What is “light from light”?

[midori]

The closest New Testament reference to “light from light” is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Epistle begins by stating how God spoke in partial and various ways through the prophets, but now He has spoken definitively through His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2). Verse 3 describes the pre-incarnate Son’s relationship to the Father:

“[the Son]… is the refulgence of his [the Father’s] glory, the very imprint of his being.”

“Refulgence,” or “brightness” (Greek, apaugasma), is a very rare Greek word in the Bible. In fact, the Greek Bible only uses it twice, here in Hebrews 1:3 and in Wisdom 7:26. This is no accident. The chapter in Wisdom is a lengthy description of God’s Wisdom and its relationship to God and creation. Wisdom (the Son) is the artificer of all (cf. Hebrews 1:2 and Wisdom 7:22). Wisdom (the Son) holds all things in being (cf. Hebrews 1:3 and Wisdom 4:1). But most importantly, Wisdom’s relationship to God is likened to the splendor of light: “the refulgence of [God’s] eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness” (Wisdom 7:26).

Since the Eternal Son is elsewhere identified as God’s wisdom and power (1 Corinthians 3:24), it shouldn’t surprise anyone to see the author of Hebrews using this illustration from Wisdom to describe the Son’s relationship to the Father.

But what does this tell us about the Father and the Son? Quite a bit. The early Church fathers understood these texts to teach that both the Father and the Son existed eternally; they are co-eternal. Why? Could a flame exist without its refulgence or brightness? No, of course not. The flame and its brightness co-exist. Wisdom 7:26 likens God to an eternal light, a light with no beginning and no end. If God’s Wisdom is the eternal light’s brightness, than God’s Wisdom is eternal as well.

The Father was never without the Son, nor was the Son without the Father. The early fathers repeatedly used this text against a heresy that denied that the Son was co-eternal with the Father. St. Augustine mocked such an idea. After quoting Wisdom 7:26, Augustine wrote, “Are you seeking for a Son without a Father? Give me a light without brightness…” (Sermons on Selected N.T. Lessons, 68, 2).

The precision of this analogy is remarkable. It’s no wonder it found its way into the Nicene creed. So the next time you recite the creed knowing the biblical background of “light from light,” just think of Wisdom.

 

[StashLazarus]

Are you Catholic? This does not sound like Catholic theology.

Sent “part of himself”? God does not have parts. He is utterly simple. Christ must “return to God”? Christ is God. 100% God and 100% man. He doesn’t not have to return to himself. He never ceased being all of God.

It is not Church doctrine but it is more consistent with the Nicene Creed than what any church has taught for the past two thousand years. The Nicene Creed says that Jesus is God, but it also says that He was begotten of the Father, it says that He is light from light. This implies the possibility of a beginning. The book of Revelation calls Him Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. This can be interpreted as a beginning and an ending. But the Nicene Creed also says there was never a time when Jesus did not exist.

The key word here is time. God created time. God has complete power over time and absolute understanding of time. We can’t understand time, but it seems to me that the incredible God who created the universe is able to create time in a way that allowed Him to send part of Himself into time.

Since Jesus was born and lived as a human, it must be true that Jesus passes through time. God the Father transcends time. This is why Jesus said only the Father knows the time of the end. God knows or is one with all of the timeline since God the Father transcends time. Jesus said that He does not know the time of the end. What Jesus was saying is that He (Jesus) does not transcend time, Jesus travels through time just like we do.

So with Jesus, you have God, which is to say a part of God that came from the substance of God, but came
into time and travels through time. So there never was a time when Jesus did not exist.

This actually explains the Trinity.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

If God can be divided into parts he cannot be the uncaused first cause of all existence. He cannot be infinitely perfect because if he can be divided into parts he would lack something.

The Nicene Creed was developed to defend against exactly the kind of interpretation process you have gone through.

Ultimately, the trinity is a mystery. Any attempt to explain it only reveals a partial understanding of it. If we hold on to those partial understandings we inadvertently (or intentionally depending on the person) end up holding heretical beliefs.

We have to be careful not to take the mystery and faith out of our religion in pursuit of completely human understandings of the divine.

 

[StashLazarus]

If God can be divided into parts he cannot be the uncaused first cause of all existence. He cannot be infinitely perfect because if he can be divided into parts he would lack something.

The Nicene Creed was developed to defend against exactly the kind of interpretation process you have gone through.

Ultimately, the trinity is a mystery. Any attempt to explain it only reveals a partial understanding of it. If we hold on to those partial understandings we inadvertently (or intentionally depending on the person) end up holding heretical beliefs.

We have to be careful not to take the mystery and faith out of our religion in pursuit of completely human understandings of the divine.

The very title “Son” of God implies someone who came from the essence of God.

I don’t claim to understand God. I don’t understand time. I do believe that the Trinity is best explained by time, but that doesn’t mean we can understand of God since we can’t even understand time.

God is not divided. Jesus came from the essence of God, but that doesn’t mean that God is decreased. We cannot comprehend time and we cannot comprehend the essence of God.

Yet the Bible does say with clarity that there is one God. The Bible also supports the Trinity and it is clear that Jesus is God.

You can say that this is a mystery and let it go at that. The Holy Spirit as God in time and Jesus as a part of God that came into time and lived as a human does explain this riddle while still being beyond our understanding.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

The very title “Son” of God implies someone who came from the essence of God.

To say that Christ in a way comes from the essence of God is not the same as saying that Christ is a “part” of God.

He is not a part of God. He is ALL of God. The Holy Spirit is not a part of God. He is ALL of God. We do not have a situation right now where 2/3 of God is in heaven and 1/3 of God is with us in the person of the Holy Spirit.

There is a relational difference between the three parts of the Trinity, but there are no clevages, no separated pieces of God that need to be reunited.

The Nicene Creed seeks to put in human terms a mystery that we cannot fully comprehend. God of God, light from light: Christ is begotten OF the Father BUT he is also True God from True God! The True God is the indivisible uncaused first cause. Infinitely Perfect. Christ is consubstantial, not made! Mystery.

Here is an article from Tim Staples that explains it in more depth than I can: Explaining the Trinity | Catholic Answers

 

[Roseeurekacross]

It is not Church doctrine but it is more consistent with the Nicene Creed than what any church has taught for the past two thousand years.

The church does not teach or believe God sent part of Himself.

That’s very similar to some of the Early heresies

Christ and God are of one substance. Homoousis

 

[StashLazarus]

To say that Christ in a way comes from the essence of God is not the same as saying that Christ is a “part” of God.

He is not a part of God. He is ALL of God. The Holy Spirit is not a part of God. He is ALL of God. We do not have a situation right now where 2/3 of God is in heaven and 1/3 of God is with us in the person of the Holy Spirit.

There is a relational difference between the three parts of the Trinity, but there are no clevages, no separated pieces of God that need to be reunited.

The Nicene Creed seeks to put in human terms a mystery that we cannot fully comprehend. God of God, light from light: Christ is begotten OF the Father BUT he is also True God from True God! The True God is the indivisible uncaused first cause. Infinitely Perfect. Christ is consubstantial, not made! Mystery.

Here is an article from Tim Staples that explains it in more depth than I can: Explaining the Trinity | Catholic Answers

What’s the disagreement? Christ came from God, Light from Light. God is not decreased by Christ coming into the world. We don’t have 1/3 of God in time and 2/3 outside of time. By using the word “part” I don’t mean to imply that God is diminished or that Christ is somehow less than God. God is fully God, Christ is fully God.

In the infinity that transcends time and space there is only one God. That’s why the Bible can say clearly that there is only one God. This does not contradict the Nicene Creed or the Bible. It is more consistent with the Bible than previous attempts to explain the Trinity.

Jesus did say that He does not know the time of the end. How do you explain that? You don’t explain it, you just say it’s a mystery.

If the Church says something is a mystery there should be no problem in someone trying to explain or understand the mystery (like on an internet forum). As long as the explanation doesn’t contradict the Bible or the Nicene Creed or Church teachings. Since there have been different explanations for the Trinity over the years there should be room for one more…as long as it is consistent with the Bible and Nicene Creed.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

As long as the explanation doesn’t contradict the Bible or the Nicene Creed or Church teachings.

It does contradict these doctrines

 

[Daisy]

The Nicene Creed phrase “light from light” is a confusing phrase at best and does nothing to distinguish the Father or the Son from us mere mortals.

I find the phrase to be absolutely beautiful. I could contemplate it forever, but I need to get some work done here, haha. It is a beautiful multi-layered song in my heart. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts: and I love the mystery, am attracted to the mystery.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Jesus did say that He does not know the time of the end. How do you explain that? You don’t explain it, you just say it’s a mystery.

Of course I can explain it. Within his human knowledge he knew all that he was meant to reveal. As a factual matter, being God he also knew all. He was not sent here to reveal the day of his return. This is church doctrine. See the catechism. And, if we want to get really technical about it. The English translation “know” obscures something in the original language of the text in that it does not simply refer to knowledge.

If the Church says something is a mystery there should be no problem in someone trying to explain or understand the mystery (like on an internet forum). As long as the explanation doesn’t contradict the Bible or the Nicene Creed or Church teachings.

Your explanation does contradict, and it seems you don’t quite realize that you are denying the true divinity of Christ, and in the process tearing asunder the Trinity.

There is lots of orthodox Catholic writing on this subject and magisterial documents that cover this subject.

 

[Daisy]

Are you Catholic? This does not sound like Catholic theology.

Sent “part of himself”? God does not have parts. He is utterly simple. Christ must “return to God”? Christ is God. 100% God and 100% man. He doesn’t not have to return to himself. He never ceased being all of God.

I do find some of what Lazarus said to be odd, such as Jesus creating stars. But in a sense, Christ WAS returning to God the Father, bodily, and this circular relationship is how humans enter into God. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane also had the free will to say no, it was “Thy will be done,” which is His humanity. But Jesus was in perfect relationship with God the Father, able to perfectly speak with Him, communicate with Him, know His mind, which is what makes Him perfectly God the Son.

But we simply do not have the language to explain the three persons, the three PARTS (as Lazarus referred to it) of I am who am. I believe this is part of why the Jewish people could not speak His name. It is important and beautiful to acknowledge the mystery and multidimensionality of Yahweh, and perhaps even the creation of Adam and Eve, which is an image of God (instead of limiting their creation story to the location of their logical bones).

 

[Wesrock]

Christ came from oneness with God. There was never a time when Christ did not exist, but this does not rule out the possibility that there is only one God (God the Father) transcending time and space.

When God created time and space, He created something outside of Himself and as He came into time He is God the Holy Spirit.

God also sent part of Himself into time and space to be born a human and redeem humanity. If Christ came from God at the beginning of time, He must return to God at the end of time so that in the infinity that transcends time there is only one God.

So there is God the Father who transcends time and space, there is God the Holy Spirit which is God within time and space, and there is God the Son who came from oneness with God into time and space and was born to the virgin Mary. The Trinity exists within time, but there is only one God transcending time. This is why the Bible can support the Trinity while saying there is only one God.

This is modalism and not Trinitarianism and is incompatible with Catholic teaching. You may not be Catholic, but I’m stating this for the benefit of others, at least.

 

[Daisy]

This is modalism and not Trinitarianism

Modalism because of his second to last sentence? He believes that returning to God the Father means that Jesus loses His humanity within eternity?

 

[StashLazarus]

Modalism says that there is one God who appears in different forms. That’s not what I’m saying.

 

[Daisy]

Ok. Well it sounds like that’s what you’re saying. Please be specific and use examples as to why it’s not what you are saying. And perhaps your definition of modalism is misunderstood.

 

[Wesrock]

Modalism says that there is one God who appears in different forms. That’s not what I’m saying.

So there is God the Father who transcends time and space, there is God the Holy Spirit which is God within time and space, and there is God the Son who came from oneness with God into time and space

That’s modalism

And God is Trinity regardless of whether he creates or not. Had God never created anything, never created time or space, he would still be Triune.

 

[StashLazarus]

Most explanations for the Trinity that I’ve read don’t really contradict what I’m saying. The Trinity as it exists, as the Church teaches it, can exist within time, yet outside of time there is one God.

Eternity and forever can mean throughout all time and space and existence. The infinity that transcends time and space can be something else completely.

God transcends all time, space and existence.

What really gets people upset is when I say that since the Holy Spirit is God within time then it is the Holy Spirit that is in Heaven. God created Heaven…God transcends Heaven. People accuse me of saying that God is not in Heaven, but the Holy Spirit is God. Since God the Holy Spirit is in Heaven then God is in Heaven.

God the Father created and therefore transcends Heaven.

 

[Wesrock]

The Trinity as it exists, as the Church teaches it, can exist within time, yet outside of time there is one God.

There is one God who is Triune. It has nothing to do with relation to time and space. If God had never created, he would still be one God who is a Triune of persons. The relations that make the Trinity are inherent in God without needing to make any reference to Creation.

 

[Daisy]

StashLazarus:

Modalism says that there is one God who appears in different forms. That’s not what I’m saying.

So there is God the Father who transcends time and space, there is God the Holy Spirit which is God within time and space, and there is God the Son who came from oneness with God into time and space

That’s modalism

And God is Trinity regardless of whether he creates or not. Had God never created anything, never created time or space, he would still be Triune.

Modalism seems to contradict itself.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Modalism seems to contradict itself.

This should be no surprise. Heresies are logically inconsistent.