-1

Calvin's Commentary of John 20 says...

It is, unquestionably, an invaluable blessing, that believers can safely and firmly believe, that He who is the God of Christ is their God, and that He who is the Father of Christ is their Father. Nor have we any reason to fear that this confidence will be charged with rashness, since it is founded on Christ, or that it will be proud boasting, since Christ himself has dictated it to us with his own mouth. Christ calls Him his God, in so far as, by taking upon him the form of a servant, he humbled himself, (Philippians 2:7.)

This is, therefore, peculiar to his human nature, but is applied to his whole person, on account of the unity, because he is both God and Man.

The verse in question is...

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." John 20:17

Even though this is Calvin's commentary, I'm assuming this is true for all trinitarians.

Since god the son was ascending to his god, and his god is the same as the disciples' god, and the god of the disciples is god the son, is god the son the god of god the son?

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    This is a very interesting question!
    – Casanova
    Jun 19, 2017 at 10:00

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4

1) Since god the son was ascending to his god

Yes. Specifically, God the Son was ascending to God the Father.

2) and his god is the same as the disciples' god

Yes. The god of God the Son is God the Father who is indeed the same as the disciples’s god. Thus, “...and to my god and your god” (John 20:17).

3) and the god of the disciples is god the son

In the previous statement, “his god” refers to the person of God the Father. Since “his god” = “the disciples’ god,” then the god of the disciples is God the Father, not God the Son.

That is NOT to say that God the Son is NOT the god of the disciples (cp. John 20:28). It simply means you substituted the wrong person in your logic statement. Why didn’t you instead say, “and the god of the disciples is God the Father”?

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    Thanks Simply a Christian. Okay, so god the father is the god of god the son. Is this to say if we were to have a conversation with god the son in 3746 BC, and we asked him "who is your god?", he would say "god the father"?
    – Cannabijoy
    May 24, 2017 at 20:39
  • If the divinely natured god the son is also (?) god, and his god is god the father even in his divine nature, how does god (with no additional nature) have a god?
    – Cannabijoy
    May 24, 2017 at 20:51
  • Okay so prior to the incarnation, god the father was not the god of god the son, right? Also, plenty of commentaries agree that "Therefore *O'**God, your God" is "unquestionably wrong". It is "Therefore God, your God" or as the ISV renders it "Therefore God, *even your God, anointed you"
    – Cannabijoy
    May 24, 2017 at 21:42
2

More accurately, the son of God ascended to God the father, who is the god of the disciples. The son of God isn't the god of the son of God.

Improve this answer
4
  • This makes sense, except I'm asking specifically about god the son, who is the same person, without confusion of course, as the son of god, but has a "distinct" nature.
    – Cannabijoy
    May 24, 2017 at 20:42
  • "Son of God" is applicable to Jesus, the incarnation of God's word. If I'm understanding you properly, referring to the pre-incarnate word may be called "the word" or "Logos". So what you're then asking is about the Logos? I admit, the phrasing of your question is a tad confusing.
    – Mea quidem sententia
    May 24, 2017 at 21:06
  • Yes I'm asking about the "preincarnate" god the son, or god the word. I know that the part (?) of god the son's human nature has a god, but Calvin says "it's peculiar to his human nature, but is applied to his whole person". What does this mean?
    – Cannabijoy
    May 24, 2017 at 21:49
  • What I'm understanding is the servitude was applied not only to the flesh, but also the spirit in which the son divested himself of his glory up until the time of his resurrection. That is, his whole self was as a servant. Hence the quote from Philippians 2:7 and the subsequent comment from Calvin.
    – Mea quidem sententia
    May 24, 2017 at 21:59
1

I would say the purposeful confusion this question presents is clarified by two sections:

  1. 1 Cor 8:6

    But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (KJV)

  2. 1 Cor 15:27

    For He (the Father) has put all things in subjection under His (Christ’s) feet. But when He says, “All things have been put in subjection [under Christ],” it is clear that He (the Father) who put all things in subjection to Him (Christ) is excepted [since the Father is not in subjection to His own Son]. (AMP)

There is one God, Christ, who is lord (master) over all, excepting God himself. Thus Christ, since he is not God, has a God. God is God of all, including Christ - and Christ is lord (master) of all, excluding God.

Improve this answer
1
  • Is your conclusion, therefore, that "God the Son" is not the god of "God the Son" as the OP asks?
    – JBH
    Aug 22, 2017 at 15:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .