Does the Sonship of Christ Ever End—or Change in Function?

Theology
21

You would say that even in light of this passage: 1 Corinthians 15:28 “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him,
that God may be all in all.”

How do you interpret, other than the Role of Sonship ending.

A better question would be why I would interpret that as “the Role of Sonship ending”? Your question presumes I should interpret it that way–yet from where I sit it would simply never occur to me that this passage should be interpreted in that way whatsoever.

I don’t believe in a “Role of Sonship”, that simply isn’t part of my theological vocabulary; the Sonship of Christ is–for the myriad of reasons offered and more–the relationship between the Person of the Son to the Person of the Father. And if you would proffer up an objection that “Person of the Son” is not a phrase found in Scripture, I have to then remind you that, quite certainly “Role of Sonship” is no where to be found in the pages of Holy Writ.

But to answer the question of how I interpret the passage in question. The context is Christ reigning as Lord and King with all things being made subject to Him. Christ reigns until every enemy is defeated, the last enemy is death. So that at Christ’s glorious Parousia, when He comes to judge, and the dead are raised then (as Paul says later in this chapter) “death is swallowed up in victory”. When Christ returns to Judge, and has Judged the living and the dead, and the whole historical and cosmic narrative of redemption, and the conclusion and consummation of all things is accomplished, then Christ brings all things under His Father. Thus concludes the messianic work of Judgment and subjugation, and so Christ submits Himself. Recall, the Lord had said that the Father gave to Him the right to judge (John 5:27), and here Christ returns what was given to Him.

So that God may be all in all. For, in the end, after judgment is concluded, there is that glorious life that is to come, when all has been set to rights. We are reminded, then, that in that glorious unceasing future Age there is no need for sun or moon, for God and the Lamb shall be light; there is no need for a temple in that heavenly Jerusalem which descends upon the earth–God and the Lamb are the temple.

There is no “Role of Sonship”, but there is the messianic work of the Messiah, the Son of David, reigning upon His throne, having been given power and kingdom and authority, to rule and to exercise judgment upon the earth, all things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. So it would seem to me that what St. Paul is talking about is the conclusion of this particular work of judgment. Taking the whole of what St. Paul has said in 1 Corinthians 15, as well as the collective witness of Scripture together.

Now out of curiosity, as I consider it important that when I examine and try to understand Scripture I am not engaging in some wholly innovative and novel activity I consider it of great value to consider what has been said before concerning this matter. And I must say I consider myself well pleased to discover that I have not said anything radically at odds with those who are more learned than myself:

And going very far back, I then discover the following:

But I am astonished how it can be conceived to be the meaning, that He who, while all things are not yet subdued to Him, is not Himself in subjection, should—at a time when all things have been subdued to Him, and when He has become King of all men, and holds sway over all things—be supposed then to be made subject, seeing He was not formerly in subjection; for such do not understand that the subjection of Christ to the Father indicates that our happiness has attained to perfection, and that the work undertaken by Him has been brought to a victorious termination, seeing He has not only purified the power of supreme government over the whole of creation, but presents to the Father the principles of the obedience and subjection of the human race in a corrected and improved condition. If, then, that subjection be held to be good and salutary by which the Son is said to be subject to the Father, it is an extremely rational and logical inference to deduce that the subjection also of enemies, which is said to be made to the Son of God, should be understood as being also salutary and useful; as if, when the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect restoration of the whole of creation is signified, so also, when enemies are said to be subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the conquered and the restoration of the lost is in that understood to consist. (Origen, De Principiis, III.V.7)

Though not to suggest Origen stands alone:

1 Like
22

When Paul writes in ~1 Corinthians 15:28 that the Son will be “subjected” to the Father, the verb is hypotagēsetai, future passive of hypotassō, which means to be placed under order or arrangement, and Paul uses it here to describe the final stage of the resurrection sequence he has been explaining since ~1 Corinthians 15:20, so the entire context makes it clear that this subjection happens after all enemies are destroyed and after death itself is abolished, made plain in the verb katargeitai in ~1 Corinthians 15:26 meaning is being abolished, indicating an eschatological sequence rather than an ontological change in the Son.

Paul never says the Son ceases to be the Son, not one verse hints that the Sonship ends, and nowhere is there any statement that the Son’s identity, nature, or relationship within the Godhead terminates, which means the only thing Paul is addressing is functional subordination within the mediatorial kingdom Christ exercises until the final handing over of that mediatorial rule to the Father in ~1 Corinthians 15:24.

The pattern is consistent with the incarnational mission described in ~John 5:19 where the Son acts in obedient harmony, and with ~Philippians 2:6–11 where the verb ekenōsen, emptied Himself, describes His incarnational role, yet none of these passages ever say the Son stops being the Son, so the text governs the limits of our interpretation.

Paul’s explanation is simple and it stays in the realm of redemptive order rather than divine essence, because Christ, having reigned until every enemy is under His feet, hands the kingdom over to the Father as the victorious mediator, yet remains who He eternally is, as confirmed in ~Hebrews 1:8 where the Father Himself says to the Son, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, which makes it impossible to argue that Sonship ends or dissolves, since eternal throne and ended Sonship cannot logically coexist.

The subjection in ~1 Corinthians 15:28 is therefore the final act of the mediatorial office, the completion of His mission to redeem and restore all things, and the purpose clause hina in the phrase “that God may be all in all” indicates the goal that the united Godhead fully manifests sovereign rule over a restored creation, not that the Son ceases to be Son, so any claim that this passage teaches the termination of Sonship adds what Scripture never says and removes what Scripture always affirms.

J.

23

I hear you, Johann, and I appreciate the careful way you walked through the Greek and the flow of Paul’s argument. But honestly, when I read what you wrote, I don’t see it contradicting what I’ve been saying—I actually see it reinforcing it.

Because everything you said fits perfectly with my point:

  • The subjection in 1 Corinthians 15:28 is functional, not ontological.

  • It is tied to the mediatorial mission, not the eternal nature of God.

  • It happens after the redemptive work is complete.

  • Nothing in the text says the Son “ceases to exist” or stops being who He is.

  • The language of mission, obedience, and handing over the kingdom is all incarnational, not describing eternal relationships inside the Godhead.

That is exactly my point.

Where we differ isn’t on the nature of the mission, but on the nature of Sonship itself.

You’re reading the passages as if “Son” is the eternal divine identity that the second person of the Trinity has always possessed.

I’m reading the passages as if “Son” is the incarnate identity that God assumes in time for the purpose of redemption.

But when we actually look at the texts you quoted, every single one of them is about:

  • the Son reigning

  • the Son mediating

  • the Son obeying

  • the Son handing over the kingdom

  • the Son fulfilling the mission

  • the Son being exalted after suffering

All of those actions belong to the incarnate Messiah, not an eternal divine person in heaven before Bethlehem.

So yes—Christ’s kingship and glory continue forever. I believe that just as strongly as you do.
But that doesn’t prove the Son existed eternally as the Son.

It simply proves that the incarnate Christ—the God-Man—is eternal, which I fully affirm.

And this is the part I want to stress gently:
the glorified human body of Christ will forever exist as God/Man perfectly united for all eternity — He remains the everlasting manifestation of God in flesh. What ends is not His divine-human union, but the mediatorial role called “Son,” because once the mission is complete, He can be “God all in all” while still existing in that glorified human body.

That’s why I said your explanation is really no different from mine:

  • You’re saying subjection is tied to the mediatorial mission.

  • I’m saying Sonship itself is tied to the mediatorial mission.

We both agree the mission ends.
We both agree Christ remains forever.
We both agree God’s ultimate goal is to be “all in all.”

The only real question is whether the title “Son” belongs to Christ eternally before the Incarnation, or whether it is the role God took on in the Incarnation.

The text simply never says the Son existed as “the Son” before Bethlehem.
It says the Word existed eternally—and the Word became flesh, became Son, became man.

So we’re both affirming the same eschatological sequence.
We just differ on when Sonship began, and whether Scripture ever locates it in eternity past.

That’s the only real distinction here.

Grace and peace.

24

~John 1:18 says no one has ever seen God, the one who is the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known, and the present participle ōn meaning who is shows continuous existence in that relation prior to the Incarnation, because this is before the Word becomes flesh in ~John 1:14 and therefore the Son is already in the Father’s bosom in eternal fellowship before taking on flesh.

~John 3:17 says God sent His Son into the world, which means the Son is the one sent and not the one who became Son after being sent, because to send the Son presupposes that the Son is already the Son at the moment of sending, and the grammar does not allow for the idea that He became Son only once He arrived.

~Galatians 4:4 says God sent forth His Son born of a woman, and Paul again treats Son as the identity He possessed prior to being born of the woman, because you cannot send someone as Son before He is Son unless the title precedes the birth, which means the text itself places Sonship before Bethlehem.

~Hebrews 1:2 states God has in these last days spoken to us in His Son through whom He made the ages, and the relative clause through whom He made the ages shows that the Son was the agent of creation, which predates the Incarnation, meaning the Son was active in creation long before Bethlehem.

~Hebrews 1:10 quotes ~Psalm 102 and applies it to the Son saying you, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, which means the one addressed as Son is the same Lord active in creation, so the title Son is functioning in relation to preincarnate divine activity.

The final and most decisive text is ~1 John 4:14 where John writes that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world, which follows the exact pattern of the earlier verses and again presupposes Sonship at the moment of sending rather than the beginning of Sonship upon arrival.

The language of “role” is completely foreign to the text, and the Greek of the New Testament never uses a term that even leans in that direction when describing the identity of the Son. There is no Greek noun, verb, or participle in any Christological passage that treats the Son as someone who assumed a temporary position or stepped into a functional mask. That idea comes from later theological systems, not from Scripture.

Nothing difficult here, problem is, do you agree?

Your question answered, with Scripture @The_Omega

J.

25

Johann, thanks again for the care you’re putting into this. I respect your attention to the Greek text and the flow of the argument. Let me try to respond just as carefully, and only push back where I genuinely see the text can be read differently.

1. John 1:18 – “the only begotten Son… who is in the bosom of the Father”

“…the present participle ōn… shows continuous existence in that relation prior to the Incarnation… therefore the Son is already in the Father’s bosom in eternal fellowship before taking on flesh.”

A few thoughts here:

  1. We both agree John 1:18 is describing an intimate, unique relationship between God and the one revealed as “the only begotten Son.” I have no issue at all with the closeness of that communion.

  2. Where we differ is what John is doing in the prologue. John is:

    • speaking after the incarnation

    • looking back over the whole story

    • and interpreting who Jesus is for his readers

    When he says “who is (ὁ ὢν) in the bosom of the Father,” that present participle very naturally reads as John’s present perspective:

    The one we know as the only begotten Son, who right now is in the Father’s bosom, He has made Him known.

    It doesn’t have to mean, grammatically, that “Sonship” existed as a distinct filial relation before v.14. It can mean:

    • The one who now exists in that intimate position with the Father

    • is the same one who has explained/made known the invisible God to us.

  3. Even in John 1, the sequence is important:

    • v.1–3: The Word (not “the Son”) is eternal, with God, and is God.

    • v.14: The Word becomes flesh.

    • v.18: John names this one as “the only begotten Son” who reveals the unseen God.

    So: the Word is eternal; “Son” is the title John uses for the Word incarnate. I don’t deny the eternal deity. I’m saying the text locates the title “Son” in the revelatory/incarnational context, not in a pre-incarnate, intra-Trinitarian relationship.

So I affirm the closeness; I just don’t see John 1:18 as a decisive statement that “Sonship as Son” existed before Bethlehem. It’s the eternal Word who always was, and that Word is now known to us as the Son.

2. John 3:17 – “God sent His Son into the world”

“To send the Son presupposes that the Son is already the Son at the moment of sending, and the grammar does not allow for the idea that He became Son only once He arrived.”

Here’s where I see room in the text for a different reading:

  1. In Scripture, “sending” language (ἀποστέλλω / πέμπω) does not require pre-existence of the person in a technical, ontological sense. For example:

    • “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” (John 1:6)
      No one claims John the Baptist pre-existed in heaven as “John” before being born.

  2. When John says “God sent His Son into the world,” he is writing:

    • from the standpoint of already knowing Jesus as “the Son”

    • and describing the mission of the one he knows as Son.

    The phrase “sent His Son” can be read as:

    God sent the One who is His Son (in the incarnational/redemptive sense) into the world.

    That is, the title identifies who was sent, not necessarily how long that title has existed as a distinct, eternal identity.

  3. Also, John’s Gospel constantly ties “Son” language to incarnational realities:

    • “only begotten Son” who is given (John 3:16)

    • the Son who is lifted up (3:14)

    • the Son who does nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do (5:19)

    • the Son who is sent and will be lifted up (8:28)

    All of this is the language of mission, obedience, and revelation inside history.

So I agree the Son is sent. I just don’t see the grammar of “sent” forcing the conclusion that Sonship, as Son, is an eternal, pre-incarnate relationship. It reads just as naturally as mission language applied to the incarnate One.

3. Galatians 4:4 – “God sent forth His Son, born of a woman”

“…you cannot send someone as Son before He is Son unless the title precedes the birth…”

I agree this is a very important text, but again, I think Paul’s emphasis is redemptive, not metaphysical.

  1. The structure is:

    God sent forth His Son,
    born of a woman,
    born under the law…

    Paul is highlighting:

    • divine initiative (“sent forth”)

    • real humanity (“born of a woman”)

    • solidarity with Israel’s covenant situation (“born under the law”)

  2. The phrase “His Son” is again functioning as an identity marker:

    the one we now confess as His Son is the one He sent forth, who was then born of a woman.

    This doesn’t have to mean “Sonship as an eternal second person was fully active as Son before birth.” It simply means:

    • the one God sent

    • is the one we know as His Son

    • and this Son came by genuine birth, under the law.

  3. The New Testament often speaks of Christ’s identity across all time using incarnational titles, even when referring to pre-incarnate acts. For example:

    • “By Him (Christ) were all things created” (Col 1:16)
      No one would say the name “Christ” existed before the incarnation as a human name. It’s a retroactive theological identification.

In the same way, “His Son” in Gal 4:4 can be understood as Paul’s theological title for the one who was sent and born, not proof that the relationship “Son-to-Father” as a distinct second person existed before the incarnation.

26

4. Hebrews 1:2 – “by whom also He made the ages”

“…shows that the Son was the agent of creation, which predates the Incarnation…”

Here I think we actually agree on the key point: the one we know as the Son is the Creator. Where we differ is whether this proves eternal Sonship as Son.

  1. Hebrews 1:1–2 makes a contrast:

    • God spoke “in time past” unto the fathers by the prophets;

    • He has “in these last days spoken unto us by His Son…”

  2. Then the writer says of this Son:

    • whom He appointed heir of all things

    • by whom also He made the ages

    This is not foreign to Oneness at all. I affirm:

    • the one who is now revealed as the Son

    • is the very one through whom God created all things.

  3. The crucial distinction is this:
    The text identifies the Creator with the one we now call “Son.” It does not say that the filial role/title “Son” was operative as such at the act of creation. It’s like saying:

    “Jesus made the world.”

    We all say that, yet we know the human name “Jesus” did not exist at creation. We are identifying the eternal Word/Logos who created with the historical Jesus we now know.

    So I wholeheartedly accept:

    • the Son = the eternal divine Word = Creator.
      I just don’t read that as proof that “Sonship” as a second, eternal person existed as Son before the incarnation.

5. Hebrews 1:10 – Psalm 102 applied to the Son

“…the one addressed as Son is the same Lord active in creation, so the title Son is functioning in relation to preincarnate divine activity.”

Again, I agree with the first half and differ only on the second.

  1. The author identifies:

    • the Lord of Psalm 102 (YHWH, Creator)

    • with the same one he calls “Son” in Hebrews 1.

  2. That is a strong, beautiful statement of Christ’s deity. I affirm it fully. It shows:

    • Jesus is not a mere man

    • nor a created being

    • but the very YHWH of the Old Testament taking flesh.

  3. But identifying Jesus/Son with YHWH and the Creator is not the same as saying:

    • “The Son existed eternally as a second person in a divine family relationship before taking flesh.”

    It simply means:

    • the one we know as the Son is the Lord of Psalm 102.

    • He is fully God.

    • He is the Creator.

That fits perfectly with the Oneness affirmation:
The one true God of Israel (YHWH) became incarnate as Jesus Christ, the Son.

6. 1 John 4:14 – “The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world”

“…again presupposes Sonship at the moment of sending rather than the beginning of Sonship upon arrival.”

This is the perfect place to bring in Isaiah 43:11:

“I, even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no saviour.”

A few key points:

  1. John says:

    • The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
      Isaiah says:

    • YHWH alone is Savior; there is no Savior beside Him.

    Put together, that means:

    • the “Son” who is Savior cannot be a second, lesser divine person beside YHWH;

    • He must be YHWH Himself manifesting salvation.

  2. In Oneness terms, this fits beautifully:

    • The Father (YHWH) sends forth His own self-revelation in flesh as “the Son”

    • to be the Savior of the world,

    • while still remaining the one God who alone is Savior.

  3. Again, “sent” language does not require that Sonship as an eternal second person pre-existed. It means:

    • God, who alone is Savior (Isa 43:11),

    • has made Himself Savior in and through the incarnate Son.

So I fully affirm 1 John 4:14 and Isaiah 43:11 together:
The Father sent the Son to be Savior, because the one God of Israel chose to save us by manifesting Himself in the man Christ Jesus.

7. “Role” language and the charge of later systems

“The language of ‘role’ is completely foreign to the text… no noun, verb, or participle… that treats the Son as someone who assumed a temporary position or stepped into a functional mask.”

A few clarifications so you know what I don’t believe:

  1. I do not believe the Son is a “mask” or a pretend appearance.

    • The incarnation is real.

    • The humanity of Christ is real.

    • His human will, obedience, suffering, and exaltation are all real.

  2. When I speak of “role,” I mean something Scripture does clearly speak of:

    • mediator (1 Tim 2:5)

    • high priest (Heb 4:14–15)

    • servant (Phil 2:7)

    • apostle (Heb 3:1)

    These are all functions/offices the one true God carries out in and through the man Christ Jesus.

  3. The New Testament absolutely uses functional language about Christ:

    • He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil 2:7).

    • He became obedient unto death (Phil 2:8).

    • He learned obedience by the things He suffered (Heb 5:8).

    • He now ever lives to make intercession (Heb 7:25).

    These are not about “divine essence changing,” but about:

    • God taking on a redemptive role in history

    • through the incarnate Christ.

So when I say “Sonship is a redemptive role,” I do not mean it is unreal or “temporary theater.”
I mean it is:

  • the way the eternal God chose to relate to us

  • in time, in flesh, as Savior, Mediator, and King.

And when 1 Corinthians 15:28 speaks of the Son being subjected, and “God being all in all,” I understand that as:

  • the mediatorial, redemptive role of the Son reaching its goal,

  • while the glorified God-Man remains forever,

  • and God (the one true YHWH) is visibly “all in all” in the person of Christ.

27

8. Where we truly disagree (and where we don’t)

So to sum up:

  • I agree with you that:

    • Christ is truly God.

    • He is the Creator.

    • His kingship and glory are eternal.

    • The Son does not “cease to exist” as if He disappears.

  • I disagree that:

    • the New Testament requires “Sonship” as an eternal, pre-incarnate second person,

    • or that “sent” language can only mean a pre-existing Son as Son in heaven,

    • or that speaking of incarnational office/role is foreign to the New Testament’s own categories.

From my vantage point, Isaiah 43:11 must be held tightly with all the Son/Savior texts:

“I, even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no Saviour.”

So when the Father sends the Son to be Savior (1 John 4:14), I see:

The one God of Israel Himself becoming our Savior in the man Christ Jesus—
not a second, co-eternal divine person alongside Him.

That’s where our paths diverge, even though we’re looking at many of the same verses.

Grace and peace, genuinely. I appreciate the depth of the conversation, even where we part ways.

28

@The_Omega, I interpret it as Jesus fulfilling his role or function as the second Person of God submitting to the first Person, the Father, who fulfills the role of the Source within God. All actions–creation, salvation, and sanctification–come FROM the Father THROUGH Jesus BY the Holy Spirit as the direct Doer because he’s our one, mysterious, all-powerful God.

29

Incorrect @The_Omega the Father did not take on flesh…

Incorrect, the Father did not “became” incarnate.

I will leave you with this since @TheologyNerd already expressed the glory of the triune Godhead with such clarity and force that little more needs to be added.

J.

30

I appreciate the pushback, Johann, and I think this is where our categories may be talking past each other a bit.

When I say, “Jesus is the very YHWH of the Old Testament taking flesh,” I am not saying that the Father, as a mode or role, stopped being Father and somehow “turned into” a human. I’m saying that the one God, who is the Father, has personally come to us in the incarnate Son.

In other words:

  • The Father didn’t cease to be transcendent while the Son walked the earth.

  • But the God who is Father is not a separate deity from the One revealed in the Son.

  • The incarnation is God Himself coming near, not a second divine person acting independently of the Father.

That’s why the New Testament can say things like:

  • “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19).

  • “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9).

  • “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30).

  • “In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9).

If the Son is not the self-revelation of the very God who is the Father, then these statements become extremely hard to read at face value.

You and I both agree the Father, as God, did not come into existence at Bethlehem. Where we differ is here:

  • You seem to be saying: The Father remains one divine person, the Son is another divine person, and the Son alone took on flesh.

  • I’m saying: The Father, the Word, and the Spirit are not three divine selves, but the one God who has now definitively and personally revealed Himself in the Son.

So I fully affirm:

“The Father did not take on flesh”

if by that you mean the Father did not stop being transcendent, invisible, and omnipresent.

But I cannot agree if it is meant to deny that:

The very God who is the Father is the One we meet in the face of Jesus Christ.

Because Scripture says:

  • The Son is “the express image of His person” (Heb. 1:3).

  • The child born is called “The mighty God, The everlasting Father” (Isa. 9:6).

  • And again, “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16).

So my point stands, just with a nuance:

Jesus is not a mere man, nor a created being,
but the very YHWH of the Old Testament personally revealed in flesh as the Son,
while still remaining God over all as Father.

I’m not collapsing Father and Son into a single role; I’m saying the identity of the one God revealed as Father is the same God we behold in the Son. Different relation, different manifestation, same undivided Deity.

31

Quotes on the Trinity
Our view on this doctrine affects our views of other doctrines. If the Godhead does not consist of three persons equally divine and yet inseparably one, we must redefine one or more of those persons. Jesus may not be fully God, or if he is, he is a lesser deity than is the Father. The Holy Spirit is in some sense inferior to both the Father and the Son. The doctrine of the atonement is modified as well. Instead of a voluntary self-sacrifice by a member of the Godhead, it is something imposed on a human by God, and thus contains an element of injustice.
—Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity1

There was never a God who was not Father and Son together in the unity of the Spirit, coequal, coeternal in the essence of the divine being.
—Fred Sanders, Perspectives on the Trinity (course)2

The Trinity is the most important doctrine of the Christian faith. It’s our Christian understanding of God. We alone believe in a tripersonal God—that the one God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
—Kevin Giles, Perspectives on the Trinity (course)3

To speak of the one God of the Bible is to speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit—they are each God, but they are not each other.
—Brandon D. Smith, The Biblical Trinity4

The core of Christian thought is that God the Father has saved us by sending the Son and the Holy Spirit, and in doing that He has made known to us that God eternally is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So this is a judgment about the entire meaning of everything in the Bible, the entire plan of salvation as it bears on the question “Who is God?”
—Fred Sanders, Perspectives on the Trinity (course)5

Love is the quality of God’s Trinitarian nature. Trinitarian persons relate to each other in a loving second-person perspective: in a “you” sense, rather than in the “he, she, or it” senses. This intimate sharing is demonstrated in Jesus’ prayer to his Father in John 17. In this prayer Jesus speaks to the Father about a prior and preexistent relationship of shared knowledge and recognition (glory) before the creation of the world (John 17:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). He prays: “Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I shared with you before the world was created” (John 17:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) ceb). Jesus recalled the Father and Son’s shared memory of a common experience in which the divine persons acknowledged each other’s personhood and significance, which is what glorification is.
—Scott Harrower, God of All Comfort6

As we read the Scriptures, our default setting should be christological; we should constantly be asking, how does it speak about him? We read trinitarianly when we read christologically because that same God is the God who put on flesh and dwelt among us. The key to the unity of Scripture is the mystery of the Trinity in the incarnation of the Son.
—Brandon D. Smith, The Biblical Trinity7

Christians praise one God in three persons, the blessed Trinity. We do so by proclaiming God’s triune name in baptism (Matt. 28:19Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), by invoking his name in benedictions (2 Cor. 13:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), by binding ourselves to his name when confessing our faith (1 Cor. 8:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 12:3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), and by hymning his name in our songs, joining the chorus of heavenly beings with all the saints in heaven and earth (Rev. 4–5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). Christians praise God the Trinity because he is supremely worthy of our praise. The blessed Trinity is supreme in being, beauty, and beatitude.
—Scott Swain, The Trinity: An Introduction8

J.

32

I appreciate Erickson’s concern for safeguarding the full deity of Christ and the dignity of the Spirit—on that we completely agree. Where we differ is simply on the conclusion he reaches. I affirm without hesitation that Jesus is fully God, not a lesser deity, not subordinate in essence, not a created being. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is not inferior, diminished, or derivative. The difference is that I do not believe affirming the absolute deity of Christ or the fullness of the Spirit requires positing three coequal divine persons. For me, the incarnation is not God imposing suffering on a mere human; it is God Himself entering our world as the Son, fully divine and fully human. In other words, the atonement is still a voluntary self-offering of God, not the coercion of one person by another. So while I share Erickson’s theological concerns, I resolve them within the unity of the one God revealed in Christ.

I resonate with the desire to safeguard God’s eternality and unchanging nature—God did not become God at the incarnation, and Christ didn’t become divine at Bethlehem. Where I would offer a different perspective is that Scripture consistently speaks of “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit” as relational terms tied to God’s redemptive actions rather than eternal distinctions of divine persons. I agree entirely that God has always been who He is, unchanging in His being, purpose, and character. But I understand “Father and Son together” not as eternal interpersonal relations within God, but as God eternally existing as Spirit and revealing Himself in time as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Spirit in regeneration. So I appreciate the impulse toward maintaining divine eternality—I simply see the categories differently.

I appreciate Brandon Smith’s commitment to honoring every biblical title and manifestation without collapsing them or ignoring their distinctions. I agree that Scripture speaks richly of Father, Son, and Spirit, and that each of these is fully and authentically God’s self-revelation. Where we diverge is in concluding that these distinctions imply eternal divine persons. I affirm the distinctions but understand them as distinctions of activity, manifestation, and redemptive economy—not of separate divine individuals. So while I resonate with his desire to honor each expression of God in Scripture, I maintain that they express the same God in different ways, not multiple persons within Deity.

I agree with the heart of Sanders’ statement—that salvation history reveals who God is. The incarnation and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit are indeed the climax of God’s self-revelation. Where we differ is in what salvation history ultimately reveals. Sanders sees the sending of the Son and Spirit as windows into eternal relations within God. I see them as the fullest manifestations of the one God acting in redemptive history. I embrace fully that the Father sends, the Son comes, and the Spirit fills—these are all biblical realities. But I understand them as God acting in different ways toward us, not as three divine persons acting toward each other. The point of agreement is that salvation shows us who God truly is; we simply interpret that revelation through different theological frameworks.

I share wholeheartedly the conviction that God is love, and that divine love is personal, relational, and revealed most beautifully in Christ. I also agree that John 17 expresses profound relational language. The difference lies in how we interpret that language. Harrower sees it as evidence of eternal interpersonal distinction within God; I see it as the incarnate Messiah speaking from His genuine, authentic human experience—expressing the relationship between God and His incarnate life, not between two eternal divine individuals. The love revealed in Christ is the love of the one God reaching into our world, not the love between multiple divine persons. I affirm the beauty of what Harrower highlights—I simply understand its theological grounding differently.

I completely agree that Scripture must be read Christologically; Christ is the key that unlocks both Old and New Testaments. Where Smith sees the incarnation as unveiling the eternal Trinity, I see it as unveiling the fullness of the one God who was previously unseen (John 1:18). I affirm the mystery and unity of Scripture, and I agree that everything converges in Christ. But for me, Christ reveals not a tri-personal divine essence, but the one true God made visible in flesh—the revelation of the Father in the Son through the Spirit. So in terms of emphasis and reverence for Christ, we stand on common ground, even if our theological conclusions differ.

33

When we talk about Christ biblically, we have to keep His dual nature on the table—His full deity and His full humanity operating together. Scripture gives us the categories for this. When the Bible uses the term “Father,” it is simply referring to God Himself—God in all His deity, the eternal Spirit. This is why “God the Father” is a perfectly biblical phrase; the New Testament uses it often (Titus 1:4).

But notice something important: the Bible never once uses the phrase “God the Son.” That’s not a minor linguistic detail—it reflects how Scripture wants us to talk about Christ. In the Bible, the term “Son of God” always has reference to the humanity of Jesus Christ. Luke 1:35 defines the Son of God as the holy child born of Mary. That means Son of God can speak of (1) the human nature itself or (2) God revealed through that human nature—but it never means the eternal Spirit by Himself.

In other words, you cannot talk about the Son while detaching Him from His humanity. Terms like Son, Son of God, and Son of man are thoroughly biblical because they tie directly to the incarnation. But “God the Son” is not a biblical phrase because it treats “Son” as though it were simply another name for the eternal deity alone. Scripture never uses “Son” that way, so adopting that terminology ends up being misleading.

The Son of God is not a second divine person alongside the Father. The Son is the visible, bodily manifestation of the one invisible God. That’s why Paul says the Son is “the image of the invisible God” and “the express image of His person” (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). Think of it like a seal pressed into wax or a stamp leaving a perfect imprint—the impression isn’t another being; it is the exact, tangible expression of the original. Humanity could not see the invisible Spirit, so God took on a human form—His own perfect likeness—so that we could see and know Him personally.

This is why Scripture consistently ties “Son” to Christ’s humanity. The Son was:

  • made of a woman (Gal. 4:4)

  • begotten (John 3:16)

  • born (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:35)

  • limited in knowledge regarding the day and hour (Mark 13:32)

  • unable to act independently of the Father (John 5:19)

  • eating and drinking (Matt. 11:19)

  • suffering (Matt. 17:12)

  • able to be blasphemed in a way that could be forgiven (Luke 12:10)

  • crucified (John 12:32–34)

  • and He died (Matt. 27:50–54)

Each of these verses only make sense if “Son” includes Christ’s humanity. His divine Spirit did not die—His human body did. We do not say “God died,” so we also don’t say “God the Son” died. But we can say “the Son of God died,” because Son refers to the incarnate life of Christ.

At the same time, “Son” doesn’t point to humanity alone. It refers to the one person of Christ, who is both human and divine at the same time. That’s why the Son forgives sins (Matt. 9:6), descends from and ascends to heaven (John 3:13; 6:62), and will return in glory to judge the world (Matt. 25:31). These actions belong to the one Christ—God manifested in flesh.

One more note is worth mentioning about the phrase “God the Son.” Some modern translations introduce this wording in John 1:18 because they follow a minority textual variant. The KJV reads “the only begotten Son,” which fits the biblical pattern. Even if someone were to use the phrase “God the Son,” the only legitimate way to justify it would be by affirming that “Son of God” includes both deity and humanity as united in the incarnation. But John 1:18 makes very clear what it means: the Father—the deity of Christ—is made known through the Son. The verse is not saying “God reveals God” in a trinitarian sense; it is saying God reveals Himself to us in flesh, through the humanity of the Son.

So the biblical terminology holds together consistently:
The Father is God in His eternal deity; the Son is God revealed in real humanity. The Son is not a separate divine person but the visible, incarnate self-expression of the one true God.

34

Michael Heiser - Two Powers of the Godhead - May 4, 2013

Two Powers in Heaven
Introduction

Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship.
In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I suggest that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent—occupying both “slots” as it were at the head of the divine council. The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated by this belief. The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not.

Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy sometime in the second century A.D.

Recommended Reading
The following items are important works with respect to the Jewish background of the exalted Christology of New Testament theology — Jesus as the second Yahweh, the second Power in heaven. Their inclusion here does not speak to a complete endorsement of their content.
Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. Louisville, KY: Westminster / John Knox Publishers, 1992

Bauckham, Richard, “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus” Pages 43-69 in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. Edited by C. Newman, J. Davila, and G. Lewis. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999

Bauckham, Richard, God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998

Boyarin, Daniel. “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” Harvard Theological Review 94:3 (July, 2001), 243-284

Boyarin, Daniel, “Two Powers in Heaven; or, The Making of a Heresy,” Pages 331-370 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel. Leiden: Brill, 2003

Fossum, Jarl E. The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1995

Gathercole, Simon. The Pre-Existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006

Hannah, Darrell D. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 109. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1999

Hurtado, Larry W. “What Do We Mean by ‘First-Century Jewish Monotheism’?” Pages 348-368 in Society of Biblical Literature 1993 Seminar Papers. Edited by E. H. Lovering Jr. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993

Hurtado, Larry W. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988

Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003

Hurtado, Larry W. “First-Century Jewish Monotheism.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 71 (1998): 3-26

Hurtado, Larry W. “Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” Pages 217-233 in Romans and the People of God. Edited by N. T. Wright and S. Soderlund. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999

image
image905×960 92.8 KB

I suggest listen to the video clip.

J.

35

I will continue this discussion:

Let’s look into John 17:1-5’s prayer, Πάτερ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα· δόξασον σου τὸν Υἱόν (“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son”) employs the vocative Pater and the second person soi, singaling a hypostatic interlocution, not a unipersonal monologue. Verse 5; πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί (“Before the world existed with you”) uses para soi for relational co- presence with eichon (aorist, “I had”) indicating pre-existent doxa (glory) refuting a foreordained plan. 2 Corinthians 5:19 “Θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ” (“God was in Christ”) denotes the theandric act of reconciliation, not prosōpic identity. The hebrew echad (Deut 6:4) permits synthetic koinōnia (composite unity as in Gen 2:24, basar echad), unlike yachid (solitary oneness, Gen 22:2),aligning with the Greek heis (mark 12:29) and hen (John 10:30, ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν), which denotes ousiōtic unity with hypostatic plurality. The perichoretic interpenetration of Father and Son within one ousia (John of Damascus, De fide Orthodoxa ) stems main argument of Trinitarian theologia, ensuring homoousious unity (Nicene Creed, 325 AD) while preserving hypostatic taxis (Father as archē, Son as gennētos). This circumincessio grounds the prosōpographic relationality of John 17, where the Son’s proslēpsis with the Father reflects eternal koinōnia (fellowship, 1 John 1:3). THe monarchia of the Father as pēgē theotētos (fount of divinity, Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 29.2) upholds monotheism, without collapsing hupostases into a monoprosopic singularity The anhypostasis (human anture’s lack of independent personhood) and enhypostasis (human nature’s subsistence in the divine hypostasis, Leontius of Byzantium) of Christ’s physis ensure the prayer’s theandric coherence, refuting Oneness’s Nestorianic overemphasis on humanity. THe energeia (divine operation) of the trias (Trinity) in salvation (1 Peter 1:2) necessitates hypostatic distinctions as a monoprosopic God cannot sustain the oikonomic roles of archē, mesitēs ab dynamic. Oneness’s modlaism akin to Sabellius’s chronological succession (Hippolytus, Refutation 9.10). John 17:1’s address: Πάτερ, δόξασον σου τὸν Υἱόν (“Father, glorify your Son”) uses pros (implicit “to you”), signalling hypostatic interlocution. Galatians 4:4’s ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Υἱὸν (“God sent forth His Son”) employs exapesteilen, implying pre-exsistent hypostatic agency, not temporal vessel. Hebrews 5:7-9 : πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον σῴζειν (“to Him who was able to save”) relflects Christ’s kenōtic submission, presupposing a divine hypostasis distinct from the Father’s archē. The Hebrew echad (Deut 6:4) contrast with yachid (Gen 22:2), supporting synthetic koinōnia over monadic singularity. THe greek heis (Mark 12:29) and hen (john 10:30) denotes ousiōtic unity with hypostatic plurality.

The hypostatic union (chalcedon 451AD) posits one prosopon with two physeis (divine and human) where the Son’s eternal gennēsis (begetting, Athanasius, De Decretis 13) distinguishes His hypostasis from the Father’s agenētos (unbegottenness, Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, on which I did a study long ago). The monarchia of the Father as aitia (cause) ensures ousiōtic unity while hypostasis taxis enables the Son’s kenōtic prayer as theandric act, not mere human vessel. The perichōrētic koinōnia (Basil, On the Holy Spirit 18.45) grounds the proslēptikos (relational) nature of John 17:1 where the Son’s hupotagē is oikonomic, not ontogenic, reflecting soteriological dynamic (power). Oneness’s vessel model causes Nestroianic diastasis (separation of natures) as it isolates Christ’s humanity from His divine hypostasis, undermining the enhypostasia of His human physis (Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula 7). The energua of the trias in redemption (Titus 3:4-6) necessitates hypostatic disnctions as the Father’s archē, Son’s mesitēs, and Spirit’s dynamic cannot collapse into monoproscopic singularity without negating the oikonomic plērōma. The eschatological telos of theosis (divinization 2 Peter 1:4) hinges on hypostatic koinōnia, where believers participate in divine energia through the Son’s mediation, impossible in Oneness Sabellian monadism. The filioque doctrine (Augustine, De Trinitate 15.26) reinforces the hypostatic role of the Son in the Spirit’s spiration, ensuring triadic syntax over modalistic succession. John 17:5’s εἶχον παρὰ σοὶ (“I had with you”) uses eichon (aorist, actual possession) and para soi (relational co-presence) not proorismos (foreordination). 1 Peter 1:20’s προεγνωσμένου (“foreknown”) addresses soteriological predesintiation, not doxastic pre- existence. Revelation 13:8 “book of the Lamb” is irrelevant to hypostatic glory. John 1:1’s πρὸς τὸν Θεόν (“with God”) and Θεὸς ἦν (“was God”) establish the Logos’s eternal hypostasis. Even if Revelation 13:8 implies foreordination, it doesn’t negate John 17:5’ aorist ‘eichon’ which clearly refers to past actual possession, not just predestined intention. The Hebrew Olam (eternity Isa 9:6) aligns with pro you kosmou (John 17:5) implying aidiotēs (eternality). The eternal gennēsis of the Son (origen, De Principiis 1.2.4) posits His hyposttic pre- existence within homoousious ousia distinct from the Father’s monarchia (Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 30.20). The circumincessio ensures the Son’s doxa is co-aeterna, not aproleptic anticipation, as Oneness’s sabellian proorismos suggests. The Logos’s pros ton Theon relationality (John 1:1) reflects hypostatic koinōnia, enabling the theandric act of sarkōsis (incarnation, John 1:14). The energia of the trias in creation John 1:3 necessitates hypostatic distinctions as the Father’s archē, Son’s dēmiourgia and the Spirit’s zōopoiēsis (Gen 1:2)(Those who don’t know dēmiourgia means creative mediation and zōopoiēsis means life-giving.) cannot collapse into monoprosopism without negating oikonomic roles. THe eschatological apokatastasis (Restoration, Acts 3:21) hinges on the Son’s hypostatic mediation (Heb 1:2).

36

Your source @Samuel_23 ? Not for me, but for the readers sake.

J

37

It is a lot, the material I quoted is drawn from a much larger document I wrote over a couple of months. I didn’t keep a running bibliography for every sentence, but the sources themselves are standard.
But I’ll add some..
Athanasius, De Decretis
Gregory Nazianzen, orationes theologicae
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius
John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa
Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit
Leonitius of Byzantine, anhypostasis/enhypostasis
Maximus the Confessore, Opuscula
Augustine, De Trinitate
Council of Nicea
Council of Constantinopole
Council of Chalcedon
Standard koine greek lexicons, BDAG, Thayer
Hebrew lexions used for echad vs yachid
hen, heis, pros etc, are acc to classical usuage
Scrptural texts, Greek basis

38

Do you affirm the Scripture on the eternal glory of the Son, the eternal relationality between the Father and the Son, and the grammar that actually supports the Son’s preexistence and personal distinction. The cross itself presupposes an eternal Son entering the world. If He was not eternally who He is, He cannot give eternal life, He cannot bear eternal weight of sin, and He cannot return to the glory He always possessed with the Father?

J.

39

Absolutely…

Eternal Sonship
Eternal relationality
Real Personal distinction
Real preexistence

40

This is such an incredibly important point that has to be made.

St. John in his first epistle writes, “God is love”. A statement as deep and profound as it is brief. What does it mean for God to be love?

Did God only begin to love after the creation of creatures? Or does God’s love precede creation? Because, as John wrote, God is love.

The Trinity answers the questions about God’s love: God is love; not because God selfishly loves Himself; not because His love is contingent on the existence of creatures; but because God’s love is an ever-flowing wellspring of One to Another. The Father loves His Son, the Son loves His Father, the Spirit loves the Father and the Son, and so there is an eternal effusion of God giving of Himself.

We behold this love many times, for at the Lord’s baptism the Father speaks out from heaven, “This is My beloved Son”, this is not a temporal love, but the eternal love which the Father has for His Son; even as we behold the Son’s love for His Father when He says He does nothing except what the Father gives Him, we see the eternal love of the Son toward His Father in the Son’s kenotic Self-giving in becoming an obedient servant. The Spirit’s love of the Son is seen in how the Spirit will glorify the Son (even as the Son glorifies the Father, and the Father glorifies the Son), and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son.

We see a tri-personal love, It is an eternal I-You love, the Father communicates His love to the Son, the Son to the Father, the Father and Son to the Spirit, and the Spirit to the Father and the Son; and this happens in eternal perichoresis.

St. Augustine caught onto this long ago, recognizing that love is only love when it has three dimensions: There is that which does the loving, that which is loved, and the love itself. In the Trinity there is a perfect Lover-Loved-Love; that which always has been, always is, and always will be.

And it is from this infinite wellspring of Divine Love that every redemptive work of God arises. For all things were made through the Son, and for Him. God’s purpose was always to sum up and unite all things in His Son. Our existence, our salvation, that all flows out of the Divine Love of God. So that I am in Christ, I am loved by God in Christ, and in Christ God loves the world, created the world, and redeems the world.

To dissolve the tri-personal unity of God into a monadic model; or to exclude Christ as Son from the Eternal essence of God’s Being is ultimately to deny the Gospel, it becomes another gospel. The whole biblical narrative of Divine Rescue collapses. The Christian Story of creation and redemption collapses without the Trinity as the scaffolding that holds it all together.

1 Like