5. Objections to homousia or the unity of God.
First objection: If Christ calls the Father "the only true God" (τον μόνον αληϑινόν ϑεόν)), then homousia with the Father cannot belong to him. Answer: But it is precisely homousia that Christ so clearly and decisively claims for Himself. When Christ says, for example, John 10:30, Εγώ και δ πατήρ εν ίομεν, he declares that there is unity of essence between him and the Father. No other understanding of these words is possible, because Christ establishes with the εν ίομεν the fact that, as to the Father, so also to Him no one can snatch the sheep out of His hand. But if Christ ascribes to Himself so decidedly unity of essence with the Father, how is it then that He still calls Himself next to the Father as an object which must be recognized by men if they are to become partakers of eternal life? We are not left to guess to answer this question, but Christ Himself gives us the answer in the immediately following words (v. 4): "I have glorified you on earth." According to this, it stands that "the only true God" can only be known in the Son sent into the world. Christ also describes this in detail in the longer passage Jn. 14:6-11, which begins with the words: "I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except by me." Also Jn. 17 the unity of essence with the Father is clearly expressed when Christ v. 2 says of Himself that He (Christ) gives eternal life, which is only due to the one true God. But the actual purpose of John 17 is to answer the great practical question of how the one true God, apart from whom there is no other, can be salvifically known by men. And this is done only in him whom God sent (ον άπέοτεάας Ιηοονν Χριστόν), in the incarnate Son of God. This is the reason why Christ Jn. 17:3 calls Himself the object of knowledge besides the only true God, as He immediately adds v. 4: "I have glorified you on earth," and v. 6: "I have revealed your name to men," and v. 14: "I have given them your word." So essentially correctly also Luthardt: "One has life only in God, who has revealed Himself as God of salvation only in Jesus Christ. This alone is αληϑινός ϑεός thus not on the
467 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 388.]
contrary to Jesus Christ (so Arians, Socinians and Rationalists)." 1237) Luther,1238) to whom also Luthardt refers, shows quite powerfully that the Arians have perverted the words: "that thou alone art true God", "as if Christ had thereby excluded himself and ascribed the Godhead to the Father alone". But whoever does not flutter over the words, but looks at how they are "interlocked", must recognize that Christ "places eternal life at the same time in his and the Father's knowledge, and makes of both one and the same knowledge". Luther continues: "These words [John 17:3] are spoken most violently against the Arians and all heretics, Jews and unbelievers, who say and boast that they believe in only one God, who created heaven and earth, and for the sake of this article condemn us Christians, as if we were to impute another God. For he [Christ] would have them know that they know not the true and right God, though they mean and boast it; for they know not him that he is, nor how he ought to be known, that he is the one true God, who sent Jesus Christ. This is what is said: Whoever wants to meet the right, one God, must seek him only in the Lord Christ, for otherwise there is truly no God without who sent Christ. Whoever then does not have Christ must also lack the right, true God, even though he knows and believes that there is only one true God. For he does not believe in Him who sent Christ and through Him gives eternal life. Therefore the power lies in the little word 'you': That they may know thee, that thou alone art the true God. Which "you"? The one who sent Jesus Christ. As if he should say: The Jews and others also have only one God, as they think; but they do not recognize you, who alone are the true God, because they do not know Jesus Christ, sent by you, and at the same time paint for them a God according to their own thoughts, which truly is no God, but nothing at all. So you see how the word "alone" is not used to mean that he separates himself from God for the sake of the divine nature (because this is sufficiently prevented by the other words),
1237) See Strack-Zöckler's commentary on this passage.
1238) Sermon on Jn. 17:3. St. L. VIII, 759 ff.
468 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 389.]
but for the very reason that he binds both the Father and himself together, yes, he binds the Father to himself against all who portray another God or seek him elsewhere than in the Lord Christ. Furthermore,1239) Luther calls the knowledge of God that does not also recognize the one whom God has sent, Jesus Christ, "a knowledge of God on the left side," whereby God does not turn his actual face to man but "turns his back." For the knowledge of God without the knowledge of the Savior sent into the world does not go further than "to the knowledge of the law of Moses," according to which God grants life to men who do the law and judges and condemns those who transgress it. But this is not how the one true God is minded against men. God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world through him might be saved.1240) "Therefore," Luther continues, "turn around and let us see what the right face of God is." The right face of God is the one whom God sent into the world, Jesus Christ. Christ is מַלְאַ֤ךְ פָּנָיָיו HEBREW] and God's πρόσωπον,1241) And on the face of Jesus Christ, on which the whole world of men shall look,1242) it is written that God will not condemn a sinner, but will take all to heaven for Christ's sake. The inscription on the face of Christ reads: "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” He that teacheth and believeth another God, teacheth and believeth not τόν μόνον αληϑινόν ϑεόν, but a God which he hath painted unto himself according to his own thoughts, "which verily is no God, but nothing at all," an idol. Hence the warning 1 John 5:21, "Little children, beware of idols!" For the Christian knowledge of God consists in this, v. 20: "We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind to know him that is true, and to be in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This [the Son Jesus Christ] is the true God and the eternal life." In these words, like John 17:3, it is stated that without the Son of God sent into the world there is no knowledge of the true God. Only
1239) St. L. VIII, 1714. <w:t xml:space="preserve">1240) Jn. 3:17; 1 Tim. 1:15.
1241) Is. 63:9; 2 Cor. 4:6.<w:t>1242) Matt. 17. 5.
469 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 389-390.]
here it is emphasized that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is also himself δ άληΰινός ϑεός.1243)
Second objection: Because the Son is of the Father (ό μονογενής παρά πατρός) and the Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son (τό πνεύμα τον πατρός and το πνεύμα τον ύιoύ), then the Son is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit less than the Father and the Son.1244) Answer: in this objection there is a denial of both the natural and the spiritual mind. Even in the natural realm, it is not true that the Son, whether physically or spiritually or in position and standing, is always inferior to the Father. But completely the objection is devoid of any spiritual understanding. According to God's self-revelation in His Word of God, it is impossible for the Son to be inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit to be inferior to the Father and the Son, because each of the three Persons, as we have seen, has the divine essence (eandem numero essentiam) and the divine attributes and works (eadem numero attributa et eadem numero opera ad extra), which exist only once, whole and undivided. In still other words, each person in the Godhead is not a third, but the whole God. As Luther says in his theological theses De unitate essentiae divinae et de distinctione personarum in divinitate:1245) Harum personarum quaelibet totus est Deus, extra quam nullus est alius Deus [“Each of these persons is wholly God, apart from whom there is no other God”], and the Christian congregation sings after him in relation to the second person of the Godhead:1246) "And is no other God." Franz Delitzsch revealed that his spiritual understanding had sunk deeply below the Christian level when he raised the question in 1884, "Is it really permissible to call Jesus Christ, the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts, the one God, besides whom there is none?" and then answered the question in the negative.1247) With this Delitzsch said himself free of Col. 2:9: "In him [Christo] dwells παν το πλήρωμα τής ϑεότητος σωματικώς," and if Delitzsch was clear about his “No”, he has imagined the Son
1243) On the relation of the οϋτός εοτιν ό άληϑινός ϑεός και ζωή αιώνιος to the Son of God mentioned immediately before, cf. Stöckhardt, L. u. W. 40, p. 293 ff.
1244) Thus Arminians, newer Lutherans, etc.
1245) Opp. v. a. IV, 474; St. L. X, 178.
1246) St. L. Gesangb., no. 158, 2.
1247) Allgemeine Ev.-Luth. Kirchenzeitung 1884, No. 49.
470 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 390-391.]
of God as a half-god or as a third-god or similar. Every form of subordinatianism and kenosis (in the modern sense) represents a clear relapse into pagan polytheism. Zöckler says yes and no at the same time when he writes:1248) "Not actually heretical in nature is the subordinatianism of many fathers of the pre-Nicene period, of the Arminians Episcopius, Curcellaeus, Limborch, etc., of a large part of the supranaturalistic dogmatists, also of Kahnis, of the more positive representatives of Ritschl's school, etc., which holds to the consubstantiality of the three divine persons, but subordinates the Son and the Spirit to the Father." Whoever thinks of "subordinatianism" in terms of what the word says, thereby gives up the "equality of essence", as then also Kahnis expressly declares "that the Son is God only in the second sense of the word".1249)
A renunciation of the Christian knowledge of God is also present when thoughts play into the reasoning of the lesser being of the Son and the Holy Spirit, as if the Son, because he is of the Father, is younger than the Father, and the Holy Spirit, because he is of the Father and of the Son, is younger than the Father and the Son. In this case, time, succession, is transferred to eternity, thus denying eternity and the eternal God, which even stands in contradiction with the natural knowledge of God, Rom. 1:20: ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης, scil. is clearly seen (καϑοραταΐ) in God's works of creation. Hence the Athanasian Creed: Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales. [“And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are co-eternal and co-equal”]
The church's way of speaking is also to be judged according to this: Pater prima, Filius secunda, Spiritus Sanctus tertia persona Trinitatis est. This way of speaking is according to the Scriptures, because according to the Scriptures the Father has the divine essence from no other, but the Son as δ νΐός τον πατρός has the divine essence from the Father, and the Holy Spirit as το πνεύμα τον πατρός and as τό πνενμα τον νΐον has the divine essence from the Father and from the Son. The ancient theologians therefore say: Quod Pater dicitur prima, Filius secunda, Spiritus Sanctus tertia persona Trinitatis, ordo naturalis enumerationis est (the order of the natural enumeration), fundatus
1248) Handbuch der theol. Wissenschaften 2 III, 91.
1249) Dogmatik 2 I, 361.
471 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 391-392.]
in origine seu emanatione personarum unius ab alia. Pater, qui non est ab alio, sed a seipso et est is, a quo procedit alius, nempe Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, prima persona est. Filius est secunda persona, quia non est a seipso, ab eo tamen alius, videlicet Spiritus Sanctus. Spiritus Sanctus est tertia persona, quia non est a seipso nec ab eo alius. [Google] But if one constructs from this order a subordination according to time (tempus) or dignity (dignitas), then again there is a transfer of human and temporal relationships to the eternal God, which is contrary to reason and contrary to Scripture.
Third objection: Because the Scriptures use the expression that the divine works in the kingdom of nature and in the church are accomplished "through" (διά, εv) the Son and "by" the. Holy Spirit, a subordination is thus indicated. Answer: this way of speaking is, however, a fact, as is evident, for example, from the following scriptural passages: John 1:3: πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ [the Son] ἐγένετο, Col. 1:16: ἐν αὐτῷ [the Son] ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, Eph. 1:4: ελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ [the Son], Ps. 33:6: "The heavens were made by the word (בִּדְבַ֣ר יְ֭הוָה [HEBREW]), and all his host by the spirit of his mouth" (בְר֥וּחַ פִּ֝֗יו [HEBREW]), 2 Thess. 2:13: "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας. But erroneously from this is inferred a subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit. According to Scripture it stands thus: as there is an order, but not a subordination, in the three Persons (ordo in modo subsistendi), so there is an order in the efficacy of the Persons (ordo in modo operandi). As the Son is of the Father, so also is His activity of the Father, John 5:19: οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα. And as the Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, so also the working of the Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, John 16:13-15: the Holy Spirit οὐ λαλήσει ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ' ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει … ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνει. But the efficacy is not thereby divided, but the efficacy remains one according to number (una numero actio), and as to the Father, so also to the Son, and also to the Holy Spirit, it comes wholly. Jn. 5:19 the fact that the Son can do only what He sees the Father do is declared by the numerical identity of the activity: ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ. Therefore the ancient theologians remark on Jn. 5:19
472 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 392]
rightly: Verba non impotentiam indicant, sed eandem maiestatem divinam, quia eandem numero habent potentiam et operationem. [“The words do not indicate impotence, but the same divine majesty, because they have the same power and operation in number”] Because the effect is undivided between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in a number of scriptural passages the whole divine value is also ascribed to one person without naming the other persons; thus to the Son the work of creation, Heb. 1:10: Σὺ κατ' ἀρχάς, κύριε, τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας, καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σού εἰσιν οἱ οὐρανοί, and so to the Holy Spirit the work of distributing the gifts in the church, 1 Cor. 12:11: "But all these things the same one Spirit worketh, dividing to every one his according as he will, καϑώς βούλεται."
Fourth objection: Jn. 14:28-29 Christ says of Himself that the Father is greater than the Son (ο πατήρ μείζων μού εοτιν). Answer: here Christ speaks of a inferiority in relationship to the Father that ceases with the return to the Father, that is, of Himself according to human nature in a state of humiliation. Therefore, the disciples should not be sad about Christ's going to the Father, but on the contrary rejoice, because now the inferiority comes to an end. Christ's going to the Father is the entrance into the state of exaltation according to His human nature. Christ Himself declares these words (John 14:28) with the words in the high priestly prayer (chap. 17:5): "glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was!" Luther:1250) "That Christ says: 'The Father is greater than I', he does not speak of the personal divine being, his or the Father's, as the Arians falsely address this text and do not want to see what or why Christ is speaking of here, but of the difference between the kingdom, which he is to have with the Father, and his service or servant form, in which he was before his resurrection. Now I am small, he wants to say, in my ministry and servant form, as he says elsewhere, Matt. 20:28: ‘The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life for the redemption of many.’ That means to become small, as St. Paul says Phil. 2:8, to be humbled or thrown down under everything, to let sin, death, the devil, the world tread over him. This is the course I am walking from you. But it shall not remain in such smallness, for that would have come to nothing,
1250) St. L. XI, 1079 f.
473 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 393.]
but shall be a passageway and the very way and means by which I come to the Father, when I shall no longer be small, but shall be as great and omnipotent as He is, and shall reign and rule with Him forever." In his sermon on John 14:28, 29, Luther treats the same subject in even greater detail. He says:1251) "This passage, though it is plainly spoken, was used by the heretics who denied the deity of Christ, and they were probably displeased by it. For they ran hard against the Christians with it, saying: Then hearest thou the Lord's own word, that he saith the Father is greater than he. If then the Father is greater than he, Christ is not like him; therefore he cannot be like him, eternal God. And did great, murderous harm with this passage. For the rabble and simple-minded people, having neither understanding nor spirit, are easily caught with such talk and cannot defend themselves." Luther then points out that St. Hilary and Augustine also did not understand this passage correctly. Hilarius had meant that "the Father is greater non natura seu essentia, sed auctoritate [“not by nature or essence, but by authority”], not because of the divine essence, but only because the Son is from the Father, not again, the Father from the Son. According to this, Augustine also acted on this passage and thus said: "the Son is less than mankind". Luther apologetically adds: "I let that go and be good, because the dear fathers did what they could. But it goes, as one speaks: Who does not understand the language, must lack the understanding and takes probably a cow for a horse. So again, even if one knows the language and yet does not understand the thing of which one speaks, he must be lacking." Luther then proves from the context that Christ here speaks of Himself not according to His divine nature, nor according to His human nature per se, but according to His human nature in the state of humiliation: "The Father is greater than I, because now I am a servant; but when I come again to My Father, then I shall become greater, that is, as great as the Father is, that is, I shall reign with Him in equal power and majesty. … So Christ goes out of this narrow stable of distress into the wide heaven, out of this dungeon into his great, glorious kingdom, being much greater than before. Before, he was
1251) St. L. VIII, 477 ff.
474 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 393-394.]
a poor, miserable, suffering and dying Christ; but now, with the Father, he is a great, glorious, living, almighty Lord over all creatures."
The correct view of Jn. 14:28 is held in our time by Philippi, Hengstenberg, Keil, Nösgen, Luthardt, Stöckhardt. They understand the statement ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν of the Son's being little in the state of humiliation, which comes to an end by going to the Father. Any other view is contrary to the text. When Meusel (VI, 476) says that Meyer arrived at subordinatianism by "exegetical" means, for "exegetical" substitute "unexegetical." Whoever does not bring subordinatianism, will not find it taught in Jn. 14:28. Meyer is here doing "dogmatic" exegesis, a method which modern theology, especially in its renowned representatives, so consistently extends to the clearest passages of Scripture that it finds neither the satisfactio vicaria nor the inspiration of Scripture, neither the deity of Christ nor the Trinity, neither the Christian doctrine of justification nor even the Christian doctrine of the Church taught in Scripture.