@slimboyfat
The idea of "second power" theology or agency (Wisdom, Shekinah, Logos) is indeed a documented theme in early Jewish and Christian literature. These figures, like Wisdom (Sophia) and the Logos (Word), are seen in some Jewish and early Christian texts as expressions of God's presence and activity in the world. However, the argument that these figures were merely agents or personifications of God, rather than distinct persons within the Godhead, requires a closer look at how early Christians interpreted these concepts.
The late Jewish literature sometimes personified the word of God (memra). However, John's terminology bears the greatest similarity to that of the Jewish-Hellenistic Philo of Alexandria, although the content differs significantly. Some see Philo of Alexandria's theological speculations as at least the cradle of the Christian Logos doctrine. Philo, in fact, adopts the Greek philosophical concept of the Logos and uses it to bridge the gap between God and the world. He views the Logos as the mediator of creation, but in his view, it is not a divine person, and the idea of incarnation is absent. Philo, in a Stoic manner, posits semi-personified independent forces within God, sometimes two, sometimes three, five, or even an infinite number; among them is the nous or logos, which he occasionally calls the Son of God and once refers to as a second god. However, Philo's logos is neither God nor a person, but a mediator between God and the world, a tool of creation, similar to the final aeon in Gnostic thought. According to Harnack, John's Logos shares little more than the name with Philo’s Logos. In the case of Philo, the logos is a vague and confused concept—something like an emanation or attribute of God, a tool of creation (demiurge), a mediator between God and the world, but not a distinct person, not incarnate, not a redeemer, not the Messiah. John assumes that his readers had some familiarity with the logos; however, the Christian idea of the Word was neither derived from Jewish theology nor from Greek philosophy, but was received through divine revelation.
The Logos theology in particular, as found in the Gospel of John, does not support a view of the Logos as merely an agent or a created being. John 1:1–3 explicitly states that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.” This passage establishes the eternal existence of the Logos (Jesus) with God, and it directly states that the Logos is God. There is no suggestion here of subordination in essence, only a distinction of personhood. The Logos is presented as co-eternal and co-creative with the Father.
It’s important to clarify that subordination in function does not imply subordination in essence. In passages like John 17:3, where Jesus refers to the Father as the “only true God,” the context emphasizes Jesus' role in the economy of salvation, not a lesser divinity. In Christian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have distinct roles or functions (the Father sends, the Son redeems, the Spirit sanctifies), but they share the same divine nature. This is a cornerstone of Trinitarian theology, which was affirmed long before the fourth century.
The early church fathers, even before Nicaea, affirmed Jesus' full divinity. For example:
- Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) referred to Jesus as "our God". In his letter to the Ephesians, he wrote, “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.”
- Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) spoke of Jesus as “the Word, who is God” and said that Christians “worship Him” along with the Father.
These examples show that early Christian thinkers, well before the Council of Nicaea, did not subscribe to a purely subordinationist Christology. Instead, they saw Jesus as fully divine, yet distinct in person from the Father.
Slimboyfat references John 10, where Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 (“I said, you are gods”) to defend Himself against accusations of blasphemy. The argument is made that Jesus is here appealing to the broader use of the term “gods” in a way that supports subordinationist Christology.
However, this passage doesn’t imply that Jesus is simply one among many divine agents. Instead, Jesus is using a lesser-to-greater argument. The context of Psalm 82 refers to human judges or rulers who are metaphorically called “gods” because of their role in executing God’s judgment. Jesus contrasts this with His own identity, which is far superior: He is not merely a human ruler given divine authority but the Son of God, set apart and sent directly by the Father. The Jews understood this as a claim to divinity, as evidenced by their attempt to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33). Therefore, rather than denying His divinity, Jesus is reinforcing it in a way that His audience would understand.
In John 10:34-36, Jesus refers to Psalm 82, where human judges are metaphorically called "gods" (elohim) because they were appointed by God to administer justice. The Psalm criticizes these judges for their failure to uphold righteousness. Jesus’ use of this passage does not suggest that He is equating Himself with these human judges. Rather, He is using a kal va-chomer (a fortiori) argument: if mere human judges can be called "gods" in Scripture because of their God-given role, how much more appropriate is it for Him, the one who was sanctified and sent by the Father, to claim a unique divine status as the Son of God?
The use of Psalm 82 is not meant to downplay Jesus’ divinity. Instead, it highlights the inconsistency of His accusers: if they accepted that lesser beings (human judges) could be called "gods," how could they accuse Jesus of blasphemy for calling Himself the Son of God, when His relationship with the Father is far greater than that of human judges? The argument strengthens, rather than weakens, His claim to divinity.
The reaction of the Jewish leaders in John 10:31-33—seeking to stone Jesus for blasphemy—shows that they understood His claim as one of divine equality, not as a mere functional or metaphorical title. If Jesus were only claiming a status similar to human judges, there would have been no grounds for the charge of blasphemy.
The attempt to reduce Jesus' divinity to a mere functional or metaphorical role based on John 10:34-36 or Psalm 82 misunderstands both the rhetorical nature of Jesus' argument and the broader context of John’s Gospel. Jesus' use of Psalm 82 does not diminish His divinity; rather, it highlights the inconsistency of His accusers.
In John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus as "my Lord and my God" (Greek: ho theos mou). This is a clear and explicit declaration of Jesus’ divine identity, not a metaphorical or functional use of the term "God." Thomas is recognizing Jesus not as a subordinate being or a mere representative of God, but as truly divine. The context of the Gospel of John makes it clear that Thomas’ exclamation is an affirmation of Jesus’ divinity. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as having a unique, divine relationship with the Father (John 1:1, John 1:18, John 5:18, John 8:58). The Gospel does not present Jesus as a mere "servant of God" in a metaphorical sense, but as God incarnate.
John 17:3 refers to the Father as "the only true God," but this does not exclude Jesus from being divine. In the context of John’s Gospel, Jesus shares in the Father’s divine nature (John 1:1, "the Word was God"), yet the Father remains the source of all divinity. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons within the one divine essence. Thus, Jesus being called "God" (John 20:28) and the Father being called "the only true God" (John 17:3) are not contradictory but consistent within Trinitarian theology.
By the time of Second Temple Judaism (and certainly in the time of Jesus), Jewish monotheism had become strict and unequivocal. The worship of one God, Yahweh, was a central and defining feature of Jewish faith. While earlier Old Testament texts may use the term "elohim" in a more fluid or metaphorical sense, by the time of the New Testament, such usage had largely ceased. The term "God" (theos) was applied exclusively to Yahweh, with no acknowledgment of other "gods" in any real or divine sense.
The fact that John 1:1 and John 20:28 refer to Jesus as "theos" in a monotheistic Jewish context is significant. It would be unthinkable for a monotheistic Jew like Thomas to call Jesus "God" unless he truly believed in Jesus’ divinity. John’s Gospel is written within this monotheistic framework, making it clear that Jesus is fully divine and shares in the unique identity of the one true God.
Slimboyfat claims that the idea of Jesus being co-equal with God was a later development, solidified at the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. While it’s true that the Council of Nicaea clarified and formalized the language of the Trinity, the belief in Jesus’ divinity was not an invention of the fourth century.As mentioned earlier, early Christian writings consistently affirmed Jesus as divine. The purpose of the Council of Nicaea was to address the Arian controversy, which claimed that Jesus was a created being. The council’s declaration that Jesus is “of the same substance” (homoousios) with the Father was not a new doctrine but a defense of what the church had already been teaching against the novel ideas of Arius.
Slimboyfat argues that terms like Wisdom, Glory, and Shekinah were used to refer to the activity of God rather than distinct persons. However, early Christian thought did not equate these concepts with the distinct personhood of the Logos. The Logos (Jesus) is not merely an abstract principle or force but a person who took on flesh (John 1:14). The early Christians did not worship abstract concepts like Glory or Wisdom but worshiped Jesus Christ as a person who is fully divine and fully human.
Slimboyfat points out that Jesus came to do the will of the Father, not His own (John 6:38), implying that this shows Jesus is subordinate. However, the incarnation involved Jesus taking on a human nature and willingly submitting to the Father’s will to accomplish salvation. This functional subordination during His earthly ministry does not imply an eternal subordination in His divine nature. Philippians 2:6-7 makes it clear that Jesus, though “in very nature God”, “did not consider equality with God something to be used to His own advantage” but “emptied Himself” by taking on human nature.
@peacefulpete
I argued that just because two concepts resemble each other, it doesn’t mean one stems from the other. However, your response seems to misunderstand my critique and continues to assert an equivalence between pre-Christian ideas in late Second Temple Judaism and early Christian thought. You argue that this analysis of late Second Temple Judaism isn't “Hislopian” because the context is different—late Second Temple Judaism is the "soil" of Christianity. While it’s true that Christianity emerged from this milieu, simply highlighting conceptual similarities between Jewish and Christian terms, such as Wisdom or Logos, does not automatically establish a genealogical relationship. This is Hislopian in the sense that superficial similarities are presented as evidence of dependency.
The distinction between pre-Christian Jewish uses of "Wisdom" or "Logos" and Christian Christology is crucial. While Second Temple Judaism may use terms like Logos or Wisdom as ways of discussing God’s agency, Christian theology took these terms and expanded on them in unique ways. For example, while Philo of Alexandria uses Logos to speak of a divine mediator, it never approaches the incarnational theology present in John 1:14, where the Logos becomes flesh. Acknowledging shared vocabulary does not justify assuming shared theology. By this you fall into the same trap Hislop does—finding a superficial parallel and assuming influence.
The argument that "Wisdom" or "Logos" was subordinate and distinct from God until the fourth century misunderstands both Jewish and early Christian theology. Yes, pre-Christian Jewish literature sometimes personifies Wisdom and speaks of God’s agency through intermediaries, but early Christians did not merely adopt these categories. They transformed them.
Consider the Logos in the Gospel of John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). While there is acknowledgment of the Word’s relationship with God, the text also affirms the full divinity of the Logos. This is a radical departure from Jewish concepts of Wisdom or God’s Glory. The Nicene doctrine didn’t create this idea out of thin air—it codified what early Christians already believed, as evidenced by John’s Gospel. I quote:
II. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL FAITH OF THE FIRST COUNCILS
A. From the New Testament to the Council of Nicaea
1. The theologians who in our time raise doubts about the divinity of Christ often argue that this dogma cannot have emerged from genuine biblical revelation; its origins are traceable to Hellenism. Deeper historical inquiries show, on the contrary, that the thought pattern of the Greeks was totally alien to this dogma and that they rejected it with the utmost vigor. To the faith of Christians who proclaimed the divinity of Christ, Hellenism opposed its own dogma of the divine transcendence, which it regarded as irreconcilable with the contingency inherent to the human history of Jesus of Nazareth. Greek philosophers experienced the particular difficulty entailed in accepting the notion of a divine incarnation. In the name of their teaching on the godhead, Platonist philosophers regarded this notion as unthinkable. The Stoics, in turn, could not manage to reconcile the Christological dogma with their cosmological doctrine.
2. It was in order to respond to these difficulties that, more or less openly, many Christian theologians borrowed from Hellenism the notion of a secondary god (deuteros theos), or of an intermediate god, or even of a demiurge. Obviously, this was tantamount to clearing the way to the threat of subordinationism. This subordinationism was already latent in some of the Apologists and in Origen. Arius made a formal heresy of it. He maintained that the Son occupies an intermediate position between the Father and the creatures. The Arian heresy offers a good illustration of how the dogma of Christ’s divinity would have looked had it truly emerged from the philosophy of Hellenism and not from God’s own revelation. At the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325, the Church defined that the Son is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. In so doing, the Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply altered the shape of Greek, especially Platonist and neo-Platonist, metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created.
To be sure, "homoousios", the term used by the Council of Nicaea, is a philosophical and nonbiblical term. It is evident all the same that, ultimately, the Fathers of the Council only intended to express the authentic meaning of the New Testament assertions concerning Christ, and to do this in a way that would be univocal and free from all ambiguity.
In issuing this definition of Christ’s divinity, the Church found support also in the experience of salvation and in man’s divinization in Christ. In turn, the dogmatic definition impressed its own determination and mark on the experience of salvation. There was, then, an in-depth interaction between lived experience and the process whereby theological clarification was achieved.
3. The theological reflections of the Fathers of the Church did not ignore the special problem connected with the divine preexistence of Christ. Note in particular Hippolytus of Rome, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Photinus. Their attempts are bent on presenting the preexistence of Christ not at the level of ontological reality but at that of intentionality: Christ had preexisted in the sense of having been foreseen (kata prognosin).
These presentations of the preexistence of Christ were judged inadequate by the Catholic Church and condemned. Thus the Church gave expression to her own belief in an ontological preexistence of Christ, for which it found support in the Father's eternal generation of the Word. The Church also referred to the clear-cut New Testament affirmations concerning the active role played by the Word of God in the creation of the world. Obviously, someone who does not yet exist, or is only intended to exist, cannot play any such role.
(Source)
To bridge the gap between Greek philosophical concepts and Christian theology, some early Christian theologians borrowed the Greek idea of a "secondary god" (deuteros theos) or a demiurge (an intermediate being between God and creation). This marked a rejection of the Arian compromise with Greek thought and reshaped metaphysical categories in Platonist philosophy. The Church affirmed only two types of beings: uncreated (God) and created (everything else).
Furthermore, figures like Justin Martyr, illustrate that Christian writers in the second century already saw the Logos as divine and distinct from creation, long before the Council of Nicaea. This undermines the claim that the Logos or "second god" (to borrow Philo’s term) only became elevated in the fourth century.
You also claim that emanations of God are “both God himself and subservient to God,” which seems to blur the lines between agency and identity. This view might align with certain Neoplatonist or Gnostic ideas, but it's not representative of classical Christian theology or even Jewish thought.
In Christian doctrine the Son is indeed distinct from the Father, but not in the sense of being subordinate (inferior) in nature. The doctrine of the Trinity clearly affirms the co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each fully divine, yet distinct in their relational roles. The concept of homoousios (of the same essence) emerged precisely to combat ideas that relegated the Son to a subordinate, created being. Early Christian theology, especially by the time of the Nicene Creed, rejected subordinationism. Thus, while earlier Jewish traditions might speak of intermediaries, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity developed a much more nuanced and robust theology of divine agency and unity.
You argue that the Gospels should be seen as theological texts rather than historical documents. While it is true that the Gospels carry theological meaning, this does not negate their historical content. Many scholars, both conservative and critical, acknowledge that the Gospels were written with theological intent but still reflect historical claims about Jesus’ life, teachings, death, and resurrection.
Christian doctrine, including the Trinity, is grounded in what Christians believe to be historical revelation. The claim that the Trinity could have had "four or five faces" trivializes the deep theological reflection that went into its formulation. It wasn’t merely a formula for the sake of conceptual neatness; it emerged from grappling with the revelation of God in Christ and the Spirit, within the framework of Jewish monotheism. The Trinity reflects a coherent response to the experience of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as fully divine while maintaining the uniqueness of the one true God.
Finally, you claim that the idea of Jesus being "God" was only elevated in the fourth century. This is demonstrably false. The New Testament itself provides numerous passages where Jesus is ascribed divine status (John 1:1, John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, etc.), and early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr describe Jesus in explicitly divine terms, long before Nicaea.
The development at Nicaea was not an invention of new theology, but a formalization of what was already widely believed. The council was convened to address the Arian controversy, which had challenged the full divinity of Jesus. Thus, Nicaea did not "overturn" earlier teaching; it clarified and defended what had been part of Christian orthodoxy from the beginning. The early church’s belief in Christ’s divinity and the doctrine of the Trinity was not a later invention or a mere borrowing from Jewish ideas of Wisdom or Logos. Instead, it was a response to the revelation of God in Christ, affirmed by scripture and the early Christian community.
