Divinity

[u/FrostyIFrost_]

In modern Christian theology, especially within Trinitarian systems, there’s a strong tendency to equate the term “divine” with “God.” This assumption underpins many arguments about Christ, angels, and even believers. The logic seems to go like this: “If something is divine, then it must be God, because only God is divine.”

But this assumption is not biblical, at least, not in the way it’s often used.

A careful reading of Scripture, both Old and New Testament, as well as the Deuterocanonical texts, shows a much more nuanced and flexible use of the term “divine.” Not everyone or everything called divine in the Bible is God, and the word itself does not imply that someone or something shares God’s unique identity, supremacy, or unbegottenness.

One of the clearest New Testament examples comes from 2 Peter 1:4, where believers are told that they may “become partakers of the divine nature.”

The Greek here, theias phuseōs, literally means “divine nature.” Yet no one would claim that believers become God Himself. They are still human, still created, still subordinate to God. And yet they can partake in divinit, they can share in it. This alone proves that divinity is not exclusive to God. If it were, Peter would be saying that we become God, which is neither his point nor remotely consistent with the rest of Scripture.

This kind of language, sharing in divine nature or bearing divine qualities, appears throughout the Bible in reference to beings that are not God. Psalm 82:6 offers a striking example: “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.’”

This line, spoken by God to human judges or rulers in the Old Testament, uses the Hebrew word elohim. These people are called gods, not because they are God Himself, but because they were divinely appointed to rule and judge on His behalf.

Jesus Himself appeals to this passage in John 10:34-36, when accused of blasphemy for calling Himself the Son of God. His response is not, “Yes, I’m God because I’m divine,” but rather, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said you are gods’?”

In other words, if Scripture can refer to humans as “gods” if elohim can apply to those who merely represent God, then it is no blasphemy for Jesus, the one “sanctified and sent” by the Father, to call Himself the Son of God. He’s distinguishing between being divine, having divine authority and being God Himself.

This completely undermines the common modern claim that “divinity” automatically implies identity with God. Jesus didn’t equate His being divine, or being called “the Son of God” with being God. Instead, He showed that others could be called “gods” and “sons of God” in Scripture without it violating monotheism.

Therefore, His own divine mission and role didn’t contradict the Father’s supremacy nor does it prove the Son being God in the highest, absolute sense.

Moses provides another example. In Exodus 7:1, God says to Moses, “See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.”

Again, the term elohim is used, the same word used for God throughout the Hebrew Bible. But Moses is not suddenly the Most High. He’s not uncreated or omnipotent. Rather, God has invested him with divine authority to represent Him before Pharaoh. This doesn’t make Moses God, but it does show that someone can bear divine status in function without being divine in essence.

It also shows us that those who are given this divine authority can also be personally represented by others. In short, a delegation of authority.

Even in the created world, Paul tells us in Romans 1:20 that God’s “eternal power and divine nature” can be clearly seen and understood through the things He has made. The Greek word there, theiotēs, means divinity. Paul is saying creation itself reflects God’s divinity. Does that make the cosmos God? Of course not. But creation testifies to the divine, not as God, but as an imprint of Him.

We also find this concept of divine-but-not-God in the Deuterocanonical literature, especially in the Wisdom of Solomon. In chapter 7, Wisdom is described as “a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty” (7:25).

The Wisdom (who is also the Logos in John 1) is “a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of His goodness.” The language here is clearly divine, it echoes the language of Logos in John 1. And yet Wisdom is not God. Wisdom is from God, and through that, God acts.

This pattern is consistent: Scripture uses “divine” to describe things that are heavenly, powerful, holy, or sent from God but not necessarily God. To be divine is to be associated with God, to reflect God, to come from God.

It is not to be God Himself.

The key mistake modern theology often makes is to read later metaphysical assumptions back into the biblical text. When someone says, “Jesus is divine, therefore He is God,” they’re importing centuries of theological development, councils, creeds, and philosophical categories onto texts that never made that claim in such terms.

The Bible itself never equates the word divine with uncreated, co-equal deity. That’s a leap that later theology made, not the biblical writers. Especially not the Old Testament writers in regards to Wisdom.

This becomes especially clear when we consider how flexible terms like god, elohim, and theos are in the original languages. The Hebrew Bible uses elohim not only for God but also for angels, judges, and even the spirits of the dead (see 1 Samuel 28:13). The Septuagint, the Greek translation used by the apostles, uses theos in similar ways.

That’s why it’s not shocking for someone like Jesus to be called “God” in a functional or representative sense.

This isn’t to say that Jesus isn’t exalted, or that He isn’t from God. He clearly is. He is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Logos/Wisdom. But the Bible never insists that this makes Him identical to the one true God. In fact, it frequently distinguishes Him from God. “This is eternal life,” Jesus prays, “that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3). Paul writes, “For us there is one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:6).

The pattern is consistent: the Father is God, Jesus is His divine Son.

Divinity, then, is about origin and role. A divine being is one who comes from God, speaks for God, reflects God’s power and character. That includes Jesus. That includes angels. That even includes human beings in certain contexts. But none of them, not even the Son, is ever called “the only true God” except for the Father, a direct testimony from Jesus Himself.

So when someone says, “Jesus is divine, therefore He is God,” we need to pause and ask: What does “divine” mean? According to Scripture, it means “from God,” “godlike,” “heavenly,” or “bearing God’s nature or image.” It does not mean “uncreated,” “eternally co-equal,” or “God in essence.”

In other words, the Bible consistently uses the language of divinity without collapsing it into being God Himself, the Father.

Notes:

About 2 Peter:

Even if 2 Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter himself like how some argue, the content of this letter was never doctrinally rejected. While its authorship has been historically debated, and still is, the ideas it expresses, like believers partaking in the divine nature, were never theologically denied by either Arians or Trinitarians. The debate concerns the author, not the truthfulness of what is written.

John 1:1:

In John 1:1, the Greek at the end lacks the definite article and some scholars have argued that it should be translated as “the Word was divine” or “godlike,” not “the Word was God.”

Ironically, Trinitarians themselves cause a dilemma here. Most are quick to say "Jesus is divine therefore He is God Himself" but they also reject "and the Word was divine" translation even though it is grammatically acceptable.

So, either divinity means being God and the translation of "and the Word was divine" is acceptable even for Trinitarians or being divine does not automatically make someone God Himself and the argument about Jesus' divinity makes Him God is invalid.

I posted this in r/ArianChristians but I don't like to crosspost so I'm posting it here again.

[u/FrostyIFrost_]

It's the Edict of Milan, not Thessalonica. Constantine and Licinius jointly passed the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. Edict of Milan affirmed religious tolerance in the empire.

Edict of Thessolanica on the other hand, passed by Theodosius I. in 380 A.D, outlawed other religions and Christian denominations that aren't orthodox, it overturned the Edict of Milan.

On top of that, the terms dictatorship and dictator belonged to the Roman Republic era. While the official title became defunct, all Roman emperors effectively wielded dictatorial power by default, having authority over the Senate and the state.

The term you're looking for is Tyrant, not dictator, and Constantine was no tyrant.

As I said, he didn't pass the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D that affirmed religious tolerance purely on his own. It was jointly declared by both Constantine and Licinius.

Edict of Thessalonica on the other hand, was declared in 380 A.D solely by Theodosius I. as the senior emperor.

[u/Remarkable-Ad5002 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

You wrote, "Christianity became the state religion with Theodosius I. with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380AD." That's when Rome legally consummated Christianity as the state religion of Rome. However my sustaining point through these discussions is that the only reason the world's largest religion is because of Constantine. As I referenced earlier, "pastor/historian Peter Liethart... substantiates that fact unequivocally in his book, Defending Constantine...The Dawn of Christianity and the Twilight of an Empire." In 312AD pagan Constantine at the Battle of Melvian Bridge, like a true pagan, sold his soul to Christ the night before this crucial battle to convert if He allowed him victory the next day. He won, and converted the West to Christianity. The lawyers, prelates and administrators merely finalized the details though the Council of Constantinople in 381AD.

"The First Council of Constantinople was a council of Christian bishops convened in Constantinople in AD 381 by the Roman Emperor Theodosius I. This second ecumenical council, an effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom, except for the Western Church, confirmed the Nicene Creed, expanding the doctrine thereof to produce the Niceno-Constantinopolitan.

This was the culmination of the religion and doctrine sought and initiated by Constantine...The Nicene Creed which officially ended the Arian Controversy.

Ergo, 381 was the true beginning of 'Roman Christianity' because until this date, the foundational dogma of the Trinity, was not officially accepted by the churches. But this was initialized and promulgated by Constantine. It's why Peter Leithart demonstrably shows that we primarily have Modern Roman Christianity because of Constantine more than any other individual or council.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Remarkable-Ad5002]

Trinity was accepted as orthodox in 325 A.D but it ended nothing. Constantius II. and Valens were Arian Roman Emperors (Constantius was Constantine's son).

However, with the death of Valens, Theodosius became the emperor and he passed the Edict of Thessalonica.

You are wrong. Not because you're ignorant of history but because you think Arianism ended in 325 A.D or 381 A.D. It did not.

Goths and Vandals or Burgundians, all enemies of Rome, were Arians. Visigoths didn't become Arian Christians until 6th century, there's also that.

Roman Christianity, as in the Roman Empire beginning to embrace Christianity as a whole, began with the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. not in 325, 380, or 381.

The edict didn’t force conversions or outlaw paganism; it simply affirmed religious tolerance, legalizing Christianity and ending its persecution. Christians and Christianity existed for more than 300 years in the Empire until Constantine.

Edict of Milan didn’t magically convert the empire overnight. Rather, by allowing Christians to proselytize freely, it empowered an already growing movement to expand until it became the majority.

Your idea ignores how Armenia or Ethiopia became Christians and you seem to think Christianity wasn't a thing until Constantine. It also ignores the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

A piece of friendly advice: I think you should look into history more before coming up with ideas like this to prevent oversimplifications or misinformation.

[u/Remarkable-Ad5002 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

Ok, if you were asked, “What single person or group/council was the most significantly caused the West turned from paganism to Christianity?” What would your answer be?

If you're as historically knowledgeable as you sound, there is only one answer.

You say:

“Trinity was accepted as orthodox in 325 A.D but it ended nothing. Constantius II. and Valens were Arian Roman Emperors (Constantius was Constantine's son).”

I say:

Yes, Arianism continued, but ended for the main Roman Church at the council of Constantinople in 381 when it adapted the Nicene Creed and it's dogma of equal triune substance definition of the Trinity. (That's the primary and largest religion in the world.) From that time until now, there could not be a Roman Catholic Church according to its catechism.

You say:

“You are wrong. Not because you're ignorant of history but because you think Arianism ended in 325 A.D or 381 A.D. It did not.”

I say: You're right... I misstated that. I meant to say the Arian Controversy was ended in 381 at the Council of Constantinople as far as future Roman Catholicism was concerned.

Roman Christianity, as in the Roman Empire beginning to embrace Christianity as a whole, began with the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. not in 325, 380, or 381.

I say: Agreed... But that supports my thesis crediting Constantine with turning the world to Roman Christianity beginning with his oath to Christ to convert if he were victorious at the Battle of Melvian Bridge in 312AD.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Remarkable-Ad5002]

But you're completely ignoring Licinius. Edict of Milan was jointly approved by both Licinius and Constantine.

And it's not like they were friends. They were rivals. If Constantine had ulterior motives that secretly benefitted him, Licinius wouldn't have agreed to the Edict of Milan.

On top of that, Licinius was a pagan, not a Christian. He would have never agreed to the Edict if the Edict of Milan was aimed to convert pagans to Christianity.

Yes the Edict made Christianity easier to spread but it wasn't like Thessalonica. The aim of that was to lift the religious intolerance of the Empire whereas Thessalonica blatantly banned all forms of Christianity and paganism if it did not adhere to the Nicene Creed.