Can Jesus be God and have a god?

[JK8619]

There are many verses in the Bible that can make it difficult for a person to accept Jesus as God. For most of them, I have heard arguments from both Arian/Unitarian and Trinitarian sides. However I have never heard a Trinitarian explanation of New Testament verses that say that Jesus not only had a father, but that his father is his God.

I have came across several such verses, so Ill list a few for quick reference (From the RSV 2CE).

1. 1 Peter 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!”
2. 2 Corinthians 1:3 (starts the same as 1 Peter 1:3).
3. John 20:17 “Jesus said … I am ascending to my father and your Father, my God and your God.”

Peter and Paul both said that the Father is Jesus’s God and John quotes Jesus making the same claim. If the Father is Jesus’s God, then how can Jesus also be God?

JK

 

[Della]

When Jesus refers to “my God and your God” he is speaking as the Son of Man–as the Second Adam, as a human being. As a man he did and could talk about God as being his God. He became a human being, born of a Jewish woman in a particular time and place. As a man he was a fervent Jew who loved God just as he should have done as a fervent Jew.

The teaching is that Jesus is both God and man, fully God and fully man. He did not give up his divinity to become a man nor was his humanity fake–he was/is true God and true man, just as it states in our creeds. How he became man while remaining God is a mystery of the faith. It’s not explainable by reason alone, but it is reasonable to believe since God, being God, could do what he wished to do.

 

[JK8619]

When Jesus refers to “my God and your God” he is speaking as the Son of Man–as the Second Adam, as a human being. As a man he did and could talk about God as being his God. He became a human being, born of a Jewish woman in a particular time and place. As a man he was a fervent Jew who loved God just as he should have done as a fervent Jew.

The teaching is that Jesus is both God and man, fully God and fully man. He did not give up his divinity to become a man nor was his humanity fake–he was/is true God and true man, just as it states in our creeds. How he became man while remaining God is a mystery of the faith. It’s not explainable by reason alone, but it is reasonable to believe since God, being God, could do what he wished to do.

I’ve heard the “it was his human half talking” argument before, applied to other verses. For some reason it always annoys me. Probably because it does not make sense to me. I was hoping for something more, but I do appreciate your response. It may be the best/only explanation.

What do you think about Peter’s and Paul’s differentiating the Father as God from his Son Jesus the Lord?

Thanks,
JK

 

[Loving_disciple]

Because Jesus claims to be the only begotten son of God. He claimed that he was with the father during the beginning before the universe was made

 

[SonCatcher]

Jesus means something different than we do when He refers to “my God” and “my Father.” It is still the First Person of the Blessed Trinity to which Jesus refers but the context is different for the the Second Person than for us. Take a look at how Jesus responds to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection:

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:17[/BIBLEDRB]

EDIT:

Have you seen the following icon of the Trinity?

The images of the Son and Spirit in it look toward the Father and lower their eyes slightly in deference to Him. Within the Trinity there is still a sort if heirarchy, even though they are united in will. The Father is an eternal source of the other two, since the Son is Begotten and the Spirit Proceeds.

 

[Della]

I’ve heard the “it was his human half talking” argument before, applied to other verses. For some reason it always annoys me. Probably because it does not make sense to me. I was hoping for something more, but I do appreciate your response. It may be the best/only explanation.

I would like to know why it annoys you, if you wouldn’t mind explaining. It makes perfect sense to me, but then I have no problem with mysteries being mysteries.

What do you think about Peter’s and Paul’s differentiating the Father as God from his Son Jesus the Lord?

Thanks,
JK

Well, I may have to brush up on my trinitarian theology here, but as I understand it, Peter and Paul both want to make clear that Jesus was both God and man by referring to him in this way. Without the incarnation, they would argue, there would be no salvation, hence Jesus is both God and has a God–as a man.

God, as an eternal person, required eternal justice for the sins we humans commit. No human being could offer eternal justice because we are finite beings. So, God, in the person of the Word made flesh, Jesus, became one of us while retaining his divinity so he could offer sacrifice for us as both a human being and as God, thus offering an eternal offering once in time and in eternity.

This is why the doctrine of the two natures of Christ is so important. If Jesus was not man, he could not make a sacrificial offering on behalf of man, and if he were not God he could not have made an eternal sacrifice. Does that help or only cloud the issue for you?

 

[R_C]

Well, in Christ we have what we term hypostatic union of the human and divine nature. However, it is not randomly that the Lord referred to Himself with the most humble of all messianic titles, son of man.

This issue of Christ as somehow “lower” or “less” than God is one of the earliest errors encountered by the Christian community. Several doctrines have lead many astray, emphasizing some out-of-context parts of the Scriptures. Sound Sacred Tradition has always shown without any possible doubt that (a) Christ is God, (b) God is One in Three Persons, (c) in Christ, we have a perfect hypostatic union of humanity and divinity.

Remember how at one point the Lord says: “why do you call me good? Only God is good.” That is not a denial of his divinity, but a careful warning to men. At the same time, when St. Thomas sees Him after the Resurrection, in His glory, and calls Him “my God”, Jesus does not rebuke Him - rather, He blesses those who, without seeing His glory, shall believe in Him.

Just reading the Old Testament makes it anyways quite obvious that Jesus was indeed God. How many times we read that God would do something and then we see the Lord Jesus doing those things - ex. the signs described to the disciples of the Forerunner, the walking on water and calming the storm, the crucifixion…all of those things were supposed to be done by God Himself. Remember the prophet Isaiah?

It was not a messenger or an angel, but he himself who saved them. Because of his love and pity he redeemed them himself, Lifting them and carrying them all.

you have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your offenses. I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.

Remember the prophet Zechariah?

This is the word of the Lord concerning Israel. The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares: …]

I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace, and of prayers: and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced: and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn.

On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity. …]

And they shall say to him: What are these wounds in the midst of thy hands? And he shall say: With these I was wounded in the house of them that loved me.

Is it not God Himself who says: “they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced”? Is it not Christ who was pierced, and of whom the Revelation speaks:

Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him.

Surely He is, for Christ Himself said:

They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

The very actions of Christ sufficed for the teachers of the Law - who wouldn’t recognize Him as the messiah - to understand what He was actually doing:

because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

And even if all of the above was unknown and hidden, does it not suffice to read the beginning of the Holy Gospel according to Saint John the Evangelist?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. …]

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. …]

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

The divine revelation is not openly understandable - Christ explicitly told the Apostles that to them the secrets of the kingdom were revealed. This is why Holy Church has a solid Sacred Tradition that goes over all of these controversies and shows where the true is and where the error lies. To seek anywhere else or to rely on oneself is to inevitably fall into the tricks of he who masters the Sacred Scripture better than any other creature, for the perdition of souls.

However, don’t be dismayed: the Holy Trinity is a great mystery - I’d say the greates of all mysteries - which the human mind simply cannot comprehend. We can only have a very slight grasp of God’s identity. I find it wonderfully expressed in the old Praefatio de Sanctissima Trinitate:

…]
O Holy Lord, Father Almighty, Everlasting God,

Who, with Your Only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit
Are one God, one Lord;
Not in the unity of a single person,
but in the trinity of a single nature.

For that which we believe on Your revelation concerning Your glory,
That same we believe of Your Son,
that same of the Holy Spirit,
without difference or discrimination.
So that in confessing the true and everlasting Godhead,
We shall adore distinction in persons,
oneness in being,
and equality in Majesty.

 

[JK8619]

Because Jesus claims to be the only begotten son of God. He claimed that he was with the father during the beginning before the universe was made

Ok, but not at all relevant.

I probably should have known better than to ask a question about the trinity. It’s usually hard to get a straight answer to a difficult question. Other than the first reply, it doesn’t seem like anyone is even trying to answer my question, but just make unrelated arguments for the trinity. I wanted to get answers to my specific question.

 

[johnnyjones]

There are many verses in the Bible that can make it difficult for a person to accept Jesus as God. For most of them, I have heard arguments from both Arian/Unitarian and Trinitarian sides. However I have never heard a Trinitarian explanation of New Testament verses that say that Jesus not only had a father, but that his father is his God.

I have came across several such verses, so Ill list a few for quick reference (From the RSV 2CE).

1. 1 Peter 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!”
2. 2 Corinthians 1:3 (starts the same as 1 Peter 1:3).
3. John 20:17 “Jesus said … I am ascending to my father and your Father, my God and your God.”

Peter and Paul both said that the Father is Jesus’s God and John quotes Jesus making the same claim. If the Father is Jesus’s God, then how can Jesus also be God?

JK

Your question is the old Jehovahs Witness argument that tries to tell the world that Jesus was just a perfect man because He called the Father God.

What is so difficult about Jesus sometimes speaking as a man, and sometimes as God. I mean, I don’t fully comprehend the trinity but it is clear to me that if an “entity” had a dual nature (it) would refer to itself accordingly.

Everything that The Father can do, Jesus can do. Jesus at times, from a positional standpoint, spoke as a man. At times He spoke as God, and at times He spoke as the God-man.

 

[JK8619]

Because Jesus claims to be the only begotten son of God. He claimed that he was with the father during the beginning before the universe was made

Ok, but not really relevant.

R_C,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. You made some good points, better than most who argue for the trinity, but I still don’t agree with many of your beliefs. For a time I really wanted to believe in the trinity doctrine because it is what the church teaches. The more I read the bible, the more I could not accept the trinity. Not just because I don’t see it there, but because I see it as a contradiction to the scripture. I believe in Jesus as the Messiah and a prophet, but not God. It’s not just the verses that I have listed, but many others as well that make me believe what I do. I have even studied a bit of koine Greek to get a more accurate idea of what certain verses mean and it just further reinforced my beliefs. I doubt I’ll ever accept the trinity doctrine, but I am always willing to listen to new ideas about it.

 

[Della]

Ok, but not really relevant.

R_C,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. You made some good points, better than most who argue for the trinity, but I still don’t agree with many of your beliefs. For a time I really wanted to believe in the trinity doctrine because it is what the church teaches. The more I read the bible, the more I could not accept the trinity. Not just because I don’t see it there, but because I see it as a contradiction to the scripture. I believe in Jesus as the Messiah and a prophet, but not God. It’s not just the verses that I have listed, but many others as well that make me believe what I do. I have even studied a bit of koine Greek to get a more accurate idea of what certain verses mean and it just further reinforced my beliefs. I doubt I’ll ever accept the trinity doctrine, but I am always willing to listen to new ideas about it.

The problem with approaching the Bible as you have is that the Bible does not interpret itself nor it is the only source for the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. The Bible is a part of Sacred Tradition–given to men by God, first to the OT prophets and patriarchs and then to the Apostles by Christ. We believe what we do because of what God revealed to them, not because we read it in any book, no matter how holy. Jesus founded a Church, not a book. He gave his authority to decide matters of faith and morals to the Apostles, he didn’t write a book. The Apostles passed on the truths of Christ through oral teachings. Most never wrote a word–at least none that have survived the centuries. St. Paul wrote many letters, Sts. Matthew and John wrote Gospels, and Sts. Peter and John both wrote letters and St. John Revelation. Other than that, the others taught orally, as did those who wrote. They met in the first council of Jerusalem to tackle the first issues the Church faced, but again, they didn’t just go by the written word, but decided what was right through prayer and what Christ had taught them. It is the Church that is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” not the Bible.

 

[JK8619]

Your question is the old Jehovahs Witness argument that tries to tell the world that Jesus was just a perfect man because He called the Father God.

What is so difficult about Jesus sometimes speaking as a man, and sometimes as God. I mean, I don’t fully comprehend the trinity but it is clear to me that if an “entity” had a dual nature (it) would refer to itself accordingly.

Everything that The Father can do, Jesus can do. Jesus at times, from a positional standpoint, spoke as a man. At times He spoke as God, and at times He spoke as the God-man.

I am not really concerned with what JWs believe, although I think they say Jesus is an Angel.

Also, Jesus can only do the Father’s will. He did not know when the end times would be, but the father did.

 

[JK8619]

The problem with approaching the Bible as you have is that the Bible does not interpret itself nor it is the only source for the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. The Bible is a part of Sacred Tradition–given to men by God, first to the OT prophets and patriarchs and then to the Apostles by Christ. We believe what we do because of what God revealed to them, not because we read it in any book, no matter how holy. Jesus founded a Church, not a book. He gave his authority to decide matters of faith and morals to the Apostles, he didn’t write a book. The Apostles passed on the truths of Christ through oral teachings. Most never wrote a word–at least none that have survived the centuries. St. Paul wrote many letters, Sts. Matthew and John wrote Gospels, and Sts. Peter and John both wrote letters and St. John Revelation. Other than that, the others taught orally, as did those who wrote. They met in the first council of Jerusalem to tackle the first issues the Church faced, but again, they didn’t just go by the written word, but decided what was right through prayer and what Christ had taught them. It is the Church that is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” not the Bible.

I realize all of that, but if the writings of the apostles conflict with later church tradition, then I will side with what the apostles wrote.

 

[Della]

I realize all of that, but if the writings of the apostles conflict with later church tradition, then I will side with what the apostles wrote.

But how do you know you have that authority? And why would Christ leave it up to you and me to decide such things when he clearly left that to his Apostles and their successors? Don’t you see if every man’s opinion is the way we are to go that that way lies chaos and disunity?

 

[SonCatcher]

There are several places in the Gospels where someone bows before Jesus and He accepts it. Yet, the only time someone bows before an apostle, he says “get up, for I am only a man, myself”. Clearly, the apostles understood Jesus to be something greater than a man.

 

[bzkoss236]

I realize all of that, but if the writings of the apostles conflict with later church tradition, then I will side with what the apostles wrote.

In regard to doctrine, such as the Trinity, the Church cannot contradict itself with what was taught in the past.

In what ways do you feel the Church would have done so? Also, why do you find it difficult to understand Jesus as both 100% human, having God as his God (He too is his God, because Jesus is also God), and 100% divine, having God the Father as his Father?

 

[johnnyjones]

I am not really concerned with what JWs believe, although I think they say Jesus is an Angel.

Also, Jesus can only do the Father’s will. He did not know when the end times would be, but the father did.

Your question ties in exactly with what JWs spout, so it is relevant. I know their doctrines well.

No, not IS an angel, was an angel.

Jesus speaking as a man or in his humanity must do the Fathers will. Positionally he often spoke as a man but also as God Almighty. John 2:9 “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” Thats Jesus saying He will raise the temple of His body. Hes not asking “for God”. john 10:18 “I lay down my life so that I may take it up again.” Some translations render that “have authority to raise it up.”

The verse you lastly question has been debated for ages. Neither the Son - This text has always presented serious difficulties. It has been asked, If Jesus had a divine nature, how could he say that he knew not the day and hour of a future event? In reply, it has been said that the passage was missing, according to Ambrose, in some Greek manuscripts; but it is now found in all, and there can be little doubt that the passage is genuine. Others have said that the verb rendered “knoweth” means sometimes to “make” known or to reveal, and that the passage means, “that day and hour none makes known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father.” It is true that the word has sometimes that meaning, as in 1 Corinthians 2:2, but then it is natural to ask where has “the Father” made it known? In what place did he reveal it? After all, the passage has no more difficulty than that in Luke 2:52, where it is said that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. He had a human nature. He grew as a man in knowledge. As a man his knowledge must be finite, for the faculties of the human soul are not infinite. As a man he often spoke, reasoned, inquired, felt, feared, read, learned, ate, drank, and walked. Why are not all these, which imply that he was a “man” - that, “as a man,” he was not infinite - why are not these as difficult as the want of knowledge respecting the particular “time” of a future event, especially when that time must be made known by God, and when he chose that the man Christ Jesus should grow, and think, and speak “as a man?”

 

[Ion]

Jesus means something different than we do when He refers to “my God” and “my Father.” It is still the First Person of the Blessed Trinity to which Jesus refers but the context is different for the the Second Person than for us. Take a look at how Jesus responds to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection:

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:17[/BIBLEDRB]

EDIT:

Have you seen the following icon of the Trinity?

The images of the Son and Spirit in it look toward the Father and lower their eyes slightly in deference to Him. Within the Trinity there is still a sort if heirarchy, even though they are united in will. The Father is an eternal source of the other two, since the Son is Begotten and the Spirit Proceeds.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Trinity_icon.jpg

We find the deepest understanding of this dogma in the icon of the Trinity painted by the venerable Andrei Rublev for the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. This icon is a masterpiece of ancient Russian iconography, and it is not surprising that the Church established it as the model for depicting the Trinity.

In Andrei Rublev’s icon, the persons of the Holy Trinity are shown in the order in which they are confessed in the Credo. The first angel is the first person of the Trinity - God the Father; the second, middle angel is God the Son; the third angel is God the Holy Spirit. All three angels are blessing the chalice, in which lies a sacrificed calf, prepared for eating. The sacrifice of the calf signifies the Saviour’s death on the cross, while its preparation as food symbolizes the sacrament of the Eucharist. All three angels have staffs in their hand as a symbol of their divine power.

The first angel, shown at left, is vested in a blue undergarment which depicts his divine celestial nature, and a light purple outer garment which attests to the unfathomable nature and the royal dignity of this angel. Behind him and above his head towers a house, the abode of Abraham, and a sacrificial altar in front of the house. This image of the abode has a symbolic meaning: the house signifies God’s master plan for creation, while the fact that the house towers above the first angel shows him to be the head (or Father) of this creation. The same fatherly authority is seen in his entire appearance. His head is not bowed and he is looking at the other two angels. His whole demeanor - the expression on his face, the placement of his hands, the way he is sitting - all speaks of his fatherly dignity. The other two angels have their heads inclined and eyes turned toward the first angel with great attention, as though conversing with him about the salvation of mankind.

The second angel is placed in the middle of the icon. This placement is determined by the position held by the second Person within the Trinity Itself. Above his head extend the branches of an oak tree. The vestments of the second angel correspond to those in which the Saviour is usually depicted. The undergarment is a dark crimson color which symbolizes the incarnation, while the blue outer robe signifies the divinity and the celestial nature of this angel. The second angel is inclined towards the first angel, as though deep in conversation. The tree behind him serves as a reminder of the tree of life that was standing in Eden, and of the cross.

The angel on the right is the third Person of the Trinity - the Holy Spirit. His light blue undergarment and smoky-green outer garment represent heaven and earth, and signify the life-giving force of the Holy Spirit, which animates everything that exists. “By the Holy Spirit every soul lives and is elevated in purity” - sings the Church. This elevation in purity is represented in the icon by a mountain above the third angel.

Thus Andrei Rublev’s icon, while being an unsurpassed work of iconography, is first and foremost a “theology in color,” which instructs us in all that concerns the revelation of the triune God and the three Persons of the Holy Trinity.

From the book “Thoughts on Iconography” by monk Gregory Krug

 

[JK8619]

But how do you know you have that authority? And why would Christ leave it up to you and me to decide such things when he clearly left that to his Apostles and their successors? Don’t you see if every man’s opinion is the way we are to go that that way lies chaos and disunity?

If the Jewish Priests, Pharisees, and Rabbis could lose their way, then what makes you think that our Popes, Bishops, and priests are immune? You don’t need to answer because we are getting a bit off topic, but maybe it’s something to think about.

 

[SonCatcher]

Thanks, Ion.