The Divinity of Christ

The New Testament

The doctrine of Christ’s divinity, asserting that Jesus Christ is fully divine and consubstantial with God the Father, is central to orthodox Christian theology. This belief, grounded in New Testament texts, was refined through centuries of theological debate, ecclesiastical councils, and responses to both early and later Christological heresies.

The New Testament provides a robust scriptural basis for affirming Christ’s divinity. The Gospel of John opens with a profound declaration: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and lived among us” (John 1:1–14).[^1] This passage identifies Jesus as the divine Logos, both distinct from and equal to God, establishing his preexistence and divinity. Similarly, Jesus’ statement, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30), suggests a unity of essence that early theologians interpreted as evidence of his divine nature.[^1] In Colossians, Paul describes Christ as “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation… all things have been created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:15–17), affirming his role in creation and divine authority.[^1] Philippians notes that Christ, “though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself” (Philippians 2:6–7), indicating his preexistent divine status before the incarnation.[^1] Hebrews portrays Christ as “the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Hebrews 1:3), reinforcing his consubstantiality with the Father.[^1] These passages, among others, provided the early Church with a foundation for articulating Christ’s divinity, though their interpretation sparked significant controversy requiring clarification.

Christological Heresies

The early Church confronted several heresies that challenged the orthodox understanding of Christ’s divinity, followed by later heresies that further complicated Christological doctrine. Each heresy, its proponents, its development, and its theological faults are described below, highlighting why they arose and why they were deemed erroneous.

Ebionism (2nd Century):

Ebionism, associated with Jewish-Christian groups possibly influenced by earlier Jewish sects, emerged in the 2nd century as an attempt to reconcile Christianity with strict Jewish monotheism. Ebionites viewed Jesus as a human prophet or Messiah, chosen by God for his exceptional righteousness, but denied his preexistence and divinity, emphasizing his adherence to the Mosaic Law. This perspective likely developed from a desire to maintain continuity with Jewish traditions while accepting Jesus as a significant figure. The theological fault in Ebionism lies in its rejection of New Testament texts affirming Christ’s divine nature, such as John 1:1, and its failure to account for the incarnation’s role in salvation, as only a divine Christ could bridge the gap between God and humanity. Early Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus in Against Heresies, countered Ebionism by emphasizing Christ’s divine preexistence and his role as the incarnate Word.[^2]

Adoptionism (2nd–3rd Centuries):

Adoptionism, promoted by figures like Theodotus of Byzantium and later Paul of Samosata, posited that Jesus was a human who was “adopted” as God’s Son at a specific point, such as his baptism or resurrection, receiving divine power but not possessing eternal divinity. This heresy arose from attempts to explain Christ’s divine status within a monotheistic framework without embracing the complexity of the incarnation. Adoptionism likely appealed to those seeking a simpler Christology that avoided metaphysical complexities. Its theological fault lies in its denial of Christ’s eternal divinity, contradicting passages like Philippians 2:6, which affirm his preexistent divine nature, essential for salvation. Irenaeus and later Tertullian refuted Adoptionism, arguing that Christ’s divine nature is integral to his identity as the Savior.[^3]

Docetism (1st–2nd Centuries):

Docetism, associated with Gnostic groups, taught that Christ only appeared human, his physical body being an illusion, to preserve his divine purity in accordance with Gnostic dualism, which viewed matter as evil. This heresy developed from philosophical influences that prioritized spiritual over material reality, leading Docetists to reject Christ’s true humanity. The theological fault in Docetism lies in its denial of the incarnation’s reality, contradicting 1 John 4:2–3, which affirms that Christ came “in the flesh,” thus undermining the salvific significance of his human suffering and death. Ignatius of Antioch countered Docetism by emphasizing the reality of Christ’s incarnation and suffering.[^4]

Arianism (4th Century):

Arianism, proposed by Arius, a presbyter in Alexandria, taught that the Son was a created being, subordinate to the Father, and not eternally divine, encapsulated in the phrase, “There was a time when the Son was not.” This heresy arose from philosophical concerns about preserving God’s unity and transcendence, influenced by Hellenistic ideas of divine immutability. Arius sought to avoid any implication that the Son compromised God’s oneness. The theological fault in Arianism lies in its contradiction of New Testament affirmations of Christ’s eternal divinity, such as John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:3, and its undermining of salvation, as only a divine Christ could reconcile humanity to God. Athanasius and the Council of Nicaea rigorously opposed Arianism, affirming Christ’s consubstantiality.[^5]

Nestorianism (5th Century):

Nestorianism, associated with Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, emphasized the distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures to avoid implying a mixture of the two. Nestorius argued that Mary should be called Christotokos (Christ-bearer) rather than Theotokos (God-bearer), suggesting that Christ’s natures were so distinct as to imply two separate persons. This heresy developed from a desire to protect the integrity of Christ’s divinity, but it overstated the separation of natures. The theological fault in Nestorianism lies in its risk of dividing Christ into two persons, undermining the unity of his divine and human natures, essential for the incarnation and atonement. Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorianism, affirming Christ’s unity as one person.[^6]

Monophysitism (5th Century):

Monophysitism, promoted by Eutyches and others reacting against Nestorianism, taught that Christ had only one nature, divine, which absorbed or overshadowed his human nature. This heresy arose from a desire to emphasize Christ’s divinity and unity, particularly in response to Nestorius’ perceived division of Christ. Monophysitism appealed to those prioritizing Christ’s divine majesty. The theological fault lies in its denial of Christ’s full humanity, contradicting Hebrews 2:17, which states Christ was “made like his brothers in every respect,” thus undermining the reality of his human experience and suffering. The Council of Chalcedon rejected Monophysitism, affirming two natures in one person.[^7]

Monothelitism (7th Century):

Monothelitism, promoted by Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople and supported by Emperor Heraclius, proposed that Christ had two natures but only one will (divine) to emphasize his unity. This heresy emerged as a political compromise to reconcile Monophysites with Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Its theological fault lies in denying Christ’s human will, which is essential to his full humanity, as evidenced by Luke 22:42, where Jesus submits his will to the Father’s, thus compromising the integrity of the incarnation. Maximus the Confessor and the Third Council of Constantinople refuted Monothelitism, affirming two wills.[^8]

Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils’ Responses

The Church Fathers and ecumenical councils played critical roles in defending the orthodox doctrine of Christ’s divinity, articulating a balanced Christology that affirmed both his divine and human natures.

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–108): Ignatius, an early Apostolic Father, countered Docetism in his Letter to the Ephesians, asserting, “God himself, being manifested in human form,” to emphasize the reality of Christ’s incarnation, both divine and human. His writings underscored the necessity of Christ’s true humanity for the reality of his suffering and divine nature for salvation, directly addressing Gnostic tendencies.[^9]

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373): Athanasius was the foremost defender against Arianism, arguing in On the Incarnation and Discourses Against the Arians that Christ’s full divinity is essential for salvation, as only God can reconcile humanity to God. He emphasized the Son’s consubstantiality (homoousios) with the Father, grounding his arguments in texts like John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:3.[^10]

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444): Cyril defended the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures against Nestorianism in his Five Tomes Against Nestorius. He insisted that Mary is rightly called Theotokos, as Christ is one person with two natures, ensuring that his divine nature is integral to his identity and salvific work.[^11]

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390): In his Theological Orations, Gregory refuted Arianism by articulating the Son’s eternal divinity and coequality with the Father, using passages like John 10:30 to affirm Christ’s consubstantiality and counter subordinationist views.[^12]

Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662): Maximus defended Christ’s two wills (divine and human) against Monothelitism in his Disputation with Pyrrhus. He argued that a human will is essential to Christ’s full humanity, as evidenced by his submission in Luke 22:42, ensuring the integrity of the incarnation.[^13]

Ecumenical Councils and Resulting Schisms

Council of Nicaea (325 CE):

Convened by Emperor Constantine to address Arianism, the Council of Nicaea produced the Nicene Creed, declaring that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance) with the Father, affirming his full divinity. Arius was condemned, and his teachings were declared heretical. Despite this, Arianism persisted among some groups, particularly Germanic tribes, leading to ongoing theological divisions, though no formal schism emerged immediately. These tensions gradually subsided as Nicene orthodoxy prevailed by the 7th century.[^14]

Council of Constantinople (381 CE):

This council reaffirmed the Nicene Creed, condemned Arianism, and clarified the divinity of the Holy Spirit, reinforcing the Trinitarian framework that supports Christ’s divinity. It addressed lingering Arian influences, which caused minor regional divisions but no major schism, as Arianism was largely marginalized.[^15]

Council of Ephesus (431 CE):

The Council of Ephesus rejected Nestorianism, affirming Christ as one person with two natures (divine and human) and upholding Mary as Theotokos. Nestorius was deposed, and his teachings were condemned. The rejection of Nestorianism led to a significant schism, as followers of Nestorius formed the Church of the East, which established communities in Persia and further east, maintaining a distinct Christology emphasizing the separation of Christ’s natures.[^16]

Council of Chalcedon (451 CE):

The Council of Chalcedon produced the Chalcedonian Definition, declaring Christ as one person in two natures, divine and human, without confusion, change, division, or separation, directly refuting Monophysitism. The council’s rejection of Monophysitism led to a major schism, with Monophysite communities forming the Oriental Orthodox Churches (e.g., Coptic, Armenian, Syriac Orthodox), which rejected Chalcedon’s two-nature formula, though their position later aligned closer to orthodoxy in practice.[^17]

Third Council of Constantinople (680–681 CE):

The Third Council of Constantinople condemned Monothelitism, affirming that Christ possesses two wills (divine and human), ensuring his full humanity alongside his divinity. The resolution of Monothelitism, largely a politically motivated compromise, did not result in a major schism, as its supporters were reconciled or marginalized, though minor tensions persisted in some Eastern churches.[^18]

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Denial of Christ’s Divinity

Jehovah’s Witnesses, a religious movement founded in the 1870s by Charles Taze Russell, emerged from the Bible Student movement in the United States. Influenced by Russell’s rejection of traditional Christian doctrines, including the Trinity, the group developed a theology that views Jesus as a created being, specifically identifying him as Michael the Archangel, the first creation of Jehovah (God the Father). Their Christology, formalized in publications like What Does the Bible Really Teach?, denies Christ’s divinity, arguing that he is subordinate to God, citing texts such as Colossians 1:15 (“the firstborn of all creation”) and John 14:28 (“the Father is greater than I”). This perspective stems from a commitment to a strict monotheism and a literalist approach to scripture, rejecting metaphysical concepts like consubstantiality as unbiblical. Their theology echoes Arianism, emphasizing Christ’s role as a mediator and servant rather than as God incarnate.[^19]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ denial of Christ’s divinity contradicts both New Testament teachings and early Church tradition. Their interpretation of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 as indicating temporal creation ignores the term’s contextual meaning of preeminence, as clarified by Colossians 1:16–17, which states that “all things have been created through him and for him,” affirming Christ’s divine role in creation. Similarly, their reliance on John 14:28 to argue subordination overlooks the incarnational context, where Christ’s submission reflects his human role, not an ontological inferiority, as supported by John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”) and John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and my God.”[^1] Their rejection of Christ’s consubstantiality revives Arianism, which the Council of Nicaea condemned, as it undermines the soteriological necessity of a divine Christ, a core tenet articulated by Athanasius, who argued that only God can save humanity from sin.[^20] By selectively emphasizing subordinationist texts and dismissing the early Church’s interpretive tradition, Jehovah’s Witnesses neglect the broader scriptural witness and the consensus of the ecumenical councils, which established Christ’s divinity as essential to Christian faith.

Conclusion

The doctrine of Christ’s divinity, grounded in New Testament texts like John 1:1–14 and Hebrews 1:3, was meticulously defined through responses to early heresies such as Ebionism, Adoptionism, and Docetism, and later heresies including Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism. Church Fathers like Ignatius, Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory, and Maximus, through theological writings and participation in councils like Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople III, articulated Christ’s full divinity and humanity, ensuring a balanced Christology. These councils, while clarifying orthodoxy, led to schisms, notably the Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. In modern times, Jehovah’s Witnesses revive Arian-like errors by denying Christ’s divinity, misinterpreting key scriptures and disregarding the early Church’s theological synthesis. The doctrine of Christ’s divinity remains a cornerstone of Christianity, reflecting the Church’s commitment to the mystery of the incarnation.

Footnotes

[^1]: All biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE).
[^2]: Ebionism in J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. (London: Continuum, 2000), 115–119.
[^3]: Adoptionism and Paul of Samosata in Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 115–119.
[^4]: Docetism in Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Bart D. Ehrman (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), Chapter 7.
[^5]: Arius’ Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, Chapter 5, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 3.
[^6]: Nestorius’ views in Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius, trans. P.E. Pusey (Oxford: James Parker, 1872), Book 2.
[^7]: Monophysitism and Eutyches in Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 317–323.
[^8]: Monothelitism in John Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975), 151–160.
[^9]: Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 7, in Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers.
[^10]: Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. John Behr (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 49–55, and Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1, Chapter 13.
[^11]: Cyril, Five Tomes Against Nestorius, Book 2](#fnref11).
[^12]: Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 29: On the Son, in On God and Christ, trans. Frederick Williams and Lionel Wickham (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002), 69–87.
[^13]: Maximus, Disputation with Pyrrhus, trans. Joseph P. Farrell (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1990), 45–60](#fnref13).
[^14]: Council of Nicaea in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, ed. Norman P. Tanner (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 1–19.
[^15]: Council of Constantinople in Tanner, Decrees, 21–35.
[^16]: Council of Ephesus in Tanner, Decrees, 41–66; Church of the East schism in Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar W. Winkler, The Church of the East: A Concise History (London: Routledge, 2003), 28–40.
[^17]: Council of Chalcedon in Tanner, Decrees, 83–87; Oriental Orthodox schism in John A. McGuckin, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 25–35.
[^18]: Third Council of Constantinople in Tanner, Decrees, 124–130.
[^19]: Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Christology in What Does the Bible Really Teach? (Brooklyn, NY: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 2014), 41–52.
[^20]: Critique in Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 19–34.
[^21]: Arianism’s rejection in Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 429–435.