The Bible and the Fathers on the Divinity of Jesus Christ

Among those who have responded to my testimony, a few Unitarians have come out of the woodwork, warning me sternly that there is one God. With this, I agree, of course. But they add that Jesus is not God. With this, I disagree.

1. Many Bible passages suggest that Jesus is not merely of God but that he is (i.e., one with) God.

“I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

“And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” (John 20:28)

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Philippians 2:6)

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9)

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:8)

2. We are obligated to worship, praise, and thank Jesus in ways appropriate or reserved to God alone.

“And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” (Hebrews 1:6)

“That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” (John 5:23)

“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts 7:59)

“Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.” (Revelation 5:12-13)

“Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ephesians 5:20)

3. Jesus did miracles of a sort no prophet had done before, showing divine power, forgave sins, and did other things that Jews of his day could ascribe only to God himself.

“Then they took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” (John 10:31-33)

“But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.” (Matthew 9:6)

“And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?” (Mark 2:4-7)

“And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” (Mark 4:39-41)

“Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” (John 11:25)

“And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.” (John 11:43-44)

“Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude. And they did eat, and were all filled: and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets.” (Luke 9:16-17)

4. Jesus is given titles and ascribed general attributes and creative activities that can only be given to God.

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8)

“These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings.” (Revelation 17:14)

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)

“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (Hebrews 13:8)

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (Colossians 1:16-17)

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9)

“The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:2-3)

“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” (Hebrews 1:2)

“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 on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” (Hebrews 1:3)

“Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment.” (Hebrews 1:10-11)

“For us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Corinthians 8:6)

5. The earliest Church writers, called the Apostolic Fathers and taught by the Apostles themselves, affirmed the divinity of Jesus as well (c. 95–150).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, of the seed of David, but also of the Holy Ghost.” (Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians 18:2)

“There is one Physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first passible and then impassible—Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians 7:2)

“Await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible; the Intangible, the Impassible, who for our sake suffered, who for our sake endured in every way.” (Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp 3:2)

“I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink, I want his blood, which is incorruptible love.” (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 7:3)

“Wherefore, girding up your loins, serve the Lord in fear and truth, forsaking the vain and empty talk and the error of the many, and believing in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and gave Him glory and a throne at His right hand. To Him all things in heaven and on earth are subject. Him every spirit serves. He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead.” (Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians 2:1)

By the time of Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (c. 175-200 A.D.), the divinity of Christ was being affirmed even more explicitly, since so many heretics had denied this. For example: “But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth.” (Against Heresies 3.19.2)

6. The divinity of Jesus was affirmed in the first great ecumenical council, the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.).

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [omitted from the 381 A.D. version: the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial [homoousios] with the Father;

By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

[But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]” (The Nicene Creed)

Conclusion

I could go on, because the Bible and other sources are quite clear about the divinity of Jesus, who is God the Son, and they make this point in many ways indeed.

Heretics, who deny the divinity of Jesus, point to the fact that he prays to his Father (Mt 26:39) and even calls him his God (Jn 20:17). “Obviously, then, they are distinct persons,” goes the argument. “Therefore, Jesus is not God!” But all that validly follows from the premises is that Jesus is a distinct person from his Father. Yet, the above passages (and others) make the doctrine unmistakable: Jesus is also one with his Father. They are, as it were, “joined” in the Godhead. Exactly what their unity consists of is a matter long debated, and long considered a mystery that it is not given us to understand. If you want to study this question, the topic to study is the Trinity.

Why should we expect to be able to understand this immediately, or even at all in this life? We’re talking about God, who in his very nature is more powerful than the entire universe, having created it, and who is beyond space and time, having created that. Suppose God wanted to live among us, as one of us: Here we have God the Son. Suppose God wanted to make himself always available to his faithful children, but in a way that would not interfere with our free will: Here we have God the Holy Spirit. So we can understand why God would be “in three persons”; but we cannot understand precisely how God might bring these things about, or what the relationship would be between these three persons. It certainly does not follow that there are three gods.

If you deny that Jesus is God—if you deny that he is one with the Father, that they are joined in the Trinity with the Holy Spiritthen, ultimately, you must deny Scripture as well as the earliest Church, as reflected by the earliest Church Fathers. There is no coherent way to reinterpret many of the above verses, so that Jesus emerges as some lesser being who is not God. Only those who are willing to disregard large numbers of passages and clearly-established biblical doctrine can deny the divinity of Jesus.


by

Posted

in

Comments

Please do dive in (politely). I want your reactions!

22 responses to “The Bible and the Fathers on the Divinity of Jesus Christ”

  1. Gerald A.White

    Jesus said, “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.” (John 5:38) Pharisees are still with us. And that is perhaps, one of the saddest realities imaginable.

    1. Who’s being accused of Phariseeism, and why, Gerald?

      1. Gerald A.White

        Good question. Unitarians for sure and many Presbyterians in my back ground. It is sad because it is so unfortunate to have come all the way into some semblance of religiosity and still feel that the burden of faith lies exclusively with one’s self. Galatians 2:20 is important here. Whose faith is it? For the born again Christian it is Christ’s: “Christ is you; the hope of glory.”

        1. Gerald A.White

          Let’s get the quote right: “Christ IN you, the hope of glory”.

  2. NYC Reader

    Is Jesus God? Humanity faces no greater question.

    C.S. Lewis adeptly addresses the “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord trilemma” each of us faces in MERE CHRISTIANITY:

    “I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse.. I have to accept the view that He was and is God.”

  3. CCC

    We must remember that Divine Mystery is not something to be ashamed of, but something to behold and meditate on in awe and wonder. Some of the deepest mysteries of the Christian Faith are believed to be simultaneously deeply full of symbolic meaning and also literally true, such as the Resurrection.

    Many go on and try to apply their own set of rules or whatever schema makes sense to them as opposed to listening to the apostles or their successors or the witness of the Universal Church and are thus led to many beliefs that ultimately are at odds with historic orthodoxy and Scripture. It can be easy to fall into this trap; our society is often very anti-authority and rebellious, focusing on the individual and often giving lip service to some form of rationalism, even if it ultimately brings many in this age to believe absurdities. This is despite the inability of any one mere mortal man to discover all the worthwhile truths of the world on his own, though we can accept the Truth.

    Just as children do not need to understand how a mountain range formed to awe at its beauty, we do not need to know how a Divine Mystery works in full particulars, but often thinkers throughout Church history have already analyzed their meanings in great detail. It can be easy to forget, but the Summa Theologiae was meant to be merely an introductory manual for theology students. We can satisfy our desire for understanding while still holding awe in the great and wondrous works of God, knowing there is so much left to know and understand we can’t grasp yet in this life. And God is ever ancient and ever new.

  4. Richard Bauckham in his book The Theology of the Book of Revelation quite clearly shows how the author of Revelation ascribes divinity and Godhood to Jesus along with the Father.

    As for those who claim that the Bible teaches that there is and can only be one God, Judaism in response to Christianity came to reject its own earlier teachings that God was binitarian, which was the context in which the early believers worshiped Jesus as God:

    Jewish binitarianism and belief in two YHWHs:

    A Second Temple (and earlier/biblical) belief that was suppressed and called heretical by the rabbis after Christianity rose to prominence. 

    Read the paper by Orthodox Jew Daniel Boyarin called “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John”:

    https://archive.org/details/daniel-boyarin-the-gospel-of-the-memra.-jewish-binitarianism-and-the-prologue-to-john/mode/1up

    Read “Israel’s Lord YHWH as “Two Powers” in Second Temple Literature” by David E. Wilhite and Adam Winn

    Read “The Glory of the Invisible God: Two Powers in Heaven Traditions and Early Christology” by Andrei A. Orlov

    Watch this lecture by Hebrew University Professor Israel Jacob Yuval re: how rabbinic Judaism made up a lot of stuff, including the idea of the “oral Torah,” as a response and reaction to Christianity:

    https://youtu.be/R_6Q4or2jjU

    “The most familiar way to process what we’ve seen is to think about the way we talk about Jesus. Christians affirm that God is more than one Person, but that each of those Persons is the same in essence. We affirm that Jesus is one of those Persons. He is God. But in another respect, Jesus isn’t God—he is not the Father. The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. Nevertheless, they are the same in essence.

    “This theology did not originate in the New Testament. You’ve now been exposed to its Old Testament roots. There are two Yahweh figures in Old Testament thinking—one invisible, the other visible and human in form. Judaism before the first century, the time of Jesus, knew this teaching. That’s why ancient Jewish theology once embraced two Yahweh figures (the “two powers”).6 But once this teaching came to involve the risen Jesus of Nazareth, Judaism could no longer tolerate it.”

    6 I mentioned Alan Segal’s work in this regard in the first footnote of the previous chapter: Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (reprint, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012). In addition to Segal, the following scholarly studies are noteworthy in regard to Judaism’s two-powers teaching: Daniel Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” Harvard Theological Review 94.3 (2001): 243–84; Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms: Meṭ aṭ ron and the Divine Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 41 (2010): 323–65.

    from The Unseen Realm, by Michael Heiser

    It appears that the idea that Israel’s YHWH was a purely monotheistic singular deity was a later development and enforced teaching, possibly or likely in response to Christianity‘s claims for Jesus.

    1. For the sake of people who have never encountered speculation of the sort shared above:

      This stuff combines speculative history with theological conclusion-drawing that was, quite possibly, anachronistic. The intertestamental writers presumably would not have conceded that there were two gods in heaven, as that ran directly contrary to the Shema, and unlike some modern scholars, they actually cared deeply about heresy. So, while they might have had refined ideas of the what would be called “the Godhead,” this is not to say they endorsed a “Binity,” let alone two gods in heaven.

      There is an old scholarly tradition of reflection about the extent to which the OR prophets knew of and conceded that God the Son and the Holy Spirit were distinct persons. But in this case, as with Heiser’s speculations, there are de re / de dicto questions it is all too easy to gloss over. (That is, while they might have spoken of two powers in Heaven, in their words, we must be careful about ascribing conclusions to them that we would be apt to draw from their premises or their locutions.) As to Heiser’s work, it is not at all universally accepted by Bible-believing scholars, although his fans like to pretend that it is objective and uncontroversial scholarship and not speculative theory-building.

      In line with my above remarks, as to the two-paragraph quotation (from Heiser, it appears), there are conclusions being drawn here that are, obviously, very adventuresome and controversial that, in this quotation, appear to be drawn peremptorily and overconfidently. For one thing, it looks wrong, I would say, to say “Jesus isn’t God” if by that we mean “he is not the Father.” No, Jesus is God, period, but indeed, he is not the Father and the Father is not the Son. Heiser’s implication seems to be that the Father is “more God” than the Son. As long as we are talking about the persons of the Trinity, they are all co-equal in the Godhead. I’m surprised Heiser appears to contradict this very basic Trinitarian theology. Also, he claims, “This theology did not originate in the New Testament.” Well, again, there are de re / de dicto issues involved when we refer to “this theology.” A modern scholar like Heiser can observe that there are conceptual similarities in discussions of the divine that go back to the intertestamental period (and, arguably, long before that). But to speak of “this theology,” what do we mean? Do we mean the precise Trinity theory, in the precise language of, say, Augustine? Of course that didn’t exist in the intertestamental period. Do we mean that there are some new ways of describing the nature of God in the NT (especially by John) that bear important similarities to things people said in the intertestamental period? OK, sure. Does that support the conclusion of an intertestamental “binitarian” view? This is not clear at all. And does it mean that such a view was particularly common or very well supported by many believers? This does not follow. And should we suppose that a “binitarianism” was importantly borrowed by writers like John from such antecedent speculation? Does this not absurdly discount the rather more relevant and impressive facts on the ground, namely, that Jesus revealed himself to be the Son of God, that the voice of God spoke of his love for him, as the Holy Spirit descended upon him, etc.?

      I find a lot of the confident speculation about such matters is tangled in conceptual confusions that really need the attention of clear-thinking and probably philosophically trained scholars to untangle. In any event, no one reading this should leave this discussion with the belief that the doctrine of Trinitarianism clearly originated in the intertestamental period. There is something to this, but it muddled to express it that way. The traditional theological way of putting it is still most valid, namely, the prophets anticipated a Messiah whose qualities were so exalted that it is possible to think he was divine (in some sense). Similarly, the Angel of the Lord and the Holy Spirit are treated throughout the OT in ways that strongly suggest full divinity, and yet they are also spoken of as if they were in some way distinct from God. But the prophets saw such things as “through a glass, darkly” (1 Cor 13:12), as Paul and we still do not clearly see the nature of God (this being Paul’s point in this famous verse); and think of Paul’s references to “the mystery”: “Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints” (Col 1:26; cf. Rom 16:25 and Eph 3:9). The way we now (with Augustine) would express the mystery is that there was, indeed, another person of the Godhead, who is the savior of the world.

      The conclusion, “It appears that the idea that Israel’s YHWH was a purely monotheistic singular deity was a later development and enforced teaching, possibly or likely in response to Christianity‘s claims for Jesus,” is absurd—just like it appears on its face—and is simply not supported by the evidence given. It is a fad supported scholars who make a career of promoting “the latest research,” by putting Apocrypha before the Shema and making anachronistic de re/de dicto errors (etc.).

  5. Thank, and bless you Larry. I just heard and read about your conversion today. In doing my own research, I was inspired to post the following on Facebook: “Today I learned something both astounding and affirming. Larry Sanger, one of the founders of Wikipedia has converted to Christianity. That he did this is not as surprising as the path he took to Faith. I am by no means as brilliant as this man, but in reading his story, I am shocked at how similar our lives and paths to Faith in Jesus were. Kudos to you, Larry, and thank you Holy Spirit for your work in him, and in me – I encourage all of you to read Larry’s story., than also read, or re-read God’s story. Blessings to all who consider this. Mark C.”

Leave a Reply to NYC Reader Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *