH enthrones alongside himself in heaven:
“And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, ‘How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself said in the Holy Spirit, “The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.’” David himself calls Him “Lord”; so in what sense is He his son?’ And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him.” Mark 12:35-37
Here’s the verse in question:
“A psalm by David. Yahweh said to my Lord (Adoni), ‘Sit in the highest position in heaven until I make your enemies your footstool.’”Psalm 110:1 NOG
The following texts make it abundantly clear that YHWH alone reigns from heaven over all creation:
“He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord mocks them.” Psalm 2:4
“Yahweh is in His holy temple; Yahweh’s throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men.” Psalm 11:4
“Yahweh has established His throne in the heavens, And His kingdom rules over all.” Psalm 103:19
“Who is like Yahweh our God, The One who sits on high,” Psalm 113:5
“The heavens are the heavens of Yahweh, But the earth He has given to the sons of men.” Psalm 115:16
Therefore, since David’s Lord sits at God’s right this means that he, too, is ruling from God’s heavenly throne over the whole creation.
Moreover, since it is YHWH who is speaking to David’s Lord, and since the latter is identified as Jesus, this means that Psalm 110 is another conversation between God the Father and God the Son, which the prophet was privileged to see and hear!
This is precisely what the inspired NT writings proclaim, e.g., the Holy Spirit enabled David to foresee his Lord Jesus ascending physically into heaven after his resurrection to sit enthroned with the Father in order to reign forever over all creation:
“Men, brothers, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to set one of the fruit of his body on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither forsaken to Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this which you both see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies as a footstool for Your Feet.”’ Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.” Acts 2:29-36
“and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe according to the working of the might of His strength, which He worked in Christ, by raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, FAR ABOVE ALL rule and authority and power and dominion, and EVERY NAME that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put ALL THINGS in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head OVER ALL THINGS to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Ephesians 1:19-23
“… After the Son had washed away our sins, he sat down at the right side of the glorious God in heaven… God never said to any of the angels, ‘Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!’” Hebrews 1:3b, 13 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
“Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.” 1 Peter 3:21-22
And since YHWH alone is enthroned over all creation forever, this again confirms the fact that Jesus is truly God in essence while also being distinct from God the Father.
Lo and behold, this is precisely what the inspired NT writings affirm!
“Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received the same kind of faith as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ (tou theou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou). Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the full knowledge of God AND OF Jesus our Lord… for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou kyriou hemon kai soteros ‘Iesou Christou) will be abundantly supplied to you… For we did not make known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, following cleverly devised myths, but being eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased’—and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.” 2 Peter 1:1-2, 11, 16-18
“Then He said to Thomas, ‘Bring your finger here, and see My hands; and bring your hand here and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.’ Thomas answered and said TO HIM, ‘My Lord and my God (ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou)!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are those who did not see, and yet believed.’ Therefore many other signs Jesus also did in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” John 20:27-31
GOD’S ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN SON
This brings me to my next point.
The ancient versions of Psalm 110 and many Hebrew manuscripts preserve a form of the Psalm, which attests to God having begotten David’s Lord from before creation:
“The Lord said to my lord (Eipen ho Kyrios to Kyrio mou), ‘Sit on my right until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’ A rod of your power the Lord will send out from Sion. And exercise dominion in the midst of your enemies! With you is rule on a day of your power among the splendors of the holy ones. From the womb, before Morning-star, I brought you forth (egennesa se).” Psalm 109[Heb. 110]:1-3
(A New English Translation of the Septuagint, p. 603)
“The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. The Lord will send forth the sceptre of thy power out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thy enemies. With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee.” Psalm 109:1-3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
“LORD JEHOVAH said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies as a stool for your feet.’ LORD JEHOVAH will send the scepter of power to you from Zion and he will rule over your enemies. Your people are glorious in the day of power; in the glories of holiness from the womb, from the first, I have begotten you, Son.” Psalm 110:1-3 Peshitta Holy Bible Translation
(PHBT https://biblehub.com/hpbt/
“THE LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD will send forth the sceptre of his power out of Zion, and he will rule over thine enemies. Thy people shall be glorious in the day of thy power; arrayed in the beauty of holiness from the womb, I have begotten thee as a child from the ages.” George Lamsa Bible
(LAMSA https://biblehub.com/lamsa/
Here we have God depicted as begetting the Messianic King from before the day or morning star, i.e., before the creation of the heavens and earth. Hence, according to this reading David’s Lord was already existing as the Son of God before creation even came into being!
Again, this is precisely what the NT proclaims in respect to Christ. I.e., Jesus has been existing from before the creation as the uniquely begotten and beloved Son of God, by and for whom all creation exists:
“After Jesus had spoken these things, he looked up to heaven and said, ‘Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son so that your Son may glorify you. For you gave him authority over all flesh, so that he may give eternal life to all those you have given him… Now, Father, glorify me at your own side with the glory I had at your side BEFORE the world existed… Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am so that they may see my glory—the glory you gave me because you loved me BEFORE the world’s foundation.’” John 17:1-2, 5, 24
“God has saved us from the dark kingdom where Satan rules. He has brought us into the kingdom of his Son, whom he loves. God’s Son, Jesus, paid the price for our sins and made us free. Yes, God has forgiven us. We cannot see God. But Jesus Christ shows us completely who God is. Even before God made anything, Jesus was already there as God’s Son who rules everything. When God created everything, it was his Son who did it. His Son made everything that is on earth and in heaven. He created everything that we can see, as well as the things that we cannot see. He made rulers and leaders. He made everything that has power and authority. God gave his Son the authority to create everything, so that his Son would receive praise. God’s Son was there before anything else was there. And now he causes everything to continue in its proper place. The church is like Christ’s body and he is its head. He is where it all begins. As God’s special Son, he was the first person who became alive again after death. As a result, Christ is first and most important in all things. God chose to put his nature in Christ completely.” Colossians 1:13-19 EasyEnglish Bible (EASY)
“Long ago in many ways and at many times God’s prophets spoke his message to our ancestors. But now at last, God sent his Son to bring his message to us. God created the universe by his Son, and everything will someday belong to the Son. God’s Son has all the brightness of God’s own glory and is like him in every way. By his own mighty word, he holds the universe together… But God says about his Son, ‘You are God, and you will rule as King forever! Your royal power brings about justice. You loved justice and hated evil, and so I, your God, have chosen you. I appointed you and made you happier than any of your friends.’ The Scriptures also say, ‘In the beginning, Lord, you were the one who laid the foundation of the earth and created the heavens. They will all disappear and wear out like clothes, but you will last forever. You will roll them up like a robe and change them like a garment. But you are always the same, and you will live forever.’” Hebrews 1:1-3a, 8-12 CEV
ADONAY BECOMES FLESH
Not only does the Psalm speak of the divine enthronement of the Messiah, it further describes him as the divine Lord who crushes his enemies in the day of his wrath:
“Adonay is at your right side. He will crush kings on the day of his anger. HE will pass judgment on the nations and fill them with dead bodies. Throughout the earth HE will crush their heads. HE WILL DRINK from the brook along the road. HE will hold HIS head high.” Psalm 110:5-7 NOG
The pronouns clearly refer back to the divine Lord seated at God’s right hand which, in context, must be the Messiah since he is depicted as drinking water from a brook, obviously to refresh himself after his victorious battle. Since this is clearly a human function, and since the Father did not become man, this can only be referring to the Davidic Messiah.
According to the NT, this is precisely what Jesus will do when he comes to destroy his enemies on the great day of his wrath:
“Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?’” Revelation 6:15-17
“Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sits on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; having a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself, and being clothed with a garment dipped in blood, His name is also called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. And from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the wrath of the rage of God, the Almighty. And He has on His garment and on His thigh a name written, ‘KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.’ Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, ‘Come, assemble for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of strong men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great.’ Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war with Him who sits on the horse and with His army. And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who did the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sits on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.” Revelation 19:11-21
We, therefore, have another OT text where the divine Father addresses his divine Son who became human, being the Messianic King whom the Father begot before the ages!
PSALM 2
The following Psalm is another instance where God addresses the Christ, and which also refers to the divine begetting of the Davidic King:
“Why do the nations rage And the peoples meditate on a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against Yahweh and against His Anointed, saying, ‘Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!” He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord mocks them. Then He speaks to them in His anger And terrifies them in His fury, saying, ‘But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain. I will surely tell of the decree of Yahweh: He said to Me, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like a potter’s vessel.”’ So now, O kings, show insight; Take warning, O judges of the earth. Serve Yahweh with fear And rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!” Psalm 2:1-12
It is interesting to note that there are specific Jewish authorities who have viewed Psalm 2 as a prophesy of the enthronement of the Messiah over the nations:
Why have nations gathered: Our Sages (Ber. 7b) expounded the passage as referring to the King Messiah, but according to its apparent meaning, it is proper to interpret it as referring to David himself, as the matter is stated (II Sam. 5:17): “And the Philistines heard that they had anointed David as king over Israel, and all the Philistines went up to seek, etc.,” and they fell into his hands. Concerning them, he says, “Why have nations gathered,” and they all gathered.
(Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary https://www.chabad.org/
The aforementioned Psalm has clear affinities with Ps. 110 since, not only do they both refer to the Messianic Ruler being begotten of God, they also speak of the King’s wrath being unleashed on all those nations and their kings who refuse to submit to him.
Once again, the NT documents identify the Son of Ps. 2 as Jesus our Lord!
“On being released, they went to their own people and reported what the chief priests and elders had said to them. When they heard this, they lifted their voices in unity to God and prayed, ‘Lord, You are God, who has made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, and who by the mouth of Your servant David said: “Why did the nations rage, and the people devise vain things? The kings of the earth came, and the rulers were assembled together against the Lord and against His Christ.” Indeed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were assembled together against Your holy Son Jesus whom You have anointed, to do what Your hand and Your counsel had foreordained to be done. Now, Lord, look on their threats and grant that Your servants may speak Your word with great boldness, by stretching out Your hand to heal and that signs and wonders may be performed in the name of Your holy Son Jesus.’” Acts 4:23-30 Modern English Version (MEV)
“And we proclaim to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You.’” Acts 13:32-33
“For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’? And again, ‘I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me’?” Hebrews 1:5
“In this way also Christ did not glorify Himself to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’;” Hebrews 5:5
“And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne… Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, ‘Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night.’” Revelation 12:4-5, 10
“And from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the wrath of the rage of God, the Almighty. 16 And He has on His garment and on His thigh a name written, ‘KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.’” Revelation 19:15-16
CONCLUSION
Psalms 2, 45, and 110 are clear OT examples depicting two divine Persons conversing with each other. In these Psalms we have God the Father addressing and magnifying his begotten Son who himself is fully divine, being begotten from before all creation, and whom all the nations must submit to and praise forever and ever. These Psalms also depict this same divine Son as being/becoming the Messianic Ruler and, therefore, the physical Heir of David who fulfills all the promises which God made to Israel’s King.
As such, these particular OT texts bear witness to God existing as a multi-Personal Being, as being both the Father and the Son, and further attest to God’s Son being both human and divine at the same time.
This is precisely what the inspired NT authors teach! I.e., the Father and the Son are two distinct divine Persons eternally existing as the one true God, with the Son later becoming the man Christ Jesus via his virginal conception and birth from the blessed Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit (Cf. Matt. 1:18-23; Luke 1:34-35; Gal. 4:4-5; Heb. 10:5-9)!
ADDENDUM: PSALM 110 IN THE NT
Here are the places in the NT where Psalm 110 is either directly cited or alluded to:
“But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him and said to Him, ‘Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’” Mark 14:61-62
“So then, the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.] [And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation.] Mark 16:19-20
“This One God exalted to His right hand as a Leader and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” Acts 5:31
“But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’” Acts 7:55-56
“What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who indeed did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.” Romans 8:31-34
“Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, ‘All things are put in subjection,’ it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.” 1 Corinthians 15:24-27
“For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily, and in Him you have been filled, who is the head over all rule and authority… Therefore, if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.” Colossians 2:9-10; 3:1
“who is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power; who, having accomplished cleansing for sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high… But to which of the angels has He ever said, ‘Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies As a footstool for Your feet’?” Hebrews 1:3, 13
“just as He says also in another passage, ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.’” Hebrews 5:6
“Now the main point in what is being said is this: we have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the holy places and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. Hebrews 8:1-2
“but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until His enemies are put as a footstool for His feet.” Hebrews 10:12-13
“fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Hebrews 12:2
“He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” Revelation 3:21
“And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne.” Revelation 12:4-5
Comments
Post a Comment