Tag: Christology

Devotional: Who Has the Best Seat? (Ephesians 2:6)

On By Janine TuggleIn Christology, Colossians, Devotional, Discipleship, Ephesians, Ephesians, Hymns, New Testament, Paul's Letters

“–and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 2:6 NASB)

Everywhere we go we all try to find the best seat in the house. We want the best seat at a theater. Some like up close, some farther back. How about on an airplane? I like a seat by the window. Others might like an aisle seat. What about when booking a seat for a ballgame you look for a seat that’s good but in your price range. 

Growing up we each had our own seat at the kitchen table. Our dad sat at the end, the head of the table. Even at church, everyone seems to have their own seat. Don’t sit in that seat, it is Brother so-and-so’s seat. Which actually has been said many times.

We are told how the scribes and the Pharisees were being very hypocritical doing all their deeds to be seen with long fringes on their clothing… “and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues” (Matthew 23:5–6). Also, we’re told in Luke “Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces” (Luke 11:43).

It is sometimes important what seat we sit in. At some functions such as a wedding reception or a retirement party, there are seats for the guest of honor. 

We read that Christ is seated at the right hand of God:

“If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.” (Colossians 3:1 ESV)

We don’t want to be like the Scribes and Pharisees, who boasted about their status and position. But we can be reassured that when we have died to our sins and have been raised from the grave of baptism (Colossians 2:12), by the grace of God we will be seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. 

We all will appear before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10). It is a joy to know we do have a seat reserved for us in heaven, as long as we continue to live a faithful life.

Hymn: When We All Get To Heaven

The Humanity of Jesus the Son

On By Jovan PayesIn Christology, Graduate Work, Hope International University, Jesus Studies, Patristics, Theology

The phrases Jesus Christ, the Christ of faith, the Jesus of history, and Jesus the Divine Son all reflect significant themes pertaining to the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth. These concepts fall within a specialized area of theology known as Christology, which is a systematic “study of Christ” based on the full biblical picture derived from scripture.

A bit more formally, this field of study speaks to the Christian endeavor to map Jesus’ placement within “time and eternity, humanity and divinity, particularity and universality.” It answers how the life of a seemingly benign first-century Jewish rabbi could be so “relevant for all people and all times” (McGrath 2017, 207).

The present discussion maps Jesus’ Son-relationship in the triune unity of God, and the nature of his humanity. It then reflects on how the humanity of Jesus is relevant to the Christian’s personal walk before God.

Jesus the Son and the Trinity

The Trinitarian Formula

The divinity of Jesus is established in many passages of the New Testament. For example, Matthew closes with an appearance of Jesus where he affirms his authority “in heaven and on earth.” With this authority, he commissions his disciples for an international burden, 

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (28:18–19 NRSV). [All Scripture references are from the New Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]

Three themes are clear in this passage: Jesus’ divine authority, discipleship made in baptism, and the trinitarian language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the early generations of the church, the above trinitarian formula would represent a highly nuanced concept of monotheism affirmed to be in continuity with the “one God” of the Hebrew Bible.

What forced early Jewish Christians to accept this nuanced view of monotheism? The answer: the character and nature of Jesus did. It is not subversive of the “oneness” of God (Deut 6:4) but depends on the New Testament’s clarification that the “one God” is not a simplistic model. As the clarification argues, the Divine Son is not God the Father, nor is he the Holy Spirit. This raises tough questions that the historical church has discussed in earnest and in conflict for generations.

How do we map this out theologically?

The Divine Son Portrayed

We turn to the presence of Jesus and how He is portrayed in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

In the first century, the prologue to the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1–3, 14) affirms that the person and nature of Jesus is the driving force to reshape the whole biblical landscape of the concept of God (Gen 1:1; Exod 20:11). 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being... And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1–3a, 14)

Jesus not only pre-existed as the lógos at the time of creation (John 1:1), but he also “emptied” (ekénōsen) himself to take on the “form [morphē] of a slave”—a human (Phil 2:6–7). Leaning heavily on John 1:14, the Alexandrian theologian, Athanasius, concluded that this “human body” was taken by this same “Word of God” (Placher 2003, 184).

On this view, there was no room within this theology for Arius’ affirmation that Jesus the Son—the Word—was a created being who subsequently became divine. This view reduced Jesus to a creature impotent to redeem humanity (McGrath 2017, 217–19).

The Divine Association

As McGrath (2017, 214) chronicles, the divinity of Christ was one of the first major theological battles of the early church as it sought to hammer out its understanding of the contours of a very genuine human being in Jesus who, at the same time, was portrayed as being more than a mere human. The “battle” was not over the deity of Christ as such (that was established), but how to understand the relationship between his humanity and his divinity.

The divinity of Jesus was therefore accepted as true as his humanity—as affirmed in Chalcedon (AD 451)—which means that the question left to map out was the relationship between Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The only way to do this is by evaluating Scripture (Jenson 2003, 194). Despite certain reservations, Jenson argues clearly that Peter’s application of the divine title “Lord” from Joel 2 (kyrios LXX) to Jesus in Acts 2:33–34 (kyrios) demonstrates that

the risen Christ, without violation of God’s singularity, does what only the God of Israel himself does, and that he does this precisely by virtue of his situation with the God of Israel. (2003, 194)

Jensen in Essentials of Christian Theology (2003)

Jensen points out that the emerging notion of association that comes from the word “with” points to the “inescapably observable fact” that the biblical narrative is framed by three divine characters in its drama (2003, 195): the God of Israel, Jesus his Son, and the life-giving Spirit of God.

Agreeing with Jenson (2003, 196), Jesus should not be viewed as a mere successive mode of God’s presence in time (modalism) or as the Father’s subordinate agent with the Spirit in time (subordinationism). Instead, Jesus maintains an eternally mutual and reciprocal relationship with the Father and the Spirit. For this reason, ancient Christians used an analogy inspired by the theater, that is to say, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit although three in persona (mask) are one in Divine substance. Another model is found in Martin Buber’s I-You relationship model (McGrath 2017,179–80).

Understanding the Humanity of Jesus

What, then, goes into mapping this theological tension of the Son and the Trinity?

Mapping the nature of Jesus’ humanity—in balance with his divinity—requires great caution. The traditional doctrine of the incarnation (literally, “becoming bodily”) affirms both the full humanity of Jesus and his divinity. Any attempt to isolate what is organically interwoven in the person and work of Jesus runs a high risk of distortion.

Overcompensating to account for the humanity of Jesus has typically been met with the “stamp” of heresy. Three, in particular, are Ebionism, Arianism, and Docetism (McGrath 2017, 214–20). 

The roots of Ebionism are Jewish. It framed Jesus through the lenses of a human prophet, as called and anointed by the Holy Spirit. As a low Christology, Jesus is only a “spiritually superior” human. This does not align with the picture of his eternal pre-existence as Creator.

Plotted on another point on the map is Arianism (named after Arius), which called into question the “fully divine” and “fully human” affirmation due to an irreconcilable application of the Greek notion of divine impassability and the doctrine of the incarnation. God cannot be both changeable (fully human) and transcendent (fully divine), therefore, the incarnation strikes at the perfect nature of the one God. Jesus must therefore be a “superior created being” with nothing divine to report. This failed to account for the actual testimony of the gospels where in fact this is possible.

Meanwhile, Docetism affirmed, with its hardline separation of God and the present evil world of matter (due to its gnostic foundation), the divine incarnation of John 1:14 was nothing more than “pretend.” The heresy’s name (or tendency) is derived from the Greek word dokéō (“to seem”) affirming Jesus only “seemed” to have a body in which he suffered and died, making the incarnation “into a fake” (Placher 2003, 183). Scripturally, the work of Christ is dependent on the fully human (Luke 24:38–39) and fully divine Jesus manifested in the death of the cross and resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:3–4).

Similarly, the opening line of 1 John affirms the humanity of the “Word of Life”: “what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands” (1:1).

Likewise, in the second century CE, Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35–ca. 110) stressed his concern to the Christians of Trallia that they should guard against (“be deaf,” kōphóthēte 9.1) anything which undermines the humanity of Christ with the following words:

Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David, who was the son of Mary; who really was born, who both ate and drank; who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate, who really was crucified and died while those in heaven and on earth and under the earth look on; who, moreover, really was raised from the dead when his Father raised him up, who—his Father, that is—in the same way will likewise also raise us up in Christ Jesus who believe in him, apart from whom we have no true life. (“To the Trallians” 9.1–2)

Ignatius of Antioch, “To the Trallians” 9.1-2

The example of Ignatius is interesting because it is early and strongly affirms Jesus’ human form, “who really” (hos alethōs) an adverb repeated four times to assert what is true, actual because it corresponds to what is really so (BDAG 44). For Ignatius, Jesus actually was born, ate and drank, persecuted, crucified and died, and raised from the dead. Ignatius saw denying the humanity of Christ as subversive to the soteriological (the saving, redeeming) and eschatological (end times, fulfilling) work of Christ.

What Does This Mean?

What then does it mean for the Christian that God became flesh to redeem us in the person of Jesus Christ? Two extremes must be cautioned against here. One extreme is to moralize the life of Jesus (1 Pet 2:21), and as such reduces Jesus to a mere good teacher. Another extreme is to make Jesus’ life and teaching into a disjointed symbolic presence of God (i.e., Paul Tillich).

The humanity of Jesus provides me with a great deal of assurance as a believer that God knows through Christ the human plight. Jesus has “assumed all” and can, therefore “heal all” of humanity (Placher 2003, 184). When the “name” Immanuel (“God is with us”) is given to Jesus (Matt 1:23) the associated promise is that “he will save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21). God’s presence in the human child to be born provides a personal locus that can be isolated to time, space, and history.

For all humans, it then becomes quite clear that God is joining the human continuum to reconcile not only “us” but also “the world to himself” in Christ (2 Cor 5:18–19). Paul’s application has massive personal repercussions, 

“if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” (5:17)

The humanity of Jesus is not simply a modal expression of God, but God entering into time and space to save, forgive, reconcile, and renew humanity and creation.

It provides the seedbed to take the particular localized Jesus and affirm his enduring value for all humans for all time. As Ignatius wrote, God “will likewise also raise us up in Christ Jesus who believe in him, apart from whom we have no true life” (“To the Trallians” 9.2).

Truly, the humanity of the God-Man Jesus is relevant for the Christian’s personal walk before God because it is the seedbed for all our hopes, especially, hope for the resurrection (1 Cor 15:12–19).

Bibliography

(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, W. F. Ardnt, and F. W. Gingrich. 2000. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Ignatius. 1999. “The Letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch.” Pages 128–201 in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 2d edition. Edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

Jenson, Robert W. 2003. “Does Jesus Make a Difference? The Person and Work of Jesus Christ” Pages 191–205 in Essentials of Christian Theology. Edited by William C. Placher. Louisville, Kent: Westminster John Knox.

McGrath, Alister E. 2017. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th edition. Maldon, Ma: Wiley Blackwell.

Placher, William C. 2003. “Does Jesus Make a Difference? The Person and Work of Jesus Christ” Pages 183–91 in Essentials of Christian Theology. Edited by William C. Placher. Louisville, Kent: Westminster John Knox.

Is Jesus a Poached Egg?

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, C.S. Lewis, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Essays, Glendale Gleaner, Jesus Studies, New Testament, Published, Theology

Weird question, I know. Let me explain. This phrase is from C. S. Lewis’s classic book Mere Christianity.[1] Lewis journeyed from atheism to a believer in Jesus as the Christ. In Mere Christianity, he articulated an argument in support of the deity of Jesus commonly styled the trilemma.

Actually, Lewis’ classic argument emerges from his desire to disabuse his readers who are tempted to accept Jesus of Nazareth “as a great moral teacher” and yet reject his claims “to be God.” Lewis is very adamant, “That is the one thing we must not say.”[2] Why? The reason is simple. Jesus made claims to have divine privileges, claims to be divine, and exercised the rights of God by forgiving others of their sins.

How could we rationalize Jesus being a “great moral teacher,” Lewis argues, when he makes such claims to which places him beyond humanity? We are forced to make a decision: accept all that Jesus teaches or attempt to separate this claim to divinity from his teachings.

Decisions, We Have to Make One

At this point, the question about Jesus of Nazareth could be reduced to a dilemma. Professor Maurice Stanley explains that the “dilemma is among the most powerful forms of argument. Like the horns of a charging bull, its alternatives seem to leave you with no escape.”[3]

For example, we may argue that either Jesus is the Christ or He is just “a great moral teacher.”

If Jesus is the Christ, then his teaching is absolutely true.

If Jesus is just a great moral teacher, then his teaching is subjective.

Consequently, you are left with two alternatives: either what Jesus taught (1) is absolutely true, or (2) it is decidedly subjective (we may pick and choose).

As a dilemma, there is no both-and. If you accept one, you deny the other conclusion.

Lewis knew, however, there was a third element regarding the case of Jesus of Nazareth. It simply is not that Jesus is either the Christ or a great moral teacher. Jesus made too many claims to divinity recorded in the Gospel Accounts to leave it at those two options.

Lewis goes to see that Jesus is either one of three things.[4] Jesus is either (1) a lunatic (Lewis’s “a poached egg”), (2) a devil, or (3) the Son of God. This is the trilemma where there is no both-and-and. If you accept one, you deny the other two conclusions.

If you accept that Jesus is a lunatic, then he is the sort of man “who says he is a poached egg” — i.e, a madman.

No madman is a “great moral teacher.” Is Charlie Manson a great moral teacher? What about Jim Jones? Or, David Koresh? Hardly. These are the questions readers of the New Testament need to ask. Interestingly, we find that these questions were raised as well during the ministry of Jesus himself.

They Said, “Jesus is Beside Himself”

In Mark 3:20-21, the family of Jesus had heard that he was home in Capernaum (2:1). They rushed “to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.” [All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]

The language is very vivid. Jesus’ own family was so concerned about what people were saying about Jesus that they rushed to take him into their “protective” custody. However, certain Jerusalem scribes had already come and dismissed the exorcisms of Jesus as the work and influence of Beelzebul and “the prince of the demons” (3:22).

The text forces the question concerning Jesus: He is either (1) “out of his mind” (i.e., “a poached egg”) or (2) in cooperation with evil spirits (“a demon”). In the latter point, no one disputed the supernatural elements of the exorcisms.

In this text, Jesus responds with a third option (Mark 3:22-27). He argues that He is not cooperating with Satan, nor is Satan in a civil war against himself since his kingdom would fall apart. Instead, Jesus demonstrates his power and authority over Satan by subduing him in his own home. Jesus, then, logically argues for his superiority over the demonic and satanic world.

This passage then, which questions his sanity, demonstrates that he possesses all his mental faculties (he is not crazy) and that he is no emissary of Satan (he is no deceiver). But true to his power and authority, he is in the company and presence of the Holy Spirit (he is from God). Mark presents Jesus as mentally stable and confident in his power over evil spiritual forces.

Did Jesus Go Crazy Later?

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), an Irish playwright, once claimed that Jesus began his teaching ministry as a sane Rabbi but later after being exalted by the masses as Christ lost his mind.[5] This is not, however, the testimony of the Gospel Accounts which are of such authenticity that they could arguably be “admissible as evidence in a court of law” as true ancient eyewitness documents.[6] This is significant since the only authentic evidence for the existence of Jesus, his teaching, and his ministry are the first-century documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

But still, if a person claims to be God today, we would say they are insane. The Gospel Accounts, however, are united in their presentation that Jesus claimed both the power and the nature of God. In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus demonstrates that he not only has supernatural powers to heal a disabled man but also the prerogative and power of God to forgive sins (2:7). He then affirms, “that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins” he heals the man (2:10).

Jesus not only taught that he had this divine privilege, but he also claimed to be God in the flesh (John 1:14, 10:29-33). Furthermore, he accepted worship — a significant acceptance of an act only due to God (Matt 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; Mark 5:6-7; John 9:35-38).

When pressed about Jesus’ “I am God” claim as a demonstration that he was insane, psychologist Dr. Gary R. Collins responded that it is important to remember that “psychologists don’t just look at what a person says. They’ll go much deeper than that.”[7]

Dr. Collins sets forth four particular problems “disturbed individuals frequently show” that Jesus does not demonstrate, namely:

(1) Emotional instability.

(2) Out of touch with reality (misperceptions, paranoia, etc).

(3) Thinking disorders (e.g. cannot think logically)

(4) Demonstration of unsuitable behavior.[8]

Instead, Collins praises the emotional and mental stability of Jesus, giving his “diagnosis” as follows: “All in all, I just don’t see signs that Jesus was suffering from any known mental illness… He was much healthier than anyone else I know —including me!”[9]

The Significance of Jesus and His Resurrection

Ultimately, the Gospel Accounts emphasize the story of Jesus and his significance. This is summed up in the word “gospel” (Grk. euangelion) which means “a good tiding” or “a tiding of joy” (Matt 4:23; Mark 1:1; Luke 1:19, 4:18; John 1:11-13). Surely, the authors would not attempt to establish their gospel message upon a delusional Rabbi from a backwater city like Nazareth (John 1:46). Yet their story hangs on such an individual.

The only thing that makes Jesus’ claim to divinity (“I and the Father are one”) credible is the resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:3-5). While Lewis would ask us to choose between the three options based upon the logic of the Gospel Accounts, the real evidence lies in the resurrection of Jesus.

The strongest evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus is seen in the various conversions of those who did not believe in Jesus (James the brother of Jesus) and those who persecuted Christianity (like Saul-Paul the apostle), who was moved from being unbelievers to significant leaders of the primitive Christian faith (1 Cor 15:1-11).

Gary Habermas reminds us that the earliest belief “that they had actually seen Jesus after his death led to a radical transformation in their lives, even to the point of being willing to die for their faith.”[10] Their conversion and capacity to endure sufferings as eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus are unexplainable otherwise.

Concluding Thoughts

Similar arguments can be made from various other texts, but the present discussion should be helpful to demonstrate that Jesus is no “poached egg,” nor is he a liar. We are then led to the only true credible conclusion that Jesus is the son of God.

What will you decide based upon the evidence and testimony of the Gospel Accounts (John 20:30–31; 21:25)? As Lewis reminds us:

let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.[11]

Endnotes

  1. Clive S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (NY: Macmillan, 1952).
  2. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 56.
  3. Maurice F. Stanely, Logic and Controversy (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2002), 192.
  4. N.T. Wright critiques Lewis’ “lunatic, liar, Lord” trilemma argument, or as he rephrases it “bad or mad or God,” by observing that the argument does not take into account the pre-existing “incarnational model” of Israel in the Scriptures and consequently “drastically short-circuits the argument” (“Simply Lewis: Reflections on a Master Apologist After 60 Years,” TouchstoneMag.com). That criticism acknowledged, Lewis does provide the basic contours of the question by forcing his readers to decide if Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or Lord.
  5. Wayne Jackson calls attention to Shaw’s point of view in Jackson, Eric Lyons, and Kyle Butt, Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 2008), 175.
  6. Pamela Binnings Ewen, Faith on Trial: An Attorney Analyzes the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Nashville, TN: B&H, 1999). It has been reprinted with slight variation to the title, Faith on Trial: Analyze the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2013). The purpose of the volume is to demonstrate the credibility of the Gospel Accounts to have the internal evidence to stand up in a court of law as eyewitness documents. Ewen argues forcefully that they do. See also Simon Greenleaf, Faith on Trial: Analyze the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (1874; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1995).
  7. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 146.
  8. Strobel, The Case for Christ, 146-47.
  9. Strobel, The Case for Christ, 147.
  10. G. Habermas, To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, eds. Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, James P. Moreland (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 189.
  11. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 56.

This is a reformatted and slightly expanded version of the article which originally published in The Glendale Gleaner (Newbern, TN: Glendale church of Christ).

So Close: Jesus, the Pharisees, and His Divinity (Luke 5)

On By Jovan PayesIn Apologetics, Articles, Christian Evidences, Christology, Gospel, Luke, New TestamentLeave a comment

By the language of the text, it appears to have been an average day during the Lord’s ministry in Galilee. The multitudes had flocked to the Good Master wishing to hear him speak and to request him to heal their infirmities. In this particular case, the Lord was teaching in a house and a paralyzed man was dropped down through the roof by his inventive and determined friends.

They trusted that Jesus could heal him, but it seems safe to ponder that they did not expect the Lord’s gracious response. Luke chronicles the narrative in the following manner:

And behold, some men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they were seeking to bring him in and lay him before Jesus, but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said, "Man, your sins are forgiven you." (Luke 5:18-20 ESV)

The Lord’s first response was to give the paralyzed man a pardon. Jesus canceled the man’s transgressions. He overrode the situation and removed the burden of the man’s sins. What a profound event!

Many today wonder why the Lord forgave the man of his spiritual infirmities first, instead of meeting the principal need for which the man was brought – physical restoration. It could be the case that He had already intended to substantiate his Divine claims to forgive sins by means of a miracle, but we simply do not know why with any degree of absolute certainty.

In some sense, the question is irrelevant because the Lord’s activities are interrupted by the scribes and Pharisees. This gives rise to a unique situation where the Lord boldly argues for and asserts His Divine prerogative to forgive sins.

We continue Luke’s narrative:

And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" When Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answered them, "Why do you question in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the man who was paralyzed—"I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home." (Luke 5:21-24)

The miracle was immediate, the crowd was amazed, and the scribes and the Pharisees received an answer they would never forget – Jesus of Nazareth possess the ability and right to forgive sins!

On the Divinity of Christ

Tremendous amounts of energy and ink have been spent discussing the Divinity of Christ. The canonical documents are quite clear as to the Lord’s divinity. John 1:1-3 describes the existence of the Word, who was the agent to create the universe at the beginning (Gen 1:1; cf. 1 John 1.1). In conjunction with these thoughts are the words of John 1:14 that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (cf. Phil 2:5-10). The divine Word has made a human and his habitation was among mankind: he was a living and breathing human (in form and substance) capable of dying.

Paul speaks of the supremacy of Christ by saying that in Jesus the universe stands in “perfect equilibrium,” for in him it is “held together” (Col 1:17; Grk. sunistemi). If Jesus pre-existed in eternity, and then became human, and lived a human life in preparation for his divine ministry, it is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus incorporates the miraculous in His ministry. And though we cannot precisely and neatly slice Jesus into his divine and human sides, this is the great mystery of God in the flesh (1 Tim 3.16).

Yet for some who initially beheld his ministry, this was difficult to absorb. The scribes and the Pharisees, the noted Jewish leaders of the day, heard the words of Jesus, “your sins are forgiven you,” and immediately cataloged His action as blasphemous. How did they come to this conclusion? They properly reasoned “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” If Jesus is the son of Joseph and Mary, then it is logical to assume that Jesus is only human.

They were so close! The presupposition of the scribes and Pharisees is correct. Their working knowledge of biblical data and their perception of the situation is, at face value, true. This act of Jesus of Nazareth was therefore viewed as an arrogant hostile takeover of the prerogative of God (Exod 10:17, 32:31-33; Jer 31:34, etc.).[1]

Had Jesus simply been a mere mortal, they would be completely correct; however, they were dealing with a unique situation – Jesus is no mere mortal. He is the “Everlasting Father” (Isa 9:6), a Hebrew idiom meaning that he has an eternal existence (Micah 5:2; John 1:1).[2] Jesus is Immanuel, which means God among us (Matt 1:21-23). The Lord forgave the paralyzed man of his sins because He had the authority to do so. His authority is derived from His Divinity.

Was Jesus a Moralist?

Many have stumbled and erred regarding the nature of Jesus. To some, he is a great teacher, one that should stand at the top of the world’s “Top 10” of most influential religious leaders of human existence. They over-emphasize his humanity and praise his ethical and moral teachings (e.g. the golden rule). However, they cannot view him as a wonderful teacher of ethics and morals and at the same time deny his claims to divinity.

He was not a mere moralist who “inherited” and “perfected” a preexisting moral tradition from the Jews! And those who are so persuaded to think of Jesus in this light, C. S. Lewis stressed the inconsistency of this view:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [in his teaching and about himself] would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that [option] open to us. He did not intend to.[3]

We believe that the Pharisees and Scribes held a similar view that many hold  – that Jesus was a just great teacher. They were so close, but still so tragically far away from the real nature of God-Man Jesus.

Are You Close, or Yet so Far?

What will you do with Jesus? How will you view his teaching? His claims to Divinity? His claim to be your Redeemer? You will make a decision either way – actively or inactively – and that decision will ripple its effects in the deepest crevices of your life. Again, we ponder over this decision with the words of Mr. Lewis:

We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.[4]

The is a passage in the Gospel accounts that is often nicknamed “the Great Invitation.” It is in Matthew 11.28-30. In it, Jesus invites all who believe in him and his teaching.

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

He promises that the life that he promises stems from his gentle and lowly heart, and promises rest for your soul. Someone has wonderfully said, that in verse 30 the pressure to successfully live out the teaching of Jesus “fits just right” according to each person’s burdens. We finally ask you: will you come so close to the truth of Jesus and his claims to divinity, or will come so close but yet stand so far off from the good life he promises. The answer is left in your hands. God bless you to do the right thing.

Endnotes

  1. Note: Special thanks to Dr. Earl D. Edwards, Head of the Freed-Hardeman University Graduate School of Bible, for introducing me to this observation in a Bible class. It is not enough to simply observe that the Pharisees and scribes were wrongly charging the Lord with blasphemy, we must also appreciate that they had correctly reasoned that a human did not have this right or power – this was the sole possession of God.
  2. Wayne Jackson, Isaiah: God’s Prophet of Doom and Deliverance (Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1991), 25.
  3. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, rev. ed. (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 52 (emphasis added).
  4. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 53 (emphasis added).