Ephesians 1:17 — “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ”: Christ has a God over him

“… that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know to what hope he has called you”

Ephesians 1:17–18

Context: The Thanksgiving Prayer of Ephesians

Ephesians 1:17 stands within the great opening thanksgiving prayer of the letter (1:15–23). Paul reports for what and to whom he prays: he gives thanks unceasingly for the faith of the Ephesians and asks “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,” to give them the Spirit of wisdom. The addressee of the prayer is thus expressly named — and it is not Christ, but the God who is at the same time the God of Christ.

The opening of the letter had already struck the same note: “Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:3). The solemn formula frames the whole prayer: at its beginning (1:3) and at its center (1:17) Paul confesses the Father as the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Whoever reads the letter from its own opening will not confuse the Son with this one God, but will find him assigned to him.

Immediately afterward (1:19–23) Paul unfolds what this God has done: he displayed “the immeasurable greatness of his power” toward Christ, “when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion.” The God of Christ is here the one who acts, Christ the one who is acted upon. The exaltation comes from above; it is received, not accomplished by his own power of essence.

This order — God the Father acts, Christ receives and is exalted — is no isolated feature of Ephesians, but the consistent language of the New Testament (Acts 2:36; Phil 2:9–11; Acts 2:36). Ephesians 1:17 names the ground of this order by its name: the Father is the God of Christ.

Socinian Core Thesis

For the Socinian reading, Ephesians 1:17 testifies that the Father is the one God — also the God of Jesus Christ — and that Christ is assigned to him as Lord and Son, not consubstantial with him. The phrase “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” presupposes two: one who is God, and one who has this God. Whoever has a God over him, to whom he owes his life, his exaltation, and his authority, cannot himself be the most high God, dependent on no one.

The trinitarian interpretation is wont to introduce the two-natures doctrine here: Christ has a God “according to his human nature,” but “according to his divine nature” is himself God. Yet the text speaks of no nature, but of the person: it is “our Lord Jesus Christ” whose God the Father is called. And it is the same Christ who has a God whom this God raises and exalts (1:20). The division of natures is brought to the text; it does not stand within it.

The decisive point is the continuation of the prayer (1:19–23). Paul does not extol a power that Christ unfolds out of himself, but “the working of the strength” of God, which happened to Christ. Were Christ the most high God, he could not have been exalted — for the Most High has no one above him to exalt him. The exaltation itself is the proof that Christ is another than the one who exalts him.

Thus Eph 1:17 fits into the consistent usage: the Risen One calls the Father “my God and your God” (John 20:17); the exalted Christ of Revelation speaks four times of the “God” he has (Rev 3:12). Even in glory Christ keeps his God. This is no demeaning of the Son, but his true standing: at the right hand of the one God, “to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11).

Key Terms

Four linguistic and substantive observations decide the interpretation of Ephesians 1:17:

ho theós tou kyríou hêmôn — “the God of our Lord”

The phrase sets two side by side: ho theós (“the God”) and ho kýrios hêmôn Iesôus Christós (“our Lord Jesus Christ”). The genitive is a genitive of belonging: the God to whom Christ belongs, to whom he is subject. Paul uses exactly the same construction of himself and of us: “you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor 3:23). As we belong to Christ, so Christ belongs to God.

The definite article before theós regularly designates, in Pauline usage, the one God, the Father. Here this one God is expressly named as the God of Christ. This is a statement about the relation of the persons, not about two natures of one person: the Lord Jesus Christ has a God, and this God is the Father.

ho patêr tês dóxês — “the Father of glory”

In apposition to “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” stands “the Father of glory.” Both titles mean the same one: the Father. He is the source of the glory that he bestows on Christ (1:20: he seats him at his right hand; John 17:5: “glorify me”). The glory of Christ is received, given glory — it has its Father, its giver.

It is striking that Paul equates the most solemn designation of God in the prayer — “the Father of glory” — with “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The most high, most glorious God and the God of Christ are one and the same. This rules out that “God of Christ” were only a lower, incidental way of speaking: it is the Father of glory himself who is called the God of Christ.

The Doxological Formula — “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”

Eph 1:17 is no isolated case, but part of a fixed New Testament formula: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 1:3; 2 Cor 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3; cf. Rom 15:6). The single “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” binds both titles — “God” and “Father” — to the same person and refers both to Christ: the Father is both the God and the Father of Jesus Christ.

The frequency and firmness of the formula forbid dismissing it as incidental speech. When the early church habitually addresses “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” in prayer, then this is its confession: the one God is the Father, and Christ is his Lord and Son, not a second God consubstantial with him.

enêrgeia and egeiras — God’s acting upon Christ

In the same breath Paul extols “the working (enêrgeia) of the strength of his power, which he worked in Christ when he raised him (egeiras)” (1:19–20). The subject of all these verbs is “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”; the object is Christ. Raising, seating, setting above — all this happens to Christ, not through Christ’s own divine power of essence.

It is exactly here that the argument of the Racovian Catechism begins: a Most High cannot be exalted, for above him there is no one. But if the God of Christ exalts Christ, then Christ is not this most high God, but the one exalted by him. The verb “to raise” alone refutes the essential deity: whoever could not be held in death by his own divine power would need no God to raise him.

Comparison of the Interpretations

Sozzini in the Original: The Racovian Catechism on “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”

The Racovian Catechism adduces Ephesians 1:17–23 as one of the clearest proofs against the essential deity of the Son. Its argument is of a beautiful simplicity: the exaltation of Christ would be meaningless, indeed impossible, if Christ were already the most high God — and yet it is precisely “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” who exalts him:

“For if Christ was the most high God, he could neither be exalted, nor, even if he could have been, would he ever have ascribed that exaltation wholly to anyone other than his own divine nature. And yet Paul says (Eph 1:19–23) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, displayed the working of the strength of his power in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule.”

Racovian Catechism (1605), Of the Person of Christ — The Obscuring of the Glory of God

From this the Catechism draws a twofold conclusion. First: the essential deity not only robs the Father of the honor due to him alone, by transferring it to another; it also robs God of the honor of Christ’s exaltation, which is precisely God’s work upon Christ. Whoever makes Christ himself the most high God takes from the Father the very deed by which Paul extols his power. Second, Paul himself builds the bridge to Philippians 2:9–11: God has “bestowed on him the name that is above every name … to the glory of God the Father.” The exaltation of the Son issues in the honor of the Father, not in a second Godhead.

Already beforehand the Catechism had established Christ’s standing under his God from the whole testimony of Paul. Christ does not possess that divine nature — and exactly this is shown by his having a God and a head over him:

“… and he repeatedly calls the Father his God. This is confirmed also by other sacred writers, and namely by Paul, who likewise testifies that God is his head, and that, as we are Christ’s, so Christ is God’s, and that the Son will one day be subjected to him who subjected all things to him — none of which could be said of Christ, if he possessed that divine nature.”

Racovian Catechism (1605), Of the Person of Christ

With that the Socinian line is drawn: “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 1:17) is no incidental phrase, but the expression of the abiding order of salvation. God the Father is the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:3); Christ belongs to God (1 Cor 3:23); the Son will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him (1 Cor 15:28). All this presupposes that Christ has a God over him — and that takes nothing from his dignity, but sets him in his place: at the right hand of the one God.

Overview of Sozzini’s writings

Logical Arguments

From Ephesians 1:17 and its context the following arguments arise against the essential deity of the Son:

1. Argument from the “God of Christ.” Whoever has a God over him, to whom he is subject, is not himself the one most high God. Paul expressly calls the Father “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Therefore Christ has a God — and is assigned to him, not identical with him.
2. Argument from the person, not the nature. The text speaks of “our Lord Jesus Christ” — the whole person, not of a separated “human nature.” The two-natures division, which here lets only the humanity have a God, does not stand in the text; it is imposed on it.
3. Argument from the exaltation. The same God “raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand” (1:20). But the most high God cannot be exalted, because above him there is no one. The exaltation therefore proves that Christ is another than the one who exalts him.
4. Argument from the raising. Whoever acts by his own divine power of essence would need no one to raise him. That God raises Christ shows that Christ truly died and did not return by his own Godhead (cf. Acts 2:36).
5. Argument from the fixed doxological formula. “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” is a formula running through the whole NT (Eph 1:3; 2 Cor 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3; Rom 15:6). Its firmness forbids dismissing it as incidental speech: it is a confession that the one God is the Father.
6. Argument from the “Father of glory.” Paul equates the most solemn designation of God — “the Father of glory” — with “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The most high, most glorious God and the God of Christ are one and the same; “God of Christ” is thus no lesser title.
7. Argument from the consistent usage. The Risen One calls the Father “my God” (John 20:17); the exalted Christ of Revelation speaks four times of “my God” (Rev 3:12). Even in glory Christ keeps his God — the standing is thus permanent, not confined to an earthly phase.
8. Argument from the aim of the exaltation. The exaltation of Christ happens “to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11). Had Christ the highest Godhead, the honor would not flow from him to another, but remain with himself. That it points back to the Father shows: the Father is the one God, to whom all honor strives.

Biblical Cross-References

The following passages support, deepen, or illuminate the Socinian interpretation of Ephesians 1:17:

Objections and Socinian Answers

Objection 1: “Christ has a God only according to his human nature.”

The text knows nothing of this division of natures. Paul does not say “the God of the human nature of Christ,” but “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” — the whole person. Whoever turns a statement about the person into a statement about one of its alleged natures supplements the text with precisely what was to be proved.

Moreover, the division breaks down on the matter itself. The same Christ who has a God is the one whom this God raises and exalts (1:20). If only the “human nature” had a God, then only it would have had to be exalted — but then the exaltation would be no work upon the one Lord Jesus Christ, but upon a part of him. Yet Scripture knows one Christ, one Lord, one person.

Finally, the two-natures doctrine is itself no biblical finding, but a later dogmatic construction. To bring it to Eph 1:17 means to overwrite the clear wording by a presupposed doctrine — the exact opposite of scriptural interpretation.

Objection 2: “‘Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ means only the intratrinitarian relation of begetting.”

But Eph 1:17 does not say only “Father,” but “God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Even if one were to interpret “Father” in the sense of a relation of origin, the statement would remain that the Father of Christ is his God. To have a God over oneself is more than to have an origin: it is the relation of the creature, or of the subordinate, to the Most High.

The usage of the New Testament tells against reducing this to a mere intra-divine relation. “My God” Christ says on the cross (Mark 15:34), “my God and your God” after the resurrection (John 20:17), “my God” four times in glory (Rev 3:12). This is the language of one who prays, who looks up to his God — not the language of two consubstantial persons.

The “eternal begetting” is itself, moreover, a post-biblical concept. Scripture calls Christ the Son because God begot him (Luke 1:35), made him Lord (Acts 2:36), and raised him (Rom 1:4) — all acts of God upon Christ, not eternal intra-divine relations. Eph 1:17 fits exactly into this language.

Objection 3: “The exaltation concerns only the humanity of Christ.”

Paul does not exalt a “humanity,” but “Christ” — and seats him “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name” (1:21). Were Christ already the most high God, he would already stand above all; an installation “above all power” would be empty. The exaltation has meaning only if the one exalted was not previously in this highest standing.

The recipient of the gift also tells against it: God “put all things under his feet” and “gave him as head over all things” (1:22). This is bestowal, not innate possession. What is bestowed was not previously one’s own — otherwise the bestowal would be none.

The talk of two natures does not save the objection, but divides the one Christ. Scripture consistently testifies that God exalted him — the one Lord Jesus Christ (Phil 2:9; Acts 2:36; Acts 5:31). This is coherent only if Christ is truly another than the God who exalts him.

Objection 4: “Within the Trinity too there is an order — the Son subordinates himself to the Father voluntarily.”

A “subordination with consubstantiality” is a conceptual contradiction where it is a matter of having a God. One can subordinate oneself to an equal in rank; but to call an equal “one’s God” abolishes the equality. To be “God of someone” designates no voluntary relation of roles, but the standing of the Most High over the one who worships him.

The Racovian Catechism shows, moreover, that the subordination is permanent, not merely economic: “that the Son will one day be subjected to him who subjected all things to him” (1 Cor 15:28). Even at the end, when the work of salvation is completed, Christ remains subjected to the Father. This is no merely transient, “economic” subordination.

Finally, Scripture piles up the statements of dependence so densely that they cannot bear a mere distribution of roles: God is Christ’s head (1 Cor 11:3), Christ belongs to God (1 Cor 3:23), God raised him, exalted him, gave him the name, subjected all things. This is the language of the one God and his exalted Son, not of two co-eternal persons.

Objection 5: “If Christ is not God, he is only a creature — then why the glory?”

The opposition “either most high God or a mere creature like any other” is false. Scripture knows a third standing: that of the one installed and exalted by God, to whom highest authority is bestowed, without his being the one God. This is exactly what Eph 1 describes: God gave Christ this standing.

Received glory is not lesser glory, but it is received. “Glorify me, Father” (John 17:5); “God has exalted him” (Phil 2:9); “the strength of his power, which he worked in Christ” (Eph 1:19–20). The height of Christ is so great precisely because the greatest God gave it to him — and it points back to this giver.

The Socinian reading therefore does not demean Christ, but sets him in his true place: “at his right hand in the heavenly places” (1:20), as head of the church (1:22), as the one mediator between the one God and men (1 Tim 2:5) — and all this “to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11).

Theological Consequences

Related Verses

The following passages support, deepen, or contrast the interpretation set out here:

• John 20:17 — “my God and your God”: the Risen One himself has a God.
• 1 Corinthians 8:6 — one God (the Father) and one Lord (Christ): Paul’s order of titles.
• John 17:3 — the Father “the only true God,” Jesus the one sent.
• 1 John 5:20 — “This is the true God”: the Father, not the Son.
• Acts 2:36 — “God has made him Lord and Christ”: exaltation, not essential deity.
• 1 Corinthians 15:28 — the Son is subjected to him who subjected all things to him.
• John 14:28 — “the Father is greater than I”: the precedence of the Father.

Summary

Ephesians 1:17 — “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory” — confesses the Father as the one God, who is at the same time the God of Jesus Christ. Christ thereby has a God over him; and whoever has a God to whom he is subject and owes life, exaltation, and authority is not himself the most high God. The phrase is no empty formula: it is part of the fixed New Testament doxological formula (Eph 1:3; 2 Cor 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3) and means the “Father of glory” himself — the most high, most glorious God.

The Racovian Catechism (1605) adduces the passage as a clear proof against the essential deity of the Son: “If Christ was the most high God, he could neither be exalted … And yet Paul says (Eph 1:19–23) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, … raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand.” The exaltation itself refutes the Godhead of the one exalted: above the Most High stands no one who could exalt him. And Paul, so the Catechism, testifies throughout “that God is his head, and that, as we are Christ’s, so Christ is God’s” — none of which could be said “if he possessed that divine nature.”

For the Socinian reading the verse fits into the consistent one-God confession of Scripture. Paul confesses not a second God consubstantial with the Father, but the one God, the Father — the God also of our Lord Jesus Christ, who raised his Son, exalted him, and subjected all things to him, “to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11). Christ is not thereby demeaned, but set in his place: at the right hand of the one God, as his exalted Son and the one mediator.