u/ComplexMud6649

A person who hates the truth and seeks their identity outside the truth deliberately remains within the nonexistence of meaning—that is, within death. In other words, such a person intentionally distorts meaning in order to dwell in falsehood.

We find the first example of this in Adam. After committing the sin of disobedience against God, Adam shifted the responsibility for his sin onto Eve. Yet responsibility is not something that can literally be transferred to another person. The reason we regard “shifting blame” as wrong is precisely because responsibility itself is not transferable in the first place. Nevertheless, Adam treated what cannot be transferred as though it could be, and in doing so sought his identity outside the truth.

This tendency to regard the non-transferable as transferable is one of the characteristics of those who cannot endure the truth because of sin and who desire to remain in the death of meaning. In academic terms, this kind of thinking is called reification. Reification is the error of treating an abstract concept as though it were a concrete event or physical entity. In other words, it is the mistake of handling something that is not inherently substantial—such as an idea—as if it were an actual object. A representative example of reification is confusing the model with reality. This is well expressed in the phrase, “The map is not the territory.”

This kind of reification—that is, the magical thinking that arises from the death of meaning—has deeply permeated theology as well. Just as responsibility cannot literally be transferred, righteousness and sin cannot literally pass from one person to another. The moment we treat righteousness and sin as though they were substances capable of being transferred, we have already reified them. We begin to imagine that what cannot be handed over can somehow be handed over.

For this reason, the concepts of the “imputation of righteousness” and the “imputation of sin” become linguistic devices that obscure the true meaning of righteousness and sin as spoken of by God. They function as excuses created by humanity to avoid confronting its own sinful condition.

Even in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, sin was not literally transferred onto the sacrificial animal. If sin could truly be transferred in that way, then wealthy people who could offer many sacrifices would have secured salvation more easily, while the poor who lacked sacrifices would have remained in their sins. But Scripture does not understand sin in such a materialistic manner.

This magical way of thinking was later systematized theologically into the doctrine that “the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.” According to this view, human beings are born with a sinful nature and therefore cannot become righteous on their own; they can only be saved by receiving Christ’s righteousness through imputation.

Yet if God’s righteousness could truly be transferred in such a manner, then logically even a robot could become righteous. This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God. God is not a material being but a spiritual one. God’s grace is not something that can be added or subtracted like data. If we turn it into something measurable and transferable like an object, we ultimately distort and empty His grace of its meaning.

Another interpretation of imputation is the representative or forensic view. According to this idea, even if a person is not actually righteous, if God declares or regards that person as “righteous,” then that person is righteous. Yet this, too, ultimately remains trapped within reified thinking.

We could call a chair “righteous” if we wished, because a label itself can be attached to anything. But changing the label does not change the actual reality or meaning of the object. Calling a chair “righteous” does not cause it to enter the kingdom of heaven.

In the end, the doctrine of the “imputation of righteousness” functions to mystify and obscure what righteousness truly is in order to justify the absence of actual righteousness manifested through obedience to God.

The righteousness that God recognizes is found in a person turning away from sin and obeying God. If someone begins to obey God but then continues making excuses such as, “I cannot help but sin because I possess a sinful nature,” then the direction of that person’s heart is still oriented toward sin rather than toward God. Such a person is not living in faith and cannot truly be called righteous. We cannot deceive God. God sees the heart.

This is why God counted Abraham’s faith as righteousness. Abraham was not a perfect man, and at times he sinned through disobedience. Yet he genuinely loved God, and he expressed that love through obedience. The righteousness God recognizes is found within the living relationship between God and man; it is not a substance that can be transferred from one person to another like money or an object.

“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.”

— Ezekiel 18:21

A person who hates the truth and seeks their identity outside the truth deliberately remains within the nonexistence of meaning—that is, within death. In other words, such a person intentionally distorts meaning in order to dwell in falsehood.

We find the first example of this in Adam. After committing the sin of disobedience against God, Adam shifted the responsibility for his sin onto Eve. Yet responsibility is not something that can literally be transferred to another person. The reason we regard “shifting blame” as wrong is precisely because responsibility itself is not transferable in the first place. Nevertheless, Adam treated what cannot be transferred as though it could be, and in doing so sought his identity outside the truth.

This tendency to regard the non-transferable as transferable is one of the characteristics of those who cannot endure the truth because of sin and who desire to remain in the death of meaning. In academic terms, this kind of thinking is called reification. Reification is the error of treating an abstract concept as though it were a concrete event or physical entity. In other words, it is the mistake of handling something that is not inherently substantial—such as an idea—as if it were an actual object. A representative example of reification is confusing the model with reality. This is well expressed in the phrase, “The map is not the territory.”

This kind of reification—that is, the magical thinking that arises from the death of meaning—has deeply permeated theology as well. Just as responsibility cannot literally be transferred, righteousness and sin cannot literally pass from one person to another. The moment we treat righteousness and sin as though they were substances capable of being transferred, we have already reified them. We begin to imagine that what cannot be handed over can somehow be handed over.

For this reason, the concepts of the “imputation of righteousness” and the “imputation of sin” become linguistic devices that obscure the true meaning of righteousness and sin as spoken of by God. They function as excuses created by humanity to avoid confronting its own sinful condition.

Even in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, sin was not literally transferred onto the sacrificial animal. If sin could truly be transferred in that way, then wealthy people who could offer many sacrifices would have secured salvation more easily, while the poor who lacked sacrifices would have remained in their sins. But Scripture does not understand sin in such a materialistic manner.

This magical way of thinking was later systematized theologically into the doctrine that “the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.” According to this view, human beings are born with a sinful nature and therefore cannot become righteous on their own; they can only be saved by receiving Christ’s righteousness through imputation.

Yet if God’s righteousness could truly be transferred in such a manner, then logically even a robot could become righteous. This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God. God is not a material being but a spiritual one. God’s grace is not something that can be added or subtracted like data. If we turn it into something measurable and transferable like an object, we ultimately distort and empty His grace of its meaning.

Another interpretation of imputation is the representative or forensic view. According to this idea, even if a person is not actually righteous, if God declares or regards that person as “righteous,” then that person is righteous. Yet this, too, ultimately remains trapped within reified thinking.

We could call a chair “righteous” if we wished, because a label itself can be attached to anything. But changing the label does not change the actual reality or meaning of the object. Calling a chair “righteous” does not cause it to enter the kingdom of heaven.

In the end, the doctrine of the “imputation of righteousness” functions to mystify and obscure what righteousness truly is in order to justify the absence of actual righteousness manifested through obedience to God.

The righteousness that God recognizes is found in a person turning away from sin and obeying God. If someone begins to obey God but then continues making excuses such as, “I cannot help but sin because I possess a sinful nature,” then the direction of that person’s heart is still oriented toward sin rather than toward God. Such a person is not living in faith and cannot truly be called righteous. We cannot deceive God. God sees the heart.

This is why God counted Abraham’s faith as righteousness. Abraham was not a perfect man, and at times he sinned through disobedience. Yet he genuinely loved God, and he expressed that love through obedience. The righteousness God recognizes is found within the living relationship between God and man; it is not a substance that can be transferred from one person to another like money or an object.

“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.”

— Ezekiel 18:21

A person who hates the truth and seeks their identity outside the truth deliberately remains within the nonexistence of meaning—that is, within death. In other words, such a person intentionally distorts meaning in order to dwell in falsehood.

We find the first example of this in Adam. After committing the sin of disobedience against God, Adam shifted the responsibility for his sin onto Eve. Yet responsibility is not something that can literally be transferred to another person. The reason we regard “shifting blame” as wrong is precisely because responsibility itself is not transferable in the first place. Nevertheless, Adam treated what cannot be transferred as though it could be, and in doing so sought his identity outside the truth.

This tendency to regard the non-transferable as transferable is one of the characteristics of those who cannot endure the truth because of sin and who desire to remain in the death of meaning. In academic terms, this kind of thinking is called reification. Reification is the error of treating an abstract concept as though it were a concrete event or physical entity. In other words, it is the mistake of handling something that is not inherently substantial—such as an idea—as if it were an actual object. A representative example of reification is confusing the model with reality. This is well expressed in the phrase, “The map is not the territory.”

This kind of reification—that is, the magical thinking that arises from the death of meaning—has deeply permeated theology as well. Just as responsibility cannot literally be transferred, righteousness and sin cannot literally pass from one person to another. The moment we treat righteousness and sin as though they were substances capable of being transferred, we have already reified them. We begin to imagine that what cannot be handed over can somehow be handed over.

For this reason, the concepts of the “imputation of righteousness” and the “imputation of sin” become linguistic devices that obscure the true meaning of righteousness and sin as spoken of by God. They function as excuses created by humanity to avoid confronting its own sinful condition.

Even in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, sin was not literally transferred onto the sacrificial animal. If sin could truly be transferred in that way, then wealthy people who could offer many sacrifices would have secured salvation more easily, while the poor who lacked sacrifices would have remained in their sins. But Scripture does not understand sin in such a materialistic manner.

This magical way of thinking was later systematized theologically into the doctrine that “the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.” According to this view, human beings are born with a sinful nature and therefore cannot become righteous on their own; they can only be saved by receiving Christ’s righteousness through imputation.

Yet if God’s righteousness could truly be transferred in such a manner, then logically even a robot could become righteous. This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God. God is not a material being but a spiritual one. God’s grace is not something that can be added or subtracted like data. If we turn it into something measurable and transferable like an object, we ultimately distort and empty His grace of its meaning.

Another interpretation of imputation is the representative or forensic view. According to this idea, even if a person is not actually righteous, if God declares or regards that person as “righteous,” then that person is righteous. Yet this, too, ultimately remains trapped within reified thinking.

We could call a chair “righteous” if we wished, because a label itself can be attached to anything. But changing the label does not change the actual reality or meaning of the object. Calling a chair “righteous” does not cause it to enter the kingdom of heaven.

In the end, the doctrine of the “imputation of righteousness” functions to mystify and obscure what righteousness truly is in order to justify the absence of actual righteousness manifested through obedience to God.

The righteousness that God recognizes is found in a person turning away from sin and obeying God. If someone begins to obey God but then continues making excuses such as, “I cannot help but sin because I possess a sinful nature,” then the direction of that person’s heart is still oriented toward sin rather than toward God. Such a person is not living in faith and cannot truly be called righteous. We cannot deceive God. God sees the heart.

This is why God counted Abraham’s faith as righteousness. Abraham was not a perfect man, and at times he sinned through disobedience. Yet he genuinely loved God, and he expressed that love through obedience. The righteousness God recognizes is found within the living relationship between God and man; it is not a substance that can be transferred from one person to another like money or an object.

“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.”

— Ezekiel 18:21

A person who hates the truth and seeks their identity outside the truth deliberately remains within the nonexistence of meaning—that is, within death. In other words, such a person intentionally distorts meaning in order to dwell in falsehood.

We find the first example of this in Adam. After committing the sin of disobedience against God, Adam shifted the responsibility for his sin onto Eve. Yet responsibility is not something that can literally be transferred to another person. The reason we regard “shifting blame” as wrong is precisely because responsibility itself is not transferable in the first place. Nevertheless, Adam treated what cannot be transferred as though it could be, and in doing so sought his identity outside the truth.

This tendency to regard the non-transferable as transferable is one of the characteristics of those who cannot endure the truth because of sin and who desire to remain in the death of meaning. In academic terms, this kind of thinking is called reification. Reification is the error of treating an abstract concept as though it were a concrete event or physical entity. In other words, it is the mistake of handling something that is not inherently substantial—such as an idea—as if it were an actual object. A representative example of reification is confusing the model with reality. This is well expressed in the phrase, “The map is not the territory.”

This kind of reification—that is, the magical thinking that arises from the death of meaning—has deeply permeated theology as well. Just as responsibility cannot literally be transferred, righteousness and sin cannot literally pass from one person to another. The moment we treat righteousness and sin as though they were substances capable of being transferred, we have already reified them. We begin to imagine that what cannot be handed over can somehow be handed over.

For this reason, the concepts of the “imputation of righteousness” and the “imputation of sin” become linguistic devices that obscure the true meaning of righteousness and sin as spoken of by God. They function as excuses created by humanity to avoid confronting its own sinful condition.

Even in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, sin was not literally transferred onto the sacrificial animal. If sin could truly be transferred in that way, then wealthy people who could offer many sacrifices would have secured salvation more easily, while the poor who lacked sacrifices would have remained in their sins. But Scripture does not understand sin in such a materialistic manner.

This magical way of thinking was later systematized theologically into the doctrine that “the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.” According to this view, human beings are born with a sinful nature and therefore cannot become righteous on their own; they can only be saved by receiving Christ’s righteousness through imputation.

Yet if God’s righteousness could truly be transferred in such a manner, then logically even a robot could become righteous. This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God. God is not a material being but a spiritual one. God’s grace is not something that can be added or subtracted like data. If we turn it into something measurable and transferable like an object, we ultimately distort and empty His grace of its meaning.

Another interpretation of imputation is the representative or forensic view. According to this idea, even if a person is not actually righteous, if God declares or regards that person as “righteous,” then that person is righteous. Yet this, too, ultimately remains trapped within reified thinking.

We could call a chair “righteous” if we wished, because a label itself can be attached to anything. But changing the label does not change the actual reality or meaning of the object. Calling a chair “righteous” does not cause it to enter the kingdom of heaven.

In the end, the doctrine of the “imputation of righteousness” functions to mystify and obscure what righteousness truly is in order to justify the absence of actual righteousness manifested through obedience to God.

The righteousness that God recognizes is found in a person turning away from sin and obeying God. If someone begins to obey God but then continues making excuses such as, “I cannot help but sin because I possess a sinful nature,” then the direction of that person’s heart is still oriented toward sin rather than toward God. Such a person is not living in faith and cannot truly be called righteous. We cannot deceive God. God sees the heart.

This is why God counted Abraham’s faith as righteousness. Abraham was not a perfect man, and at times he sinned through disobedience. Yet he genuinely loved God, and he expressed that love through obedience. The righteousness God recognizes is found within the living relationship between God and man; it is not a substance that can be transferred from one person to another like money or an object.

“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.”

— Ezekiel 18:21

A person who hates the truth and seeks their identity outside the truth deliberately remains within the nonexistence of meaning—that is, within death. In other words, such a person intentionally distorts meaning in order to dwell in falsehood.

We find the first example of this in Adam. After committing the sin of disobedience against God, Adam shifted the responsibility for his sin onto Eve. Yet responsibility is not something that can literally be transferred to another person. The reason we regard “shifting blame” as wrong is precisely because responsibility itself is not transferable in the first place. Nevertheless, Adam treated what cannot be transferred as though it could be, and in doing so sought his identity outside the truth.

This tendency to regard the non-transferable as transferable is one of the characteristics of those who cannot endure the truth because of sin and who desire to remain in the death of meaning. In academic terms, this kind of thinking is called reification. Reification is the error of treating an abstract concept as though it were a concrete event or physical entity. In other words, it is the mistake of handling something that is not inherently substantial—such as an idea—as if it were an actual object. A representative example of reification is confusing the model with reality. This is well expressed in the phrase, “The map is not the territory.”

This kind of reification—that is, the magical thinking that arises from the death of meaning—has deeply permeated theology as well. Just as responsibility cannot literally be transferred, righteousness and sin cannot literally pass from one person to another. The moment we treat righteousness and sin as though they were substances capable of being transferred, we have already reified them. We begin to imagine that what cannot be handed over can somehow be handed over.

For this reason, the concepts of the “imputation of righteousness” and the “imputation of sin” become linguistic devices that obscure the true meaning of righteousness and sin as spoken of by God. They function as excuses created by humanity to avoid confronting its own sinful condition.

Even in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, sin was not literally transferred onto the sacrificial animal. If sin could truly be transferred in that way, then wealthy people who could offer many sacrifices would have secured salvation more easily, while the poor who lacked sacrifices would have remained in their sins. But Scripture does not understand sin in such a materialistic manner.

This magical way of thinking was later systematized theologically into the doctrine that “the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.” According to this view, human beings are born with a sinful nature and therefore cannot become righteous on their own; they can only be saved by receiving Christ’s righteousness through imputation.

Yet if God’s righteousness could truly be transferred in such a manner, then logically even a robot could become righteous. This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God. God is not a material being but a spiritual one. God’s grace is not something that can be added or subtracted like data. If we turn it into something measurable and transferable like an object, we ultimately distort and empty His grace of its meaning.

Another interpretation of imputation is the representative or forensic view. According to this idea, even if a person is not actually righteous, if God declares or regards that person as “righteous,” then that person is righteous. Yet this, too, ultimately remains trapped within reified thinking.

We could call a chair “righteous” if we wished, because a label itself can be attached to anything. But changing the label does not change the actual reality or meaning of the object. Calling a chair “righteous” does not cause it to enter the kingdom of heaven.

In the end, the doctrine of the “imputation of righteousness” functions to mystify and obscure what righteousness truly is in order to justify the absence of actual righteousness manifested through obedience to God.

The righteousness that God recognizes is found in a person turning away from sin and obeying God. If someone begins to obey God but then continues making excuses such as, “I cannot help but sin because I possess a sinful nature,” then the direction of that person’s heart is still oriented toward sin rather than toward God. Such a person is not living in faith and cannot truly be called righteous. We cannot deceive God. God sees the heart.

This is why God counted Abraham’s faith as righteousness. Abraham was not a perfect man, and at times he sinned through disobedience. Yet he genuinely loved God, and he expressed that love through obedience. The righteousness God recognizes is found within the living relationship between God and man; it is not a substance that can be transferred from one person to another like money or an object.

“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.”

— Ezekiel 18:21

The framework of thought that has long dominated theology has been the concept of “essence” derived from Greek philosophy. According to Aristotle, essence is the property that makes a thing what it is — that which makes A to be A. In other words, essence is the criterion by which the identity of a being is defined. Based on this understanding, traditional theology sought the reason God is God in the essence called “divinity.” This divine essence includes attributes such as self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, eternality, and immutability. By contrast, human beings were understood to be human because they possess the essence of being created creatures.

According to this perspective, God and humanity are essentially distinct, because nothing can be both self-existent and created at the same time.

However, within this philosophical framework, the word of God becomes distorted. Jesus said the following:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If Scripture cannot be broken, and those to whom the word of God came were called gods, how can you accuse the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

By quoting Psalm 82, Jesus points out that there are instances in which God called human beings “gods.” If we accept these words as they are, we can no longer understand God and humanity merely as essentially separate beings. The framework that says “God is God because He possesses divinity, while humans are human because they possess humanity” collapses at this point.

If we truly believe that God possesses absolute authority, then we must also accept that “whatever God recognizes as God is God.” To define something as divine merely because it belongs to the category of “divinity” is ultimately a philosophical judgment made by humans, not God’s own perspective.

In Scripture, we see God changing His mind through the intercession of Moses. From the perspective that God is only an omniscient and immutable being, such passages become impossible to explain. But if we accept that, in certain cases, God may regard a human being as divine when He sees His own authority, glory, truth, and love reflected within that person, then we can understand why God changes His will.

Scripture says that humanity is the “image of God.” What, then, is the image of God? It is a being that reflects the light of God and manifests the attributes of God. A perfect image of God is therefore divine. Yet it is not divine because it possesses self-existence in itself. Rather, it is divine because God sees His own image reflected within that being and therefore treats it as divine.

Jesus said that He and God are “one.” Yet this oneness does not mean ontological identity or sameness of essence. Jesus explained His unity with the Father in the following way:

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father dwelling in me who does His works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me — or else believe because of the works themselves.”

Here again, we see that Jesus is one with God not because He is ontologically identical with God, but because, as the image of God, He perfectly reveals God. The statement that “the Father dwells in Jesus” means that God reveals His light and His will through Jesus. Conversely, the statement that “Jesus dwells in the Father” means that Jesus abides wholly in God, reflecting only God and revealing nothing else.

Because the perfect image of God reflects God completely, God Himself also treats that image as God. This is the true meaning of the Trinity.

Traditional Trinitarian doctrine has attempted to explain how Jesus can be both human and divine by claiming that two incompatible essences — “divinity” and “humanity” — are united within one being. Yet such an explanation inevitably produces contradiction. Furthermore, by making Jesus into an absolutely exceptional being fundamentally different from humanity, it obscured the meaning of Jesus’ words that those who follow the will of God are His “brothers.”

Yet those who follow the way of Jesus can become like Him, because God never said that the image of God within humanity has been essentially destroyed. For this reason, in the Gospel of John, Jesus prayed that we also might become one, just as He and the Father are one.

The framework of thought that has long dominated theology has been the concept of “essence” derived from Greek philosophy. According to Aristotle, essence is the property that makes a thing what it is — that which makes A to be A. In other words, essence is the criterion by which the identity of a being is defined. Based on this understanding, traditional theology sought the reason God is God in the essence called “divinity.” This divine essence includes attributes such as self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, eternality, and immutability. By contrast, human beings were understood to be human because they possess the essence of being created creatures.

According to this perspective, God and humanity are essentially distinct, because nothing can be both self-existent and created at the same time.

However, within this philosophical framework, the word of God becomes distorted. Jesus said the following:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If Scripture cannot be broken, and those to whom the word of God came were called gods, how can you accuse the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

By quoting Psalm 82, Jesus points out that there are instances in which God called human beings “gods.” If we accept these words as they are, we can no longer understand God and humanity merely as essentially separate beings. The framework that says “God is God because He possesses divinity, while humans are human because they possess humanity” collapses at this point.

If we truly believe that God possesses absolute authority, then we must also accept that “whatever God recognizes as God is God.” To define something as divine merely because it belongs to the category of “divinity” is ultimately a philosophical judgment made by humans, not God’s own perspective.

In Scripture, we see God changing His mind through the intercession of Moses. From the perspective that God is only an omniscient and immutable being, such passages become impossible to explain. But if we accept that, in certain cases, God may regard a human being as divine when He sees His own authority, glory, truth, and love reflected within that person, then we can understand why God changes His will.

Scripture says that humanity is the “image of God.” What, then, is the image of God? It is a being that reflects the light of God and manifests the attributes of God. A perfect image of God is therefore divine. Yet it is not divine because it possesses self-existence in itself. Rather, it is divine because God sees His own image reflected within that being and therefore treats it as divine.

Jesus said that He and God are “one.” Yet this oneness does not mean ontological identity or sameness of essence. Jesus explained His unity with the Father in the following way:

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father dwelling in me who does His works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me — or else believe because of the works themselves.”

Here again, we see that Jesus is one with God not because He is ontologically identical with God, but because, as the image of God, He perfectly reveals God. The statement that “the Father dwells in Jesus” means that God reveals His light and His will through Jesus. Conversely, the statement that “Jesus dwells in the Father” means that Jesus abides wholly in God, reflecting only God and revealing nothing else.

Because the perfect image of God reflects God completely, God Himself also treats that image as God. This is the true meaning of the Trinity.

Traditional Trinitarian doctrine has attempted to explain how Jesus can be both human and divine by claiming that two incompatible essences — “divinity” and “humanity” — are united within one being. Yet such an explanation inevitably produces contradiction. Furthermore, by making Jesus into an absolutely exceptional being fundamentally different from humanity, it obscured the meaning of Jesus’ words that those who follow the will of God are His “brothers.”

Yet those who follow the way of Jesus can become like Him, because God never said that the image of God within humanity has been essentially destroyed. For this reason, in the Gospel of John, Jesus prayed that we also might become one, just as He and the Father are one.

The framework of thought that has long dominated theology has been the concept of “essence” derived from Greek philosophy. According to Aristotle, essence is the property that makes a thing what it is — that which makes A to be A. In other words, essence is the criterion by which the identity of a being is defined. Based on this understanding, traditional theology sought the reason God is God in the essence called “divinity.” This divine essence includes attributes such as self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, eternality, and immutability. By contrast, human beings were understood to be human because they possess the essence of being created creatures.

According to this perspective, God and humanity are essentially distinct, because nothing can be both self-existent and created at the same time.

However, within this philosophical framework, the word of God becomes distorted. Jesus said the following:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If Scripture cannot be broken, and those to whom the word of God came were called gods, how can you accuse the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

By quoting Psalm 82, Jesus points out that there are instances in which God called human beings “gods.” If we accept these words as they are, we can no longer understand God and humanity merely as essentially separate beings. The framework that says “God is God because He possesses divinity, while humans are human because they possess humanity” collapses at this point.

If we truly believe that God possesses absolute authority, then we must also accept that “whatever God recognizes as God is God.” To define something as divine merely because it belongs to the category of “divinity” is ultimately a philosophical judgment made by humans, not God’s own perspective.

In Scripture, we see God changing His mind through the intercession of Moses. From the perspective that God is only an omniscient and immutable being, such passages become impossible to explain. But if we accept that, in certain cases, God may regard a human being as divine when He sees His own authority, glory, truth, and love reflected within that person, then we can understand why God changes His will.

Scripture says that humanity is the “image of God.” What, then, is the image of God? It is a being that reflects the light of God and manifests the attributes of God. A perfect image of God is therefore divine. Yet it is not divine because it possesses self-existence in itself. Rather, it is divine because God sees His own image reflected within that being and therefore treats it as divine.

Jesus said that He and God are “one.” Yet this oneness does not mean ontological identity or sameness of essence. Jesus explained His unity with the Father in the following way:

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father dwelling in me who does His works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me — or else believe because of the works themselves.”

Here again, we see that Jesus is one with God not because He is ontologically identical with God, but because, as the image of God, He perfectly reveals God. The statement that “the Father dwells in Jesus” means that God reveals His light and His will through Jesus. Conversely, the statement that “Jesus dwells in the Father” means that Jesus abides wholly in God, reflecting only God and revealing nothing else.

Because the perfect image of God reflects God completely, God Himself also treats that image as God. This is the true meaning of the Trinity.

Traditional Trinitarian doctrine has attempted to explain how Jesus can be both human and divine by claiming that two incompatible essences — “divinity” and “humanity” — are united within one being. Yet such an explanation inevitably produces contradiction. Furthermore, by making Jesus into an absolutely exceptional being fundamentally different from humanity, it obscured the meaning of Jesus’ words that those who follow the will of God are His “brothers.”

Yet those who follow the way of Jesus can become like Him, because God never said that the image of God within humanity has been essentially destroyed. For this reason, in the Gospel of John, Jesus prayed that we also might become one, just as He and the Father are one.

The framework of thought that has long dominated theology has been the concept of “essence” derived from Greek philosophy. According to Aristotle, essence is the property that makes a thing what it is — that which makes A to be A. In other words, essence is the criterion by which the identity of a being is defined. Based on this understanding, traditional theology sought the reason God is God in the essence called “divinity.” This divine essence includes attributes such as self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, eternality, and immutability. By contrast, human beings were understood to be human because they possess the essence of being created creatures.

According to this perspective, God and humanity are essentially distinct, because nothing can be both self-existent and created at the same time.

However, within this philosophical framework, the word of God becomes distorted. Jesus said the following:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If Scripture cannot be broken, and those to whom the word of God came were called gods, how can you accuse the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

By quoting Psalm 82, Jesus points out that there are instances in which God called human beings “gods.” If we accept these words as they are, we can no longer understand God and humanity merely as essentially separate beings. The framework that says “God is God because He possesses divinity, while humans are human because they possess humanity” collapses at this point.

If we truly believe that God possesses absolute authority, then we must also accept that “whatever God recognizes as God is God.” To define something as divine merely because it belongs to the category of “divinity” is ultimately a philosophical judgment made by humans, not God’s own perspective.

In Scripture, we see God changing His mind through the intercession of Moses. From the perspective that God is only an omniscient and immutable being, such passages become impossible to explain. But if we accept that, in certain cases, God may regard a human being as divine when He sees His own authority, glory, truth, and love reflected within that person, then we can understand why God changes His will.

Scripture says that humanity is the “image of God.” What, then, is the image of God? It is a being that reflects the light of God and manifests the attributes of God. A perfect image of God is therefore divine. Yet it is not divine because it possesses self-existence in itself. Rather, it is divine because God sees His own image reflected within that being and therefore treats it as divine.

Jesus said that He and God are “one.” Yet this oneness does not mean ontological identity or sameness of essence. Jesus explained His unity with the Father in the following way:

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father dwelling in me who does His works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me — or else believe because of the works themselves.”

Here again, we see that Jesus is one with God not because He is ontologically identical with God, but because, as the image of God, He perfectly reveals God. The statement that “the Father dwells in Jesus” means that God reveals His light and His will through Jesus. Conversely, the statement that “Jesus dwells in the Father” means that Jesus abides wholly in God, reflecting only God and revealing nothing else.

Because the perfect image of God reflects God completely, God Himself also treats that image as God. This is the true meaning of the Trinity.

Traditional Trinitarian doctrine has attempted to explain how Jesus can be both human and divine by claiming that two incompatible essences — “divinity” and “humanity” — are united within one being. Yet such an explanation inevitably produces contradiction. Furthermore, by making Jesus into an absolutely exceptional being fundamentally different from humanity, it obscured the meaning of Jesus’ words that those who follow the will of God are His “brothers.”

Yet those who follow the way of Jesus can become like Him, because God never said that the image of God within humanity has been essentially destroyed. For this reason, in the Gospel of John, Jesus prayed that we also might become one, just as He and the Father are one.

The framework of thought that has long dominated theology has been the concept of “essence” derived from Greek philosophy. According to Aristotle, essence is the property that makes a thing what it is — that which makes A to be A. In other words, essence is the criterion by which the identity of a being is defined. Based on this understanding, traditional theology sought the reason God is God in the essence called “divinity.” This divine essence includes attributes such as self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, eternality, and immutability. By contrast, human beings were understood to be human because they possess the essence of being created creatures.

According to this perspective, God and humanity are essentially distinct, because nothing can be both self-existent and created at the same time.

However, within this philosophical framework, the word of God becomes distorted. Jesus said the following:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If Scripture cannot be broken, and those to whom the word of God came were called gods, how can you accuse the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

By quoting Psalm 82, Jesus points out that there are instances in which God called human beings “gods.” If we accept these words as they are, we can no longer understand God and humanity merely as essentially separate beings. The framework that says “God is God because He possesses divinity, while humans are human because they possess humanity” collapses at this point.

If we truly believe that God possesses absolute authority, then we must also accept that “whatever God recognizes as God is God.” To define something as divine merely because it belongs to the category of “divinity” is ultimately a philosophical judgment made by humans, not God’s own perspective.

In Scripture, we see God changing His mind through the intercession of Moses. From the perspective that God is only an omniscient and immutable being, such passages become impossible to explain. But if we accept that, in certain cases, God may regard a human being as divine when He sees His own authority, glory, truth, and love reflected within that person, then we can understand why God changes His will.

Scripture says that humanity is the “image of God.” What, then, is the image of God? It is a being that reflects the light of God and manifests the attributes of God. A perfect image of God is therefore divine. Yet it is not divine because it possesses self-existence in itself. Rather, it is divine because God sees His own image reflected within that being and therefore treats it as divine.

Jesus said that He and God are “one.” Yet this oneness does not mean ontological identity or sameness of essence. Jesus explained His unity with the Father in the following way:

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father dwelling in me who does His works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me — or else believe because of the works themselves.”

Here again, we see that Jesus is one with God not because He is ontologically identical with God, but because, as the image of God, He perfectly reveals God. The statement that “the Father dwells in Jesus” means that God reveals His light and His will through Jesus. Conversely, the statement that “Jesus dwells in the Father” means that Jesus abides wholly in God, reflecting only God and revealing nothing else.

Because the perfect image of God reflects God completely, God Himself also treats that image as God. This is the true meaning of the Trinity.

Traditional Trinitarian doctrine has attempted to explain how Jesus can be both human and divine by claiming that two incompatible essences — “divinity” and “humanity” — are united within one being. Yet such an explanation inevitably produces contradiction. Furthermore, by making Jesus into an absolutely exceptional being fundamentally different from humanity, it obscured the meaning of Jesus’ words that those who follow the will of God are His “brothers.”

Yet those who follow the way of Jesus can become like Him, because God never said that the image of God within humanity has been essentially destroyed. For this reason, in the Gospel of John, Jesus prayed that we also might become one, just as He and the Father are one.

The framework of thought that has long dominated theology has been the concept of “essence” derived from Greek philosophy. According to Aristotle, essence is the property that makes a thing what it is — that which makes A to be A. In other words, essence is the criterion by which the identity of a being is defined. Based on this understanding, traditional theology sought the reason God is God in the essence called “divinity.” This divine essence includes attributes such as self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, eternality, and immutability. By contrast, human beings were understood to be human because they possess the essence of being created creatures.

According to this perspective, God and humanity are essentially distinct, because nothing can be both self-existent and created at the same time.

However, within this philosophical framework, the word of God becomes distorted. Jesus said the following:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If Scripture cannot be broken, and those to whom the word of God came were called gods, how can you accuse the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

By quoting Psalm 82, Jesus points out that there are instances in which God called human beings “gods.” If we accept these words as they are, we can no longer understand God and humanity merely as essentially separate beings. The framework that says “God is God because He possesses divinity, while humans are human because they possess humanity” collapses at this point.

If we truly believe that God possesses absolute authority, then we must also accept that “whatever God recognizes as God is God.” To define something as divine merely because it belongs to the category of “divinity” is ultimately a philosophical judgment made by humans, not God’s own perspective.

In Scripture, we see God changing His mind through the intercession of Moses. From the perspective that God is only an omniscient and immutable being, such passages become impossible to explain. But if we accept that, in certain cases, God may regard a human being as divine when He sees His own authority, glory, truth, and love reflected within that person, then we can understand why God changes His will.

Scripture says that humanity is the “image of God.” What, then, is the image of God? It is a being that reflects the light of God and manifests the attributes of God. A perfect image of God is therefore divine. Yet it is not divine because it possesses self-existence in itself. Rather, it is divine because God sees His own image reflected within that being and therefore treats it as divine.

Jesus said that He and God are “one.” Yet this oneness does not mean ontological identity or sameness of essence. Jesus explained His unity with the Father in the following way:

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father dwelling in me who does His works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me — or else believe because of the works themselves.”

Here again, we see that Jesus is one with God not because He is ontologically identical with God, but because, as the image of God, He perfectly reveals God. The statement that “the Father dwells in Jesus” means that God reveals His light and His will through Jesus. Conversely, the statement that “Jesus dwells in the Father” means that Jesus abides wholly in God, reflecting only God and revealing nothing else.

Because the perfect image of God reflects God completely, God Himself also treats that image as God. This is the true meaning of the Trinity.

Traditional Trinitarian doctrine has attempted to explain how Jesus can be both human and divine by claiming that two incompatible essences — “divinity” and “humanity” — are united within one being. Yet such an explanation inevitably produces contradiction. Furthermore, by making Jesus into an absolutely exceptional being fundamentally different from humanity, it obscured the meaning of Jesus’ words that those who follow the will of God are His “brothers.”

Yet those who follow the way of Jesus can become like Him, because God never said that the image of God within humanity has been essentially destroyed. For this reason, in the Gospel of John, Jesus prayed that we also might become one, just as He and the Father are one.

The framework of thought that has long dominated theology has been the concept of “essence” derived from Greek philosophy. According to Aristotle, essence is the property that makes a thing what it is — that which makes A to be A. In other words, essence is the criterion by which the identity of a being is defined. Based on this understanding, traditional theology sought the reason God is God in the essence called “divinity.” This divine essence includes attributes such as self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, eternality, and immutability. By contrast, human beings were understood to be human because they possess the essence of being created creatures.

According to this perspective, God and humanity are essentially distinct, because nothing can be both self-existent and created at the same time.

However, within this philosophical framework, the word of God becomes distorted. Jesus said the following:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If Scripture cannot be broken, and those to whom the word of God came were called gods, how can you accuse the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

By quoting Psalm 82, Jesus points out that there are instances in which God called human beings “gods.” If we accept these words as they are, we can no longer understand God and humanity merely as essentially separate beings. The framework that says “God is God because He possesses divinity, while humans are human because they possess humanity” collapses at this point.

If we truly believe that God possesses absolute authority, then we must also accept that “whatever God recognizes as God is God.” To define something as divine merely because it belongs to the category of “divinity” is ultimately a philosophical judgment made by humans, not God’s own perspective.

In Scripture, we see God changing His mind through the intercession of Moses. From the perspective that God is only an omniscient and immutable being, such passages become impossible to explain. But if we accept that, in certain cases, God may regard a human being as divine when He sees His own authority, glory, truth, and love reflected within that person, then we can understand why God changes His will.

Scripture says that humanity is the “image of God.” What, then, is the image of God? It is a being that reflects the light of God and manifests the attributes of God. A perfect image of God is therefore divine. Yet it is not divine because it possesses self-existence in itself. Rather, it is divine because God sees His own image reflected within that being and therefore treats it as divine.

Jesus said that He and God are “one.” Yet this oneness does not mean ontological identity or sameness of essence. Jesus explained His unity with the Father in the following way:

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father dwelling in me who does His works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me — or else believe because of the works themselves.”

Here again, we see that Jesus is one with God not because He is ontologically identical with God, but because, as the image of God, He perfectly reveals God. The statement that “the Father dwells in Jesus” means that God reveals His light and His will through Jesus. Conversely, the statement that “Jesus dwells in the Father” means that Jesus abides wholly in God, reflecting only God and revealing nothing else.

Because the perfect image of God reflects God completely, God Himself also treats that image as God. This is the true meaning of the Trinity.

Traditional Trinitarian doctrine has attempted to explain how Jesus can be both human and divine by claiming that two incompatible essences — “divinity” and “humanity” — are united within one being. Yet such an explanation inevitably produces contradiction. Furthermore, by making Jesus into an absolutely exceptional being fundamentally different from humanity, it obscured the meaning of Jesus’ words that those who follow the will of God are His “brothers.”

Yet those who follow the way of Jesus can become like Him, because God never said that the image of God within humanity has been essentially destroyed. For this reason, in the Gospel of John, Jesus prayed that we also might become one, just as He and the Father are one.

The framework of thought that has long dominated theology has been the concept of “essence” derived from Greek philosophy. According to Aristotle, essence is the property that makes a thing what it is — that which makes A to be A. In other words, essence is the criterion by which the identity of a being is defined. Based on this understanding, traditional theology sought the reason God is God in the essence called “divinity.” This divine essence includes attributes such as self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, eternality, and immutability. By contrast, human beings were understood to be human because they possess the essence of being created creatures.

According to this perspective, God and humanity are essentially distinct, because nothing can be both self-existent and created at the same time.

However, within this philosophical framework, the word of God becomes distorted. Jesus said the following:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If Scripture cannot be broken, and those to whom the word of God came were called gods, how can you accuse the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

By quoting Psalm 82, Jesus points out that there are instances in which God called human beings “gods.” If we accept these words as they are, we can no longer understand God and humanity merely as essentially separate beings. The framework that says “God is God because He possesses divinity, while humans are human because they possess humanity” collapses at this point.

If we truly believe that God possesses absolute authority, then we must also accept that “whatever God recognizes as God is God.” To define something as divine merely because it belongs to the category of “divinity” is ultimately a philosophical judgment made by humans, not God’s own perspective.

In Scripture, we see God changing His mind through the intercession of Moses. From the perspective that God is only an omniscient and immutable being, such passages become impossible to explain. But if we accept that, in certain cases, God may regard a human being as divine when He sees His own authority, glory, truth, and love reflected within that person, then we can understand why God changes His will.

Scripture says that humanity is the “image of God.” What, then, is the image of God? It is a being that reflects the light of God and manifests the attributes of God. A perfect image of God is therefore divine. Yet it is not divine because it possesses self-existence in itself. Rather, it is divine because God sees His own image reflected within that being and therefore treats it as divine.

Jesus said that He and God are “one.” Yet this oneness does not mean ontological identity or sameness of essence. Jesus explained His unity with the Father in the following way:

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father dwelling in me who does His works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me — or else believe because of the works themselves.”

Here again, we see that Jesus is one with God not because He is ontologically identical with God, but because, as the image of God, He perfectly reveals God. The statement that “the Father dwells in Jesus” means that God reveals His light and His will through Jesus. Conversely, the statement that “Jesus dwells in the Father” means that Jesus abides wholly in God, reflecting only God and revealing nothing else.

Because the perfect image of God reflects God completely, God Himself also treats that image as God. This is the true meaning of the Trinity.

Traditional Trinitarian doctrine has attempted to explain how Jesus can be both human and divine by claiming that two incompatible essences — “divinity” and “humanity” — are united within one being. Yet such an explanation inevitably produces contradiction. Furthermore, by making Jesus into an absolutely exceptional being fundamentally different from humanity, it obscured the meaning of Jesus’ words that those who follow the will of God are His “brothers.”

Yet those who follow the way of Jesus can become like Him, because God never said that the image of God within humanity has been essentially destroyed. For this reason, in the Gospel of John, Jesus prayed that we also might become one, just as He and the Father are one.

The framework of thought that has long dominated theology has been the concept of “essence” derived from Greek philosophy. According to Aristotle, essence is the property that makes a thing what it is — that which makes A to be A. In other words, essence is the criterion by which the identity of a being is defined. Based on this understanding, traditional theology sought the reason God is God in the essence called “divinity.” This divine essence includes attributes such as self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, eternality, and immutability. By contrast, human beings were understood to be human because they possess the essence of being created creatures.

According to this perspective, God and humanity are essentially distinct, because nothing can be both self-existent and created at the same time.

However, within this philosophical framework, the word of God becomes distorted. Jesus said the following:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If Scripture cannot be broken, and those to whom the word of God came were called gods, how can you accuse the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

By quoting Psalm 82, Jesus points out that there are instances in which God called human beings “gods.” If we accept these words as they are, we can no longer understand God and humanity merely as essentially separate beings. The framework that says “God is God because He possesses divinity, while humans are human because they possess humanity” collapses at this point.

If we truly believe that God possesses absolute authority, then we must also accept that “whatever God recognizes as God is God.” To define something as divine merely because it belongs to the category of “divinity” is ultimately a philosophical judgment made by humans, not God’s own perspective.

In Scripture, we see God changing His mind through the intercession of Moses. From the perspective that God is only an omniscient and immutable being, such passages become impossible to explain. But if we accept that, in certain cases, God may regard a human being as divine when He sees His own authority, glory, truth, and love reflected within that person, then we can understand why God changes His will.

Scripture says that humanity is the “image of God.” What, then, is the image of God? It is a being that reflects the light of God and manifests the attributes of God. A perfect image of God is therefore divine. Yet it is not divine because it possesses self-existence in itself. Rather, it is divine because God sees His own image reflected within that being and therefore treats it as divine.

Jesus said that He and God are “one.” Yet this oneness does not mean ontological identity or sameness of essence. Jesus explained His unity with the Father in the following way:

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father dwelling in me who does His works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me — or else believe because of the works themselves.”

Here again, we see that Jesus is one with God not because He is ontologically identical with God, but because, as the image of God, He perfectly reveals God. The statement that “the Father dwells in Jesus” means that God reveals His light and His will through Jesus. Conversely, the statement that “Jesus dwells in the Father” means that Jesus abides wholly in God, reflecting only God and revealing nothing else.

Because the perfect image of God reflects God completely, God Himself also treats that image as God. This is the true meaning of the Trinity.

Traditional Trinitarian doctrine has attempted to explain how Jesus can be both human and divine by claiming that two incompatible essences — “divinity” and “humanity” — are united within one being. Yet such an explanation inevitably produces contradiction. Furthermore, by making Jesus into an absolutely exceptional being fundamentally different from humanity, it obscured the meaning of Jesus’ words that those who follow the will of God are His “brothers.”

Yet those who follow the way of Jesus can become like Him, because God never said that the image of God within humanity has been essentially destroyed. For this reason, in the Gospel of John, Jesus prayed that we also might become one, just as He and the Father are one.

Jesus did not discuss ontology like the Greek philosophers did. He did not attempt to explain the mode of God’s existence through philosophical concepts. Jesus spoke of a unique relationship between himself and “God the Father,” yet he did not metaphysically analyze or define that relationship. In the Gospels, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” “The Father is greater than I,” and “Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Yet he never tried to philosophically systematize or explain the structure of that relationship.

The attempt to explain God ontologically emerged in earnest after Jesus. This was largely because the spirit of the age was shaped by Greek philosophy. To compare it with today’s situation, just as the modern spirit of the age is shaped by science, theology today often tries to respond to it through movements such as creation science or theistic evolution. Of course, these two positions move in completely opposite directions, yet they share a common feature: both attempt to explain faith within the dominant framework of thought of their age.

Here I sense a very fundamental problem. Any attempt to interpret Jesus through philosophical or theological concepts that go beyond his own words ultimately turns Jesus into a mere human being who requires theologians to explain him. But I believe Jesus intentionally refrained from using philosophical or theological argumentation. This is because Jesus is not merely a historical figure, but Truth itself. Yet theology, while confessing that Jesus is the truth, often falls into the contradiction of reconstructing his words within the framework of human concepts, as though it could explain him from a position above him.

However, God dwells where all human concepts collapse, where human language itself comes to an end. When Jesus called himself “the Son of God,” those words carried a meaning deeper than any philosophical or theological terminology could express. Therefore, rather than trying to analyze and reconstruct Jesus’ words through human philosophy and theology, we ought instead to allow our very concepts to be transformed anew in the light of his words. Even our understanding of the word “son,” shaped by cultural and biological assumptions, must itself be reinterpreted according to the meaning Jesus revealed and embodied in calling himself the Son.

Jesus did not discuss ontology like the Greek philosophers did. He did not attempt to explain the mode of God’s existence through philosophical concepts. Jesus spoke of a unique relationship between himself and “God the Father,” yet he did not metaphysically analyze or define that relationship. In the Gospels, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” “The Father is greater than I,” and “Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Yet he never tried to philosophically systematize or explain the structure of that relationship.

The attempt to explain God ontologically emerged in earnest after Jesus. This was largely because the spirit of the age was shaped by Greek philosophy. To compare it with today’s situation, just as the modern spirit of the age is shaped by science, theology today often tries to respond to it through movements such as creation science or theistic evolution. Of course, these two positions move in completely opposite directions, yet they share a common feature: both attempt to explain faith within the dominant framework of thought of their age.

Here I sense a very fundamental problem. Any attempt to interpret Jesus through philosophical or theological concepts that go beyond his own words ultimately turns Jesus into a mere human being who requires theologians to explain him. But I believe Jesus intentionally refrained from using philosophical or theological argumentation. This is because Jesus is not merely a historical figure, but Truth itself. Yet theology, while confessing that Jesus is the truth, often falls into the contradiction of reconstructing his words within the framework of human concepts, as though it could explain him from a position above him.

However, God dwells where all human concepts collapse, where human language itself comes to an end. When Jesus called himself “the Son of God,” those words carried a meaning deeper than any philosophical or theological terminology could express. Therefore, rather than trying to analyze and reconstruct Jesus’ words through human philosophy and theology, we ought instead to allow our very concepts to be transformed anew in the light of his words. Even our understanding of the word “son,” shaped by cultural and biological assumptions, must itself be reinterpreted according to the meaning Jesus revealed and embodied in calling himself the Son.

Jesus did not discuss ontology like the Greek philosophers did. He did not attempt to explain the mode of God’s existence through philosophical concepts. Jesus spoke of a unique relationship between himself and “God the Father,” yet he did not metaphysically analyze or define that relationship. In the Gospels, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” “The Father is greater than I,” and “Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Yet he never tried to philosophically systematize or explain the structure of that relationship.

The attempt to explain God ontologically emerged in earnest after Jesus. This was largely because the spirit of the age was shaped by Greek philosophy. To compare it with today’s situation, just as the modern spirit of the age is shaped by science, theology today often tries to respond to it through movements such as creation science or theistic evolution. Of course, these two positions move in completely opposite directions, yet they share a common feature: both attempt to explain faith within the dominant framework of thought of their age.

Here I sense a very fundamental problem. Any attempt to interpret Jesus through philosophical or theological concepts that go beyond his own words ultimately turns Jesus into a mere human being who requires theologians to explain him. But I believe Jesus intentionally refrained from using philosophical or theological argumentation. This is because Jesus is not merely a historical figure, but Truth itself. Yet theology, while confessing that Jesus is the truth, often falls into the contradiction of reconstructing his words within the framework of human concepts, as though it could explain him from a position above him.

However, God dwells where all human concepts collapse, where human language itself comes to an end. When Jesus called himself “the Son of God,” those words carried a meaning deeper than any philosophical or theological terminology could express. Therefore, rather than trying to analyze and reconstruct Jesus’ words through human philosophy and theology, we ought instead to allow our very concepts to be transformed anew in the light of his words. Even our understanding of the word “son,” shaped by cultural and biological assumptions, must itself be reinterpreted according to the meaning Jesus revealed and embodied in calling himself the Son.

Jesus did not discuss ontology like the Greek philosophers did. He did not attempt to explain the mode of God’s existence through philosophical concepts. Jesus spoke of a unique relationship between himself and “God the Father,” yet he did not metaphysically analyze or define that relationship. In the Gospels, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” “The Father is greater than I,” and “Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Yet he never tried to philosophically systematize or explain the structure of that relationship.

The attempt to explain God ontologically emerged in earnest after Jesus. This was largely because the spirit of the age was shaped by Greek philosophy. To compare it with today’s situation, just as the modern spirit of the age is shaped by science, theology today often tries to respond to it through movements such as creation science or theistic evolution. Of course, these two positions move in completely opposite directions, yet they share a common feature: both attempt to explain faith within the dominant framework of thought of their age.

Here I sense a very fundamental problem. Any attempt to interpret Jesus through philosophical or theological concepts that go beyond his own words ultimately turns Jesus into a mere human being who requires theologians to explain him. But I believe Jesus intentionally refrained from using philosophical or theological argumentation. This is because Jesus is not merely a historical figure, but Truth itself. Yet theology, while confessing that Jesus is the truth, often falls into the contradiction of reconstructing his words within the framework of human concepts, as though it could explain him from a position above him.

However, God dwells where all human concepts collapse, where human language itself comes to an end. When Jesus called himself “the Son of God,” those words carried a meaning deeper than any philosophical or theological terminology could express. Therefore, rather than trying to analyze and reconstruct Jesus’ words through human philosophy and theology, we ought instead to allow our very concepts to be transformed anew in the light of his words. Even our understanding of the word “son,” shaped by cultural and biological assumptions, must itself be reinterpreted according to the meaning Jesus revealed and embodied in calling himself the Son.

Jesus did not discuss ontology like the Greek philosophers did. He did not attempt to explain the mode of God’s existence through philosophical concepts. Jesus spoke of a unique relationship between himself and “God the Father,” yet he did not metaphysically analyze or define that relationship. In the Gospels, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” “The Father is greater than I,” and “Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Yet he never tried to philosophically systematize or explain the structure of that relationship.

The attempt to explain God ontologically emerged in earnest after Jesus. This was largely because the spirit of the age was shaped by Greek philosophy. To compare it with today’s situation, just as the modern spirit of the age is shaped by science, theology today often tries to respond to it through movements such as creation science or theistic evolution. Of course, these two positions move in completely opposite directions, yet they share a common feature: both attempt to explain faith within the dominant framework of thought of their age.

Here I sense a very fundamental problem. Any attempt to interpret Jesus through philosophical or theological concepts that go beyond his own words ultimately turns Jesus into a mere human being who requires theologians to explain him. But I believe Jesus intentionally refrained from using philosophical or theological argumentation. This is because Jesus is not merely a historical figure, but Truth itself. Yet theology, while confessing that Jesus is the truth, often falls into the contradiction of reconstructing his words within the framework of human concepts, as though it could explain him from a position above him.

However, God dwells where all human concepts collapse, where human language itself comes to an end. When Jesus called himself “the Son of God,” those words carried a meaning deeper than any philosophical or theological terminology could express. Therefore, rather than trying to analyze and reconstruct Jesus’ words through human philosophy and theology, we ought instead to allow our very concepts to be transformed anew in the light of his words. Even our understanding of the word “son,” shaped by cultural and biological assumptions, must itself be reinterpreted according to the meaning Jesus revealed and embodied in calling himself the Son.