Azahari Hassim
The statement that “the idea of immutability is at odds with the Christian understanding of God in relation to the Trinity” highlights a profound theological tension.
Let’s explore how this idea interacts with the scriptures of the Tanakh and the New Testament, as well as how it resonates with the Arian perspective.
1. The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)
In the Hebrew Scriptures, God’s immutability—His unchanging nature—is a foundational attribute. Verses such as Malachi 3:6 (“For I the LORD do not change”) and Numbers 23:19 (“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind”) affirm this stability and eternal constancy. God’s steadfastness is a source of assurance for Israel, emphasizing His faithfulness to His covenantal promises.
The concept of immutability in the Tanakh does not anticipate the idea of God taking on human form or existing in multiple hypostases. Rather, God is portrayed as utterly transcendent and singular in His essence. Consequently, there is no tension within the Tanakh between immutability and any triune nature.
2. The New Testament
In the New Testament, the emergence of Christological doctrines introduces complexity. Jesus is described as the incarnate Word who shares in the divine essence, yet He experiences birth, growth, suffering, and death. These aspects of change—birth, growth, suffering, and death—appear to challenge the absolute immutability of God.
Nevertheless, the Epistle of James reaffirms the unchanging nature of God: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17). This verse highlights the constancy of God’s character, reinforcing the Hebrew Bible’s teaching of divine immutability.
However, the development of the Trinity doctrine complicates this understanding. The human experiences of Jesus—His birth, life, and death—appear to introduce change within the second person of the Trinity, presenting a challenge to the classical notion of God’s unchanging nature.
3. Arian Perspective
Arius, a 4th-century presbyter, rejected the co-equality and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Arians asserted that the Son was a created being, distinct and subordinate to the immutable Father. In this view, immutability belongs solely to the Father; the Son, as a created intermediary, is capable of change and thus not truly immutable.
For Arians, the doctrine of the Trinity (as defined by Nicene orthodoxy) appeared incompatible with immutability, because it required that the Son—who was subject to birth, suffering, and death—be fully God. They argued that this compromised the changelessness of the divine essence. The Arian position thus reinforced the idea that the Trinity undermines the classical attribute of divine immutability.
The tension between divine immutability and the Trinity emerges uniquely within Christianity. While the Tanakh affirms God’s unchanging nature without invoking a triune framework, the New Testament presents a divine figure who enters time and history in the person of Jesus Christ. For Arians, this was unacceptable: true divinity, they argued, could neither suffer nor change.
The Arian controversy underscores the vital importance of upholding the scriptural affirmations of God’s constancy and absolute immutability. The radical claim that God Himself took on flesh is, from the Arian perspective, an untenable departure from these scriptural truths.
For Arians, Jesus remains distinct from the eternal and unchangeable God. The immutable Father does not enter into history or undergo change, but rather sends Jesus as the mediator between Himself and creation.
This conviction continues to resonate in theological discourse today, reminding believers to uphold the absolute transcendence and immutability of God the Father, who—unlike any creature or mediator—remains forever unchanged.
Who were the Unitarian scholars among Christians prior to the establishment of the Nicene Creed?
Prior to the formulation of the Nicene Creed in 325 CE, certain Christian scholars and theologians expressed Unitarian beliefs, focusing on the singularity of God and rejecting the doctrines of the Trinity. These figures typically aligned with early theological traditions that emphasized the Father as the sole God. Some of these individuals include:
1. Theodotus of Byzantium (late 2nd century):
Theodotus taught that Jesus was a man who was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism (“Adoptionism”). He rejected the idea of Jesus being divine by nature, affirming the singularity of God, and was excommunicated for his views.
2. Paul of Samosata (3rd century):
Paul, a bishop of Antioch, was a key figure in early Christian Monarchianism, emphasizing the unity of God. He taught that Jesus was a man endowed with divine wisdom and power but not preexistent or divine in nature. His views were condemned at the Synod of Antioch (268 CE).
3. Artemon (2nd–3rd century):
Artemon is associated with a form of Monarchianism, maintaining that early Christian doctrine affirmed that Jesus was merely human and not divine. He argued that the belief in Christ’s divinity was a later development.
4. Ebionites (1st–4th centuries):
The Ebionites were an early Jewish-Christian group that rejected the divinity of Jesus and the preexistence doctrine. They viewed Jesus as a prophet and the Messiah but emphasized the absolute unity of God.
5. Photinus of Sirmium:
Photinus was a 4th-century bishop who rejected the Trinity, viewing God as a singular entity rather than three distinct persons. His beliefs conflicted with orthodox Christian teachings, particularly the Nicene Creed established in 325 AD, which affirmed the Trinitarian view. Photinus emphasized God’s unity but was eventually condemned as a heretic by the Church for opposing the established doctrine.
6. Origen (184–253 CE):
Although Origen is often considered a precursor to later Trinitarian thought, he also emphasized the subordination of the Son to the Father. His theological framework left room for interpretations that leaned toward a Unitarian understanding of the supremacy of the Father.
7. Arianism and Arius (c. 250–336 CE):
Arius, though post-Nicene, was active before the council and denied the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. He argued that the Son was created by the Father and therefore subordinate, aligning with a Unitarian emphasis on God’s singularity.
8. Early Jewish Christians:
Many early Jewish Christians, including those in the Nazarean and Ebionite communities, maintained strict monotheism. They rejected the idea of Jesus’ divinity and upheld the belief in God as a singular being.
These figures and groups represent diverse streams of early Christian thought that diverged from the later Trinitarian orthodoxy solidified at the Council of Nicaea. Their beliefs highlight the rich and contested theological debates of early Christianity.
Does God of Israel have a son?
The question of whether the God of Israel has a son is answered differently depending on the religious tradition—Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Here’s a summary of each perspective:
Judaism:
No, God has no son.
In Jewish theology, God is absolutely one (monotheism), indivisible, and without partners or offspring.
The concept of God having a literal or divine son is firmly rejected.
While kings like David were sometimes metaphorically called “sons of God” (Psalm 2, verse 7), this was understood in a symbolic or covenantal sense—not a divine or literal sonship.
Christianity:
Yes, God has a Son—Jesus Christ.
Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, begotten not made, and of one essence with the Father (as expressed in the Nicene Creed).
The title “Son of God” means more than a metaphor; it affirms the divinity of Jesus and his unique relationship with God the Father.
This belief is central to Christian doctrine and salvation theology.
Islam:
No, God (Allah) has no son.
The Qur’an explicitly denies that God has any children or partners:
“He begets not, nor is He begotten” (Qur’an, Surah 112, verse 3).
Calling God the “father” or claiming that He has a son is seen as a serious theological error (shirk), contradicting the core Islamic belief in the absolute oneness (tawhid) of God.
Thus, the belief that the God of Israel has a son is affirmed in Christianity, but denied in both Judaism and Islam—each for distinct theological reasons rooted in their respective scriptures and conceptions of divine unity.
The Hebrew Bible, the Trinity, and the Quran: A Brief Reflection
The Hebrew Bible, central to Jewish faith, firmly upholds the absolute oneness of God, as seen in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). However, when Christianity adopted these scriptures as the Old Testament, it introduced Trinitarian hermeneutics — interpreting the texts in a way that supported the belief in one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Some argue this approach distorts the original monotheistic message of the Hebrew Bible.
In response to such theological developments, Islam presents the Quran as the final revelation, aimed at safeguarding God’s unity (tawhid). The Quran challenges the concept of the Trinity, reaffirming that God is singular, eternal, and without equal. Thus, while all three Abrahamic faiths deeply honor divine revelation, they differ significantly in interpreting and preserving the oneness of God.
Holy Spirit and the Filioque Controversy
In pre-Christian Judaism, the Holy Spirit was perceived as God’s dynamic and active presence in the world, without any connotation of being a distinct person within a triune deity.
Christianity later developed the concept of the Holy Spirit as a distinct person within the Trinity, particularly through theological reflection and debates in the early centuries of the church. This development marked a significant departure from the Jewish understanding, which saw the Holy Spirit as an integral aspect of the one, indivisible God rather than a separate person.
The Jewish understanding continues to view the Holy Spirit as God’s presence and power rather than as a distinct divine person, maintaining the strict monotheism characteristic of Judaism. This fundamental difference in understanding remains one of the theological distinctions between Judaism and Christianity.
The Filioque is the clause inserted into the Nicene Creed at Toledo in 589, which asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father.
Was “Filioque“ invented by the Western Church? What is the Eastern Orthodox Church’s theological viewpoint on “Filioque”?
Yes, the term “Filioque” was introduced by the Western Church. “Filioque,” which means “and the Son” in Latin, was added to the Nicene Creed by the Western Church (specifically in the Roman Catholic Church) to express the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
This addition was made to the creed at the Council of Toledo in 589 and became a point of contention between the Western and Eastern Churches.
The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, rejects the Filioque clause. Theologically, the Eastern Orthodox Church maintains that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as originally stated in the Nicene Creed from the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD).
They argue that adding “Filioque” to the creed without a universal ecumenical council’s agreement is unauthorized and constitutes a theological alteration with significant implications for the doctrine of the Trinity.
The Filioque controversy was among the issues that contributed to the Great Schism of 1054 between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic Churches.
This image depicts a white dove with outstretched wings, flying in front of a golden circle. The dove is a well-known symbol in various traditions:
Christian Symbolism: In Christianity, the dove often represents the Holy Spirit, particularly in reference to the baptism of Jesus where the Spirit descended in the form of a dove.
Peace: The dove is widely recognized as a symbol of peace, often depicted carrying an olive branch in its beak.
Purity and Hope: White doves also convey ideas of purity, innocence, and hope.
Theologically speaking, is the Western Church’s doctrine of Filioque a branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church’s doctrine?
No, theologically speaking, the Western Church’s doctrine of Filioque is not a branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church’s doctrine. In fact, it represents a significant point of divergence between Western (Roman Catholic and Protestant) and Eastern Orthodox theology.
To explain further:
- Origin: The Filioque clause (“and the Son”) was added to the Nicene Creed by the Western Church, not the Eastern Church.
- Theological difference: The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, while the Western Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
- Doctrinal status: The Eastern Orthodox Church considers the Filioque an unauthorized addition to the Nicene Creed and rejects it as doctrinally incorrect.
- Historical impact: The Filioque controversy was one of the major theological disputes that contributed to the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western churches in 1054 AD.
- Current stance: The Eastern Orthodox Church continues to view the Filioque as a significant theological error of the Western Church, not as a legitimate development or branch of its own doctrine.
- Ecumenical discussions: While there have been attempts to reconcile this difference in modern ecumenical dialogues, the Filioque remains a point of disagreement between Eastern and Western Christian traditions.
In summary, rather than being a branch of Eastern Orthodox doctrine, the Filioque represents a distinct Western theological position that is at odds with Eastern Orthodox teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Differences between Christianity and Judaism in their beliefs about the Holy Spirit
What are the differences between Christianity and Judaism in their beliefs about the Holy Spirit? What are the key theological distinctions between Judaism and Christianity regarding the Holy Spirit?
Christianity and Judaism have fundamentally different understandings of the Holy Spirit, despite sharing some common scriptural roots.
In Judaism, the Holy Spirit (ruach ha-kodesh) is understood as a divine force or manifestation of God’s power and influence in the world. Key aspects of the Jewish view include:
- Divine Force: The Holy Spirit is seen as God’s divine quality and influence over the universe and His creatures, not as a distinct person or being.
- Prophetic Gift: The Holy Spirit is primarily associated with prophecy, wisdom, and divine inspiration. It was believed to rest upon prophets and worthy individuals, but its presence was not permanent.
- Manifestation of God: Rather than being a separate entity, the Holy Spirit is viewed as a way God intersects with the physical world.
Christianity developed a more personalized and distinct conception of the Holy Spirit:
- Divine Person: Christians view the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity, co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father and God the Son.
- Permanent Indwelling: In Christian theology, the Holy Spirit permanently dwells within believers after they accept Christ, serving as a seal of their salvation.
- Personal Attributes: Christianity attributes personal characteristics to the Holy Spirit, including:
- Teaching and guiding believers
- Comforting and advocating
- Convicting of sin
- Enabling spiritual gifts
Key Distinctions
Nature of Being: The fundamental difference lies in personhood – Judaism sees the Holy Spirit as a divine force, while Christianity views it as a divine person.
Relationship to God: In Judaism, the Holy Spirit is a manifestation of God’s power, while in Christianity, it is understood as a distinct person within the unified Godhead.
Role in Believers: Judaism views the Holy Spirit as an occasional gift for specific purposes, while Christianity teaches it as a permanent indwelling presence for all believers.
How does Surah 16, verse 102 in the Quran relate to the concept of the Holy Spirit in Judaism?
Surah 16, verse 102 of the Quran states:
“Say, ˹O Prophet,˺, the Holy Spirit has brought it (the Quran) down from your Lord in truth to reassure the believers and as a guide and good news for those who submit ˹to Allah˺.”
This verse highlights the “Holy Spirit” (Ruh al-Qudus) as the agent through which divine revelation is delivered to the Prophet Muhammad. Islamic tradition generally identifies the “Holy Spirit” as the angel Jibreel (Gabriel), who is responsible for conveying God’s messages to prophets.
In Judaism, the concept of the “Holy Spirit” (Ruach HaKodesh) carries a somewhat different connotation. In Jewish understanding, Ruach HaKodesh refers to God’s divine inspiration and presence that enables individuals to perceive and convey His will. It is more of a manifestation of divine influence rather than a distinct being or angel. The Holy Spirit operates as a means to inspire prophecy, guide moral behavior, and provide wisdom.
Relation Between the Two Concepts:
- Divine Source: In both Islam and Judaism, the Holy Spirit (Ruh al-Qudus/Ruach HaKodesh) is directly connected to divine will and revelation. In the Quranic context, this spirit ensures the delivery of divine truth, while in Judaism, it inspires prophets and righteous individuals to act in accordance with God’s will.
- Role in Prophecy and Revelation: The Quranic Ruh al-Qudus (identified with Gabriel) functions as the intermediary delivering God’s words to the Prophet Muhammad. In Judaism, Ruach HaKodesh is connected with inspiring prophets, including figures such as Moses, and enabling them to communicate God’s will or record sacred scriptures.
- Divine Guidance: Both traditions see the Holy Spirit as a means of divine guidance, offering reassurance and support to believers. In Surah 16, verse 102, the Holy Spirit brings the Quran to “reassure the believers,” while in Judaism, Ruach HaKodesh provides wisdom and strength to those who seek to align with God’s commands.
Although the terms overlap conceptually in being mechanisms for divine interaction with humanity, the Quran emphasizes the Holy Spirit as a distinct entity (angel Gabriel), whereas in Judaism, Ruach HaKodesh represents God’s divine energy or presence manifesting in the world.
ABRAHAMIC THEOLOGY 