What The Bible Reveals
Copyright © 2011, 2012 by Anthony Coore
Introduction
In part 1 of this study we saw that the bible presents statements relating to the nature of God that seem inconsistent. A number of ways to resolve the apparent dilemma were reviewed. However, none provided a satisfactory explanation when all is considered. We will now examine what the bible actually reveals.
The Problem Revisited
First of all, it must be acknowledged that the biblical position is that there is one God.
Deuteronomy 6:4
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”
Deuteronomy 4:35
“Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him”
Malachi 2:10
“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?”
Isaiah 44:8
“Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any”
Yet, in the New Testament, we see at least two persons who are considered God
John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”
Here the one called the Word is distinguished from God, yet is said to also be God. (Later, it becomes clear that the Word is the one who became known as Jesus Christ).
Hebrews 1:8
“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”
In this passage, God calls Jesus God1.
John 20:28
“And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], My LORD and my God”
Thomas clearly considered Jesus to be God in some sense, and Jesus never felt the need to correct him of such a notion.
How is it possible that both Jesus and the Father are both God, yet there be one God? It is evident that some explaining is needed if we are to maintain the integrity of both Old and New Testaments. Or is it that the New Testament is simply false? Well before tossing it aside, one should note that the problem does not only arise there.
Problem Exists in Old Testament Too
Genesis 1:26
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth”
Various attempts have been made to explain how this should be understood without allowing for multiple beings who are God. One of the more common arguments is that God was simply speaking to His angels. This is problematic though, because it would mean that the angels participated in the creation of man, and that the angels and God share the same image. Neither of these propositions find support elsewhere in scripture. Furthermore, the indication is that man will attain a higher status than angels (Heb 2:5, 1 Cor. 6:2-3), which would argue against angels being our creators with God, since it is absurd that the created could become higher than the creator(s).
Another popular approach to explaining the text which is used by both modalists (Jesus Only folks) and Trinitarians is the appeal to the plural of majesty. You may have heard of the royal “we”, where the queen might refer to herself as “we”. This form of speech is usually used to indicate the dignity, power and excellence of the speaker. It is suggested that God is simply doing the same. This is not convincing as it is not at all clear that such a figure of speech was in use during the time when Genesis was written. Furthermore it must be seen as untenable in light of
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. 3:22)
The specification here of “one of” makes it hard to conclude anything but that more than one being or person is involved. This is at least consistent with the statements in the NT that indicate that God created all things through Jesus Christ (John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:2).
“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre” (Psalm 45:6)
The writer of Hebrews was actually quoting from this passage in Hebrews 1:8.
There also seems to be indications that there are two beings who are called Yahweh.
“Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven” (Gen. 19:24)
Recall that this was after the LORD (ie. Yahweh) visited Abraham and told him about the impending destruction of Sodom. The above text seems to indicate that this Yahweh who visited Abraham was here on earth, invoking Yahweh in heaven to rain fire on the cities. But perhaps this is simply a case of awkward wording or translating. Yet if that is the case, then it seems odd that when the event is recounted elsewhere and is not quoted verbatim, it still retains the impression that two distinct beings are in view.
“I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword, and have taken away your horses; and I have made the stink of your camps to come up unto your nostrils: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD. ” (Amos 4:10-11)
Considering the above scriptures, it seems as though the Old Testament itself allows for more than one individual to be God. Nevertheless, this still does not explain the many clear texts that state there is only one true God.
The Biblical Solution
The solution to the problem lies in understanding how the word “God” is used. Consider the following texts:
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3)
“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God” (John 20:17)
“But to 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 Cor. 8:6)
“And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28)
These verses show quite clearly that the Father is God, and is in supreme authority. Even Jesus who is called God elsewhere, is subject to the Father. The truth is, most times the bible speaks of God, it is the Father who is in view. If one were to therefore take the definition of God as the supreme being who is over all in authority, then only the Father would be considered God. Not even Jesus would be God by this definition.
So then, in what sense do the scriptures indicate that Jesus is God? Let us first consider the opening verse of the book of John.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1)
The key to understanding this verse is recognising that the word “God” is being used here in two different ways. In the first instance it specifies who is being referred to, and in the other, it says what a particular individual is. Two beings are identified. One is known as the Word (who became Jesus), and the other as God (who is the Father). When it says the “Word was God”, it is not saying that the Word is the same person as the one identified as God before. Rather, it is describing what the Word was. That is, the nature of the Word was God. There is support for this understanding from the Greek itself (the language from which it was translated). For in the first instance that the word “God” is used in this verse, it is accompanied by the definite article (as in, the God, specifying a particular person), but the second instance of it does not have the definite article.
John goes on to say that the Word became flesh (vs. 14). What was the Word before? Well the answer is given there in verse 1. The Word was God. What John is saying, is that the Word was God by nature (a God-being, or of the same kind as the Father) and became human (a human being).
This understanding of John 1 is corroborated by Paul in Philippians 2.
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil 2:5-8)
Here a contrast is being made between Jesus before and after His incarnation. Before, He was in the form of God. After, He was in the form of “a servant” and “in the likeness of men”. What this is saying is that Jesus became human. Therefore, “in the form of God” must mean that He was God (ie. He had the same nature as God). Jesus humbled Himself, not feeling the need to hold on to His God nature (equality with God), but allowed Himself to become human, an inferior being.
This text is troubling to all the prior views we examined. It clearly suggests the preexistence of Jesus, which contradicts the Socinian view that posits Jesus coming into being at His conception. It says that Jesus was equal in nature to God which goes against the Arian claim that Jesus is of the created order. It also shows that Jesus actually gave up something. He emptied Himself, transforming from one kind of being to an inferior kind of being, which refutes the view shared by sabellians (Jesus Only) and trinitarians of the incarnation, which does not allow for a transformation, but instead advocates the addition of another nature to Himself. The text however, does support the understanding that John 1 is speaking of two beings, one of which transformed from God, to become human.
It is noteworthy that Jesus prayed,
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5)
What this demonstrates is that Jesus shared the same glorious nature of the Father before becoming human. In Hebrews 1, the writer says of Jesus
“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (vs. 3 NIV)
Here it is quite explicit that Jesus is the same kind of being as the Father, having the same glory.
With these scriptures in mind, we can confidently conclude that there is a God Family (or Kind) with at least two beings who share the same nature. Just as in a human family, the father and his son are human beings, sharing the same human nature, so too in the God family, the Father and Son are God beings, sharing the same God nature. Also, as there is no conflict with a father having authority over his son in a human family, yet be equally human, so too in the God Family, there is no conflict with the fact that the Father has authority over the Son, yet both are equal with respect to their God nature.
We now see that with respect to the one God, there are actually two distinct ways that the scriptures use the word “God”. In one sense it is referring to the one supreme being who is over all in authority. This would apply exclusively to the Father. But we also saw that “God” can refer to the nature of the Father and the Son. In both the senses, it would be proper to say there is one God. For in the first instance, it is one particular being (the Father) who is over all in authority. In the other instance, it is one God nature that is being described, which is shared by both the Father and Jesus.
It must be noted too that it would be proper to refer to the collective unit of Father and Son as God. Even as we often use “man” to speak of humankind, so it may be understood that “God” can refer to the God-kind. In fact, this manner of speaking is even more suited to addressing the Father and Jesus, because they are of one mind and Spirit. Jesus said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). While the Jesus Only adherents would take this to mean they are the same person, the sense is simply that they work together and are of the same mind and purpose. This is also borne out in Jesus’ prayer on the night He was betrayed, where He prayed that his disciples be one, as He and the Father are one (John 17:21).
Is Jesus Another God?
Since the Father is God and Jesus is God, then does that make Jesus another God? While He can be said to be another God being, He is not another God. For when the scripture speaks of other gods, it is speaking of beings or objects that when worshiped, divert worship from the Father. Does worshiping Jesus divert worship from the Father? Consider the following:
“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” (Heb. 1:3)
“The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (Col. 1:15 NIV)
“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Cor. 4:4)
These verses show clearly that Jesus is the very image of the Father. No wonder He could say that if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father (John 14:9). He said that while He was still human, so He was speaking with respect to His character, personality, and actions. Now that He has gone back to His glorious state, He completely portrays the Father’s being in every way. Any honour and glory He receives, naturally goes to the Father too. Therefore, worshiping Jesus does not divert worship from the Father. On the contrary, the Father is glorified when His Son is honoured. Both Jesus and Paul make this clear.
“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 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 5:22-23)
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ” (Phil. 2:9-11)
Biblically speaking then, Jesus would not be considered another God, though it is clear that He is another God being.
Deuteronomy 6 and Other Monotheistic Texts Revisted
Now that we have come to an understanding of how the word “God” is used to apply to the Father and Jesus, let us see whether the monotheistic texts from the Old Testament conflict with it.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4)
It has been argued by some that the “one” spoken of here can and should be understood in the composite sense. It is pointed out that the Hebrew echad is used for “one” as opposed to yachid. Echad allows for a collective union while yachid does not. Those who advance this view, sometimes highlight the fact that the respected Jewish Rabbi, Maimonides (of the 12th century) when commenting on this passage, substituted yachid for echad to avoid the possibility of one arguing that the passage allows for more than one person.
While the argument is not without merit, it must also be noted that echad often does refer to a solitary entity that does not involve any collective. For eg. Gen. 1:9 (“one place”), Gen. 42:13 (“sons of one man”); Ex. 25:12 (“one side”), Lev. 14:10 (“one ewe lamb”). In any case, it is not echad which should be the focus, but that to which it is being applied. For eg. To speak of one nation, is to refer to a single nation. While a nation comprises of more than one person, it doesn’t change the fact that the use of “one” here means numerically one. It is really the word “nation” that should be scrutinised, to see if it allows for multiple entities.
In the case of Deuteronomy 6, it gets a little tricky, since the verse can legitimately be translated a number of ways. All of the following are said to be possible:
The LORD our God is one LORD
The LORD is our God, the LORD is one
The LORD is our God, the LORD alone
The LORD our God, the LORD is one
To assist our understanding, let us consider the brief discourse on this passage in Christ’s ministry. A scribe asked Jesus which commandment is the greatest of all. Jesus responds:
“And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment” (Mark 12:29-30)
The translation here does not necessarily clarify anything as there are alternate ways it may be rendered. However, observe what the scribe says:
“And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (vs. 32-33)
Clearly the scribe understood this text to be saying that there is one God, and his use of the pronouns “he” and “him” suggests that in his mind, one particular being is in view. Of course, this is only the scribe’s understanding (though it no doubt reflected the common understanding at the time), but Jesus never gave any indication that the man got it wrong. On the contrary, verse 34 shows that Jesus was pleased with his understanding. (Admittedly this does not preclude the possibility that Jesus was willing to overlook a technical misunderstanding to highlight the point that love and obedience are better than sacrifice).
Since the scribe’s view would likely be perceived as problematic to the notion that there are two God beings, it will be assumed for argument’s sake that the scribe’s perspective is the true sense in which the text is meant. The question then would be, does this reading of the text preclude the existence of two God beings who are worthy of worship?
Well if the scribe is correct that a single person is the subject of the verse, then based on the prior discussion on how the word “God” can be used, this particular case would be in reference to the supreme being who is over all in authority (ie. the Father), whom no one can claim any power independent of. Yet we also saw that this does not detract from the fact that the nature of the Father is the same as the Son’s, and that nature makes the bearer of it God.
What is significant to note from Jesus’ citation of the passage, is that He includes the monotheistic reference in His answer to which is the greatest commandment. This highlights the fact that the commandment to love God with all your heart is placed in the context of there being only one God. The point is, since there is only one God, then our worship and devotion should not be diverted to any other being or thing. Now recall that it was demonstrated that worshipping Jesus, the express image of the Father, does not divert worship from the Father. It actually glorifies Him. This means then that even if the subject of Deuteronomy 6 is the Father, it does not preclude Jesus from being considered God and worthy of worship.
Isaiah 42-48
In the book of Isaiah, between the fortieth and fiftieth chapters, are a number of statements that from a superficial reading would appear to contradict what we have so far established about the deity and distinction of the Father and Jesus. For example, consider the following verses:
“I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour” (43:11)
“Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (44:8)
“Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself” (44:24)
“To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? ” (46:5)
“For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. ” (48:11)
The Modalists (Jesus Only advocates) see these verses as clear evidence that Jesus must be the same person as the Father. The Socinians on the other hand see this as supporting their view that only the Father is God, and Jesus did not have a preexistence before His conception. But do these texts really pose a problem to the view advocated here, that Jesus and the Father are two distinct beings of the same God nature, with the Father having ultimate authority?
Let’s start with the last example above. God says He will not give His glory to another. But we know that Jesus prayed to the Father that this very glory be restored to Him (John 17:5), and we know He currently has the glory of the Father (Heb. 1:3). So what should we make of the Isaiah text? If we compare this with a similar statement made earlier, it becomes somewhat clearer what the sense is.
“I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” (42:8)
The context shows that God is contrasting Himself with that which was being worshiped by the people (graven images are specified here). The statement that He will not give His glory to another must be understood with this in mind. God is declaring that He will not authorise the worship of anything that stands to divert worship from Himself. The statement is not meant to convey that there can never be other persons who may share His glory. In the case of Jesus, it has already been established that He only brings honour to the Father and does not in any way detract from the Father’s status.
This section of Isaiah is actually highlighting the fact that all rivals to the God of Israel fail to measure up, and are nothing in comparison to Him. The context is established from chapter 40.
“To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. ” (vs. 18-20)
The people were setting up their own gods by making graven images. These so called gods would only serve to diminish the honour due to the God who created all things. So when we get to where God declares that there is no saviour besides Himself (43:11), this must be understood with respect to the rival gods. None of them can be considered saviour. But this statement does not disallow God from working through an agent, such as His Son, to be a saviour. Therefore, when we see later that Jesus is called Saviour, there is no discrepancy.
The statements declaring that there is no other God are meant to rule out the possibility of the rival gods having any authenticity. God is making it clear that there is no power or authority that did not originate from Him. Such declarations have no bearing on whether there can be other persons who are of the same nature as the Father, who are in subjection to Him, and who express the Father’s mind. Remember, it was shown that whereas Jesus is a distinct God being from the Father, He is not another God (not in the sense scripture speaks of other gods).
When God says that He stretched out the heavens alone, and spread out the earth by Himself, it must not be taken to exclude the possibility of God working through an agent. Based on the context, God is expressly denying that any of the rival gods helped him or had anything to do with the creation. In other words, there is no power or authority independent of God that assisted Him in the creation.
The passages throughout this section of Isaiah therefore do not really pose a challenge to the teaching of two God beings as explained in this study.
The Sacrifice of Christ
In the first section of this study, as we reviewed the various views of the nature of God, we looked at the implications of the sacrifice of Jesus in each. We saw that in the cases of the Arian and Socinian views, one can concede that a sacrifice was made, both on the part of Jesus and the Father. In the Arian perspective, Jesus makes a sacrifice from the time of the incarnation, as He has to give up one form of life for an inferior (though both are of the created order). He then goes further and suffers and then gives up His life entirely. The Father gives up the presence of the Son who was with Him before the rest of the creation. The Socinian framework has Jesus suffering and dying. The Father gives up the one He caused to be conceived by His Spirit, who obviously was very special to Him. In the Jesus Only and Trinitarian views, Jesus never gave up the form of life He had before the incarnation. Instead, He added another nature (human) to what He already possessed. Through the human nature, he suffered, then he gave up this added nature by dying as a man (though still alive as God). In these two views, the Father does not actually have to give up the presence of another being or Person.
When the above doctrines are compared, it would appear that the Arian understanding allows for the greatest appreciation for the sacrifice of Christ and the Father. But we still have the biblical view which we have now explored to consider. From this perspective, a being who eternally existed, of the same nature as the supreme one (ie. the Father), not only gave up His eternal God life to become human, but went on to suffer and die. This understanding makes all the others pale into insignificance. None can compare to this. The Arian view fails to measure up since it holds Jesus to be merely a created being, which must necessarily fall far short of an eternal or uncreated being giving it all up. Also, only the God Family view has the Father giving up so much, for He actually gave up the presence of the only other being of His Kind (His only begotten Son), who was always with Him.
The Purpose of Man
It may seem a little odd to be addressing the question of man’s purpose here. However, only by taking it into consideration can one fully appreciate the truth of who and what God is as expounded in this study. The answer to the question of why God created man actually follows logically from what has been so far covered. For the scriptures show that man was made to become God! That is, human beings were made to eventually become beings of the same kind as the Father and Jesus are. God is actually reproducing Himself through the human creation. This conclusion is inevitable when we consider that God wants man to be conformed to the image of Jesus in the same way Jesus is the image of the Father (1 John 3:1-2,Rom 8:29 cf. Heb 1:3, 2 Cor. 4:4). For more on this doctrine, refer to the article The Destiny of Man.
The truth of man’s destiny is made apparent by a proper understanding of the nature of God. Only the Biblical teaching affirms man’s true potential. All other views diminish it. Consider the Arian and Socinian views that regard Jesus as a created being. Since man can only hope to become the same kind of being that Jesus is, then naturally man’s potential is reduced since Jesus would be an inferior type of being (not just positionally) to the Father. While the Modalist (Jesus Only) and the Trinitarian views acknowledge the full deity of Jesus, man’s potential still gets short changed because of the restrictive concepts of the oneness of God that each framework promotes. Since these views limit God to one being or entity which does not change, which of course means God’s essence is restricted to this one entity, then it would be impossible for man to ever have the same essence of God.
There are Trinitarians however who do admit to some kind of deification of man. However, this is in a limited sense. Recall that Trinitarians teach that Jesus possesses simultaneously two natures- human and divine. The sense in which man can be deified, is in his attaining the same glorified human nature that Jesus supposedly has, which is said to be distinct from the God nature. Only the biblical view that Jesus and the Father are two beings of the same God nature and essence, with Jesus in subjection to the Father, maximises man’s potential. For in this view, man is able to share in the nature and essence of the Father.
It should also be noted that the understanding of God’s plan for making man stands to argue against any notion of Jesus being created. In the case of Arianism which accepts the preexistence of Jesus, one is left to wonder why God did not simply make us the same way He made Jesus, since the intention is for us to be what Jesus is. Socinianism which posits Jesus coming into existence at His conception suffers a similar problem. For if that were the case, and it was by means of the Holy Spirit bringing Jesus into conception that made Him different (ie. compliant with the will of God), then why only apply this process to Jesus and not the rest of mankind? For example, in the case of Adam, why not simply imbue him with the Holy Spirit from the start, the same way Jesus was, so that when he was made alive, he’d be a son of God just like Jesus? If either Arianism or Socinianism is true, just what would be the point of going through this human process that is so susceptible to sin, and which has caused such untold suffering throughout mankind’s history, when it could easily have been avoided?2 But if Jesus always existed3, then there would be no process which brought Him into existence that could be replicated. Reproducing many more beings like Jesus and the Father would therefore require something new, such as the creation of mankind.
One may be inclined to object to the notion of man becoming God, since God has existed eternally, but we will always have had a beginning. But this will only be true of our identities. As it pertains to what we will be however, we will possess the same eternal essence and nature of the Father and Jesus. Recall that there are two Biblical ways to understand the term “God” when speaking of the true God. One is in the sense of being the supreme authority, and the other is in the sense of nature (ie. the kind of being). It is in the latter sense that man will become God. Therefore although our identities would not have been eternal, we will have the very essence and nature of God which is without beginning.
The Love of God
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16)
Only the biblical position on the nature of God as explained in this study shows the extent of God’s love for us. For only in this view do the Father and Jesus give up so much for our sakes. Furthermore, when we consider why they did this for us, and realise that they are in the process of elevating such lowly creatures as ourselves to their plane of existence, that through us, God is reproducing many more beings like Himself and Jesus, then we can better appreciate how great the love of God must be. As it is written,
“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:1-2)
The truth is, not only is this view more excellent than the others we examined, but considering the sacrifice made, and the potential given to mankind, this view cannot be exceeded no matter what religious perspective one comes from. It is important to reflect on these things which show the tremendous magnitude of God’s love, as this is the very same kind of love God expects us to have, seeing that we are meant to become God-beings ourselves.
Summary and Conclusion
We have seen that the scriptures state quite clearly that there is one God. Yet both Jesus and the Father are referred to as God. This naturally presents a challenge to the coherency of the Bible. There have been various ways advanced to resolve this apparent dilemma. We looked at the Arian, Socinian, Sabellian (Modalist, Jesus Only) and Trinitarian views. Yet it was shown that each falls short in explaining pertinent scriptures, and they all fail to do justice to the magnitude of the sacrifice of Christ, the love of God, and the awesome potential of man.
When we examined what the Bible had to say on these matters, we saw that there are two senses in which the word “God” is used when speaking of the true God. One is to specify the supreme being who is the Father, who is over all in authority, including Jesus Christ. In that sense, only the Father is God. However, we also saw that “God” is used to describe a particular nature or type of being. That nature is the same that is shared by both Jesus and the Father. Both are of the God kind or family. In this usage, it is still one God, since it is the same nature and essence shared by both beings. Also, it would be proper to refer to the collective union of Father and Son as God, just as how one might sometimes refer to mankind as man. This way of speaking is actually even more suited to addressing God the Father and Jesus, as they share the same mind and Spirit.
It was explained that when the scriptures speak of other gods, it is referring to any being or object that when worshiped would divert honour from the Father. Worshiping Jesus does not divert worship or honour from the Father. On the contrary, the Father is glorified when Jesus is so honoured, as Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s being. Therefore, Jesus is not another God, even though He is another God being.
The biblical doctrine as presented here is far superior to the other views that were reviewed, as it involves a much greater sacrifice of both Jesus and the Father, which only magnifies their love for us. It is also the only one which does justice to Philippians 2, which affirms the preexistence of Christ, His divinity, and the fact that He gave up one form of being for an inferior. Furthermore, the view presented, gives man the greatest potential possible, that of becoming God beings and thereby expanding the God Family, which demonstrates even more just how much love God has bestowed upon us.
We therefore see that, not only is the Bible coherent on the matter of the nature of God, but it also provides a perspective of how tremendous God’s love is for us, which cannot be exceeded by any other doctrine, whether within Christianity or other religions.
There is still the matter of the Holy Spirit to address, which will be done in the next and concluding part of this study.
1. Admittedly the text could instead be rendered to suggest God is the Son’s throne. But considering the context which shows the Son to have the same glory of the Father (vs. 3), and is the agent of creation (vs. 2), as well as other texts which corroborate His status as God, the more popular reading of this verse seems likely to be the intended reading.
2. The Socinian position may still have required the human creation, but there would be no need to take this route that has caused so much suffering and problems.
3. It is conceivable that Jesus could have come into existence by some means akin to procreation rather than creation. Creation must be ruled out since it implies the instantiation of a design. But if Jesus was designed by God, and brought into being without the need for the human stage, then God could have designed and instantiated as many different persons like Jesus as He desired, without the need for making man. Also, if Jesus was created, it suggests that He would be ontologically inferior to the Father. However, it has already been shown that the scriptures reveal Jesus to be of the same nature and essence as the Father’s. On the other hand, if God somehow generated Jesus from His own being, then Jesus would be ontologically equal to the Father, being of the same nature and essence. The question would be, why not generate others by this means rather than going through the painful human process? But a possible answer that cannot be readily ruled out could be that this process could not bring forth varying identities. To produce more persons (identities) would require something new.