The Ambiguity of Our Modern Theological Vocabulary

·

April 22, 2026

By Marc Bates Founder and Chief Apologetics Officer

ARTICLE GUIDE

At a Glance

A robust defense of the incarnation requires a precise definition of God’s identity before attempting to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth shares that divine nature. Well-meaning believers frequently declare that “Jesus is God,” assuming that their audience shares a traditional, orthodox understanding of the cosmos.

Read moreShow less

A robust defense of the incarnation requires a precise definition of God's identity before attempting to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth shares that divine nature. Well-meaning believers frequently declare that “Jesus is God,” assuming that their audience shares a traditional, orthodox understanding of the cosmos. However, resting modern apologetics on this simple phrase is intellectually insufficient. Unorthodox groups, such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses, will enthusiastically agree with the statement that “Jesus is God” while entirely denying historic orthodox theology. These groups utilize orthodox theological vocabulary but employ a fundamentally different theological dictionary.

Latter-day Saint theology, for instance, operates within a polytheistic framework, teaching that God the Father was once a mortal man who progressed to godhood. In this cosmology, Jesus is the literal firstborn spirit child of heavenly parents who eventually attained his own divine status.\[1\] Conversely, Jehovah's Witnesses define Jesus as the first and greatest created being, specifically identifying the pre-incarnate Christ as Michael the archangel.\[2\] Simply stating that Jesus is God fails to protect orthodox Christology from these modern theological frameworks. As Robert Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski assert, one cannot articulate a robust, high Christology without first exposing the flawed logic of these alternative systems.\[3\] To protect the eschatological hope of the Christian…

What This Study Explores

Biblical Theology • Canonical Interpretation • The Promise-Plan of God

Direct Answer: Why is saying “Jesus is God” insufficient without defining the terms?

Because different communities use the same words for radically different realities. Historic Christianity confesses that Jesus is the eternal, uncreated Son who shares the one divine nature and identity, became fully human without ceasing to be divine, and remains personally distinct from the Father.

A careful defense must therefore define God, Son, person, nature, worship, creation, and incarnation before comparing claims. The HANDS pattern—divine Honors, Attributes, Names, Deeds, and Seat—anchors those definitions in Scripture and keeps familiar vocabulary from concealing incompatible metaphysical systems.

Key Claims

Shared theological vocabulary does not guarantee shared beliefs about God’s nature or Jesus’ identity.
Biblical monotheism maintains an absolute Creator–creature distinction even within a populated spiritual world.
The New Testament locates Jesus on the Creator side of that distinction through a cumulative pattern of divine prerogatives.
The distinction of persons prevents the claim that Jesus is the Father, while unity of nature prevents treating him as a second god.
Effective apologetics asks conversation partners to define terms before appealing to apparent verbal agreement.

Interpretive Context

Biblical terms acquire meaning from literary and historical contexts, but doctrinal vocabulary can legitimately summarize complex textual patterns. “Divine identity” and “nature” are related yet not identical approaches, and neither should be used to bypass exegesis. Descriptions of Latter-day Saint, Jehovah’s Witness, or other beliefs should rely on their official sources and recognize internal variation rather than functioning as caricatures.

The article therefore treats definition as part of evidence, not a preliminary distraction. Terms such as God, divine, person, nature, Son, and incarnation operate differently across biblical texts and theological communities; careful apologetics identifies those meanings before assessing whether two speakers truly affirm the same claim.

Selected Scholarship

Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place — organizes the biblical evidence through the HANDS framework.
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel — defines divine identity through creation and sovereign rule.
Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord — studies early Christian devotion within Jewish monotheism.
Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy — explains the conceptual development and precision of pro-Nicene Trinitarian vocabulary.
Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics — tests competing definitions of Jesus against a cumulative biblical case for incarnation.

Scripture Connections

2 Kings 19:15; John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Kings 19; Hebrews 2:17; Genesis 3; Genesis 1:1–2

Continue on Substack

The complete article and its available video material remain on Rabbit Room Apologetics at Substack.

Open on Substack

Originally published April 22, 2026. This WordPress page is a discovery guide; the complete article is hosted on Substack.

Filed under:

Biblical Theology, Studies

· Divine Council, Read, Second Temple Judaism

Help Keep the Lamps Burning

If this work has helped you, consider making a voluntary one-time contribution toward future research and production.

Buy Marc a Coffee

Continue the Conversation

Questions, corrections, and thoughtful disagreement are welcome. Keep the discussion focused on the evidence and arguments.