Some people avidly assert that Jesus is God and tend to be suspicious of anyone who has reservations about that statement. In some circles that phrase is practically a shibboleth.
Personally I am not comfortable with that statement because I think it condenses a complex truth so laconically that it leaves itself open to significant misunderstanding. But on the other hand I reject the opposite statement (viz. "Jesus is not God") because I believe Jesus is uncreated, self-existent, transcendent, worthy of divine honour, etc.
I am struggling to get a handle on why it is unsatisfactory to say "Jesus is God", and I would like to be able to explain it more articulately to people who glibly say "Jesus is God" as though it were a simple, self-explanatory definition that needs no circumscribing. Maybe it is contrary to the principles of emergent theology to try to analyse and define things systematically, but I am hoping your responses to this thread may give me some useful new insights for my own spiritual growth and also to help me communicate effectively with others.
Thank you in advance … Phil
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
My opinion on this is that the "Jesus is God" proposition is innapropriate (or inconfortable) because "is" is used here as an identity and, in the case of "Jesus is God", two of the properties of identity are violated :
But, hey, if you accept the outcomes of the two properties over the "Jesus is God" statement, then there is no problem.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
Phil’s question attracts me - for similar reasons to the discussion elsewhere about different words or terms we use to describe or address Jesus. There are bound to be different reasons why, for different people, the phrase ‘Jesus is God’ is unsatisfactory.
Those wanting a purely human Jesus would object for obvious reasons.
Those wanting a narrative/historical based theology might object that the phrase does not do justice to the historical narrative in which our understanding of Jesus needs to be couched, but instead wrenches him out of context and places him in the realm of timeless abstract truths.
For myself, the problem might be that the phrase suggests a unitary God, and does not do justice to ‘God’ as redefined by the NT scriptures, in which the roles of Father, Son and Spirit together play their parts in constituting the divine being. (Or maybe the divine ‘doing’ - since the NT seems to emphasize function more than essence). Jesus himself brought about this redefinition.
But in practice - does it matter too much? If I were explaining my faith to a non-believer, there has to be a practical shorthand, and for me, ‘Jesus is God’ would be a simpler way of saying something much more complicated - to get more quickly to the key points I would want to convey, which are to do with how Jesus can change our lives. (He couldn’t do that if he wasn’t God!)
I would rather take a shortcut like this than get tangled up in the theological undergrowth - for the sake of getting to the clear vistas which would be my object.
The rhetoric of 'Jesus is God'
‘Jesus is God’ does not have to be a simple statement of identity analogous to the statement ‘Angela Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany’, in which case these two violations (transitivity and symmetry) are irrelevant.
‘Jesus is God’, in the first place, is not a biblical statement so there is no biblical context within which to interpret it. It arose, presumably, either as a confessional statement or as a summary of a complex theological debate. In either case, in order to understand how it functions rhetorically we would need to bring into focus the rhetorical context in which it was used. For example, as resistance to the ‘confession’ that ‘Caesar is god’; or as a redefinition of the perceived nature of God; or as a slogan marking the culmination of conciliar debate. In other words, it is a mistake to read it as a purely logical statement of identity. The narrative substructure is not superseded by the more convenient encapsulation but must remain a visible and dynamic part of its meaning.
We are stuck with the fact that we have no simple, single coherent account of who Jesus was in relation to God. We have layered accounts: a historical layer, an eschatological-apocalyptic layer, a confessional-doxological layer, a dense, tangled theological layer, a mystical layer, a practical, reductive evangelistic layer, and so on. I suppose the challenge we face is to allow these layers of discourse about Jesus to be much more transparent to each other. I don’t think that in the long run we will be helped by simplistic evangelistic summaries that are opaque to history or narrative or confession or theology.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
I think we have to be careful of two catagory mistakes, mistakes of nature and person.
Transitivity. Jesus is being set equal with the nature of God. Jesus is also set equal with the nature of man - fully God and fully man. We should not make the mistake of setting the two natures equal to each other. It is a mystery that Jesus has two natures, not a violation of transitivity.
Symmetry. To be clear I think it will help to expand terms, so to speak. The Person Jesus is the nature of God. So, the nature of God is the Person Jesus. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). By the expanding of terms you can see how important the "of" is. It conveys that there is more to God than God’s nature, which is the mystery of the Trinity.
May this only serve to teach and not to confuse. God bless each of you in His Son Jesus.
http://www.livebythecross.com
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
Hi Phil,
my suggestion to your comment would be to call Jesus the son of God. How does this feel to you? I personally feel like you that both, ‘Jesus is God’ and ‘Jesus is not God’ doesn’t really sit. But why use language that the NT didn’t use? Why not go back to the expressiions we know about Christ? Doesn’t the term ‘son of God’ say so much? Why do people feel the need for further definitions?
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
In a literal sense I would say "no". The "fully man, fully God" view is more than I can intellectually accept. But I do equate Jesus with God in the following ways:
Jesus was someone in agreement with God’s objectives so when I say I believe Jesus and agree with him I am agreeing with God. So in that way Jesus = God.
You could say Jesus and God are one and the same in a similar way that my wife and I are one and the same. I feel we are inseparable and bound through mutual vows for all time.
Jesus is the "son of God" meaning he is someone speaking on behalf of God or conducting business as a representative of God or in the authority of God as a son would represent his father in his absence during a business transaction.
I see Jesus as a person embodying the nature of God’s character. I don’t accept the notion of him being a literally physical offspring of God. A person being a physical offspring of the spiritual force is very "greek/roman god-like" and not really something I could accept.
God is love and Jesus was definitely a walking exhibit of love so in that way you could say Jesus is God. I also think that any of us could be said to be "God" in this way. What I mean by that is an extension of how Jesus showed us to love God by serving others. So for us the "others" we serve become like a surrogate for God as we serve them and we become like a surrogate for God to those we serve. In the same way Jesus said, "whatever you do for the least of these you have done for me". So in this way God is more than a being living "out there in heaven" and Jesus is so much more than the man that lived in the first century because he continues to live and serve through us as we live and serve for him.
I think when we speak of Jesus as the "incarnation" of God or "physical body" of God it is similar to the metaphor of the church being the body of Christ. We are Christ’s body when we live out his vision and mission just as Jesus was God’s body as he delivered God’s message and God’s love in a physical way.
Jesus is God... yes & no!
Many thanks Varsenault, Peter, Paul, and Danutz for sharing your thoughts. Each of you has helped me in different ways. I would like to make a few responses below, but if I don’t respond to a particular thing you said, it’s not necessarily because I think it’s insignificant. I value all your comments and I am learning from each one of you.
Hi Varsenault … Your comments are extremely useful in clarifying the issue. That was exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for. Many thanks.
Hi Peter … You gave a very helpful overview of different perspectives. Thank you for giving the wider picture.
I agree this question is not too important in practice when speaking to a non-believer. But I am specially trying to equip myself to articulate helpfully with believers who regard ‘Jesus is God’ as the first & last word on the subject and don’t bother to work through the logical implications.
Why do you think Jesus emphasized divine function more than divine essence? Was it because he wanted us to adopt the same focus, or was he merely accommodating himself to the thought forms of his own culture (like speaking about the sun rising)?
I would like to use something you said, Peter, to make a slight digression. My point is not aimed at you in particular because you were not necessarily aligning yourself with this view. You wrote:
Those wanting a narrative/historical based theology might object that the phrase [‘Jesus is God’] does not do justice to the historical narrative in which our understanding of Jesus needs to be couched, but instead wrenches him out of context and places him in the realm of timeless abstract truths.
With respect to everyone here, I confess I don’t yet see the point of emphasizing narrative/historical theology over modern systematic abstract theology.
I believe God’s being is independent of his creation. I believe the Trinity exists from everlasting to everlasting as the only uncreated being. He had the choice of remaining the only entity in existence, a complete and self-subsistent community of three, relating to one another in perpetual love, joy, and harmony. But instead, he freely chose to create sentient beings in his own image, to whom he revealed himself and with whom he wishes to share his love and joy. Something went wrong but he has intervened by means of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus to inaugurate a renewed community consisting of God and man relating together in perpetual love, joy, and harmony.
I believe God stepped into our world in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. This historical event shows us God’s nature more clearly than any other form of his revelation. But if we use the historical narrative as our frame of reference for understanding God, won’t we end up with a distorted view? For example, watching me play chess will tell you something about certain aspects of my personality, but you wouldn’t get a balanced picture of my whole being, because only certain traits would arise during the playing of a game of chess. Different activities call forth different sides to a person’s character. The narrative/historical approach focuses on those attributes of God that happened to become manifest in the course of his involvement with his creation. But since his creation is not an intrinsic part of his existence, then it seems to me that a more balanced view of the whole nature of God would be to try to distil timeless, abstract truths from the data we have, in order to see him as a complete and self-subsistent community of three, independent of any other existence.
Some Christians describe God as:
the Father who is the Creator
Jesus who is the Redeemer
the Spirit who is the Helper
That describes the way we might experience God but it is a very egocentric view. And it is erroneous because the members of the Trinity do not have mutually exclusive job roles. But anyway, the idea of Jesus as Redeemer describes what the second person of the Trinity has done in history but it does not describe the second person of the Trinity as he exists independently of the creation - as the person who would have existed if there was no work of redemption to be done.
Hi Paul … it’s good to hear from you again. You asked: Why use language that the NT didn’t use? Well, perhaps the NT didn’t use that language but it did come tantalizingly close on a few occasions (e.g. John 1:1, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13).
I feel the phrase ‘Son of God’ has its own ambiguities. It means different things to different people. To some it surely indicates deity, but to others (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims) it proves that Jesus is not God: “Phil is the son of Tony – therefore Phil is not Tony.” Have you encountered these different interpretations by other people?
Hi Danutz … I agree wholeheartedly with all your points. I think point 5 is especially important and something I tend to overlook. However, my own take on Jesus is that the New Testament data points to an ontological unity between God and Jesus in addition to them having shared goals & characteristics. For example, I cannot understand how the exaltation of Jesus in Philippians 2:9-11 increases God’s glory rather than eclipses it unless they are ontologically one. The NT never hints at any rivalry between God and Jesus, which strikes me as strange if they are totally distinct beings.
Respect and thanks to all … Phil
PS. Any more comments from anyone would be much appreciated.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
I largely agree with your comments, Phil; I only differ perhaps on two points,
First, the lenses we have been given to view God are the lenses of the biblical narrative. The way in which God has chosen to relate to us is the only means we have to understand him. In addition, he accommodates himself to our understanding through these means - through language, imagery and metaphor. We can’t step out of our human experience to understand God.
The lenses point beyond narrative pure and simple, however. And here something almost inexplicable happens. Through his interaction with mankind, something new in the nature of God is revealed - which is like shining the light of the God of Israel through the prism of the events surrounding the history of Jesus, and a threefold refracted light emerges.
Further, because of Jesus’s incarnation, and earthly history leading to his ascension, there is now a man in heaven, sharing in the divine being. I don’t see that God withdrew this human identification within the nature of Jesus. So something about the nature of God has changed for ever, following the earthly history of Jesus.
So for these various reasons, we don’t have an abstract set of lenses through which to view God. The lenses we have been given are those of God’s involvement in history, in time and space. And that involvement in history itself affected the identity of the divine being - abstract theology alone would fail to take account of the historical developments which have affected our experience and understanding of God forever.
I mentioned a distinction between God’s ‘being’ (or essence), and how we understand him through what he does, because it seems to me too that this latter is how the bible describes him. Paul’s explanations of God in the letters tend to have a practical function - how the new covenant works - rather than satisfying metaphysical enquiry. So the trinity is never presented as an abstract doctrine, but becomes a practical necessity in describing how believers are brought into relationship with God and participation in his renewed people.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
There was an interesting point in there about our lenses to see God. You made a statement about the lenses that we were "given". I rather feel that the lenses we have to view God are of our own design. We have designed religions to speak about the unspeakable and describe the indescribable. We write our own characters into sacred texts to help us share our understanding of God. We use the language of religion to help us speak about something that doesn’t have tangible qualities. We project personification on the creative force so we can have relationship with "him" and talk to "him". All religions have different images of God. None of them are going to be absolutely "correct" but our own will feel more comfortable to us and others will feel uncomfortable as I’m sure you are uncomfortable reading my words.
So I do see the bible as a lens to view God but it is our creative lens. Actually I see it as 2 distinct lenses; one of ancient isreal (OT) and one of 1st century Christianity (NT). Each lens has it’s own origin and distinct coloring about God’ nature. Both could not be absolutely correct because they differ, but both were useful to their respective cultures.
This point you make of the image of God or lens of God leads to the age old "did God make us or did we make God" debate. I believe God made us but we also must form our own image of him becasue we can’t physically "see" or "know" him in a physical way.
Peter, I guess you are someone that sees the bible as something God gave us to reveal himself and you see your own image of God as THE ONLY true image of God. Is that accurate? I don’t mean to put words in your mouth but that is what I seem to understand as the underlying reasoning for your statements. Your statements make some logical sense IF you start from that assumption (I don’t personnally make that assumption).
I said all of that to make the simple point that another way to describe the relationship between God and Jesus is; Jesus was a human lens for seeing God.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
danutz - I didn’t quite mean the bible was given in the sense of a package preconceived in heaven - but as a set of documents describing a unique history.
However, I do think, probably like you, that there are many ways in which we can see God. He is not confined to the bible. The bible does however describe a unique interaction of God with mankind in human history. He did it that way and not any other way. Isn’t it called somewhere the scandal of particularity? It would be much more in keeping with a democratic, consensual age if God had allowed for many different ways of knowing him in different religious systems.
Right at the centre of this history is Christ. It’s not just that he provided a way of ‘seeing’ God or ‘knowing’ him (or even reflecting God to the world by obeying his teaching), but he fulfilled God’s historical purposes. It was he who did that, and not anybody else!
Nevertheless, I’m attracted in your posts to the refreshing emphasis on ethics put into practice. It’s not just a question of talking about who God is, but how He can be mediated. But I’m interested to know how far you can get doing the ethics without personally incorporating the supernatural realities to which they testify. I’d think there was something incomplete about that.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
However you communicate it, the context of the discussion has to play a large part in what is said. For instance, in my setting there is no real awareness of what or who God is. I doubt there’s even a real understanding of what spirituality means. But there is a desire for a full and meaningfull life. There is a desire for harmonious family life. There is a desire for community that is safe and welcoming.
Thus, "Jesus is God" would instead be better said as "Jesus and God are one" (ie John 17) and then talk about relationship and community etc. Then the whole "May they be one…" stuff could be used to talk about what it measn to be one with God. Can we do it in the same way as Jesus. And so on…
I personally have no problem in believing that Jesus is God. But theological discussion has to evolve from the context, and a simple satement like those three words are a bit too ‘out there’ for the people I see.
Matt
http://www.mattglover.com
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
This discussion sounds an awful lot like the one we had in seminary regarding the Lord’s Supper/Communion/Eucharist when we considered how Christ was present. We could all agree that Christ is present, but that’s where the debate started and communion ended. It seems to me the emerging church is trying to create a space where we can all agree that "Christ is present" and celebrate that, the rest can be chalked up to mystery and/or sacrificed for the sake of unity.
So, in the emerging church, can’t we say "Jesus is God" and celebrate that? Can’t we chalk the rest up to mystery and/or sacrifice the rest of the sake of unity?
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
Peter, how can you suggest that God didn’t allow for other ways of knowing him? Are you suggesting that for example Ghandi or other highly spiritual people in other faiths don’t "know God"?
I have a relatively new friend that is a self-proclaimed atheist. I’ve been able to share my faith with him and he has warmed to the idea of God, but the reality is that I could tell he already knew God from the moment I met him. I could tell he knew God by the way he loved his wife and son. I could see him living the kingdom of Jesus by the way he accepted me and cared for others around him. He already "got it" more than most Christians. There were dozens of "God moments" we shared in conversation even though we didn’t mention God and he didn’t know the story of Jesus at all. So just because someone doesn’t know about God or Jesus doesn’t mean they don’t know God. For that reason I have to realize that there is more than one way to know God.
Christianity and the Bible may be THE way that you and I came to know God and that is why we embrace it, but that may not be so for everyone. This is why emergent needs to embrace a hint of religious pluralism to succeed beyond just developing into another denomination. I applaud the fact that Mclaren and other emergents are joining with emergent Jews in discussion as well as looking for emergents in many different faiths. http://emergent-us.typepad.com/emergentus/2005/12/emergent_christ.html
Matt, I agree with you that people desire the life described by Jesus but struggle with the terms we tend to use. They want the kingdom, but if the only way we present the kingdom is through mentions of the divinity of Jesus, supernatural acts, or literal afterlife then it isn’t accepted.
Pete, I don’t think you can just dismiss the effect of terms on the ability to reach people.
The flip side of your comment is "Can’t we just STOP saying Jesus is God for the sake of unity and get on with living the lifestyle of Jesus?"
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
I think it is possible that we are going to see at least two strands of emergent church emerging: one that is focussed on maintaining communion with the wider evangelical church on the the terms of the wider church, and one that seeks only authenticity and relates to others on its own terms. I see a role for both, as the evangelical church will only be redeemed by those who will put their name on the bottom of lots of statements of faith that say “of the same substance” and all that other stuff. At the same time, it is those seeking authenticity above all else and who will not simplify their faith to a creed who will always be the trail blazers and who the wider church will make suffer for their faith. I don’t mean either of these categories to be judgement statements, as historically God has worked through both of these groups.
My big question is whether the “main stream” emergents will claim brotherhood with “fringe” emergents, or whether they will distance themselves for the sake of acceptability in the “main stream” church. I think this may be the litmus test of whether the emergent church is a genuine redemptive movement or just another fad.
Can we genuinely say “yes” and “no” and maintain our unity?
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
"Can’t we just stop saying Jesus is God for the sake of unity and get on with living the lifestyle of Jesus?"
I want to say no to this mostly because "Jesus is God" is such a central part of the tradition in which I find myself. If we stop saying that I wonder if we stop being part of the tradition. Now, if all we can agree on with regard to the phrase is that Jesus should be looked to and modeled in every way, then that’s the end of it. We celebrate that and trust that it is enough. I must admit I feel a lot of anxiety saying that because there is a lot more I’d like the phrase to mean, but I also have to admit that we can’t ever really be certain. It’s more important to me that many people experience the abundant life God desires for the world (which is as much about today as it is for eternity).
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
But don’t you think, Pastor Pete, leaving open if Jesus is God or what ithis phrase exactly means would put us in a much wider tradition of Christianity; one that also includes christians between the 1 st and 4 th century, when the majority of christians would have had a different view of the ‘Jesus is God’ definition as it is common today? I just hope the ‘emergent’ movement would have enough courage to include also those brothers and sisters that largely actually evangelized Europe and were later persecuted for their faith by the new kind of christians after the nicean council. I am not suggesting a certain theological perspective here rather than acknowledging a broad christian tradition.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
Pastor Pete, I appreciate your reflections in response to the
question. Here are some additional thoughts, primarily focused on the
trinity and Christ’s role. Obviously, I write from a trinitarian
perspective that upholds the view of God as being a three-in-one union of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and
not 3 individually functioning entities. While I recognize I may be applying too much of a trinitarian spin on this question (especially since it was raised as debate maneuver of reversing the original question), I do believe the ramifications of such a question need to be taken into consideration.
"Can’t we just stop saying Jesus is God for the sake of unity and get on with living the lifestyle of Jesus?"
"For the sake of unity." I certainly cannot understand how no longer saying Jesus is God is going to help bring unity. If we stop saying Jesus is God, what do we do with passages such as John 10:30, John 14:9, John 17:21, Genesis 1:26 (God speaking man into creation says "Let US (plural) create man and woman…)? How do we interpret these Scriptures if Jesus is not God? What are we to do with the plural words and constructs these Scriptures elude to? By no longer saying Jesus is God, I cannot see how unity would be accomplished.
Furthermore, of what value is unity if Jesus is not God? Genesis 1:27 says that God created man, male and female he created them. (I realize there is a sudden shift in pronouns from ‘we’ in v. 26 and ‘he’ in v. 27… just stay with me.) God created man and woman to become one, or, echad (Genesis 2:24). Echad symbolizes the fusion of entities into one. In Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema), the same word is used of God: "The Lord our God is one [echad]). My point is that God created mankind as two distinctly different entities - male and female - and yet we both make up mankind, and male and female were designed to become one. John 17:21 says "21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you" I have a hard time comprehending what unity would look like if we say Jesus is not God!Get on living the lifestyle of Jesus: Again, let me reference John 10:30 and John 17:21. If we are to live the lifestyle of Jesus, wouldn’t that require us to be one (John 17:21), just as Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30)? Is this not the lifestyle of Jesus? How can we truly embody the lifestyle of Jesus if He is not God?
Just some thoughts. My questions are not written as rhetorical devices; I really would appreciate responses to some or all of them. I would be interested to hear how these Scriptures are interpreted by one who does not view Jesus as being God.
Ben
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
"Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us." - from The Definition of the Faith of the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)
Does that help? If not, why not?
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
David, i’m not sure I know what you are trying to suggest. Are you saying you agree with that statement or using it to show how odd the concept of the trinity really is?
I would say it not only doesn’t help, but it is that type of language and fuzzy logic that causes the confusion.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
i kind of like Slavoj Zizek’s take on it. Basically, he equates God with being the "wholly other" of humans. Then, he takes Jesus as being "wholly other" of God. Through this "not either", Jesus becomes both.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
I agree with the Definition of Faith. Phil’s objection that "[the statement that "Jesus is God"] condenses a complex truth so laconically that it leaves itself open to significant misunderstanding" is answered by the bishops at Chalcedon, when they clarify that Jesus is "consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood." In other words, the Fathers do not simply say "Jesus is God," but they explain that Jesus is of the same stuff as God the Father (thus, also God), and of the same stuff as we humans, "of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting." Of course, before he assumed flesh, Christ was, as Phil notes, "uncreated, self-existent, transcendent, worthy of divine honor, etc." And he remained these things after he became perfect man and was glorified.
Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that the Virgin Mary gave birth not to the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - but to the divine Logos, or Word, of God, who is believed to be the second Person of the Trinity. Furthermore, since Christ is called the Word, and since St. John the Apostle clearly states in the opening chapter of his Gospel that in the beginning "the Word was God" (John 1:1), it seems pretty evident from Scripture that Christ, as the pre-existent Word, was and is God. Maybe such a bold statement needs to be amplified, but as a central tenant of the Christian faith it certainly doesn’t need to be hastily dismissed. Especially when there are two thousand years of Church teaching to consider:
You might want to check out the rest of the fourth gospel, the three letters of St. John and his Apocalypse. All are filled with language used about Christ that elsewhere in Scripture is reserved only for deity. Hmm. Also, don’t forget to read On The Incarnation by St. Athanasius the Great - it’s another one of those writings that argues for the crazy notion that Jesus is God.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
Hi David Richards,
thanks for your post. I am not sure, however, what you are trying to say. I am familiar with this creed. I was talking about christianity between the 1st and the 4th century. A creed from AD 451 doesn’t necessarily reflect the tradition of christians a couple of centuries before.
thanks
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
Paul Chen:
For Christianity between the 1st and the 4th century, I can do no better than to reiterate the fourth Gospel, the first Johannine epistle, the Apocalyse, and On The Incarnation by St. Athanasius. Why should we assume that the 5th century bishops at Chalcedon believed anything different than Christians before them, when the Definition of Faith they formulated drew upon the previous five hundred years of tradition?
A closer study of history and the church’s doctrinal development is in order before we just wave off Christ’s divinity. There is a reason that Christians believed this before. They were not stupid and the Holy Spirit did not leave them in the dark.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
Dear David,
thank you for your reply. Maybe I should have been a bit more precise with the timeframe ‘between the 1st and 4th century’.I am interested here in christianity of the 2nd and 3rd century. After the NT was written, and before the great ‘Arian’ conflict started in the 4th century. It is not my intention here to discuss biblical evidence of the trinity in the NT but to point out that there has been an amazing majority of christians in the 2nd and 3rd century AD that has not been trinitarian the way St. Athanasius has been. It is difficult to exactly reconstruct in which ways 2nd and 3rd century christians have through about the ‘trinity’, since this obviousely has not been a topic of discussion for them. To assume that they have all been ‘trinitarian’, however, is hard to uphold. It seems that St. Athanasius position has been a ‘lone voice’ at the time, which just shows how many christian dioceses throughout the christian world have been of a different view about the nature of Christ.
My point here is not to argue for or against Athanasius’ position rather than show that there have been christians in the 2nd of 3rd century that I hope we could accept as part of our christian tradition.
Jesus is God... yes & yes!
A couple things, Paul:
First, I notice that you keep narrowing the timeframe for the documents you will accept. The Chalcedonian Definition of Faith came too late - the fifth century to be exact - to be considered trustworthy; then, the Johannine literature and St. Athanasius are ruled out because the former is biblical (and you want extra-biblical evidence that early Christians believe in the divinity of Christ) and the latter is, again, too late. So now we are down to the Christianity of the second and third centuries, which isn’t any different than the Christianity of the first, fourth, and fifth centuries. But nevermind that. What will happen if I substantively prove that second and third century Christian writings teach that Christ is divine? Will we then start looking to the heretics for answers? Your tactics appear suspect to me.
The question that needs answering is: if the Holy Spirit was sent to lead and guide the community believers into all truth as Christ promised He would be in the Gopsel of John, then why didn’t the laity eventually reject St. Athanasius’s teaching and Chalcedonian Christology? Surely, if this was a corruption of their faith, the common people would have risen up in protest. And if you think it has never happened, the Council of Florence is an excellent example of how much power the laity hold when it comes to preserving their faith. The people of the Eastern Orthodox Church overthrew their bishops, who all but one had signed an agreement with the Roman Catholic Church that the people would not accept. So yes, St. Athanasius was exiled several times during his life, but his explanation of Scripture and Christ’s divinity eventually prevailed. This is actually stronger proof that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to wage war on Arianism, since from his life we know that he was not arguing for money or power, of which he had little to none.
Let us leave the Trinitarian debate for another time. If you want evidence from the second century that Christians held to Christ’s divinity, read some St. Irenaeus or St. Justin Martyr. When time permits, I may post excerpts showing that they believed and taught that Christ is God. The Chalcedonian Definition of Faith was merely "following the holy Fathers" in this respect. I will repeat: What about the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith is inadequate to understand who Jesus was, is and continues to be? Christians long ago worked through this issue under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so why not draw from their godly wisdom? This belief that Jesus is God has too much history behind it to simply be dismissed by a few guys who think they know better than the two thousand year consensus of an entire community. I still maintain that careful historical study of the early Church’s teaching and the doctrinal development of Christianity is required in order for us to grapple with such a central question. For now, I will leave this Scripture for your consideration:
"For to which of the angels did He [the Father] ever say: ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You’? And again: ‘I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son’? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: ‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’ And of the angels He says: ‘Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.’ But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.’" - Hebrews 1:5-9
Re: Jesus is God... yes & yes!
thank you, David, for your response. I didn’t mean to narrow down the timeframe. In my understanding saying ‘between the 1st and 4th century’ didn’t include the first nor the 4 th century, but obviousely my assuption wasn’t what you had understood and therfore I wanted to make it more clear what it ment for me. That’s all.
Here is the reason why for this discussion the 1st and 4th century don’t serve my purpose: both centuries have well documented writings about the relationship between God and Christ. I am looking into the time between; the time I have not found much writing about it. Writings that could show me how christians thought and what was important for them. My assumption is, that they were not trinitarian the way St. Athanasius was, but please help me with references to explore this matter.
So thank you for your hint about St. Irenaeus and Justin the Martyr. If you find the time, I would appreciate any excerpt you could give me from those fathers for consideration.
thank you!
answer to David Richards
David,
After taking some time and thoughts about what you said I would like to respond to some of the things you have said. I would like to do that in a spirit of learning and sharing.
you say:’So now we are down to the Christianity of the second and third
centuries, which isn’t any different than the Christianity of the
first, fourth, and fifth centuries.’
I have followed your advise and have spent many hours reading about the fathers. I have done that in the past also, but this time especially of what concerns the trinity. I agree with you wholeheartedly that from the beginning all have confirmed that Jesus is God. But this can’t be said without qualifying it. This statement ‘Jesus is God’, in my opinion, has had different meanings to different church fathers at different times. Differences in opinion between fathers like Tertullian, Tatian, Origenes and others seemed to me mainly in the following areas: if there was a beginning of the Logos, or Christ, or not; if Christ is subordinate to the father or not, if Christ is taken of the substance of God as a part or not. In my eyes there is definitely a progress or development visible. So in this I would actually disagree with you that christianity in the 5th century wasn’t ‘any different’ to those in the 2nd and 3rd century.
One could go in lenghty details about this, I am sure, and I partly also do not feel scholarly enough to do that; I should leave that up to others and I am sure you know more about the fathers than I do. But I did come across a quotation from the New Catholic Encyclopedia says that seems to confirm this line of thinking:
"There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualifications. New Testament exegesis is now accepted as having shown that not only the verbal idiom but even the patterns of thought characteristic of the patristic and concilian development would have been quite foreign to the mind and culture of the New Testament writers." "Trinity, Holy," pp. 295-305.
About St. Athanasius you write: ‘…he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to wage war on Arianism…’ I honestly doubt that the Holy Spirit would wage war on anyone. The sad thing is that the word ‘war’ is to be understood quite literally, and was not just aimed on some sort of ‘..ism’, but on real people. Following the Nicene creed, for example, the two bishops that did not sign it were expelled; all non - orthodox writings were to be burned with a thread of death penalty for those who kept them. One might say it was the emperor and not the church; but it was hardly different after the Chalcedonian council which threatened all those with persecution and loss of property who didn’t comply with the creed. In the light of this, your questions ‘Surely, if this was a corruption of their faith, the common people would have risen up in protest’ sounds a bit ironical. And this does not just concern the lay people. There was imposed enourmous pressure on the bishops that came to the creed called in by Constantine, to sign the creed. Eusebius of Nicodemia writes later: ‘We committed an impious act, O Prince’, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you’.
If I read Galatians 5,22 about the fruits of the Spirit; I don’t think it is unreasonable to apply some sort of caution towards the outcome of such councils.
you write: ‘I still maintain that careful historical study of the early
Church’s teaching and the doctrinal development of Christianity is
required in order for us to grapple with such a central question.’ I wholeheartedly agree with you!
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
It doesn’t help me.
I accept the Bible as authoritative. I accept the truth of statements such as "I and the Father are one" and "Before Abraham was I am." My problem is that I’m not really sure what they mean. I ponder in what ways Jesus and the Father are one…ruling out some, finding others close to meaningless, deciding some are probably true as far as they go. Perhaps this is all too psychological, but I am willing to say that "Jesus and God are one" or "Before Abraham was Jesus is" or "the Word that was with God was God and became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ"—if for some reason someone will find that satisfying.
My further problem is in formulations of just what this all adds up to. Just because I have reached no assured conclusion in my own thinking does not mean I find the conclusions of others more readily understandable. In fact, I find the language of the councils incomprehensible. I’m sure I don’t know exactly what they mean by "nature," "person," "substance," "begotten," etc. And while I submit to the authority of the New Testament—even when I don’t always understand what it means—I do not ascribe that same level of authority to the councils. And it seems to me they go beyond the clear words of Scripture—making deductions and inferences which may be valid but are not, to my thinking, necessary.
If it ends up being true that Jesus Is God in the way the councils defined (and again I don’t understand that way), then fine. But, like the Jews and Muslims, I feel caution in leaving the safety of "God is One." I don’t feel that the New Testament requires me to accept a concilar Trinitarian formula, even if they are in fact True. I confess Jesus is Lord, my Lord and Lord of all. Here rests my hope of salvation in this world and the world to come.
What Catholics think about this discussion
You can read some Catholic reflections on this conversation at Pontifications.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
God is, in part, defined as ‘omnipresent’ and ‘omniscient.’ Jesus is obviously not the former, and definitely not the latter, as he expresses sentiments of ignorance in the New Testament (Matthew 24:36: But of that day and hour no one has knowledge, not even the angels in heaven, or the Son, but the Father only).
So Jesus is not God.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
Brett - you said "Jesus obviously is not the former" (omnipresent). Do you mean "Jesus ‘was’ obviously not the former" ? This draws attention to the limitations which Jesus accepted as part of his identification with our humanity on earth. Why should he be restricted by these now? Similarly Jesus’s lack of ‘omniscience’: he only ‘knew’ what the Father showed him. This would no longer be the case when those restrictions were removed from him.
A further question to me would be whether ‘omniscience’ can actually mean the absolute knowledge which we tend to assume it is. Whilst in his omniscience, God knows the full range of choices that will be available to me in my life, and the kinds of outcomes that each one might entail, I’m not sure God knows in advance which particular choices I will make. There is a creative partnership at work, in which one party (God) invites the other (me) to script my own lines - within the broader framework of the role, character and gifts he has assigned me, and the kind of play he is producing.
To me, there is a key here which opens up the bible, an understanding of God, the calling and relationship he offers, and my life!
Of course, I’m digressing - but digressions can sometimes be so much more intriguing than the subject under discussion!
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
Peter,
Are you overlooking the various scriptures that speak of God ordaining actions and lives? for example Romans 8:28,29? Or what of the reference to Pharoah and his being ordained to demonstrate the power of God in his refusal to obey the commands of God?
What I see is not a God who is ignorant of what choices I will make, but a life I need to live in order for me to find out what choices I will make.
Your’s in Christ,
mccloud
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
If Jesus’ omniscience is based upon what the Father decides he wants to tell him, then Jesus himself is not omniscient.
Of these self/Father-imposed restrictions: do we have an account of to what extent these restrictions were taken away?
Also, Jesus is still not omnipresent…he still exists in the limited, resurrected body…or am I wrong on that one?
God’s omniscience is absolute. He knows what will happen, what has happened, etc. This in no way means that we lack free will. God is beyond time and space, and therefore can ‘see the future.’ This does not mean that he makes our choices for us.
This concept is very easy for me to understand, but I have run into a number of people who don’t seem able to grasp it. I am unsure of what the disconnect is.
I am bothered by exclamation points.
Jesus is God?... Perhaps!
Open theism ahoy!!!
Pardon the exclamation points. But I simply must jump in. For a philosophical discussion of the claim Peter is making see William Hasker’s excellent ‘God, Time, and Knowledge’. The view of foreknowledge you mention is one referred to as ‘simple foreknowledge’—espoused by such church fathers as Boethius. It is flawed in one aspect (this is the disconnect): it assumes that God’s transcendence of time (which, though it is easy to speak of, is actually quite hard to describe consistently) implies its lack of reality for us. Let me put it this way, the open theist views partial human self-determination as intrinsic to God’s Creation project. God seeks dialogue, not monologue. That self-determination means that the future is partially open and partially closed (it is open to the extent that we can influence it). The part that is ‘open’, or unsettled, for us humans (or angels and demons) to settle (by means of the choices we make) is metaphysically speaking ‘not yet settled’. Therefore it doesn’t matter where God views it (our uncreated future) from (within our timeline, outside of our timeline, timelessly, etc.), it still doesn’t exist for him to see.
A metaphor: God doesn’t know about the monkey on my shoulder. Why? Because there is no monkey on my shoulder to know of (and this is simply stating the obvious fact that God’s knowledge of reality is co-extensive with reality itself). Quite similarly, certain aspects of the future are ‘open’, meaning they do not exist as settled facts. Because they do not exist, God doesn’t know them. Quite simple. Divine timelessness will resolve nothing in this issue. Changing your perspective on the non-existent will not make it exist.
All of this is all well and good, and could probably be discussed elsewhere… I see it as quite tangential to the main thrust of this thread. Namely, are the disanalogies between Jesus’ existence and God (the Father)’s existence sufficient to warrant a rejection of the claim that ‘Jesus is God’? Of course, the term ‘is’ is quite loaded. No good trinitarian thinks that Jesus is God the Father, so obviously there are some disanalogies. It is also important to think about what qualities are essential to God, and what qualities are accidental (if one may speak in such terms). One may argue (and I’m not sure that I would argue it, but I might) that Love is God’s essential quality, and that omniscience and omnipresence (another ill-defined term in Church history) are accidental. In this way, Jesus’ "self-emptying" is in fact an act of unconditional, unsurpassable love towards humanity and the world. And so, though he ‘puts aside’ fun things like omniscience, one might argue that he is doing so out of the wealth of God’s being, God’s essence: Love. Could it be that self-emptying love is at the heart of what it means to be God?
Cheers!
-Daniel-
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
Brett - there was an element of disingenousness about my comments: anyone who starts a discussion on predestination/free-will is guaranteed a response, and it was on an unrelated thread. The exclamation marks were the clues. I’m sorry that confused/annoyed you.
But just to pick up your comments:
Jesus was not "omniscient" in either an absolute or qualified sense in his earthly life. I don’t think that needs a huge amount of justification.
The "self/Father" imposed restrictions were taken away after the resurrection. One evidence of change is the freedom of mobility which he did not have before. It’s interesting to speculate about the effect of his continuing to exist in a resurrection body, but other evidence suggests to me (overwhelmingly) that he was otherwise fully restored to his attributes as God within a trinitarian relationship - which would have included the qualified omniscience for which I am arguing.
What evidence do you have for saying "God’s omniscience is absolute"? I don’t believe it is - rather: "God knows everything that can be known".
There are many ways in which God limited himself through the creation of mankind - he was no longer the ‘absolute’ sole being; he limits himself each time an action is committed which is contrary to his character - withholding his "omnipotence" by which every hurtful or harmful action could be physically restrained.
In the same way, I do not believe it is accurate (or logical) to say that God’s "omniscience" is absolute. This does of course run counter to pre- and supralapsarian ‘Calvinism’, which suggests the existence of a preordained list of all those who will be saved before (or just after) the world was created. (And therefore, logically, all those who will not be saved).
More to the purpose - a modified view of "omniscience" introduces a creativity in my relationship and partnership with God, which I believe was God’s intention, and it allows for emotion in God himself, such as surprise, disappointment, joy, grief etc - all of which are strongly suggested, for example, by the prophets. An absolutely omniscient being is not surprised/disappointed by anything.
If I could pick up smccloud’s comment here: I would have to agree that God is at work in our choices - either hardening us or the opposite. The Spirit was at work inclining us towards Jesus before we ever chose to make him Lord of our lives. So I guess in that sense, like the contributor "reformed arminian", I could described myself as an "arminian calvinist". It all went wrong at the Synod of Dort, and Calvin has been cruelly misrepresented ever since. Though I can’t forgive him for those heretic burnings over green wood at Geneva.
Since this is a digression from the thread - if you or anyone wants to continue, maybe a new thread should be started.
An Orthodox response
And here’s what looks like an Orthodox response.
Re: An Orthodox response
Re Pontifications and rosicrosses: this should serve as a warning to us all. Whilst we engage in our conversations, snug and secure in the deluded belief that our cosy community is simply talking to itself, unseen eyes are watching from the shadows, gathering, analysing and storing every deviant comment, thought or suggestion, preparing for the ultimate bonfire of the heretics.
The bonfires we have already witnessed could be the first of many. I’m glad I stood up for the trinity - it might save my skin in the coming tribulation. I’m afraid Andrew has copped it, however. I don’t like to think of what will happen to the rest of you, who inadvertently or intentionally got on the wrong side of the powers.
This could be the start of something big - the cyber battle of the websites! Star Wars meets theological discourse.
I am slightly disappointed though - not to get an approving mention for my more mildly left-of-orthodox views.
The OPer's response
As the author of the opening post I seem to have created some ripples far and wide! For the sake of those unseen eyes watching from the shadows, I would like to clarify my position.
Firstly, I do not think of myself as representative of the ‘Emergent Church’. Therefore any errors or weaknesses in what I have said should not be used as ammunition against the ‘Emergent Church’ in general, or against OpenSourceTheology in particular. I am concerned that criticism deservedly aimed at me is being directed undeservedly towards other people.
Secondly, I readily admit that my views are half-baked and that they contain more holes than a piece of Emmental cheese. My opening post was not intended to discomfort anyone who has an assured belief in the deity of Christ or to mislead anyone into heresy. I have no hidden agenda or crafty strategies to undermine the faith of the faithful.
Rather, my opening post was a cry for help from someone who feels very confused and who is sincerely searching for the truth about God. In the past I have subconsciously assimilated the set of beliefs of whichever religious group I happened to be mixing with most at the time (Roman Catholicism, Liberal Protestantism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.) I am now weary of being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine and I would like to investigate Jesus Christ as honestly & objectively as I can and to build a solid foundation for my faith.
OpenSourceTheology is the only place I know where I can raise an issue like this and receive intelligent, relevant answers without being condemned. So thank you to all my interlocuters at OST.
Re: The OPer's response
It’s no good Phil. This won’t let you off the hook. The faggots are already being made ready. (That’s faggots for the public burnings - nothing to do with American vernacular).
Re: The OPer's response
LOL…. I had to lookup that word to see what you might have meant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggots
Re: The OPer's response
Phil, thank you for your candour. Whether or not you wish to be lumped with the emerging church, I’m sure that many of those who do accept that label would resonate strongly with your comments - even if Peter, who has his own reservations, won’t let you off the hook:
To my mind that sums up very well the positive, devout and difficult struggle that many believers are dealing with at the moment. The emerging church is not a resting point - it is upheaval. My belief is that if we remain faithful to the God who calls us to make this journey, the God of Jesus Christ, we will find a new consensus and a renewed orthodoxy beyond the upheaval. But we can’t afford to prejudge the outcome of the process, and we have to allow for the possibility that we have got this all to a greater or lesser degree wrong.
Re: The OPer's response
Phil,
I have respect of people that articulate questions and admit they have doubts. Your post was ment as a question as it is one of the intentions of this site. People that pick on comments of you and portray it as the ‘theology’ or ‘christology’ or ‘tactic’ or ‘secret agenda’ or whatever of the emergent church might not fully understand that there are christians that actually do have questions and ask others to help them finding answers. If this is not allowed or accepted in certain churches or websites, then I think this website serves an important need. I am glad you found this site. So am I.
[Comment moved to new thread]
This comment has been moved to a new location. Appended comments have been transferred with it.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
The deity of Christ is very complicated issue. If one is simply to say that Jesus is God they are missing an element of who Jesus is. A person can not merely say that Jesus was a man because that would be a limitation to whom Jesus is. Therefore the character and life of Jesus must be studied carefully in order to correctly state who Jesus is. Though I am cautious to say that it is a simple matter of saying Jesus is Godman.
The issue of transitivity must be addressed. Jesus never clearly states that he is God. However there are plenty of statements supporting his claim to deity. The New Testament offers ample support for the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. The apostles declared him as the Son. Christ himself declared himself as the Son of God. The words God are written in the gospel regarding Jesus baptism that Jesus was God’s son in whom he was well pleased. Therefore can be no doubt that Jesus had a claim to be the Son of God. Jesus makes a statement that gives support to the fact that he and God are one. He states that the Son and father are one and if one knows the Son he also knows the father. This claim therefore would support that Jesus as the Son of God was part of the Godhead.
The issue that Jesus was fully human is often brought up by skeptics to show that Jesus was not God. Jesus was fully human except in one sense that he was not sinful. Jesus as a mere human performed great miracles that only God could do. Jesus also made a radical claim to be able to forgive sins. These two aspects of Jesus’ life demonstrate that he recognized that he was fully man but that he was also fully God. I find it difficult at times to explain how Jesus was both God and man but the fact remains that he was fully God.
To say simply that Jesus is God I think in a way the fullness of who he was. God chose to send his Son as part of himself to become human to pay the price for mankind. Jesus is God and we must acknowledge his humanity to understand the depth of God’s love for humans. What greater love could there be than for God to become human and die. An understanding of the Godman is crucial for all believers.