@slimboyfat
Your objection hinges on two misunderstandings: first, a mistaken view of
what it means for Jesus to say He received authority; and second, a false
assumption about what it would mean for God to be "commanded." These
rest on an Arian reading that denies the incarnation, ignores the two
natures of Christ, and fails to understand Trinitarian theology as it has been
confessed by Christians since the apostolic era.
Let’s begin with your imagined statement: “God took back his life
because he was commanded to do so.” You object that this doesn't make sense
because, in your words, (1) “God can’t give up his life,” and (2) “God can’t be
commanded by anyone.” But this ignores the very core of Christian belief: the
Word became flesh (John 1:14). Jesus, the eternal Son, took on human
nature. He did not cease being God, but He entered into a real human existence
— one that included mortality, weakness, obedience, and growth (Luke 2:52;
Hebrews 5:8). So when Jesus says, “This command I received from my Father”
(John 10:18), He is speaking in His incarnate, messianic role, not
denying His divinity.
Yes — as God, the Son shares the divine nature, is uncreated, and is of one
being (homoousios) with the Father. But as man, He could say things like
“the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), or “I do not know the
hour” (Mark 13:32), or “I received a command” — not because He lacks
divinity, but because He is one divine Person with two natures (divine
and human), and He speaks truly from both. This is not contradictory; it is the
Incarnation.
You claim that God can’t die. Of course — as God. But Jesus
didn’t die in His divine nature. The eternal Son died in His human
nature, as Christians have always believed. If God the Son never truly
became man — if He was merely an exalted creature — then we have no
Incarnation, and Christianity collapses. But if He truly took flesh, then His
obedience, His death, and His resurrection are not signs of inferiority, but of
the humility of the God who stoops to save.
You also say that “Jesus says He was given all authority by God”
(Matthew 28:18), and then argue, “Where is the verse where God says ‘all my
authority was given to me’?” But this is a category mistake. The Father is not
the Son. Trinitarian theology doesn’t teach that the Father is the Son or the
Son is the Spirit. Rather, it teaches that the three Persons fully share the
one divine nature, and that the Son, as Son, eternally receives His
divine being from the Father, not as a creature receives power, but as a
Son receives the same nature. This is called eternal generation — and
far from implying inferiority, it affirms equality of nature.
So when Jesus says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given
to me,” He is speaking not from the standpoint of abstract divinity, but as
the risen, glorified God-man, who has now assumed kingship over the
world as the Messiah. The “giving” of authority is not about a created being
being given divine power, but about the enthronement of the Incarnate Son, who
has completed His work (cf. Daniel 7:13–14; Philippians 2:9–11). It is the
reward of His messianic mission, not proof of ontological subordination.
As for John 10:18, you’re downplaying Jesus’ own words. He says, “I have
authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it up again.” The
Greek (ἐξουσίαν ἔχω) is clear. This is not mere passive obedience. It’s divine
prerogative. And it’s inseparable from the statement: “No one takes it from
me, but I lay it down of myself.” That is a divine claim. No prophet ever
spoke that way. Not Moses, not Elijah, not even Michael (assuming, wrongly,
that he could be identified with Jesus). But Jesus says He has authority
over life and death — not just others’, but His own. This is the
power of One who is life itself (John 1:4; 11:25).
You cite Matthew 28:18 as if the phrase “was given” proves
subordination. But this is again only compelling if you reject the Incarnation.
Jesus is the God-man. He possesses all authority in His divine nature from
eternity — but as the risen Messiah, He now exercises that authority in the
human nature He assumed for our salvation. In that nature, He received
glory and honor from the Father — not because He lacked it eternally, but
because the Son took on a new role in time. This is Philippians 2:6–11: “Being
in very nature God… he humbled himself… therefore God exalted him.”
Your argument also fails to account for John 2:19: “Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up.” Jesus clearly says He will
raise His body — not He will be raised, not the Father will raise Him,
but “I will raise it.” And as John adds, “He was speaking about the
temple of His body.” That is a direct claim that He, Jesus, would resurrect
Himself. No mere creature talks this way. Paul affirms the same divine identity
when he writes: “Christ Jesus, who… did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped” (Phil 2:6).
Finally, your entire critique collapses when you try to argue that
authority “given” to Jesus implies inferiority — as though one divine Person
cannot entrust a mission to another without that implying inequality. But this
is to import human categories into God, and to confuse economic roles
with ontological rank. Within the Trinity, there is order without inequality,
mission without subordination of nature. The Son is not less than the Father —
He is the Son, who from eternity receives the divine being and shares it
fully.
So yes, Jesus was “given” authority — but as man, as Messiah,
as Savior. And yes, He was “commanded” — because He came to do the will
of His Father. But in doing so, He revealed His divinity, not denied it.
As the Nicene Creed rightly proclaims: “God from God, Light from Light, true
God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.”
That’s not a corruption. That’s the Gospel.
When engaging
with Arian claims that deny the full divinity of Jesus Christ, one recurring
confusion lies in the way Scripture refers to Christ in both His human and
divine natures. Arians often take verses that refer to Christ’s humanity—such
as “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), “He learned obedience” (Heb.
5:8), or “He grew in wisdom and stature” (Luke 2:52)—and treat them as
conclusive evidence that Christ cannot be fully divine. But this fails to
account for the central Christian truth of the hypostatic union: that
Christ is one Person in two natures, divine and human.
To clarify
this concept, imagine a simple analogy with two baskets and apples.
Suppose
you're sorting apples: you have two baskets, one for green apples and
one for red apples. Your job is to put each apple in the right basket.
This is not difficult when the color distinction is clear. You don't put a
green apple in the red basket just because it’s still an apple.
Now apply
that logic to the biblical texts about Christ:
- You have one "basket"
for passages that refer to Christ's human nature (e.g., born of a
woman, tired, hungry, growing in wisdom, praying to the Father, dying on
the cross).
- You have another "basket"
for passages that refer to Christ's divine nature (e.g., “In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was God” –
John 1:1; “I and the Father are one” – John 10:30; “though he was in the
form of God…” – Philippians 2:6; worshiped by angels – Hebrews 1:6).
The Arians
try to take verses that clearly go into the "human nature basket" and
throw them into the "divine nature basket" to disprove Christ’s
divinity. That is as confused as trying to prove that all apples are green by
holding up only green apples and pretending the red ones don't exist—or worse,
by putting green apples into the red basket and claiming there's no difference.
John 14:28
("the Father is greater than I") is a green apple—it belongs to the
basket of Christ’s human experience. It does not contradict John 1:1 or
Philippians 2:6, which are clearly red apples, belonging to the basket of His eternal
divine nature.
This sorting
is not arbitrary—it reflects the truth of the Incarnation. Christ is fully
God and fully man. The human nature did not cancel the divine nature, nor
did the divine nature consume the human. The Person of Christ operates in both
natures without confusion, without change, without division, without
separation, as defined in the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD).
So, what does this mean for Arian proof-texting? Whenever an
Arian points to a passage like:
- “The Father is greater than I”
(John 14:28)
- “The Son does not know the day
or the hour” (Mark 13:32)
- “My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46)
... they are
pointing to real truths—about Christ’s humanity. But they misapply them
by acting as if they speak to the entirety of His Person, or as if they
exclude His divinity. But Scripture also teaches:
- “In Him dwells all the fullness
of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9)
- “All things were created by Him
and for Him” (Col. 1:16)
- “Before Abraham was, I AM”
(John 8:58)
You cannot
interpret one set of passages in a way that cancels out the other. That’s bad
exegesis and bad theology.
In conclusion, to rightly
understand Christ, we must discern which nature is being emphasized in a
given passage. The error of Arianism arises from collapsing both baskets into
one and insisting that every statement about Jesus must apply equally to His
essence in the same way. But orthodox Christianity maintains the vital
distinction: one Person, two natures—truly God and truly man. Denying
either nature leads to heresy. Keeping them properly distinguished leads to the
worship of the true Christ, the eternal Son of God who took on flesh for
our salvation.
