Christ as God in the Early Church

The idea of Jesus being God by nature is so often mentioned in the New Testament and early church history, I wondered if it was necessary to devote a blog to the subject, but there are organizations out there who deny this truth, so I believe it is beneficial for the average Christian to have the evidence to support the deity of Christ and defend against those who deny it.

One of the most often committed errors by those who deny Jesus as God is the belief that only the Father is God.  When we say “Jesus is God,” they think we’re trying to prove Jesus is the Father.  This is the equivocation fallacy as I mentioned in the blog post on The Trinity in the Early Church.  In English, “God” can mean both a nature and a being.  So, when we say Jesus is God, we mean He is God by nature.

The early church begins, of course, with Pentecost at Acts chapter 2.  This is when the gospel was first broadly proclaimed by the Christian Church.  Since the New Testament was written after Pentecost, we can start there to see whether the New Testament writers said Jesus is God.  He is, and it is presented very plainly.

One of the best know passages, of course, is John 1:1, 14).  But, there are many other passages pointing directly to the deity of Christ such as Matt. 1:23; John 5:18, 23; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; and 2 Peter 1:1.

But, how about after the last of the apostles died?  Did the early church still believe Jesus was God?  The Apostle John died at the end of the first century.  His disciple, Ignatius, wrote this just about ten years later in the salutation of his letter to the Ephesians:

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace.” (cir. 110 a.d.)

In the same letter, chapter 18, vs. 2, Ignatius writes this:  “For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.”

A little later, Justin Martyr (100-150 a.d.) wrote, “And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God” (Dialogue with Trypho, 128)

Irenaeus (130 – 202)  said this about the Son: “He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God—that is, the Son Himself—has gathered by Himself.”  (Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1 – Enhanced Version (Early Church Fathers) (p. 1210). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.)

Why is this important?

To deny the deity of Christ is to deny Christianity as a whole, for without God the Son, we have another Jesus, another Spirit, another gospel.

2 Cor. 11:3-4  (ESV)   But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

Gal. 1:6-9 (ESV)  I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Jesus’ Family Tree

Sometimes we look at the genealogies in Scripture and just see a long list of names (Jesus’ genealogy in Luke has 77 names listed) and think it would be boring to read all those names.  But we do read them because God says all Scripture is inspired and beneficial.  The genealogies we are given of Jesus may be among the ones we are tempted to skip, but maybe after reading this, we won’t be so tempted.

There are two genealogies for Jesus presented in the Gospels.  The genealogy in Matthew runs through Joseph’s line and shows Jesus is the rightful king of the Jews.  It begins with Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, emphasizes David’s kingship, and traces His genealogy through Solomon and the royal line.  There are also at least fifteen kings listed in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew.

Interestingly, there are also five women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy as well:

Tamar (Genesis 38) is the first woman mentioned.  She played the harlot with her ex-father-in-law, Judah, because he withheld his youngest son from her, which was his legal duty.  The Mosaic Law, which condemns this, had not yet been written, and Tamar is not condemned for this.

Rahab (Josh. 2) is the next woman mentioned.  She really was a harlot by profession and a Gentile from Canaan.  She helped the Israelite spies when they came to Jericho and is the only one of the five women explicitly listed in the “Hall of Faith” (Heb. Chapter 11).

Ruth (Ruth 1:1-22) is the third woman mentioned.  She was a Gentile, as well, from the land of Moab, but she adopted the Israelite way of life as her own and married Boaz, thereby entering into the line of David.

“The wife of Uriah” (Bathsheba – 2 Samuel 11:2-27) who committed adultery with King David.  There are several speculations over why Bathsheba is not directly named: 1.  It draws attention to David’s responsibility in Uriah’s death, 2.  God’s plan works through flawed human history, 3.  It centers the event on David’s moral failure, 4.  It shows God’s inclusiveness and providence.

Mary (Matt. 1:18) was a young Jewish woman chosen by God for the greatest mission given to a woman of faith: the virgin birth of our Savior.

Matthew’s record of Jesus’ genealogy tells us there is redemption for all, from an adulterous king to a fallen patriarch, to Gentiles, sinners, shepherds, to the virgin mother of our Savior; no one is left out.

Luke’s genealogy of Jesus is a bit different.  While Matthew’s genealogy begins at Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, Luke’s counts back to Adam, the father of man.  David is the only king mentioned, as this is Jesus’ genealogy through Mary, and since it was written to Gentiles, the kingly line held no significance for them.  Here, Jesus’ line from David comes through his son, Nathan.  Luke’s is also reversed from Matthew’s, going from Jesus back through Adam to God.  Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward.  And Luke gives 77 generations as compared to 42 for Matthew.

Why is this important?

There are a number of reasons these genealogies are important to the believer:

Matthew shows Jesus legal right to the throne of David, the Son of David.  Luke connects Jesus to all of humanity, He is the Son of Man and the Savior for both Jews and Gentiles.

Matthew shows us salvation is offered to all levels of social strata, Luke shows us faithful obedience of ordinary people is rewarded.

Jesus is connected to the covenants of Scripture: the Abrahamic (Matt. 1:1), Davidic (Matt. 1:6), and brings the Adamic connection (Luke 3:38)

Most importantly, the genealogies confirm Jesus as the Messiah in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about David and Abraham.  They show God works through imperfect people to accomplish redemption, and it supports the doctrine of the incarnation: Jesus is fully biologically human as the Son of Man and fully divine as the Son of God.

The Trinity in the Early Church

In some circles, people will point out that “The word Trinity doesn’t even appear in the Bible, so it must have been created by mankind.”

While it’s true the word Trinity does not appear in Scripture, the concept does.  The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father is God by nature, the Son is God by nature, the Holy Spirit is God by nature, and the three divine Persons are the one being called God.

In the Bible we see this laid out pretty clearly for us: The Father is identified as God: Gal. 1:1.  The Son is identified as God: Heb. 1:8. The Holy Spirit is identified as God: Acts 5:3-4.  But, there is only one God (1 Tim. 1:17).  So, if the teaching was there in the Bible, why don’t we see the term used in the early church?

The understanding that these things were true was there, but how the concept worked was not.

Ignatias (circa. 110 a.d.), one of the Apostle John’s disciples, in his letter to the Magnesians, identifies God the Father:  Now it becomes you also not to despise the age of your bishop, but to yield him all reverence, according to the will of God the Father,

Ignatius, again, wrote this in his letter to the Ephesians, chapter 18:  “For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.”

Tertullian (circa. 210 a.d.), writes in his Against Praxeas chapter 13: “. . . That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God;”

The first use of the term trinity in the writings of the early church fathers was by Theophilus of Antioch (circa 175 a.d.) “In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.”

This didn’t settle it for everyone in the church, however.  We think the doctrine is hard to understand today after nearly 2,000 years of scholarly writing and thought.  Imagine how difficult it was to understand when they had only the truth to rely upon without an explanation.  We have the same problem in science, for instance: we know that light exists in three forms: particles, waves, and energy, but we don’t know how that works.  God did this with the doctrine of the Trinity as well: we know that it is true, but we sometimes struggle with knowing how.

The main issue in the early church in relation to the Trinity was the nature and position of Christ.  The Jews only believed in one God, the Father.  He was all that was revealed to them in the Old Testament.  There are a few hints at the Trinity in the Old Testament, but the Jews stuck with the Father only.

Once the Son comes into the picture, the Jews in the church had a difficult time grasping who Jesus was and how He could be God too.

There were lots of screwy ideas of who Jesus was early on.  The Docetists didn’t even believe He was physical, A fellow named Marcion (140 a.d.) claimed he was a god but inferior to the Father.  Sabelius (circ. 200 a.d.) taught God was just one person but showed himself as three three persons.  Paul of Samosata (260 a.d.) said he was an inspired man but not the eternal Son.  Paul of Samosata’s disciple, Arias (318) thought Jesus was created by the Father as a sort of lieutenant god,

By the beginning of the fourth century, Arias and orthodoxy were the two main competing theories of how the Son relates to the Father.  The disagreement created such a stir that the first “Christian” Roman emperor, Constantine, called a council at a city in Turkey: Nicaea.  There, more than three hundred bishops argued through the matter.  Arius was there but did not speak.  His representative, Alexander of Alexandria debated with Athanasias, a young (18 years old) deacon from the church of Alexandria.  The orthodox view of the deity of Christ and support for the Trinity doctrine, which the church had believed for nearly 300 years, was confirmed by an overwhelming majority of the bishops.

Arius refused to sign the creed which was produced by the council to reflect their agreed upon ruling.  He was condemned and exiled by the Emperor Constantine – who himself was an Arian – and his writings were ordered burned. 

Why is this important?

To those who might deny the Trinity I’d like to say, for nearly 2,000 years scholarly men and women have dedicated their lives to revealing for us what the Bible teaches in the original languages.  They know what it says.  To think they are lying to us about the Trinity doctrine being contained clearly in Scripture would mean a conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of men and women over twenty centuries who have decided to lie to us but keep the truth to themselves.  I’d ask for a motive if this were true.

So, while the Trinity teaching was revealed by God in the New Testament, its workings were not explained.  The doctrine was settled as an answer to a problem of definition: how could one be three and three be one?  The Trinity doctrine we believe in today was taught in the New Testament era, was challenged by many “alternatives” to the truth, and though put through the fire, it has survived intact as God’s truth always does.

Living Biblically

The Year of Living Biblically is a book written by A.J. Jacobs describing how he, an agnostic, attempted to live according to the Bible for a year.  There was humor in his attempt, but some serious benefits as well.  So, I wondered what the United States would look like if the church, evangelical Christians at least, lived biblically?

If you watch the news, you see a lot of “religious leaders” claiming to be a part of one movement or another. They may even quote a passage of Scripture they believe focuses on a specific cause.  Let me address that a little.  Now, I’ve promised God, myself, and you that I won’t insert political issues into this blog, so I’m not going to start now.  Some of this blog will, however, address how we Christians should act if we join some political cause or another.

There are a lot of demonstrations going on in America right now, some of which are bordering on violent.  How should Christians handle themselves in these sorts of events?  First, I’d like to talk about how some are bringing their children to these protests.  We, as Christians, are to protect our children:

Matt. 18:5-6 (ESV)  5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Causing harm to a child, whether physical, spiritual, or moral harm, is an abomination to God.  Parents who lead their children into such situations to “show them Mommy and Daddy’s cause” but end up causing harm to the child will answer to God for their actions.

Lately, we’ve seen school children cutting school to protest.  Is this what the children should be doing?  Who is teaching them this is the thing to do?  Who is using them for their own cause?

Eph. 6:4 (NKJV)  4 And you, fathers [teachers?], do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

Lastly, concerning the demonstrations taking place, I’d like to offer this passage, remembering Paul was writing this under cruel and oppressive Roman rule:

Rom. 13:1-7 (ESV) Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

So, we are to obey the governing authorities but within biblical parameters, of course.  Currently, in the United States, this does not mean we are prevented from protesting against that government.  Our basic law, the Constitution, allows for peaceful protest.  Protests aren’t innately good or bad.  Half of the Christian Church is based on protest – that’s why we’re called Protestant – but once the protest is no longer done peacefully, we need to remove ourselves (and our children).  Some believe one side or the other is evil, dastardly, and cruel, but so were the Romans.  While we cannot control the behavior of others, we can control our own.  Let us be models of Christ-likeness

Why is this important?

Living biblically is a good way of life.  To point to a few of the more well-known commandments: Honoring our parents makes for a good home life and a respect for the property and person of others. 

Not committing murder makes for a civil society and does not destroy the family of the victim or the perpetrator. 

Not committing adultery makes for a happier marriage and cuts divorce rates.

Not wanting your neighbor’s stuff, or stealing it, keeps family members out of prison and at home, as well as making for good neighborhood relations and recognizing property rights: the first sign of a civilization.

These are just five of the Ten Commandments.  Think of how much better and peaceful our society would be if just these five were followed.  God is interested in our souls, yes, but He is also interested in our lives.  He wants us to live safely and peacefully.  It is we humans, who mess this up.

So, let’s live biblically and show others how to bring peace to even contentious causes and events.

The Testimonium Flavianum

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”  (Josephus, Flavius. The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus: Josephus’s work, translated by William Whiston in 1737 . Kindle Edition.)

There is a very controversial passage in ancient historian Flavius Josephus’ work Antiquities (18:63-64) called the Testimonium Flavianum (the Testimony of Flavius).  The passage is controversial for a few reasons.  First, it is a very early record of Jesus of Nazareth by a non-Christian writer/historian.  Secondly, it identifies Jesus as “the Christ.”  Thirdly, it says He was a worker of miracles.  Fourthly, it tells of His crucifixion.  And fifthly, it speaks of His resurrection.  You can see why many scholars, secular scholars in particular but many Christian scholars, would see this as an early “fake.”  Most believe Jesus is mentioned in the original, but not the extensive description of His miracles, death, and resurrection.

Many believe the controversial portions were inserted later, perhaps two centuries or more later, by Christians who wished to embellish the memory of Jesus.  This controversy may have been settled to a degree late last year.

In August of 2025, Dr. T. C. Schmidt, a PhD graduate of Yale University specializing in the Historical Jesus, early Christian history, and the background of the New Testament, published the book: Josephus and Jesus, where he challenged the popular view of the TF. 

Using AI, Dr. Schmidt researched the complete writings of Josephus and his potential sources, exploring the relationships between Josephus and those possible sources he may have encountered.  His findings were that the passage is authentic.  In other words, Schmidt believes Josephus wrote it and wrote more than is currently widely accepted.  Here are some reasons why he believes this:

 The TF fits Josephus’ narrative flow too well to be a later insertion.

The TF sits inside a continuous political narrative in the chapter

The surrounding sections concern Roman governors, public unrest, executions under Pilate.

If you remove the TF entirely, the paragraph break becomes awkward and Josephus’ pattern of cataloging disturbances is disrupted.

A later Christian interpolator would not have been able to insert a paragraph that perfectly matches Joesphus compositional habits at this point in the narrative.

The core language is recognizably Josephus’ Greek.

Josephus’ characteristic sentence rhythm. 

The vocabulary is the same as Josephus uses elsewhere

This is not a Christian confessional formula but is consistent with how Josephus describes other figures (prophets, teachers, troublemakers)

The Christian-sounding lines stand out because they are intrusive.  Rather than weakening, Schmidt argues the opposite:

“if indeed one ought to call him a man”

“he was the Christ”

“appeared to them alive again”

You don’t get this kind of stylistic consistency unless something original was already there.

Josephus had direct access to people who knew Jesus’ movement   (one of the strongest points)

Josephus personally knew Ananus and family, the high priestly elites, herod Agrippa II, and Roman governors such as Felix and Festus:

Josephus also mentions James, “the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ” two chapters later without having to reintroduce Jesus.

Once Josephus has named Jesus in Book 18, the James reference makes sense.

Without the TF, the James mention becomes oddly abrupt.  This suggests Josephus already expected his readers to know who Jesus was.

The TF is too restrained to be a Christian invention

It’s what the TF does not say: no virgin birth, no atonement theology, no fulfillment of prophecy, no exalted Christology. 

Instead Jesus is a teacher who was executed by Pilate and followed by a persistent group.

    Why Is This Important?

    Dr. Schmidt’s work draws us much closer to show a non-Christian Jewish historian who was a contemporary of the Apostle John, spoke of Jesus, His marvelous works, and His crucifixion.  As a result of his work, Schmidt is confident in the following version of the TF’s core language:

    “At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of surprising deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and also many Greeks. And when Pilate, on the accusation of our leading men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him did not cease. And to this day the tribe named after him has not disappeared.”

    The Greek word for miracles can mean “surprising deeds,” so to give as conservative a translation as possible, Schmidt changes it here.  Schmidt also felt justified in removing the resurrection claim as having possibly been added later.  Josephus was a Roman and Jewish historian and kept theological comments out of his writings.

    Even Schmidt’s conclusion gives historical evidence for the life of Christ, His crucifixion at the hands of Pilate due to the prompting of the Jewish leaders of the time, and that Jesus followers did not cease to follow even after His death.

    Historical evidence for our faith is often like a puzzle: it comes a piece at a time rather than a full flood of evidence.  We will need to wait for more evidence perhaps supporting the full TF.  God gives us enough to strengthen our faith but seldom enough to turn it into certainty.

    The New World Translation

    A couple of weeks ago, the post on this blog was about translations, their types, styles, and purposes.  This week, I thought I’d give you a sense of what can be done to a translation that will mislead the reader into believing things the Bible just doesn’t teach.  I will be using the New World Translation (NWT, henceforth) published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses).  It falls into the category of “Confessional/Theologically Guided Translations: Doctrine influences this translation type and so may adjust wording to align with theology.”

    I will call this a translation only for convenience.  Raymond Franz, a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses from 1971 until he resigned in 1980, tells us the  following about the translation committee in his book, Crisis of Conscience:

    “The New World Translation bears no translator’s name and is presented as the anonymous work of the ‘New World Translation Committee.’ Other members of that committee were Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder and George Gangas. Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew.” (p. 94)

    According to Mr. Franz, the NWT is not a work produced by scholars, but by those seeking a Bible that would support their views without the usual explanations of why other translations do not.  Let me give a couple of examples. 

    Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Holy Spirit is not the third Person of the Trinity but only God’s active force.  Hence, their translation of Genesis 1:2 is as follows:

    Gen. 1:2 (NWT)  Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

    Sound unfamiliar?  If it does to most Bible readers because a modern, word-for-word, peer-reviewed translation like the English Standard Version (ESV henceforth) translates the same passage like this:

    Gen. 1:2 (ESV)  The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

    You can see what the NWT translation committee has done here: they have inserted their doctrine into the passage so their followers might more readily accept it.  But this is not how you translate the Bible honestly.  The Hebrew word is ruh and is universally translated as spirit except in the NWT.  So the Watchtower organization wants the reader to think God’s spirit is a force like electricity or a laser beam.

    You might ask, “But have they ever influenced important doctrines this way?”  Funny you should ask.  They’ve done just that in Colossians:

    Col. 1:16-18 (NWT)  because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist, and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things;

    Now look at the same passage in the ESV:  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: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

    Do you notice the difference between the two?  The NWT has inserted the word other into their translation four times in these three verses.  The word other is not there in the Greek.  It was inserted on purpose to make their readers believe Jesus was one of the things created rather than the almighty Creator.  This is a push to try and influence those who know no better that Jesus is not God the Son.

    Why is this important?

    Today’s culture has worked hard to give truth a very low priority, and translators such as those of the NWT have joined in that crusade.  “Truth is different for you than it is for me,” or “my opinion is just as valid as your facts” are statements that are more and more acceptable.  To keep from being fooled, we need to look at original sources, not what others say the original source says.

    The NWT and others like it are a plea for Christians to do their homework, to check things, to look at respected translations and scholars and not just one or two but dozens.  The Bible commands us to test ALL things, and that means even the Bible in which that command appears.  It is God’s command, and He honors it.

    1 Thess 5:21 (ESV)  but test everything; hold fast what is good.

    The Two Minds Theory

    In past blog posts, I’ve discussed both simple and complex things.  Some ideas are easy to grasp, others are harder.  I came across this theory, The Two Minds Theory, last year while reading Thomas Morris’s book The Logic of God Incarnate (1986), although “tastes” of the concept – that Jesus acted as man at times and as God at others – are almost as old as the church.

    I think an explanation of the Two Minds Theory is more easily explained if I start with the problems it solves.  The Church has historically taught that Jesus is fully God and fully man.  While most theologians see this in Scripture, they have problems with Jesus not knowing the time of His return (Mark 13:32), being tempted (Heb. 4:15), and growing in wisdom (Luke 2:52).  The problems are how could God be omniscient and not know when He would return, how could a holy God be tempted to sin, and how could God grow in wisdom?  These are human frailties.

    One answer to this is that Jesus turned over the use of His attributes as God to the Father when He took on human form.  This would mean He was not all-knowing, didn’t know He couldn’t sin, and so could be tempted, and grew in wisdom as any other human.

    Morris’s book makes a distinction between being merely human and fully human, between being merely God and fully God.  What he means by these terms is that we are probably merely human.  We believe we will become something greater: 1 Cor. 15:51-52 (ESV)  Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. At that time, says Morris, we shall be fully human.  So, we currently don’t have the full set of attributes or don’t have the attributes fully that someone who is fully human has.

    Being merely God and fully God is similar, according to Morris.  If Jesus turned over the use of His attributes to the Father, and no longer acted as God, was He merely God?  Did He qualify as God by nature, but was not the ruler of the universe for those 33 years He walked the earth?  Historic Christianity says “no.”  Jesus is fully human and fully God.

    With that in mind, Morris asks how Jesus could be fully God (exercising all the attributes and powers that qualifies a being to qualify as fully God) yet could be tempted, not know when He would return, and grow in wisdom.

    Humans have finite minds. If Jesus is fully human, He would need to have a finite mind to go with that.  If He is fully God, He would need an infinite mind to go with that.  These seem contradictory.  Morris again says “no.”  As the omnipotent God (the Son), Jesus could reserve a finite mind within the infinite mind of God and give His human nature access to it.

    Sometimes when we dream, we know we are sleeping and can even affect the way the dream goes.  Our mind is in two places: we are aware we are asleep in bed, but there is also a portion of our mind that is aware of our dream.  Morris says this is how the two minds could work.  God the Son would be fully aware of all that is usual for His being fully God and allow for a finite portion of His mind to be aware to His human nature.

    There is a heresy known as Nestorianism which states Jesus was two persons: a human person and a divine person.  This is not that.  Morris is saying Jesus and God the Son are the same Person.  In philosophy we say they are numerically identical.

    Why is this important?

    The Two Minds Theory seems to solve a lot of incarnation problems faced by theologians over the centuries.  Jesus’ human nature had a finite mind and so could be tempted, not knowing He couldn’t sin, grow in wisdom, and not know when He would return.  At the same time, the same Person, God the Son, would be fully God and rule the universe as usual. Morris is attempting to solve that.

    There isn’t a lot written on this.  Morris’s book as well as Davis and Yang’s book An Introduction to Christian Philosophical Theology are the only books I’ve seen on the topic. 

    Theories like this need peer review and criticism. I haven’t found that yet. So, take this with a grain of salt. Some theologian may find an issue, pull on it, and the entire house of cards collapse. I just thought it would be interesting enough that the theologians among you would like to consider the theory.

    Bible Translation Types and Why

    I thought it might be good to look at the types of English Bible translations available, along with their various focus, strengths, and limitations.  Some of you may be wondering what translation would best suit you and why some translations seem so different from others.  I thought this might be helpful. 

    We will look at them from the most accurate to the original text to the least:

    •  Interlinear or Ultra-Literal: This is the most transparent to the original text.  It shows direct word alignment with original languages along with morphology and word order.

    Its strength is maximum transparency and is ideal for textual and linguistic analysis.

    Its major limitations are that you can’t read the thing.  It pretty much requires a knowledge of the original languages.

    Examples: Greek-English Interlinear or a Hebrew-English Interlinear.

    • Formal Equivalence (Word-for-Word):  This is the highest quality readable translation type.  It preserves as much grammar, syntax, and terminology as possible.

    Its strengths are that it provides the best balance of accuracy and usability with minimal theological interpretation.

    Its major limitations are that it can sound awkward and the figures of speech may be unclear.

    Examples: NASB (1995, 2020), ESV, NRSV, KJV

    • Optimal/Mediating Equivalence: This form leans toward formal but smooths where the English requires it.

    Its strengths are that it is generally faithful while readable.  As a result, it is often used in both academic and church settings.

    Its major limitation is that it may include interpretation to make it more readable.

    Examples: CSB, REB, TNIV

    • Dynamic Equivalence (Thought-for-Thought): This prioritizes meaning over form.  It translates ideas rather than exact wording.

    Its strengths are that it is clear, accessible, and communicates the sense of the passage to the modern reader.

    It is limited in the sense it loses verbal precision and includes more translator interpretation.

    Examples: NIV, NLT, GNT (Good News Translation)

    • Functional/Reader-Response Equivalence: This type attempts to focus on how the original audience would have felt or understood the text.

    The strength here is strong cultural clarity.

    Its limitation is that we are starting to creep further from the original wording and relying more on the translator’s interpretation.

    Examples: CEB (Common English Bible), CEV (Contemporary English Version)

    • Expanded/Amplified Translations:  These insert additional possible meanings into the text itself.

    The strength here is that it is helpful for word studies.

    The limitations are that it blurs translation to provide commentary and is less reliable as a stand alone text.

    Example: AMP (Amplified Bible)

    • Confessional/Theologically Guided Translations: Doctrine influences this translation type and so may adjust wording to align with theology.

    The strength is that it is internally consistent, though it may not be consistent with the text.

    The limitation, of course, is the risk of doctrinal bias overriding the linguistic evidence.

    Examples: NWT (New World Translation), Orthodox Study Bible, New Jerusalem Bible

    • Paraphrase: This is the least reliable for conveying the original text as it rewrites Scripture in a modern form.

    The strength is that it is readable and is often used as a devotional Bible.

    The limitations are that it is not a translation in the technical sense but reflects the author’s interpretation more than the original wording.

    Examples: MSG (The Message), TLB (The Living Bible)

    Why is this important?

    Translation types and styles are very important and provide a variety of sources for the Christian.  If we are looking for a relaxing devotional time, we might reach for a paraphrase to get the overall meaning of a passage.  If we wanted to do an in-depth study of that passage, though, we would be much better served by picking up a Formal Equivalence translation, which will give us a much more accurate picture of the words and order of the words the original writer wanted to convey.

    Also be aware that there are Bibles out there that are extremely doctrinal such as a theologically guided translation, which can heavily interpret a passage to match what the denomination (NJB-Catholic) or cult (NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) teaches.

    Or, maybe you might want something less wooden yet close to the text.  The Mediating Equivalence form might be more to your liking.

    Whatever your needs or tastes, know what you’re getting when you buy a Bible.  Remember, the original documents are inspired, not the translations.  The farther we move away from a translation from the originals, the more interpretation slips in.

    What is God?

    Deut. 4:15-19 (ESV)  “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. 19 And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.”

    This passage speaks of God’s address to the people of Israel at Horeb (the area of Sinai where Moses received the Law – Ex. 19:7-9).  Notice God speaks of not having a physical form for God is spirit (John 4:24).  Spirits do not have physical forms.

    This could well be one reason God does not want us to produce any images of Him.  After all, how do you produce an image of something which has no physical form?  So if God has no physical form but we give Him one, we have changed what God is.  It’s a little like the argument against God changing His mind:  If God were to change His mind, would He change it for the better or for the worse?  Since He is omnibenevolent (infinitely good), He has “made up His mind” to do what is best.  There can be nothing better.  For the same reason, He cannot choose something worse.  By nature He wants what is best.

    The same logic applies here.  Since God is the greatest of all possible beings, making an image of Him would lessen what He is by limiting Him to a physical form or representation.

    An Obvious Problem:

    Then what do we do with all those who say they saw God: Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Isaiah, Ezekiel, elders of Israel, and of course those who saw Jesus?

    In Genesis Chapters 18 and 19, Abraham speaks with a man identified as YHWH: Gen. 18:1-2 (ESV)  And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. 2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth

    In Genesis 32:24-28 Jacob also saw God in the form of a man: 24 And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. 25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the day has broken.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27 And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” 28 Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

    Then, of course, Jesus appeared in the likeness of men (Phil. 2:5-7).  This passage also says Jesus was not always “in the likeness of men” but was originally in the form of God (vs. 6).  The word form in both verses 6 and 7 is the same, morphe, and in the same context, so if Jesus was a man while He walked the earth, then He was also just as assuredly God.

    I get from this that God can take the form of man at will just as the two angels did in Luke 24:4 (ESV)  While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel.  These two are identified as angels by John: John 20:12 (ESV)  And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet.

    What Isaiah (6:1-5), Ezekiel (10:20), and Amos (9:1) saw were visions.  They did not see God directly.  Moses saw God’s glory or goodness, but not God Himself (Ex. 33:18-23).

    Why is this important?

    We can make God into something He’s not if we’re not careful.  He’s not our servant, not our idol, not a photograph on the wall, a cross in our bedroom, nor a limited Being.  There are gods created every day.  Some put make up on their god or shave his face every morning.  These are only gods because people have made them so, but there is only one God by nature:

    1 Cor. 8:5-6 (ESV)  For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 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.

    God is Worthy

    I’ve been reading through the books of Moses lately and was stuck by the detail God requires in the building of the tabernacle and its accessories.  The Menorah, for instance, takes ten verses (243 words) alone to describe.  God has very specific requirements for His house.  He covers every detail He wants, every carving, every curtain, the fabric, the design, everything.  Assignments like these would be difficult to impossible for even the most skilled craftspeople, but God has made arrangements for that issue as well:

    Exodus 31:1-11 (ESV)  The Lord said to Moses, 2 “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, 3 and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, 4 to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, 5 in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft.  6 And behold, I have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. And I have given to all able men ability, that they may make all that I have commanded you: 7 the tent of meeting, and the ark of the testimony, and the mercy seat that is on it, and all the furnishings of the tent, 8 the table and its utensils, and the pure lampstand with all its utensils, and the altar of incense, 9 and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils, and the basin and its stand, 10 and the finely worked garments, the holy garments for Aaron the priest and the garments of his sons, for their service as priests, 11 and the anointing oil and the fragrant incense for the Holy Place. According to all that I have commanded you, they shall do.”

    So, God has extreme requirements for His Tabernacle, requirements so great He needed to supernaturally gift already talented craftsmen to complete the tasks.

    While thinking about this, I began to think “God isn’t showy.  He doesn’t present Himself as a prideful God.  After all, He stepped down from the grandest throne, the throne of heaven, to be born in a stable as a human, wash the feet of men, allow lowly men to torture Him, then carried a cross Himself – the symbol of His greatest humility – to the place where He allowed humans to execute His human form.  On top of that, He calls us fellow workers, friends, and brothers. That is not a prideful God.”

    “Why, then, does He feel the need for such splendor in His Tabernacle,” I wondered.  Then it came to me.  It was not pride that required such beauty but worthiness.  God is worthy of such majestic a structure.  As the old saying goes: “It ain’t bragging if you can do it.”  Well, with God, it isn’t bragging if it’s who you are.

    There’s a respect that comes with who someone is and/or what they’ve done.  Veterans, for instance, often hear “Thank you for your service” because they are worthy of such a statement.  We stand when a judge enters the courtroom to show due respect for their office.  For the same reasons, God is worthy of the best and finest not because He is prideful, but because He is due such respect and adornment.

    Because of God’s character, nature, actions, and relationship with humanity, He is worthy of our worship, trust, and obedience.   But, it isn’t that that makes Him worthy.  He is worthy by His nature alone.  He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, holy, and omnibenevolent. 

    Anselm of Canterbury said God is “That than which nothing greater can be conceived.”  It is understood, then, that if we could imagine anything greater, that would be God.  Such a God is worthy of all He asks.

    Why is this important?

    It’s difficult to wrap our minds around the concept of God’s nature, What God is rather than Who He is.  I hope this has helped a little, but I’m only human like you.  Certainly I don’t have all the answers or even many of them.  I just know the God we serve is worthy of all we and the hosts of heaven can give Him and then some.

    If God had a business card, what more could it say than just “God?”  I think that’s why, when Moses asked His name in Exodus 3:14, God just said “I am that I am.”  What more is there?