Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 4
He leans on Origen’s observation about the definite article in John 1:1 (the Word was with *the* God, and the Word was *theos* without the article) to protect distinction of persons without denying shared deity. What does this do to common evangelical shorthand like “Jesus is God” when it is said without clarifying “person” vs “nature,” and why does he warn that it “can be very heretical” depending on what someone means?
Another way to ask: Using Origen’s point about “the God” vs. “theos” in John 1:1, how does he try to keep the Father and Son distinct but still fully divine? Why does he say the phrase “Jesus is God” can be misleading or even heretical if people don’t explain what they mean?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
It pressures the shorthand “Jesus is God” to be explained carefully, because without clarification it can sound like Jesus is the same person as the Father (modalism). He warns it “can be very heretical” because the same sentence can either mean “same person” (error) or “same nature” (orthodox), and English blurs that distinction.
- He says Origen notes John uses the article with “God” in “with God” to mark the Father as the person (“the Almighty, Jehovah”).
- In “the Word was God,” the lack of article signals “not the same person as the Father,” but a statement about nature: “The Word is divine.”
- He quotes Origen: “What belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and the Son” and “As to nature, the Son is not different from the Father.”
- He explicitly says: “You could say they are both God… but… that can be very heretical… or… perfectly orthodox.”
- He identifies the heretical meaning as collapsing persons: “Jesus and the Father are one and the same.”
- He connects confusion to “difference between Greek and English,” cautioning he’s “not condemning anyone” because it’s easy to get twisted.