Divine Immutability vs. the Trinity: Insights from the Tanakh, New Testament, and Arianism

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.

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 image portrays a devout Jewish man tenderly embracing a Torah scroll, symbolizing deep spiritual devotion and reverence. It’s a striking visual representation of faith and tradition.

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.

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.