BEREAN.AI ← Ask a Question

First Century Jewish Discussions of God's Nature and Character

First-century Jewish discussions about the nature and character of God were deeply rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures and the lived experience of a monotheistic people. The foundational understanding was that there is one God, a concept affirmed by both nature and revelation [15]. This singular Divine Being is often referred to by names such as 'El, 'Eloah, and 'Elohim, with 'Elohim being a plural form commonly used throughout the Bible, and Jehovah (rendered as "LORD" in many English translations) also denoting the Supreme Being [6]. The existence of God was not a subject of debate but a given premise within Jewish thought [6].

Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, reflects this understanding in his Antiquities of the Jews. He begins his account with the creation of the world, implicitly acknowledging God as the creator and disposer of elements [1]. His narratives frequently highlight God's active involvement in human affairs, such as assisting Jehoshaphat in overcoming enemies [2] and interacting with figures like Balaam [3] and Jacob [7]. This demonstrates a belief in a God who is not distant but intimately involved in the history and destiny of His people.

The character of God, as understood in this period, was largely shaped by descriptions found in the Torah and Prophets. Moses, for instance, is presented as summarizing God's character as "The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands" [11]. This emphasizes attributes such as mercy, grace, patience, and faithfulness. God is also understood as a just punisher of the wicked, particularly those who remain obstinate despite His forbearance [11].

While the primary focus was on the unity and attributes of God, there were also discussions that laid groundwork for later theological developments, particularly concerning the divine presence and interaction with humanity. The concept of the "Word" (Logos) found in the Gospel of John, which states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" [4], and that "This Word was from the first in relation with God" [5], indicates a sophisticated theological reflection on God's nature that was emerging within some Jewish circles of the time. This "Word" is presented as both distinct from God and yet fully God, existing from the very beginning [4, 5].

Later Christian theology, particularly concerning the incarnation, would build upon these foundational Jewish understandings while also introducing new interpretations. For example, Charles Hodge notes that early Church discussions on Christ's nature sometimes arose from Jewish perspectives, as some Jewish converts struggled to reconcile their expectations of a Messiah with the reality of Jesus [13]. The idea of a personal or hypostatic union of divine and human natures in Christ, where both natures retain their integrity, became a central tenet of Christian doctrine [8, 12]. This union was not seen as a confusion of natures, as some heresies like Eutychianism proposed, but a distinct union "in two natures" rather than "from two natures" [14].

The patristic writers, such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, further elaborated on the unity of God, often contrasting it with pagan polytheism [9, 10]. Athanasius, for example, argued against idolatry and affirmed the distinctness of God from the created universe, refuting philosophical pantheism [16]. These later discussions, while developing distinctively Christian doctrines, nevertheless drew upon the deep well of first-century Jewish monotheism and its understanding of God's unique character and attributes.

Sources

  1. Project Gutenberg “Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, CHAPTER 1, section 1: . The Constitution Of The World And The Disposition Of The Elements.”
  2. Project Gutenberg “Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, CHAPTER 1, section 1: . Concerning Jehoshaphat Again; How He Constituted Judges And, By God's Assistance Overcame His Enemies.”
  3. Project Gutenberg “Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, CHAPTER 6, section 1: . Concerning Balaam The Prophet And What Kind Of Man He Was.”
  4. John “John 1:1 (Tyndale) — In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.”
  5. John “John 1:2 (BBE) — This Word was from the first in relation with God.”
  6. Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: God — (A.S. and Dutch God; Dan. Gud; Ger. Gott), the name of the Divine Being. It is the rendering (1) of the Hebrew 'El, from a word meaning to be strong; (2) of 'Eloah_, plural _'Elohim. The singular form, Eloah, is used only in poetry. The plural form is more commonly used in all parts of the Bible, The Hebrew word Jehovah (q.v.), the only other word generally employed to denote the Supreme Being, is uniformly rendered in the Authorized Version by "LORD," printed in small capitals. The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argume”
  7. Project Gutenberg “Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, CHAPTER 20, section 1: . Concerning The Meeting Of Jacob And Esau.”
  8. CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 79: The Scriptures teach that the human nature of Christ remained in its integrity after the incarnation; and that the divine nature remained divine. The Bible never requires us to receive as true anything which the constitution of our nature given to us by God himself, forces us to believe to be false or impossible. The Union is a Personal Union. Thc union of the two natures in Christ is a personal or hypostatic union. By this is meant, in the first place, that it is not a mere indwelling of the divine nature analogous to the indwelling of t”
  9. Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 1: Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus — CHAP. II.--TESTIMONIES TO THE UNITY OF GOD. (part 1): First, then, AEschylus,(4) in expounding the arrangement of his work,(5) expressed himself also as follows respecting the only God:-- "Afar from mortals place the holy God, Nor ever think that He, like to thyself, In fleshly robes is clad; for all unknown Is the great God to such a worm as thou. Divers similitudes He bears; at times He seems as a consuming fire that burns Unsated; now like water, then again In sable folds of darkness shrouds Himself. Nay, ev”
  10. Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 3: Tertullian — CHAP. I.--THE HEATHEN GODS FROM HEATHEN AUTHORITIES. VARRO HAS WRITTEN A WORK ON THE SUBJECT. HIS THREEFOLD CLASSIFICATION. THE CHANGEABLE CHARACTER OF THAT WHICH OUGHT TO BE FIXED AND CERTAIN. (part 2): inventors(18) of the gods, he points to either the philosophers, the peoples, or the poets. For he has made a threefold distinction in classifying the gods: one being the physical class, of which the philosophers treat; another the mythic class, which is the constant burden of(19) the poets; the third, the gentile class, which the nations have adopted each one for itsel”
  11. CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 26: he is the just punisher of the wicked, especially when they continue obstinate notwithstanding of all his forbearance. 2. There are certain passages which contain more vivid descriptions 88 of the divine character, setting it before us as if his genuine countenance were visibly portrayed. Moses, indeed, seems to have intended briefly to comprehend whatever may be known of God by man, when he said, “The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgivi”
  12. CCEL (Eastern Orthodox) “John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, section 50: or of His humanity the properties of divinity: for we do not say that His flesh or His humanity is uncreated. But when we speak of His subsistence, whether we give it a name implying both natures, or one that refers to only one of them, we still attribute to it the properties of both natures. For Christ, which name implies both natures, is spoken of as at once God and man, created and uncreated, subject to suffering and incapable of suffering: and when He is named Son of God and God, in reference to only one of His nature”
  13. CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 81: Church on this, as on other subjects, arose either from Judaism or from heathen philosophy. The Jews who professed themselves Christians, were not able, in many instances, as we learn from the New Testament itself, to emancipate themselves from their former opinions and prejudices. They had by the misinterpretation of their Scriptures been led to expect a Messiah who was to be the head of their nation as David and Solomon had been. They, therefore, as a body, rejected Christ, who came as a man of sorrows, not having anywhere to lay his he”
  14. theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part (Tertia Pars), Of the Mode of Union of the Word Incarnate, Art. 6: Article: Whether the human nature was united to the Word of God accidentally? I answer that, In evidence of this question we must know that two heresies have arisen with regard to the mystery of the union of the two natures in Christ. The first confused the natures, as Eutyches and Dioscorus, who held that from the two natures one nature resulted, so that they confessed Christ to be "from" two natures (which were distinct before the union), but not "in" two natures (the distinction of natur”
  15. Ephesians (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Ephesians 4:6: One God and Father of all,.... That there is but one God is the voice of nature and of revelation; and may be concluded from the perfections of deity, for there can be but one eternal, infinite, immense, omnipotent, all-sufficient, perfect, and independent Being; and from one first cause of all things, and the relations he stands in to his creatures: there is but one God, who is truly, and really, and properly God, in opposition to all nominal and figurative deities, and which are not gods by nature, and to the fictitious deities and idols of the nations; and there ”
  16. CCEL (Patristic) “Athanasius of Alexandria, Select Works and Letters, section 43: inventions,’ &c. But this is no title to deification. 13 §19. (3) ‘Images (a) necessary to represent invisible beings, (b) a means of intercourse with the gods’ 14 §20–22. This refuted 14 §§23–26. d. Supplementary proofs against idolatry. (1) Variety of cults 16 (2) Human sacrifice. (3) The gods the cause of moral corruption 17 e. Theism established against philosophic pantheism. §27. (1) No part of the universe identical with God. 18 §28. (2) The whole universe not identical with God 18 §29. (3) Nature and God distinct 19 §§30–34”
Ask Your Own Question
About Terms Privacy Contact

© 2026 BEREAN.AI. All rights reserved.