Part 2 of a Study in the Nicene Creed

“...being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.”

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

John 1:1-3

Why does John use the word “logos”? Commentators have debated this through the centuries. Many, especially in the early centuries, focused on what logos meant in the Greek usage. It had been used commonly by philosophers before then, and even by the Stoics of John’s day. This is that immutable, rational ordering principle that explains everything else. And this fits well with Jesus calling himself the “truth” (Jn. 14:6) later on. This is why we derive the English word “logic” from logos. However, there has been a greater emphasis, by modern commentators, on what John most probably had in mind, which is the Jewish context, and how the Old Testament Scriptures so often associated God with his activity in his word. So Jesus is the present summation of that prophetic word (Heb. 1:1-2). I have always found this debate to be much ado about nothing and that, given John’s own background and that of his immediate audience in the later first century Asia Minor, he almost certainly had both in his mind. That Jesus Christ is both that Word that is the Light of general revelation and that summary prophetic Word that fulfills all of special revelation. 

1. The Meaning of the Consubstantiality of the Son

2. The Scriptural Proof of the Consubstantiality of the Son

3. Objections Against the Consubstantiality of the Son

The Meaning of the Consubstantiality of the Son

1. This word is the Latin counterpart to the Greek word that was used, homoousios, which means “same nature,” only here the root word substantia is “substance.” Since the Arian side was largely Greek-speaking in the eastern part of the Empire, we tend to remember the word they used (homoiousios). Unlike homoousios, the Arian doctrine was saying that Christ was “similar in substance” or “similar in nature” to the Father, but not one with him.

2. Since God is simple (non-composite), and therefore indivisible, it must follow that God cannot be more than one being or essence or substance. Therefore, if it can be shown that the names “Son” and “Spirit” belong properly to God as well as the “Father,” then logically we have ruled out (a) simple Unitarianism, (b) Tritheism and any form of (c) Subordinationism, and are left with either Modalism or orthodox Trinitarianism. We will see more of why Modalism will not work, but for now just notice that if the Son is demonstrated to be divine in Scripture, then either this is a mode of the one God or else distinct Person who is one with God, but logical forbids us, once we see that, from going back into the (a) simple Unitarianism, (b) Tritheism, or (c) Subordinationism (which will include the radical form, Arianism). So the question becomes: Can we show the divinity of the Son from Scripture? If we can, then we have at once also shown the consubstantiality of the Son, there being only one divine essence.

The Scriptural Proof of the Consubstantiality of the Son

There are several different ways that the New Testament teaches the deity of Christ, and we will examine several texts in each of these categories: There is (1) divine worship offered to Jesus; (2) divine attributes used to describe Jesus; (3) divine names given to Jesus; (4) divine actions performed by Jesus; (5) the direct claims of Jesus; and (6) The direct claims of his apostles.

1.  There is divine worship offered to Jesus. Since only God is to be worshiped (Ex. 20:3), it follows that for Jesus to accept worship would be blasphemy and prove that he wasn’t even a prophet or good person if he was not God. For the Scriptures to anywhere command worship toward Jesus—if he was not God—would prove that they are not God’s own word.  

that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him (Jn. 5:23);

Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him (Jn. 12:41);

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (Jn. 20:28)

And when they saw him they worshiped him (Mat. 28:17);

so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phi. 2:10-11);

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him” (Heb. 1:6);

“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped (Rev. 5:12-14).

2. There are divine attributes used to describe Jesus. It should be equally clear that no divine attribute can be ascribed to the non-divine, “To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike?” (Isa. 46:5) And yet, the Son claims of himself,

All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son (Mat. 11:27); 

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Mat. 28:18); 

I am the light of the world (Jn. 8:12; cf. 9:5); 

I am the resurrection and the life (Jn. 11:25);  

I am the way, and the truth, and the life (Jn. 14:6); 

Hodge remarks that, “Attributes being inseparable from substance, the Scriptures, in saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit possess the same attributes, say they are the same in substance.”1

3. There are divine names given to Jesus. And what could be a grosser violation of the third commandment that to name something else by the divine name that is not divine? What did the Jews typically pick up stones to stone Jesus for? It was for blasphemy. But we are told that,

there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12);

baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Mat. 28:19); 

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True (Rev. 19:11);

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8); 

And if any should say that this is only God himself speaking, at the end of Revelation, of Christ:

And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 21:6); and [again, in the next chapter]: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (Rev. 22:13); 

4. There are divine actions performed by Jesus.  

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made (Jn. 1:3); 

For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. for the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son (Jn. 5:20-23);

 

Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone? … But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—(Mk. 2:7, 10); 

Now that verse is important, and I could have continued in John 5 where that same prerogative to judge had been given to the Son, partly on the ground that he is the “Son of Man.” If we study that out, we will find that this is not an utterly separate idea from his divine prerogative, though distinct.

and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist (1 Cor. 8:6); 

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Col. 1:16-17); 

Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe (Jude 5); 

5. There are the direct claims of Jesus. One thing to bear in mind about the “I AM” statements of Jesus, even in that second category I mentioned, is that in the Greek, Jesus utters the words ego eimi, which is the first person singular followed by the first person singular, which our English does not capture. But if one were to look at the Septuagint, in Exodus 3:14, where God names himself to Moses as “I AM that I AM,” guess what the Greek construction is: ego eimi.  

unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins … Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am (Jn. 8:24, 58).

I and the Father are one (Jn. 10:30).

Whoever has seen me has seen the Father (Jn. 14:9).

6. There are the direct claims of his apostles. 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God … No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known (Jn. 1:1-2, 18);

the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen (Rom. 9:5);

the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Ti. 2:13);

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power (Heb. 1:3);

Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped (Phi. 2:5-6);

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell (Col. 1:19);

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9);

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life (1 Jn. 5:20).

Objections Against the Consubstantiality of the Son

Obj.1. If the Son is one substance with the Father, and if the Son became incarnate, then it follows that the Father and the Holy Spirit also became incarnate; and if not, then they are not, in every way, the same substance. 

Reply Obj.1. This is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, the equivocal term being “substance,” and it is subtly hidden behind the words “in every way.” It is not that “in some other way” the Son is of one substance with God, but that being essentially one God, it is the only way of an essence to be the ultimate Substance. The subtle suggestion is that we must deny to one substance the assumption of another nature (the human nature) to one person (the Son). But this equivocation is immediately guilty of another fallacy—the question-begging fallacy. The objection has not established that one Trinitarian Person may not assume another nature without being a separate substance. He is merely assuming it up front, which is improper logic. As to the proper expressions that are relevant here, Turretin says, “It is not proper to say that the Trinity itself became incarnate, because the incarnation is not terminated on the divine nature absolutely, but on the person of the Logos relatively.”2 Aquinas adds to this that, “the Divine Person is not said to assume the Divine Nature, but to assume the human nature,”3 so in other words, “it is more proper to say that a divine person assumed a human nature, than to say that the divine nature assumed a human nature.”4

Obj.2. The Creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon are the fossilized residue of the Greek philosophical intrusion upon earliest Christian theology. The Christ of the Creeds was a product of obsession with “being” and “essence,” a Christ of metaphysical speculation. But the Jesus of the Gospels—the Jesus of history—was a Person of deeds, not creeds, a Savior of personal relationship and not of propositional orthodoxy!

Reply Obj.2. One question for your non-propositional, non-credal preference for Jesus: WHICH JESUS? No matter what is said in reply, any distinction implies a creed and must be communicated in propositions. And if there is no distinction, then there is no more objection. Hence, on either side of the dilemma the objection is utterly overthrown. 

Incidentally the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q6. is saying the same thing as the Creed on this point, where it answers the question: “How many persons are there in the Godhead?” Answer: “There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.”

_____________________

1. Hodge, Systematic Theology, I.6.2.3

2. Turretin, Institutes, I.13.6.4.

3. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q.2, Art.1.

4. Shedd’s summary of Thomas in that section, though I cannot find that exact language in either Articles 1 or 2 as Shedd’s notation suggests.