This is a follow-up to my previous post, “Unitarians, William Inge, and the Platonism in Christianity.” Unitarian apologist Carlos Xavier, in the same post in which he quoted Inge out of context, also manages to quote the first-century Jewish philosopher Philo out of context. Here is what Xavier says:
Philo, another influential pagan figure, himself described the 3 angelic visitors to Abraham of Genesis 18, “not as three persons but as one” (On Abraham 132) and calls them “God from God, light of light.” On Rewards and Punishments, 7.[1]
Xavier’s take on Philo is almost beyond parody. I will discuss both passages from Philo in turn.
Abraham’s Three Visitors: Philo, On Abraham 119–32
Philo interprets Genesis 18 allegorically to picture Abraham as receiving three visitors who, according to Philo, represent “the Father of the universe” properly called “I am that I am,” flanked by representations of his “creative power,” called “God,” and of his “royal power,” called “Lord” (On Abraham 121). Philo’s point here is that the titles God and Lord represent different facets of the Creator’s nature. The passage then presents, according to Philo, “a threefold appearance of one subject,” which is shown by the fact that the subject “speaks to them not as three persons, but as one” (131, 132). This allegorical interpretation of Genesis 18 is not even remotely trinitarian and has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity. Below I will quote enough of On Abraham 119–132 to enable the reader to see what the passage is really saying (with Xavier’s out of context snippets emphasized); those who want to confirm the point are encouraged to read the whole passage.
(119) This then is sufficient to say by way of a literal explanation of this account; we must now speak of that which may be given if the story be looked at as figurative and symbolical. . . . (121) Since this is not the actual truth, but in order that one may when speaking keep as close to the truth as possible, the one in the middle is the Father of the universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power.
And the creative power is God, for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the royal power is the Lord, for it is fitting that the Creator should lord it over and govern the creature. (122) Therefore, the middle person of the three, being attended by each of his powers as by body-guards, presents to the mind, which is endowed with the faculty of sight, a vision at one time of one being, and at another time of three; of one when the soul being completely purified, and having surmounted not only the multitudes of numbers, but also the number two, which is the neighbour of the unit, hastens onward to that idea which is devoid of all mixture, free from all combination, and by itself in need of nothing else whatever; and of three, when, not being as yet made perfect as to the important virtues, it is still seeking for initiation in those of less consequence, and is not able to attain to a comprehension of the living God by its own unassisted faculties without the aid of something else, but can only do so by judging of his deeds, whether as creator or as governor. . . .
(124) There are three different classes of human dispositions, each of which has received as its portion one of the aforesaid visions. The best of them has received that vision which is in the centre, the sight of the truly living God. The one which is next best has received that which is on the right hand, the sight of the beneficent power which has the name of God. And the third has the sight of that which is on the left hand, the governing power, which is called lord. . . .
(131) But that which is seen is in reality a threefold appearance of one subject is plain, not only from the contemplation of the allegory, but also from that of the express words in which the allegory is couched. (132) For when the wise man entreats those persons who are in the guise of three travellers to come and lodge in his house, he speaks to them not as three persons, but as one, and says, “My lord, if I have found favour with thee, do not thou pass by thy servant.” For the expressions, “my lord,” and “with thee,” and “do not pass by,” and others of the same kind, are all such as are naturally addressed to a single individual, but not to many.[2]
Not about Abraham’s Three Visitors: Philo, On Rewards and Punishment 43–46
In Philo’s On Rewards and Punishment, the topic isn’t the three visitors at all, as Xavier claims. The line that Xavier misquotes says that those who really know the truth about God, as contrasted with those who are merely guessing, “form their ideas of God from God, of light from light” (On Rewards and Punishment [VII] 46). Omitting the words “form their ideas of” from this statement as well as replacing “of light from light” with “light of light” is either deliberate deception or an exhibition of extremely poor reading.
Below is a substantial quotation of the statement in On Rewards and Punishment with the preceding two paragraphs establishing the subject in context:
(43) But these admirable men, so superior to all others, have, as I said, raised themselves upwards from below, ascending as if by some ladder reaching to heaven, so as, through the contemplation of his works, to form a conjectural conception of the Creator by a probable train of reasoning. And if any persons have been able to comprehend him by himself, without employing any other reasonings as assistants towards their perception of him, they deserve to be recorded as holy and genuine servants of his, and sincere worshippers of God. (44) In this company is the man who in the Chaldaean language is denominated Israel, but in the Greek “seeing God;” not meaning by this expression seeing what kind of being God is, for that is impossible, as I have said before, but seeing that he really does exist; not having learnt this fact from any one else, nor from anything on earth, nor from anything in heaven, nor from any one of the elements, nor from anything compounded of them, whether mortal or immortal, but being instructed in the fact by God himself, who is willing to reveal his own existence to his suppliant.
(45) And how this impression was made, it is worth while to see by the observation of some similitude. Take this sun, which is perceptible by our outward senses, do we see it by any other means than by the aid of the sun? And do we see the stars by any other light than that of the stars? And, in short, is not all light seen in consequence of light? And in the same manner God, being his own light, is perceived by himself alone, nothing and no other being co-operating with or assisting him, or being at all able to contribute to the pure comprehension of his existence; (46) therefore those persons are mere guessers who are anxious to contemplate the uncreated God through the medium of the things which he created, acting like those persons who seek to ascertain the nature of the unit through the number two, when they ought, on the other hand, to employ the investigation of the unit itself to ascertain the nature of the number two; for the unit is the first principle.
But these men have arrived at the real truth, who form their ideas of God from God, of light from light.[3]
The affirmation of the Nicene Creed that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is “God from God, light from light” does not come from Philo and is addressing an entirely different subject than Philo’s similar-sounding statement. Philo was contrasting ideas about God that come from human speculation with ideas about God that come from God himself via revelation. The Nicene Creed is affirming that Christ is “God” in eternal dependence on God the Father. “God from God” acknowledges that Christ is God but makes it clear he is not God independently of the Father, which would make Christ a second God. Instead, Christ is God as the eternal Son of the Father, as the light that shines on the earth is not a second light independent of the sun but is light from the light of the sun.
The biblical basis for this part of Nicene Christology is manifold but can be seen especially in such passages as John 1:14 and Philippians 2:6. Ed Komoszewski and I discuss both of these passages and others of relevance in our recent book on the deity of Christ.[4] On November 18, 2025, I am scheduled to present a paper at the annual convention of the Evangelical Theological Society in Boston discussing the biblical basis of the Nicene Creed. The paper is entitled “From the Shema to the Homoousios: Jewish Roots and New Testament Origins of the Nicene Creed.”
NOTES
[1] Carlos Xavier, “The Dark Legacy of the Nicene Creed,” TheHumanJesus.org, Sept. 9, 2022.
[2] Philo, On Abraham 119, 121–22, 124, 131–32, in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, trans. C. D. Yonge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 420–22.
[3] Philo of Alexandria, On Rewards and Punishment 43–46, in Works of Philo, trans. Yonge, 668.
[4] Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2024).