- by Carrie Shaw
- on July 21, 2025
A recent video published by a Christadelphian teacher tackles a question at the very heart of the Christian faith: Is Jesus truly divine? Or, more specifically, Is he only the ‘Son of God’ in a way that rules out him being ‘God the Son’?
For many Christadelphians (and Jehovah’s Witnesses and other Biblical Unitarians), the answer is already settled. The Christadelphian statement of faith insists that Jesus is the Son of God but not divine in the same sense as the Father, not eternal before Bethlehem, and not part of a Trinity. Instead, Jesus is understood to be fully human, uniquely conceived by the power of the Spirit, and exalted to divine authority after his death and resurrection.
I know from my own background how deeply and sincerely these beliefs are held. I also know how easy it is to feel that words like Trinity or God the Son must be suspect simply because they do not appear verbatim on the page. But the real test is not whether a phrase appears in Scripture – it is whether the truth that phrase points to does.
So let’s set slogans aside and follow the whole biblical story. Does Son of God really mean Jesus cannot be divine in the fullest sense? What do the actual words of Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles reveal?
Why the Absence of a Phrase Does Not Prove the Absence of a Truth
The video’s opening point is repeated so often in Christadelphian circles that it feels almost irrefutable: “Nowhere in the Bible do we find the phrase ‘God the Son.’” And that is true – those exact three words, arranged in that order, are not there. But this same logic would dismiss other plain biblical truths simply because a convenient shorthand did not exist yet.
We do not find the word Bible in the Bible. We do not find Millennium, yet Christadelphians will speak of the thousand-year reign of Christ. Even free will is not a biblical phrase. The real question is whether the Scriptures teach that Jesus shares fully in the divine identity, not whether the Apostles were compelled to coin the exact term God the Son.
What matters is whether the Apostles worshipped him as God, trusted him as God, and described him in ways reserved for God alone. This is where the Christadelphian case begins to come apart.
When the Son of God Is Called ‘God’
If we read the New Testament without the filter of a Christadelphian lens, we find something striking: the early Christians speak of Jesus in words that would be blasphemous if he were merely a sinless man.
John opens his Gospel with words that echo the first line of Genesis: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) These words have been softened or retranslated by every anti-Trinitarian sect for centuries – but the Greek is plain: the Word was God. This Word, John goes on to say, became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).
It is no wonder that Thomas, after seeing the risen Jesus face to face, exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
Christadelphian teachers often argue that Thomas could not have meant this directly about Jesus himself. Some suggest Thomas was so overcome he called out to God in heaven, not to the man standing before him. Others say Thomas simply recognised that Jesus perfectly represents God’s character, not that he is God in the flesh.
But this explanation does not fit the plain sense of the text. Thomas is speaking directly to Jesus, the one who stands before him with nail marks in his hands. Jesus does not correct him – he accepts this confession and blesses it: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)
If Thomas were mistaken – if calling Jesus God were a step too far – Jesus would surely have set him straight, just as he always corrected misunderstandings about his mission and identity. Instead, Jesus receives Thomas’s words as the right response to the truth of his resurrection.
John closes this scene by saying, “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31) For John, there is no contradiction in calling Jesus both the Christ, the Son of God, and my God. That is precisely the mystery the Gospels reveal – not a man who merely points to God, but the Word who was with God and was God, now standing among us, risen and reigning.
Does ‘Son of God’ Mean Created Being?
Another part of the Christadelphian argument is that Son must imply creation – that if Jesus is the Son of God, then he must have come into existence at some point. But in the Bible, Son language is not always about physical origin. It is about shared nature and unique relationship.
When the New Testament calls Jesus the only begotten Son, it does not mean he was brought into existence like a creature. John’s Gospel says: “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” (John 1:18*, literal translation). The Son uniquely reveals the Father because he shares the Father’s own divine nature – he is the Word who was with God and was God from the beginning.
This is why the Nicene Fathers later spoke of the Son as begotten, not made. The Bible draws that line long before Nicea: Jesus is not created from nothing like the world, but eternally from the Father – a distinction Christadelphians collapse entirely.
Does Prophecy Prove He Did Not Exist Before?
The video repeats another common Christadelphian point: the Old Testament promises a child who would be born in the future – so Jesus could not have existed beforehand. It is true the prophets spoke of the coming Messiah in language of promise and future birth. But they also spoke of him as one whose “origin is from of old, from ancient days” (Micah 5:2).
This is not a poetic flourish. The same prophet who says the ruler will come from Bethlehem insists his origin reaches back beyond time.
Jesus himself speaks plainly about this pre-existence. In John 17, he prays, “Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed.” (John 17:5).
This point is often explained away by saying the glory was only a plan in God’s mind. But Jesus does not say, “the glory you planned for me.” He says, “the glory I had with you.” This is not a metaphor – it is a clear claim to conscious pre-existence.
He says in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” Those listening understood this perfectly: he was using God’s covenant name from Exodus 3:14. That’s why they picked up stones. They didn’t misunderstand him. They understood him too well.
What About the Prayers, Obedience and Distinctions?
The conclusion is often that Jesus cannot be God because he prayed, obeyed, and spoke of the Father as greater. But this confuses the beauty of the incarnation with a contradiction.
Orthodox Christians do not say the Son is the Father. They believe the Son is eternally distinct from the Father, which is why he can speak to the Father, obey the Father, and submit to the Father in his earthly mission.
Paul explains this paradox clearly: “Though he was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” (Philippians 2:6–7). Jesus did not lose his divine nature. He clothed it in human weakness, so he could do what Adam failed to do – obey the Father perfectly as true man.
Some say all this was added centuries later – a Greek idea, not apostolic truth. But the earliest Christians tell a different story.
No Greek Philosophy: Just the Apostles Defending the Gospel
The claim that belief in Jesus’ divinity emerged later – borrowed from Greek philosophy or invented by church councils centuries after the apostles – is a conviction deeply rooted in the Christadelphian story. It’s repeated so often that it can feel settled beyond question: the early church must have drifted away from the Bible, adding layers of pagan thinking that turned the simple Gospel into something foreign.
But history does not agree with that version. The early Christian writings outside the New Testament – letters and confessions from the generation who learned directly from the Apostles – show that the first believers worshipped Jesus as Lord and God from the beginning, not centuries later.
One of the clearest voices is Ignatius of Antioch, who lived from about AD 35 to 107 – overlapping the final decades of the Apostle John’s life. Ignatius was no detached philosopher. He was a pastor, a bishop, and a man who would die as a martyr for his confession of Jesus. On his way to Rome to face execution, he wrote letters to encourage the churches to hold firm to the faith handed down by the Apostles.
In those letters, Ignatius repeatedly calls Jesus “our God” without hesitation. To the Ephesians, he writes: “There is one Physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true Life in death, both from Mary and from God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Letter to the Ephesians, 7.2)
To the Romans, he calls Jesus plainly: “Our God, Jesus Christ.” (Letter to the Romans, Introduction)
This is not the language of a Greek thinker trying to fit Jesus into a pagan system – it is the straightforward echo of what John wrote in his Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God… and the Word became flesh.”
And Ignatius was not alone. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna – another direct disciple of the Apostle John – in his final prayer before his own martyrdom, worships Jesus together with the Father as eternal God. In the writings of Justin Martyr, only decades later, we see the same pattern: the Son is confessed as the eternal Word who was with God and is God, fully divine yet distinct from the Father.
When we read these earliest voices, we see no sign that the church invented Jesus’ divinity to please Greek thinkers. The truth is simpler: they were defending what they received from the Apostles themselves – the same Apostles who fell at Jesus’ feet and called him Lord and God, who wrote “In him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.”
These were men who gave their lives not for a vague moral teacher, but for the living, risen Son of God – the eternal Word made flesh, the One who alone can save.
So when someone says, “The Trinity is the great apostasy,” it’s worth asking: where is the evidence that the earliest Christians ever thought this was a betrayal?
The evidence points the other way: from the first generations, believers worshipped Jesus as more than a perfect man – they worshipped him as their Lord and their God, because they were convinced this is who the Scriptures revealed him to be.
The Real Stakes
For a Christadelphian, rejecting the Trinity often feels like defending the Bible against centuries of human tradition. Many are taught from their youth that the Trinity is not just an error, but the very “falling away” – the great apostasy Paul warns of – that corrupted the pure faith after the Apostles died. It is no small thing: to accept the Trinity, in this view, is to risk turning from the one true God and therefore to put one’s salvation in peril.
I understand that instinct deeply. I know the fear of embracing something “man-made” when you long to stand firmly on the Bible alone. But when we step back and read the whole sweep of Scripture, we find that the real danger is not believing too much about Christ, but far too little.
The real tragedy is not a Church that has insisted Jesus is fully God; the tragedy would be to reduce him to something less than the Gospels declare him to be. The Apostles did not invent the Son’s divinity because they drifted from truth. They defended it because they witnessed it with their own eyes and worshipped him as their Lord and their God.
If Jesus is only a sinless man – even the best and most faithful man ever to live – then we have no Saviour strong enough to bear the weight of the world’s sin. He might stand in for one, but the Bible says he died once for all. His sacrifice has eternal power because the one who offered it is the eternal Word who became flesh.
The resurrection, then, is not just the rescue of a faithful servant – it is the vindication of the everlasting Word who could lay down his life and take it up again by his own authority.
If Jesus is indeed the Word made flesh – truly God with us – then the cross is not merely a tragedy or a display of human faithfulness. It is God himself stepping into our story to carry us home. The empty tomb is not just proof that a righteous man was vindicated – it is the promise that the eternal Son, who conquered sin and death as one of us, will share that victory with all who trust him.
The greatest danger to our salvation is not believing Jesus is too divine. The real danger is refusing to trust him as fully who he is: Son of God, Son of Man, and truly God the Son – the only Saviour who can bring us to the Father.
A Final Invitation
If you’ve watched that video and felt reassured that Son of God must mean not divine, I’d encourage you to open your Bible again. Read John’s Gospel from start to finish without skipping the uncomfortable bits that do not fit the Christadelphian framework.
Pay special attention to the claims Jesus makes about himself – not just his miracles or moral teaching, but his origin, his authority, and his unique relationship with the Father.
And weigh carefully the testimony of those who fell at his feet and called him Lord and God.
I share this not to win an argument, but because the deeper truth is this: we are not saved by perfectly grasping divine mysteries – we’re saved by trusting the One who holds them. And only when we see Jesus as he truly is – the eternal Son who became one of us – do we glimpse the depth of what he’s done to rescue us and lead us home.
If you’d like to explore this more deeply, you can read my full piece: An Argument for the Trinity.
First of all, I think it is reasonable to be cautious with words and phrases that are not in the Bible but I agree that what matters is whether the Scriptures teach what these terms suggest. Did the apostles worship Jesus as God or describe him in ways reserved for God alone?
When the Son of God Is Called ‘God’
A natural reading of John 1 would not necessarily equate Jesus specifically and exclusively with the word being described here. It makes much more sense to understand the “word” here to embody the purpose and plan of God which existed in the beginning, was with God, and was God. Throughout the Old Testament God has revealed Himself to His people through the spoken word (“and the word of God came…”). However, like God also reveals Himself in Creation (the book of nature), He also revealed Himself in Jesus (the word made flesh).
A natural reading of this statement by Thomas (John 20:28) can just as easily be Thomas recognizing what God had provided, a Saviour. In other words, he is recognizing the work of Jesus “my Lord” and recognizing God’s provision “and my God” – the honour to the risen Lord is not without also giving honour to His Father. Thomas now believes that Jesus is the Christ, the promised Son of God. His resurrection provides the evidence that God had sent him. Both are recognized in his statement.
All you have to do is read through the opening statements in most of the letters which clearly differentiate between Jesus Christ and God the Father if you want to know what the early Christians understood.
Does ‘Son of God’ Mean Created Being?
I would like to see some other evidence that “son” is about shared nature and unique relationship rather than its natural meaning. It is also unfortunate that you have chosen to use a disputed text (John 1:18) to support your argument (and not acknowledged that it is disputed). In two other instances in John, Jesus is referred to as “the only begotten Son” (3:16,18; also 1 John 4:9) which would suggest that the more likely reading is “Son” rather than “God”. There is no biblical evidence to suggest that begotten means created eternally from the Father – compare Psalm 2:7 with Hebrews 5:5 – it is the usual word for the beginning of a new life.
Does Prophecy Prove He Did Not Exist Before?
Speaking of the Messiah as one whose “origin is from old, from ancient days” does not mean his origin is “beyond time”. Both of these words (from of old, and from ancient days) are also used in Micah 7 to speak of the time of the ancestors of Israel and the coming out of Egypt (v.14,20). In fact, this prophecy was to encourage the people now in captivity, that God would still keep His promises to their fathers.
The reason they picked up stones to stone Jesus seems to be because he was implying he was greater than Abraham. They thought that because they were Abraham’s descendants, they were God’s chosen people. Instead, Jesus was telling them that Abraham was a means to arrive at himself and it was through him that they would become God’s people. Abraham saw this day afar off (Hebrews 11:13). Jesus’ answer was to the question: Have you seen Abraham? And the prior questions about whether he was greater than Abraham. His answer is undoubtedly not worded in a natural way which is why it is interpreted differently. Reading it as his intention to take the name of God for himself is not a more natural reading or natural answer, than reading it as him answering their question that he is indeed greater than Abraham.
John 17 is not necessarily speaking of pre-existence. If Jesus existed before he was born as part of the plan of God (as some others did such as Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5), Paul (Gal. 1;15), those he foreknew (Rom. 8:29), Jesus (Is. 49), then it is quite possible for there to be glory with God associated with Jesus before the world or he existed) that could be given to him now that he had accomplished his purpose.
What About the Prayers, Obedience and Distinctions?
Philippians 2:6-7 is not a story of God emptying himself of his God-hood – for how could we imitate this? This seems to be Paul referencing what happened in the garden of Eden, when although man was made in the image of God, he grasped for equality with God which ended in disaster. Instead, Jesus emptied himself of his own will (this is something we can imitate) and came to serve.
No Greek Philosophy: Just the Apostles Defending the Gospel
Unfortunately the writings of Ignatius are disputed so perhaps not the best examples of what the early church believed. If you have read all the writing attritbuted to him, would you actually accept that everything he wrote is evidence of what the early church believed?
Note: I don’t see any evidence of Polycarp worshipping Jesus with the Father as eternal God in his final prayer.
I don’t think options are either worship Jesus as the perfect man, or worship Jesus as God… the evidence of the New Testament is that because of Jesus’ victory as a man over sin, he could be worshipped as our Lord and Master, the Saviour provided by the only God. “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9-11).
The Real Stakes
The Bible is pretty clear that all the power that Jesus had was given him by his Father. It is the Father’s provision of a Saviour that saves us. That he was a human being begotten by God in no way could undermine this provision as this is that is the way that God chooses to do things. In this way, it is still God stepping in to save us, and that the man who conquered sin and death will share that victory with those who trust him. “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.” (Romans 5:17)
Thank you for taking the time to share this – you’ve laid out the Christadelphian position clearly.
I do not find it persuasive. The “plan only” or “representative only” reading does not do justice to how plainly John speaks of the Word’s real, personal glory with the Father, or how Thomas worships the risen Jesus directly as his Lord and his God. It does not read like a slip of language or that Thomas is addressing both the Father and the Son – it is worship rightly given to the man standing before him.
Likewise, the Son language in John points to divine identity and relationship, not merely ancestry or foreknowledge.
Thank you for pointing out the textual variant in John 1:18. I hold to the earlier, widely accepted reading (“the only begotten God”), which I believe fits John’s whole testimony, but I’ve added a footnote for my readers so they see that too.
Taking the traditional Christadelphian reading into account, though, it raises a bigger theological problem. If Christ’s sacrifice had to be first for himself because he shared our fallen, corruptible nature (as Hebrews 7:27 is often read), how can that stand as the perfect, spotless offering the Law required? How could one who needed atonement for himself also be the once-for-all sacrifice for everyone else?
I’d be interested to hear how you square that.
I’m not surprised that you didn’t find it persuasive because I don’t find your arguments persuasive either. We can all be subject to confirmation bias. However, I do think that the Word being God’s plan (instead of not doing it justice) gives it a great deal of glory, and throughout John this is what Jesus speaks – the word God had given him.
I don’t disagree that Thomas was rightly giving worship to Jesus, but Jesus explained that he did not seek honour from men (John 5:44), that he sought the Father’s glory “He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.” (John 7:18; also 12:28).
When you say “son” is referring to divine identity and relationship rather than its natural meaning of male progeny, why do you think the term “son” and “father” are used?
I understand that the earliest manuscripts that came from Alexandria used the term “only begotten God”, however it also should be made clear that the reading “only begotten Son” is by far the most common in New Testament manuscripts and was also used by some early christian writers of the same time period. It is interesting to note that the difference between God and Son is only one letter. However, I do wonder how you understand “only begotten God”? Because “monogenes” literally means “only born” as in a single son or daughter. This means that it does imply a beginning and therefore not eternal.
To answer your question about Christ’s sacrifice – he was sinless and was therefore the spotless, perfect sacrifice required. “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). I don’t see any theological problem here 🙂
Thanks for taking the time to respond again. I appreciate you giving your side clearly, but I still think you’re side-stepping the heart of what I asked.
I agree entirely that Jesus was sinless in conduct – Hebrews 4:15 is exactly why I believe he was the spotless Lamb. The Law required a sacrifice to be without blemish – no moral fault, no physical defect needing cleansing. So if Jesus truly had to die “first for himself” because his mortal nature needed purging, then that mortality would have to be seen as a blemish. But if mortality is a blemish that needs cleansing, then how is he really spotless? And if mortality isn’t a blemish, then why would he need to die for himself at all? That’s the tension: you can’t have a sacrifice that’s both perfectly spotless and needing to be purged first.
On monogenēs: the word doesn’t only mean “only born” – it also means “one and only” or “unique kind,” like Isaac, who wasn’t Abraham’s only child but was his unique son of promise (Hebrews 11:17). In John 1:18, this word appears in the well-known textual variant, which you’ve pointed out. Some manuscripts read “only begotten Son,” but the earliest and most reliable manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B)) read “only begotten God.” So from a manuscript perspective, monogenēs theos has the weight of age and textual quality. This reading also fits the whole Prologue, which says the Word was God. Given the phrase monogenēs theos is unusual, it also seems unlikely scribes would invent the more unusual wording.
We may keep circling here, but I do appreciate you giving your thoughts. Still genuinely curious how you’d resolve this: if Jesus is the spotless Lamb, how could he need to cleanse himself first? Or would you reject the phrasing ‘first for himself, then for others’ which is often applied to Jesus in Christadelphians circles?
The Greek word “monos” certainly means one, alone, or single. It is the addition of “genes” to this that adds to the idea of this. Although it is used of an only child in other places, some scholars have said that etymologically, it seems to mean something like “alone in kind”. (Despite this, many biblical scholars still translate the word as “only-begotten” and in any case it is conjoined with the idea of begetting in examples like John 3:16). But if you take it as meaning unique, what is it that is unique about the person being described? In the example of Isaac, he was the only son of Abraham and Sarah, the son of the promises (again, the sonship element is present). There is no reason not to understand Jesus in this way as well – unique in being the only Son of God (Gen. 22:12 and Rom. 8:32). John 1:14 would seem to support the idea of Jesus being able to make the Father known because he was the only Son (because of that relationship), not because he was simply unique.
If this verse is intending to imply that Jesus is God, why does the verse begin with “no one has seen God at any time”? Instead it says that he made God known because he was in the bosom of the Father (had an intimate relationship with the Father). And even if you don’t take it as meaning begotten, what do you think “unique God” means in this instance? It would seem to be implying that Jesus is a separate God from the Father, which I don’t expect you are really intending. I find this explanation more confusing than helpful. The reading “monogenes theos” seems to work better for Arians. From what I can see it creates interpretative challenges for both Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians. Certainly, if John really did write “monogenes theos”, then we need to accept that and see how it might be consistent with the rest of the Bible. It’s just that it is very difficult to determine if it is the original reading, which is reason to be cautious.
As far as manuscripts go, the Codex Sinaticus and Vaticanus (both from 4th century), are very important. I don’t deny that. However, there is also evidence from early church writers that the variant “the only begotten Son” was used in the 3rd and 4th centuries). See here: The Text of the Gospels: John 1:18 – Some Patristic Evidence. (This author is an example of a scholar who uses the English “only-begotten”; he also concludes that both readings are very ancient). Some would say that it is more likely that it originally was simply “the only begotten” and was later qualified with either “Son” or “God”. Although they are later, there are over 1600 manuscripts that use the term “the only begotten Son” which could indicate that there was an understanding that this was more accurate. (Just to be clear, I don’t know Greek; but I have consulted with my husband, who took three years of New Testament Greek at university and has several Greek editions of the NT which he has consulted for me).
Regarding your question about the sacrifice of Christ, correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are saying that the belief that Jesus had to die both for his ‘tainted’ human nature and for the sins of the world is a standard Christadelphian view. Instead, it is far from a universal view and held only by a minority. The other extreme view is that Jesus did not really share our nature at all. I don’t personally believe this. I believe that Jesus shared our nature – that he was a human being, subject to temptation and able to conquer sin in himself, and therefore mortal, but because he was sinless “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it (Acts 2:24).
I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I do enjoy reading the thoughts you post here and often find what you have to say helpful.
Thank you for pressing into the Greek – you’re right that monogenēs does carry the sense of ‘unique’ or ‘one of a kind,’ and I agree it’s not strictly ‘begotten’ in a wooden sense. I still think John’s use alongside the Father–Son language points to a unique origin, not just status, and that the older Alexandrian reading, ‘the only God,’ makes good sense in light of John’s whole message that the Word was both with God and was God – not two Gods, but the unseen Father (invisible God) made known through the Son (visible God). I really appreciate this respectful exchange, and thank you for taking the time to read my other posts too – I’m glad you’ve found some of them helpful (or thought-provoking!). You may be interested in this article (if you haven’t read it already): https://carrielloydshaw.com/when-god-moved-into-the-neighbourhood/. Blessings to you.