The titular
question may seem like an odd one, especially for orthodox Christians. Orthodox
Christians have always affirmed that Jesus is God, so why even ask the question
if “God is Jesus” is correct? Of course Jesus is God, so God is Jesus, right?
Well, perhaps things are not so clear.
First, we must
ask ourselves what God is. He is a
triune being; he is one being in three distinct persons. This generic
formulation is common to all orthodox Christians.[1]
Next, we must ask ourselves the following: in what sense is it true to say “Jesus
is God”?
Here we must
distinguish between two different kinds of “is” statements: the “is” of
identity and the “is” of predication. As we shall see, there are even sub-types
of these kinds of “is” statements. What does it mean for something to be the “is”
of identity? Roughly, something is identical with something else just in the
case all of its essential properties are shared between the two. So, take “Mark
Twain” and “Samuel Clemens.” There are no properties had by Mark Twain (the individual,
not the proper name) not also had by Samuel Clemens. As a result, we say Mark
Twain is identical to Samuel Clemens; Mark Twain just is Samuel Clemens.
Now the
statement “Jesus is God” is fundamentally true for Christians. But is this the “is”
of identity? It would seem that it is not. Why not? Because one of the features
of identity is that it is transitive. For math majors out there, you’ll note
that if A=B, and B=C, then, by the transitive property, A=C. The same exact
principle applies to identity statements (in fact, it can be said that the
mathematical principle is derived from this philosophical principle).
If that is true,
then if the individual persons of the Trinity hold the “is” in the statement “is
God” as one of identity, then a problem presents itself. “The Father is God,” “Jesus
is God,” and “the Spirit is God,” are all identity statements. But that means
the Father is the Son, the Son is the Spirit, and the Father is the Spirit. And
surely no orthodox formulation of the Trinity concedes this, inasmuch as this
is just denying that there even is a
Trinity. So it cannot be the case that the statement “Jesus is God” is the “is”
of identity.
That leaves us
with the “is” of predication. There are two sub-types of predication: essential
and accidental. Essential predication is that without which something would not
be what it is; it is a property that is essential to that thing being what it
is. So, for example, in the statement, “Socrates is a human,” the property of being human is an essential one; it is
the “is” of essential predication, because Socrates couldn’t be who he is
without being human.[2]
Accidental predication is a property that someone has but could have lacked and
still could have been who they are. An example would be having the property of having n number of hairs, where n stands for the number of hairs on your
head. Surely you are still you even when a single strand of hair falls out.
The predicative “is”
we want here, however, will be essential predication. The statement “Jesus is
God” will mean something more like “Jesus is deity,” or “Jesus is divine,” or “Jesus
has divinity” (if we’re translating into properties). This now brings us to our
question: is God Jesus? Let’s examine the two senses of “is.”
First, let us
explore identity. I think the answer is clearly “no,” for precisely the same
reasons outlined above. We do not want to collapse into modalism, and we do not
exhaust what it means to speak of God when we speak of Jesus. But what about of
predication? That answer also seems to be “no,” for we do not want to say that being Jesus is a property of God. Or is
it?
It does seem
that God has the essential predicate of being
triune, and Jesus is an essential part of that (you cannot have the being
that Christians refer to without Jesus). So, is God Jesus? Not in an identity
statement. Is God Jesus? Yes, in that Jesus is a necessary person in the
Trinity. But no, in that God is not merely
Jesus. He is, necessarily, Father, Son, and Spirit, and these three are one in
being, though distinct in persons.
[1] It’s important to note
here that we’re not yet fleshing out varying models of the Trinity, or
attempting to answer questions about what it means to be a person, etc., so
that literally all orthodox Christians should be able to agree with this
statement.
[2] And we would not want
to say this is the “is” of identity, of course, because Socrates is not
identical with humanness; we are not
all just instantiations of Socrates.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please remember to see the comment guidelines if you are unfamiliar with them. God bless and thanks for dropping by!