Is Jesus God? Part 13: Addressing Additional Arguments for Jesus' Divinity

1.     The Hypostatic Union: doesn’t the hypostatic union from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. describe aptly Christ as man and God?

The Hypostatic Union Definition from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.: Christ has two natures, human and divine, united in one person without confusion, without change, without division, without separation (Caston, 2023).

This does not prove Jesus is God, unless all Christians will also be God. 2 Peter 1:4 says, “so that through them [God’s promises] you may become partakers of the divine nature…” All Christians become partakers of the divine nature when they become a child of God. Every Christian’s final state will be one of complete sinlessness. We will fully live out our divine nature, just like Jesus did.

Does the Bible ever present a human and divine nature as being separate? Certainly, our sinful nature is not our divine nature, but isn’t living out our divine nature in Christ what it means to be fully human as image bearers of God?

However, what I am commenting on is not really what the hypostatic union is meaning to explain.  The hypostatic union is put forth by Christians to explain how Christ can be human and God at the same time: namely, how he can apparently “lack” certain qualities of God but still be God. For instance, he is not omniscient, omnipotent, invisible, etc. Those are all characteristics of God according to Him as He has revealed Himself in His Word.

I believe the hypostatic union is a man-made construct because one, it is not found in the Bible and two, it defies logic. The following laws of logic are helpful in considering this, particularly as God did create and give us logic and reason, so we should use them (I think this is a way of loving God with all our mind):

1. The law of non-contradiction: something cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense.

2. The law of excluded middle: a thing is either A or non-A.

3. The law of identity: if a thing is A, then it is A. 

(“What are the Three Laws of logic?” 2020)

The hypostatic union breaks all 3 laws of logic, particularly the law of non-contradiction: something cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense.

Examples:

1.     Jesus is fully God and man, but God is omniscient, and Jesus is not. For example, Jesus does not know when he is coming back. 

This is confusing; I think most people would say so.  Jesus had to change to be non-omniscient if he was omniscient previously. There is division and separation between the two as Jesus before he came to earth was, supposedly omniscient, and when he came to earth he no longer was. This breaks the law of excluded middle in logic: a thing is either A (omniscient) or non-A (not omniscient). This also breaks the law of non-contradiction: something cannot be both A (omniscient) and non-A (not omniscient) at the same time (which is claimed by Trinitarians concerning Jesus) and in the same sense (Trinitarians say Jesus is God, so this is the same sense). Two logic laws are broken, and as established previously, God is logical. 

So: Either the logic created by God is put to the side in defining God Himself, or the hypostatic union is false, and Jesus is a man filled with God but not God himself.

2.    Jesus is fully God and man, the God-man, but God is omnipotent, and Jesus is not as “apart from the Father” he can do nothing. 

This is confusing; I think most people would say so.  Jesus had to change to be non-omnipotent if he was omnipotent previously. There is division and separation between the two as before Jesus came to earth he was omnipotent, and then when he was on earth he had to depend fully on the Father. This breaks the law of excluded middle in logic: a thing is either A (omnipotent) or non-A (not omnipotent). This also breaks the law of non-contradiction: something cannot be both A (omnipotent) and non-A (not omnipotent) at the same time (which is claimed by Trinitarians concerning Jesus) and in the same sense (Trinitarians say Jesus is God, so this is the same sense). Two logic laws are broken, and as established previously, God is logical. 

So: Either the logic created by God is put to the side in defining God Himself, or the hypostatic union is false, and Jesus is a man filled with God but not God Himself.

Again, Scripture never explicitly talks about the hypostatic union. Given this doctrine is so significant as it attempts to prove who God is and the deity of Christ, why would it defy logic? God created logic and reason, which is part of who He is and part of who we are as His image bearers.

So, I do not think the hypostatic union is of God.

2.     Why trust the biblical unitarian interpretation over the Trinitarian interpretation, especially as biblical unitarians make up an extremely small percent of Christians?

It is not primarily about trusting the Biblical unitarian interpretation over the Trinitarian: the question is what is true according to the Bible AND what did the early Church actually believe? The Trinity was not developed until 300 years after Jesus ascended. As described in the history section, some of the history around the Trinity is violent – which is not indicative of the Holy Spirit at work.

I think the biblical unitarian interpretation is more faithful to what the early Church believed. While I do not agree with everything Biblical unitarians believe (particularly about the Holy Spirit – I believe Scripture shows the Holy Spirit is God), I personally find their view on Christ’s divinity more convincing than the Trinitarian view. Here are some of the reasons why:

A.      Scripture interprets Scripture. If Jesus IS God based on the Trinitarian interpretation, there would be major contradictions throughout the Bible, as previously stated. But to state it again: for example, Jesus is not invisible, omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent, and God is, among many other contradictions stated in previous sections. But if those passages are interpreted to mean that Jesus is NOT God, following the biblical unitarian perspective, almost nothing is contradicted throughout the Bible. I also think many of the unitarian explanations make more logical sense than the Trinitarian and are more faithful to the original Greek or Hebrew text and context.

B.     Scripture is a Christian’s authority, not tradition. Some may argue: why would God allow His church to be wrong for centuries on this important issue? How could a relatively small group of Christians be correct about the divinity of Christ? Which group’s interpretations should we trust – centuries of Christian theology or a minority group of Christians interpreting the Bible? I think the correct answer is neither. We should trust God. And who God is is clearly shown in His Word, not in human tradition or people’s opinion. The majority Church believing a central tenet of the faith is true for centuries is not proof of its truth, though this fact is certainly not something to ignore. We cannot understand or know God’s ways (Isaiah 55:8). What matters is if the Bible says the Church has been correct for centuries. Additionally, I think the early Church, and by extension, Jesus himself, believed this given the Bible’s witness, and that would supersede centuries of belief in the Trinity Doctrine.

C.      God is not the author of confusion. God is not trying to confuse us. If He says He is invisible, He is invisible, and Jesus is not God. If He says He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, a Spirit not a man, and always perfect, that is who He is, and Jesus is not God, because he is none of these things. God is not One to make us do mental gymnastics to prove He is triune, a belief that is never explicitly stated in Scripture or explained. Again, there are much less inconsistencies or contradictions in the Biblical unitarian interpretation than the Trinitarian.

We cannot understand God and His ways so often (Isaiah 55:8). I do not understand why God, if Jesus is not God, would allow this confusion about who Jesus is for so long. But again, we have an enemy, and we have our own sin and brokenness.  For Protestant Christians at least, Scripture defines what is true, not history, tradition, or man’s opinions – even Christian opinions, and even over a long period of time. So, the only question to ask is: who is Jesus according to the Bible?

3. God cannot be understood.

In my discussions with others concerning the Trinity, more than one person has defended the Trinity by saying that God cannot be understood. God is mysterious and above our understanding. If parts of the Trinity do not make sense, this could almost be seen as further proof that it is true, because who can understand God?

But is that what Scripture teaches?

Throughout the entire Bible, God intentionally and continually reveals Himself to His people.

Jeremiah 9:23-24 states,

^“Thus says the Lord: ‘Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”’

God can be understood and known.

We will find God if we seek Him with all our hearts:

“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. ¹² Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. ¹³ You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29:11-12)

According to God, He can be understood, known, and found.

The fact that the Trinity cannot be understood is perhaps, then, further proof that it is not of God, because God wants us to understand and know who He is. 

4.       Just because God and Jesus are distinct does not mean Jesus is not God.

While this is true, the Trinitarian must hold that throughout the New Testament, in almost every case when God is mentioned, God the Father is being referred to, and whenever Christ is mentioned, God the Son is being referred to. God is called God the Father throughout the New Testament, but He is mostly referred to simply as “God”. In context, Jesus is never referred to as “God” meaning “Yahweh” or “God Almighty”.

Just because God and Jesus are distinct does not mean Jesus IS God, either. The more straightforward interpretation throughout the New Testament is that when Jesus and God are called different names, and only one of them a divine name (conceding that “Lord” is not always a divine name), and have different roles, and Jesus is dependent on, submitted to, and the servant of, the one called God, Jesus is not God, and God is not Jesus. You need to do more mental gymnastics when reading through the New Testament to read it as saying that even though God and Jesus are continually distinct with different, unequal (see previous arguments) roles, they are both one God.

I think the more straightforward interpretation is the better one as God never aims to confuse, and understanding and knowing Him is open to all, even – especially – children (Matthew 18:3).

Consider: if God really did not want to be confusing concerning this He could have just said “God the Father” and “God the Son” throughout the New Testament, but He did not. God could have had Paul, who explained in detail every theologically significant topic, explain the Trinity in detail and explicitly. But He did not, which begs the question: why?

Maybe the Trinity Doctrine is not true.