@slimboyfat
Faith of Our Fathers (Part 1): Were the Early Christians Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Faith of Our Fathers (Part 2): Were the Early Christians Jehovah’s Witnesses?
The claim that early Christians saw Jesus “as distinct and subordinate to
God”, and that only later did he become part of a “Trinity of equals,”
overlooks critical early Christian texts that suggest otherwise. The New
Testament, particularly in the writings of Paul and the Gospels, already
indicates a high Christology. In passages such as John 1:1-3, the Logos
(Word) is not only with God but is also explicitly called God, which directly
counters the idea that Jesus was seen only as a subordinate figure until later
centuries.
Geza Vermes, while influential in highlighting Jesus' Jewish roots, is
critiqued for underestimating the early Christian devotion to Jesus as divine.
Rowan Williams, in his review of Vermes' Christian Beginnings, points
out that the rapid development of devotion to Jesus as divine among Jewish
followers was not an innovation of the fourth century but can be traced back to
the very first generation of Christians. Williams argues that such devotion
escalated within the first century, propelled by charismatic experiences
of the resurrected Jesus, thus challenging the claim that the Council of Nicaea
introduced something entirely new or “revolutionary”.
And it is a fact that Vermes is not exactly known as a researcher of patristics, and it is not appropriate for him to make such bold claims.There are numerous external and internal sources indicating that early Christians believed Jesus to be God, not Michael, long before Nicaea. For example:
- Pliny the Younger (61–113), governor of the provinces of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan around 112 about how to handle Christians who refused to worship the emperor, instead "they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god".
- Tacitus (circa 56–120) wrote that during the Eucharistic ceremonies, Christians consumed the body and blood of their God, which was misunderstood as cannibalism. This clearly demonstrates that early Christians believed in the divinity of Jesus and in His real presence in the Eucharist.
- The Alexamenos Graffito: "Alexamenos worships [his] God," also disproves the Jehovah's Witnesses' concept of the "torture stake."
"While it is true that the new freedom the church experienced under Constantine did have its negative side, it doesn’t follow that the church “fell” as some say. Throughout history the church has made mistakes in its dealings with secular society and in knowing how to properly handle the freedom and power it has experienced. Some complain today that Christians become too wedded to political parties, courting compromise in the process. This was no different in Constantine’s day. That there was a new coloring to the church when it became established under Constantine, there is no debate. But the idea that the church quickly became corrupt, and that the councils convened during his reign were simply pawns of the emperor is simplistic. The church continued to be faithful to the task of clarifying and passing on the apostolic tradition. “The faith professed and practiced in the early churches was not determined by the political machinations of emperors and episcopal hierarchies,” says Williams. “The essential formulation and construction of the Christian identity was something that the fourth century received and continued to expand upon through its biblical exegesis and liturgical life as reflected in the credal Tradition.”Consider what came out of the period of Constantine’s reign. Says Williams:
I am claiming the late patristic period functioned as a kind of doctrinal canon by which all subsequent developments of theology were measured up to the present day. The great creeds of the period, the development of Trinitarian and Christological theology, the finalization of the biblical canon, doctrines pertaining to the human soul and being made in the image of God, to the fall and redemption, to justification by faith, and so on, find their first and (in many cases) enduring foothold in this period. All theological steps later taken, in confirmation or denial, will begin on the trail marked by the early Fathers. . . . The theology that developed after Constantine was not a movement radically subversive to Scripture and to the apostolic faith. On the contrary, the major creeds and doctrinal deliberations were a conscious extension of the earlier Tradition and teaching of the New Testament while attempting, in light new challenges, to articulate a Christian understanding of God and salvation." (Source)
This "Great Apostasy" is not only completely unfounded silly conspiracy theory, it is a desperate forcing of his own heretic ideology into antiquity, even though this theology was invented only by the cult leader on his desk in the open Bible: "ah I think is the correct meaning of the text, so the ancient Christians must have believed it so as well. Oh, the sources do not indicated this? Ah, because that sources are 'apostate' ones, and a good ones were destroyed."
While you refer to John Ziesler’s comments about the subordination of
Christ to God in Philippians 2:5-11, it’s important to note that early
Christian texts frequently explore the mystery of the relationship between
Jesus and God. Though Philippians speaks of Christ's humility and God’s
exaltation of him, it does not imply that Christ is merely a subordinate being.
In fact, Christ is given the divine title “Lord,” and the hymn suggests
that he pre-existed before his earthly life. This indicates an early
recognition of Christ’s unique relationship with God, which is foundational to
Trinitarian theology, even if not fully articulated in its later, more
developed form.
You identify correctly that early Christians used concepts familiar to
Jewish thought, such as Wisdom and Logos, to understand Jesus. However, the
comparison of these figures to Jesus doesn't diminish Christ’s divine status in
Christian theology. In John’s Gospel, the Logos is not just an abstract
concept or a secondary power but fully divine, and intimately involved in
creation (John 1:1-3). Early Christians saw Jesus as embodying these concepts
in a uniquely personal and divine way, unlike the impersonal Wisdom or
Shekhinah in Jewish thought.
Peter Schäfer's Two
Gods in Heaven highlights a distinct idea in some strands of Jewish
thought, but this concept cannot be directly applied to early Christian
understanding of Jesus. In Judaism, the "second god" concept
was more of a speculative theology—ideas about intermediaries like angels or
personified Wisdom. However, the New Testament never presents Jesus as a mere
intermediary or lesser god. Instead, Jesus is consistently depicted as
possessing the same divine nature as God the Father, even while fulfilling
distinct roles within the Godhead.
For example, in John
1:1, Jesus (the Logos) is declared to be both "with God"
and "was God," affirming His full divinity. The Shema—the
central confession of Jewish monotheism—was reinterpreted by early Christians
to include Jesus within the one God of Israel (1 Corinthians 8:6).
This shows that early Christians did not see Jesus as a separate, subordinate
deity but as fully sharing in the divine identity of the one true God.
The argument based on Philippians 2:5-11, as presented by John Ziesler,
suggests that Jesus is distinct and subordinate because He is exalted by God
and His exaltation is "to the glory of God the Father." However,
this interpretation misses the key theological point of the passage, which
emphasizes Jesus' pre-existence in the form of God, His voluntary
humiliation, and His subsequent exaltation as the Lord of all creation.
The phrase "being in the form of God" refers to Jesus'
pre-existent divinity, showing that He already shared in God's nature before
His incarnation. The passage says that Jesus "did not consider equality
with God something to be grasped"—not because He lacked equality, but
because He willingly chose not to cling to it for His own advantage. This
reinforces Jesus' divinity, not His subordination.
Jesus' taking on "the form of a servant" refers to His
incarnation—His voluntary assumption of human nature. His subsequent exaltation
to the highest place and receiving "the Name above every name" (v.
9) confirms His sovereign lordship over creation. While the passage states that
this exaltation is "to the glory of God the Father" (v. 11),
it does not imply ontological subordination, especially not ontological
inferiority. Rather, it highlights the distinct roles within the Godhead, where
the Son's exaltation brings glory to the Father in a relationship of mutual
honor.
In Trinitarian theology, the Son's submission to the Father during His
earthly ministry and even in His exaltation does not negate His equality with
the Father in essence. It reflects a functional distinction, not a difference
in nature or divinity.
The argument assumes that
because Jesus is exalted by the Father, He must be subordinate in essence. This
reflects a misunderstanding of the distinction between ontological
equality and functional subordination within the
Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in essence and nature,
sharing the same divine attributes. However, they carry out distinct roles in
the economy of salvation.
In His incarnation, Jesus
humbled Himself and became obedient to the Father's will. This submission,
however, is part of the Son’s role in the work of redemption, not an indication
of inferiority. Jesus' exaltation to "the Name above every name"
(Philippians 2:9) is a public affirmation of His divine status, which He
already possessed in His pre-incarnate state. It is a return to the glory He
had with the Father "before the world existed" (John 17:5).
The idea that early Christians mythologized Jesus and only later
literalized his divinity (euhemerism) oversimplifies the complex
theological developments of the early church. As David Brakke points out in his
critique of Vermes, Vermes has to work hard to dismiss the early devotion to
Jesus as divine, particularly the early Christian accounts of the resurrection
and texts like the Philippians hymn. The exalted status of Jesus, even
as early as the Pauline letters, contradicts the claim that Christ’s divinity was
a later imposition.
While the Council of Nicaea in 325 clarified the nature of Christ's
divinity in response to Arianism, it did not "invent" the idea of Christ’s
divinity. Nicaea formalized what had been widely believed for centuries—that
Jesus Christ is “of one substance” with the Father. Early Christian worship,
prayers directed to Jesus, and theological reflections in the New Testament
demonstrate that belief in Jesus’ divinity was foundational long before Nicaea.
The council was not introducing a new doctrine but defending what was already
practiced by the early church against emerging heresies.
The development of Christian theology, particularly the doctrine of the
Trinity, was not a sudden fourth-century invention but rooted in the earliest
Christian experiences of Jesus as both Lord and God. Early texts like the
Gospels and Pauline letters reflect a high Christology that acknowledges Jesus'
divine role alongside the Father, while the Council of Nicaea served to clarify
and protect this belief, rather than “create” it.
