Jesus = God?

Jesus being God has always been a topic of discussion in the world after Jesus. It’s interesting to note that, as a Jewish rabbi, Jesus was accepted as an exceptional teacher by his fellow-Jews. But even those closest to him, including his closest disciples did not fully understand him. This helps us to understand how this subject could be one of serious debate three hundred years after his death and resurrection.

In the fourth century A.D., after Constantine gained power and allowed for Christians to assemble and work out their beliefs, they began to debate the nature of Jesus, his identity, and his connection to God the Father.

There were apposing views and beliefs about the deity of Jesus that actually brought Christians to the point of verbal and physical fights among one another.

To the Jew, the Messiah would not have to be God, but only a person anointed and chosen to lead God’s people. For Jews, King Saul and King David were two messiahs, for they were anointed and chosen to lead God’s people. This should help us to understand why this issue was not a topic of debate until Christianity was firmly in the depths of Western thought (modern scholars are discovering that the deity of Christ was actually accepted even in th first century A.D.).

As differing opinions of who Jesus was as the son of God began to surface, the universal church knew that there was a need to bring a systemized understanding among believers; this task was accomplished through councils. The first council was the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, the second was the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, the third was the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431, and finally the Council of Chalcedon was held in A.D. 451.

The major subjects of discussion among these councils included their understandings of the Trinity and Christology.

Christ’s deity was a matter of many discussions as some thought Jesus to be subordinate to the Father, while others thought of him as only appearing to be a man. Still others believed that the Christ came upon Jesus at his birth and left him before his death.

In the end, it was decided that God is One in those distinct and separate persons as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

God revealing himself to the world in the form of His son gave the world an opportunity to experience His word clarified through Jesus; God’s ways and will were exemplified as God himself called the world to follow him here on earth.

Jesus says to us,”Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). In this passage Jesus uses the terms “abolish” and “fulfill”, which are used idiomatically in Hebrew as words meaning to “misinterpret” and “clearly interpret”. Jesus came to “clearly interpret” the Word of God, according to the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no clearer interpretation of God’s word lived out than for God himself to live it out before us in the form of his son Jesus.

The four councils from A.D. 325-451 allowed for the leaders of God’s people to articulate the truth of Jesus’ divinity for all of the ecclesia, which was justified by Jesus himself when he gave Peter the “Keys to the Kingdom” and the ability to “bind” and “lose”, more rabbinic idioms, which mean the leaders of the Church have Christ’s support in how they define the rights and wrongs of the Church (see Matthew 16:19). To “bind” and “lose” is literally translated, “to forbid and permit”. The leaders of the Church were given the authority to choose what would be forbidden and permitted as practices of believers; this would include the decision to form a canon (the books that would be included in the Bible).

Understanding that Jesus is God, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit are persons of God, gives us an understanding that the Messiah was more than just a Jewish man anointed and chosen to lead God’s people, as many had been before. But Jesus is God personified, calling himself to the task of leading His people into His Kingdom.

During the councils there were those who relegated Jesus to being less than God or a part of God, as Dr. Garth Rosell says, somewhat like an egg with three distinct parts, which are all part of an egg, but under close scrutiny the different parts of an egg are very different. Jesus is exactly God; He is the perfect image and form of God, not simply a part or portion of God.

He is God incarnate.

In His dust,
Johnny

 

Writer: Capt. Jonathan Gainey was born in Jacksonville, FL in June, 1969. He has been married to Staci, the daughter of retired Salvation Army officers, for twenty years and they have four children ages 18, 16, 12, and 4. Jonathan was commissioned as an officer in June of 2002, and is currently serving in his third appointment in New Bern, NC, USA. He is working on a Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and is the creator and manager of the Flocks Diner website, where his passion for learning and teaching is expressed and shared through writing and a weekly podcast.

6 Comments to Jesus = God?

1. Dear Johnny, as much as I disagree with the ‘Jesus’ that you regularly paint in your posts here, you normally write in a way that has a clear flow and direction. I’m not sure if you have written this post whilst tired, but if you re-read you will notice that it doesn’t actually have a clear argument. I have read your post a few times now and am struggling to work out what your argument actually is. Let me elaborate by quoting you:

   “Understanding that Jesus is God, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit are persons of God, gives us an understanding that the Messiah was more than just a Jewish man anointed and chosen to lead God’s people, as many had been before. But Jesus is God personified, calling himself to the task of leading His people into His Kingdom.”

   This is the climactic statement in the whole post, yet it is nothing more than a statement. It is not a theological argument for a high christology. A coherent argument might tell us how we get from the point of the Jewish ideas of Messiahship (there were many) to the rearticulation of Messiahship as including within it the possibility of the agent being divine (as Jesus’ followers, after his resurrection, claimed that he was). Yet what has been written appears to be a tenuous argument about four councils and why they saw it as important to unify 2nd and 3rd century debates. Alongside this somewhere off in the background, you appear to also be making a statement against the likes of subordinationism and modellism etc yet give no credible argument as to why this statement is justified.

   “The four councils from A.D. 325-451 allowed for the leaders of God’s people to articulate the truth of Jesus’ divinity for all of the ecclesia, which was justified by Jesus himself when he gave Peter the “Keys to the Kingdom” and the ability to “bind” and “lose”, more rabbinic idioms, which mean the leaders of the Church have Christ’s support in how they define the rights and wrongs of the Church (see Matthew 16:19). To “bind” and “lose” is literally translated, “to forbid and permit”. The leaders of the Church were given the authority to choose what would be forbidden and permitted as practices of believers; this would include the decision to form a canon (the books that would be included in the Bible).”

   This is an incredible sweeping statement to make despite the fact that you have not coherently built up any convincing argument to suggest how you got to this. In fact your whole argument for the Biblical evidence of Jesus’ divinity appears to hang on one verse: Matthew 16.19, which depends on you reading into the text the idea that Jesus’ statement somehow implies a claim of divinity within it. Why couldn’t this verse simply mean that Jesus as the Messiah, the anointed king chosen to bring in God’s rule, was using his royal authority to designate authority upon his followers/vice-regents? Which is exactly the kind of thing that that they would have been expecting?

   So my final question is: what is this post? Is it a whistle-stop tour of the four church councils? bringing Western Church theology into unision? A systematic treatment of trinitarian concepts? An argument for Matthew 16.19 as a credible evidence of the ‘divinity’ of Jesus?

   I am afraid it seems to be an unsuccessful blend of all the above elements. I look forward to you revising your post in a way that clearly argues out a good theological case for the argument you are trying to make.

   Craig G.
Craig Gaudion on September 6th, 2010

2. Johnny, thanks for the post on the central theological debates of the early church - trinity and christology. Tough topics to cover in a blog post!

   While it’s true that there were always dissenters, I tend to believe that mainstream orthodox Christianity has always upheld the divinity of Christ. There was definitely some development and clarification in the concepts, and lots of heated arguments that took place along the way, but I think some people have oversimplified this theological development into a clear linear progression from “human Jesus” to “divine Christ.” Richard Bauckham presents a pretty clear argument that, from the very beginning, the Christian community affirmed the divine identity of Jesus (/God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament./).

   Of course, the irony is that, for most Christians, both now and down through the centuries, the idea that the NT affirms the divinity of Jesus was taken as a given, but within historical-critical circles, Bauckham’s perspective is seen as radical, because it challenges the prevailing hermeneutic of suspicion!

   Craig, I get your frustration, but your comment is a bit over the top. You come off like you’re a professor grading a paper. This is a blog post. While the argument could have been clearer, you can’t expect him to provide the kind of evidence you’re asking for in this limited space.

   For example, I’m not sure why Johnny would have to provide arguments as to why we should reject modalism and subordinationism (re: your comment “…you appear to also be making a statement against the likes of subordinationism and modellism etc yet give no credible argument as to why this statement is justified.”). Maybe I’m wrong, but I assume that readers of the Rubicon don’t need to be convinced that these aren’t good theological options.

   James P
James on September 6th, 2010

3. I thought it was a good article, although I can see where Craig is coming from. It’s way too complex a topic to cover in a blog.

   What is striking to me about the subject is that the early church had to come up with some kind of radical theology to distinguish it from all the other religions and cults which all claimed virgin births, and leaders who were born from a divinity. In fact, if you look at the culture at the time, the story of Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus was just the last in a very long line of similar stories. It is also extremely similar (right through to the death and resurrection) of the story of Hercules - about 3500 BCE.

   It is understandable that the Jews did not need to see the Messiah as God. None of the OT requires that for it to be fulfilled.

   What is interesting is that this theology was not fully articulated until centuries after Christ - and that it was Constantine who fascilitated it. This is interesting because Christianity was replacing Emperor worship in Ancient Rome - where the Emperor was considered divine. If a divine emperor is to be replaced as the object of worship, an equally divine figure has to replace him. His mother was an extremely devout Christian (who spent much of her time searching for holy relics etc) and a theology of the divinity of Christ seemed quite logical.

   Just a few thoughts.

   Yours in Christ
   Graeme Randall
Graeme Randall on September 7th, 2010

4. Graeme,

   I think I may be misunderstanding you, as you seem to be denying the divinity of Jesus. If that’s correct, then I’m curious about what you do believe about him, and about Christianity in general, for that matter. Is Christianity, in your view, just one of several (many?) religions that lead to a god or gods? Are you a Christian out of conviction, or habit, or what?

   Johnny, if he recalls our previous encounters from a couple of years ago, can tell you that I’m not a Christian, but I assure you that I’m not asking these questions to be snotty or argumentative. I’m just honestly perplexed that you can hold the positions you hold about the Bible and, apparently, Jesus, yet cling to some sort of Christian belief. If Christian doctrine was simply the best set of ideas the Church fathers “came up with” to compete with other religions, and Jesus is not actually divine, and the Bible is not actually God’s revelation to humankind, then why bother with Christianity at all? What about Christianity makes it worth holding onto if its central figure is not the deity he’s cracked up to be, and the purported revelation by which we learn anything at all about Jesus (and his father, etc.) is not a revelation at all, but simply a collection of humankind’s best (in some, but certainly not all, views) guesses about a god?

   The Chaplain
the chaplain on October 23rd, 2010

5. If people “seemingly” disprove the Bible as the truth from God then they can live a life of sin and dabble in what ever turns them on. If you “seemingly” disprove that Jesus is God then anything goes and there is not Biblical truth at all. You may as well eat , drink, and be merry for tomorrow you may die. What is the sense in even responding to such a site or the claim that Jesus is God if you do not believe it? Graeme , you sometimes bite off your nose to spite your face.

   Honestly, what I see you writing , I have found on atheist sites and those of agnostics.

   If Jesus is not God then He is the best imposter of all time. If Jesus is not God then I have wasted 26 years in ministry plus more as a Christian. But, I know in whom I have believed. Atheists and agnostics despise hearing or viewing those words. As we have been in the last days since Jesus walked this earth and was resurrected the scenario of doubt and mockery will only continue and the spirit of the age will only get worse. That is found in Scripture but some will ignore it as their freedom of choice but there is a high price to pay.

   Bob D
Robert Deidrick on October 26th, 2010

6. As Josh McDowell wrote many years ago:
   “Jesus is either Lord, Lunatic or Liar”

   Graeme and others should remember this.

   I prefer to accept that Jesus is Lord. There are any number of reasons for this based on such diverse things as history, miracles performed in Jesus’ name, change seen in lifes of those following Jesus and consistency in the message Jesus brings.

   And if I am not correct then what have I lost–nothing but I have lived a good life.

   If I chose either lunatic or liar then what have I lost–possibility of eternal life and fellowship with God in Heaven rather than eternal pain and punishment with Satan in Hell.

   John Stephenson
John Stephenson on October 26th, 2010