Is Jesus God?

[The Liturgist]

The statement to which you objected said "Jesus could have obliterated His enemies any time he wanted to rather than choosing to go as a sheep to slaughter. That the only reason anyone had any kind of power over Him whatsoever is because He allowed it."

I did not object to that statement, sir. I regard that as entirely correct. The statement which I objected to was where @Ceallaigh disagreed with that statement, and made other remarks which struck me as violating the principle that the humanity and divinity of Christ are united in the Incarnation without change, confusion, division or separation.

Forgive me @hedrick but the only reason why I pinged you in this thread was that I desired to ask you if you could repeat what you had once told me about John Calvin’s views on the concept of Theosis. I don’t think either of us is interested in debating the merits of St. Athanasius or Nestorius or certain other sixth century figures.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I said that the notion is Christ Himself put certain Godly attributes He had on hold. I think most Christians believe that Jesus could have obliterated His enemies any time he wanted to rather than choosing to go as a sheep to slaughter. That the only reason anyone had any kind of power over Him whatsoever is because He allowed it.

The statement to which you objected said "Jesus could have obliterated His enemies any time he wanted to rather than choosing to go as a sheep to slaughter. That the only reason anyone had any kind of power over Him whatsoever is because He allowed it."

I did not object to that statement, sir. I regard that as entirely correct. The statement which I objected to was where @Ceallaigh disagreed with that statement,

I disagreed with my own statement?

and made other remarks which struck me as violating the principle that the humanity and divinity of Christ are united in the Incarnation without change, confusion, division or separation.

The only other statement I made was asking this question:

Isn't the idea that Jesus laid aside (put on hold so to speak) certain godly attributes he had before the Incarnation, and then took them up again when he returned to heaven?

Could you please explain the grievous violation I committed in a concise succinct manner I'll actually understand, rather than giving me another lengthy incomprehensible lesson?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

in a concise succinct manner I'll actually understand

That is an interesting request. How can your interlocutor know what you actually understand?

 

[Ceallaigh]

That is an interesting request. How can your interlocutor know what you actually understand?

Because I've explained it to him. Understandable to most Christians. It's not a request I've had to make of anyone else here in three years and 17,000 posts.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because I've explained it to him. Understandable to most Christians. It's not a request I've had to make of anyone else here in three years and 17,000 posts.

Learn the liturgies of several ancient churches, read their bibles, spend time watching sacraments and listen to liturgical prayers for a while; after those things are done the chance that you will understand will increase.

 

[hedrick]

I disagreed with my own statement?

The only other statement I made was asking this question:

Could you please explain the grievous violation I committed in a concise succinct manner I'll actually understand, rather than giving me another lengthy incomprehensible lesson?

I suspect what's going on here is that your initial statement looked like theologies that say the Word descended and became a human being, giving up his divine powers. Everyone agrees that God has the power to obliterate his enemies, and chose not to do that. But the orthodox view is that God the Word descended in the sense that he took on humanity. In participating in human life, he typically chose to function as a human and not use divine powers, although there are exceptions. But since there's only one subject in Christ, the Word, he had the powers. I suspect the Liturgist read you as saying that the Word turned into a human, and thus gave up his divine powers during his life on earth. The difference is between changing into a human and taking on humanity.

In case it isn't obvious: the Word changing into a human implies that the Word is separate from God, since we can't have God changing into a human. (1. God can't change 2. We'd be without God for 30 years). And since there's only one God, it would make the Word a supernatural entity subordinate to God. The idea that the eternal Word was separate from and subordinate to God was actually held by a number of ancient writers, as late as the 4th Century. It was finally rejected. There were complex exegetical battles, but I think the real concern was that the classical model of salvation requires God to save (or deify) us. Christ being a separate, subordinate entity wouldn't do.

One could also understand the whole preexistent Christ descending as non-literal. I'm not aware of any significant patristic writers who did that.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I suspect what's going on here is that your initial statement looked like theologies that say the Word descended and became a human being, giving up his divine powers. Everyone agrees that God has the power to obliterate his enemies, and chose not to do that. But the orthodox view is that God the Word descended in the sense that he took on humanity. In participating in human life, he typically chose to function as a human and not use divine powers, although there are exceptions. But since there's only one subject in Christ, the Word, he had the powers. I suspect the Liturgist read you as saying that the Word turned into a human, and thus gave up his divine powers during his life on earth. The difference is between changing into a human and taking on humanity.

My initial (and really only) statement was agreed with. Jesus was obviously able to put forth Godly power when he calmed the storm in Matthew 8:23–27. Only God could control the weather like that. It doesn't say he called upon the Father, it says he rebuked the storm and it stopped. If a man wrestles with his six year old son, he's going to hold back and set aside most of his power. That doesn't mean he actually loses his strength and becomes as weak as a six year old. He has full control over how much or how little power he's going to utilize.

 

[Jonaitis]

According to the philosophy of the Nicene tradition, Jesus' personhood possesses two distinct, yet united, natures—God and Human. In this perspective, Jesus would have all the attributes of aseity, infinity, immutability, and simplicity alongside dependency, limitation, mutability, and composition. He is considered true God from true God, because he was begotten, but not created, from the Father.

 

[hedrick]

Since we’re talking about Chritology, I’d be interested in an opinion from the orthodox folks. Did the human nature have a distinct human consciousness? If so, does that make him a separate subject? To my knowledge the ancient discussions never talked about what we‘d call consciousness. The problem is, if he didn’t, he seems to be missing a key element of humanity, but if he did, it’s hard to see how a human consciousness could remember creation and other things before he lived.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

YES,JESUS IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN FULLY GOD!

For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power" Colossians 2:8-10

Jesus was also fully man, born of the flesh to be tempted as we are that he might be touched with the feelings of our infirmities.

Hebrews 4:15-16

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like AS WE ARE,yet without sin. i

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

He stated "I AM" !

John 8:56-58

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham WAS, I AM .

To DENY the deity of Jesus is also to deny our salvation brought about through his D, B, & R which provides our atonement for sin.

 

[The Liturgist]

My initial (and really only) statement was agreed with. Jesus was obviously able to put forth Godly power when he calmed the storm in Matthew 8:23–27. Only God could control the weather like that. It doesn't say he called upon the Father, it says he rebuked the storm and it stopped. If a man wrestles with his six year old son, he's going to hold back and set aside most of his power. That doesn't mean he actually loses his strength and becomes as weak as a six year old. He has full control over how much or how little power he's going to utilize.

Since you have clarified that it removes my objection. What defines a correct Christology for me is to be able to confess that God (in the person of the Word) became man (John 1:1-18) without the change, confusion, separation or division of the divinity or humanity He now posesses. Additionally one should not object to the idea, which I have tried to explain, of communicatio idiomatum; since it is a bit complex and apparently I lack the ability to explain it clearly is explained well here: Communicatio idiomatum - Wikipedia

This is an area where I particularly appreciate the Lutheran orthodoxy of @ViaCrucis @JM and @MarkRohfrietsch since Lutherans along with the Oriental Orthodox have historically been the most consistent advocates of this truth (which is part of the reason why I strongly want to see immediate reunion between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox).

 

[The Liturgist]

Learn the liturgies of several ancient churches, read their bibles, spend time watching sacraments and listen to liturgical prayers for a while; after those things are done the chance that you will understand will increase.

Thank you for this statement as it is the source of my theology. Although really one would only need to familiarize themselves with the liturgy of one ancient church. If one reads an English version of the Divine Liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox or one of the Oriental Orthodox churches, they contain the entirety of my faith. The Coptic liturgy contains a statement similar to what I wrote above, in the Confession of the Priest before Communion, and the Eastern, Syriac and Armenian Orthodox liturgies all prominently feature a hymn I particularly like as an explanation of this, known as Ho Monogenes (Only Begotten Son).

Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God,
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary;
Who without change didst become man and was crucified;
Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us![6]

This hymn is also in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, but is specifically used on Good Friday, and the texts for their Good Friday services or other Holy Week services, found in a book called the Paschalion and in better translation in the Coptic Reader app, are more troublesome to track down.

I can of course provide links to all of this.

I will also say that my beliefs are encapsulated in the traditional Roman Rite (including various uses such as the Dominican, Sarum or Tridentine, but not the post 1954 versions due to changes made to the Holy Week services by Pope Pius XII), and other Western Rite liturgies such as the Ambrosian Rite and Mozarabic Rite, and of course the Western Rite Orthodox liturgies of the Antiochian Orthodox and ROCOR, from sources such as St. Andrew’s Prayerbook or St. Colman’s Prayerbook. However, one would have to read a lot more of these liturgies, including their daily propers, and particularly including the Divine Office, whereas simply reading the ordinary text of the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom makes all the points I want to make.*

*Or an English translation of the Armenian, Syriac Orthodox or Coptic liturgies. Since I included the hymn Ho Monogenes in this post, one might well look up the Coptic Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril, as it has a Confession of Faith by the Priest before Communion in particular, and also a beautiful Fraction prayer, that are worth reading.

 

[The Liturgist]

Since we’re talking about Chritology, I’d be interested in an opinion from the orthodox folks. Did the human nature have a distinct human consciousness? If so, does that make him a separate subject? To my knowledge the ancient discussions never talked about what we‘d call consciousness. The problem is, if he didn’t, he seems to be missing a key element of humanity, but if he did, it’s hard to see how a human consciousness could remember creation and other things before he lived.

He had, and still has, a distinct human will and a divine will; to deny this is the heresy of Monothelitism, which superficially seems to be related to Monophysitism, but which is also a consequence of Nestorianism, since the more extreme Nestorians argued that the man Jesus and the divine Logos were two distinct persons in a union of will. This is why both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox rejected this doctrine, which ironically had been introduced in an attempt to reunite them, but it failed to do so, and indeed the Emperor had the tongue of St. Maximos the Confessor cut off for his opposition to this doctrine in an act of extraordinary immorality.

However I cannot answer regarding if we replace the word will with consciousness, for the precise reason that the Church Fathers did not discuss it. But we do know that He is perfectly human and it is also evident from the New Testament

A major part of Orthodoxy is to use extreme caution when discussing matters of theology to stay in the established boundaries set by Patristic and Conciliar declarations. Now, personally I find the form of Orthodoxy I practice tremendously liberating, because within the Pale of Orthodoxy as I like to call it one is generally free to form what we call theologoumemna, or theological opinions, provided one does not insist they are incontrovertibly true or represent official doctrine.

For example, I strongly suspect St. John the Apostle was an adolescent boy, albeit one old enough to work full time as a fisherman, with his older brother St. James the Great being a few years older.* This explains a great deal about the particularly close relationship he had with our Lord. Of course each of the Apostles had a uniquely special relationship with our Lord, but for different reasons. The blessings received by St. Andrew, St. Peter and St. Thomas for example are all unique and important.

However, in the case of Christology, the use of theologoumemna tends to be dangerous and in my experience is best avoided by most people. I would not presume to take any view on Christology not taught by a Church Father of unquestioned doctrinal Orthodoxy, because so many heresies resulted from Christological error, and I dread the thought of inaugurating a new one.

*That he was the youngest of the disciples seems to be universally agreed; I simply think he was younger than most, as this explains one part of his adoption by the Theotokos, his resting on our Lord at the last supper, and his extreme longevity, and being of an adolescent age is not inconsistent with working as a fishermen, since even pre-adolescent boys were in the workforce until the relatively recent introduction of laws concerning child labor, and had a particularly prominent role on ships, and adolescent boys could hold the office of midshipman.

 

[hedrick]

Aren't most of those sources taken from an appendix in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures published by Jehovah's witnesses?

I checked three commentaries. All of them held back from a simple equation, but expressed it differently. Probably the best was the note that in this time period, Jewish writers could call someone God without meaning the One God.

From Haenchen’s Hermeneia commentary
John 1:1 (Herm Jn 1): In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that θεός and ὁ θεός (“god, divine” and “the God”) were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the λόγος means only θεός (“divine”) and not ὁ θεός (“God”) since the logos is not God is the strict sense. Philo was not thinking of giving up Jewish monotheism. In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is “God,” but only that the logos is “divine.” In fact, for the author of the hymn, as for the Evangelist, only the Father was “God” (ὁ θεός; cf. 17:3*); “the Son” was subordinate to him(cf. 14:28*). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other: the Logos was “in the presence of God,” that is, in intimate, personal fellowship with him.

Brown’s commentary says that divine is too weak, but still holds back from a real equation, avoiding making his own suggestion by pointing at Nicea. He gives more explanation in his comment on 10:33

John 10:32–39 (AYB 29): Moreover, we must be cautious in evaluating the Johannine acceptance of Jesus as divine or equal to God. As we shall see below in discussing vs. 37, such a description of Jesus is not divorced from the fact that Jesus was sent by God and acted in God’s name and in God’s place. Therefore, although the Johannine description and acceptance of the divinity of Jesus has ontological implications (as Nicaea recognized in confessing that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is himself true God), in itself this description remains primarily functional and not too far removed from the Pauline formulation that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor 5:19).

Ayres in Nicea and its Legacy (which you should read if you haven’t, given your interests) notes that this use of God to indicate a subordinate figure continued to the beginning of the 4th Century.

In John 10:33ff the Gospel itself notes this usage.

The one translation no one uses is "a god". John's point is to identify Jesus with God, even if it isn't a simple equation, not to define him as a separate god.

The question of whether Jesus is God may not be as clear as many people think it is, if it's being asked in the first century context. From James Dunn,i in Did the First Christians Worship Jesus:

"The further question as to whether the first Christians thought of Jesus as God (or god) seems at first to take the discussion a step further. But in fact it does not. For just as "son of God" had a much wider range of usage in the first century, so too theos could cover a range of divine status. Philo was able to take up Exod 4:16 and 7:1 (Moses to be as God to Aaron, with Aaron as his prophet) and say such things of Moses as "(God) appointed him as god" (Sac. 9), as one "no longer man but God" (Prob. 43). In John 10:33-36 Jesus is able to respond to the charge that he was making himself God by citing Ps 82:6, "I say, 'You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you'" (referring probably to rulers and judges). And we have already observed twice that Philo did not shrink from describing the Logos as a "second god." So the few NT passages where the term "G/god" is used of Jesus may not be so significant as they are often assumed to be.162"

Of course by the end of the 4th Century, theologians had abandoned this kind of thing, and used God only for the One God (again, according to Ayres).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I checked three commentaries. All of them held back from a simple equation, but expressed it differently. Probably the best was the note that in this time period, Jewish writers could call someone God without meaning the One God.

From Haenchen’s Hermeneia commentary
John 1:1 (Herm Jn 1): In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that θεός and ὁ θεός (“god, divine” and “the God”) were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the λόγος means only θεός (“divine”) and not ὁ θεός (“God”) since the logos is not God is the strict sense. Philo was not thinking of giving up Jewish monotheism. In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is “God,” but only that the logos is “divine.” In fact, for the author of the hymn, as for the Evangelist, only the Father was “God” (ὁ θεός; cf. 17:3*); “the Son” was subordinate to him(cf. 14:28*). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other: the Logos was “in the presence of God,” that is, in intimate, personal fellowship with him.

Brown’s commentary says that divine is too weak, but still holds back from a real equation, avoiding making his own suggestion by pointing at Nicea. He gives more explanation in his comment on 10:33

John 10:32–39 (AYB 29): Moreover, we must be cautious in evaluating the Johannine acceptance of Jesus as divine or equal to God. As we shall see below in discussing vs. 37, such a description of Jesus is not divorced from the fact that Jesus was sent by God and acted in God’s name and in God’s place. Therefore, although the Johannine description and acceptance of the divinity of Jesus has ontological implications (as Nicaea recognized in confessing that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is himself true God), in itself this description remains primarily functional and not too far removed from the Pauline formulation that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor 5:19).

Ayres in Nicea and its Legacy (which you should read if you haven’t, given your interests) notes that this use of God to indicate a subordinate figure continued to the beginning of the 4th Century.

In John 10:33ff the Gospel itself notes this usage.

The one translation no one uses is "a god". John's point is to identify Jesus with God, even if it isn't a simple equation, not to define him as a separate god.

The question of whether Jesus is God may not be as clear as many people think it is, if it's being asked in the first century context. From James Dunn,i in Did the First Christians Worship Jesus:

"The further question as to whether the first Christians thought of Jesus as God (or god) seems at first to take the discussion a step further. But in fact it does not. For just as "son of God" had a much wider range of usage in the first century, so too theos could cover a range of divine status. Philo was able to take up Exod 4:16 and 7:1 (Moses to be as God to Aaron, with Aaron as his prophet) and say such things of Moses as "(God) appointed him as god" (Sac. 9), as one "no longer man but God" (Prob. 43). In John 10:33-36 Jesus is able to respond to the charge that he was making himself God by citing Ps 82:6, "I say, 'You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you'" (referring probably to rulers and judges). And we have already observed twice that Philo did not shrink from describing the Logos as a "second god." So the few NT passages where the term "G/god" is used of Jesus may not be so significant as they are often assumed to be.162"

Of course by the end of the 4th Century, theologians had abandoned this kind of thing, and used God only for the One God (again, according to Ayres).

I am inclined to think that the quest for what the first Christians thought about any specific topic is, in essence, a tapestry of speculations. But if one quests for what the Church taught by the time she was ready to hold General councils then we need not speculate very much because the canons of the councils are, in general, worded with precision with exactly one purpose to the forefront, namely, to combat teachings that disturbed the Church's developing body of doctrine. In the case of the Gospel according to saint John there are several passages that the orthodox fathers used to define and to defend the doctrine of Christ's deity.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a small clean up. Remember that the Statement of Faith has a statement on the bottom of it which says:
​

Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums. Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Trinitarian beliefs.​

​

Using the New World Translation and promoting the belief of the Jehovah Witnesses is not allowed.​

 

[hedrick]

I am inclined to think that the quest for what the first Christians thought about any specific topic is, in essence, a tapestry of speculations. But if one quests for what the Church taught by the time she was ready to hold General councils then we need not speculate very much because the canons of the councils are, in general, worded with precision with exactly one purpose to the forefront, namely, to combat teachings that disturbed the Church's developing body of doctrine. In the case of the Gospel according to saint John there are several passages that the orthodox fathers used to define and to defend the doctrine of Christ's deity.

Not an approach a Protestantn would be likely to use.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Not an approach a Protestantn would be likely to use.

I think you're right, but I'm not a Protestant, so I use a Catholic approach.