Introduction
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge [Bible, Hosea 4:6]
On 25th December, Christians all over the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. The status of Jesus Christ has been debated extensively during last two millenniums, it continues even now. Throughout the history there have always been groups who considered him to be a prophet of God, while others consider him to be son of God, third member of Trinity [Triune God]. Jesus Christ never claimed divinity, his later followers twisted the scripture to extract their desired meanings to prove that he was divine, son of God. The Unitarian Christian groups and Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in Trinity or divinity of Jesus Christ. Like early Christians and many other Unitarians Christians, Islam considers Jesus Christ as a messenger of God [Prophet] not divine.
In order to clear the confusion created through false propaganda against Islam while comparison with Christianity, a series of articles have been published in DJ from July to November 2018. In the last issue effort was made to highlight various aspects of the most important and controversial issue, even among Christians about divinity of Jesus Christ. Views of Sir Anthony Buzzard, a renowned Christian scholar about Jesus Christ are sufficient to elaborate the subject in perspective. But first a reminder:
”Abraham” believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6).
So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. (Galatians; 3:6-7)
“If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham”. (Jesus, John; 8:39).
Muslims, Jews and Christians are also linked with their common ancestor and spiritual father, Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him), He was the true monotheist who had totally submitted to the obedience and worship of One God Alone. The message preached by all the Prophets Moses (peace be upon him) was same as of their spiritual father Abraham. Prophet Moses (PBUH) said: “Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adna Ikhad” Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Deuteronomy;6:4, Isaiah;43:11, 45:5,46:9). Prophet Jesus Christ, the son of Mary (peace be upon him) said: “Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adna Ikhad“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Mark;12:29) and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was asked by God to say: “qul huwa Allah “ahad” Say, He is the One God (Qura”n;112:1), “wa-ilaah-kum ilaah waahid laa ilaah illaa huwa ar- Rahmaan ar- Rahem Your God is one God; there is no one worthy of worship except Him, the Compassionate, the Merciful.(Qur”an;2:163).
While the monotheistic teachings of Prophet Jesus Christ, the son of Mary (peace be upon him) still exist in the four Gospels (Injeels), the concept of his divinity being son of God and a member of Trinity (Triune) Godhead was evolved by later followers under the influence of mysterious Greco-Roman pagan beliefs, like the Christmas on 25th December:
The Bible says nothing of celebrating the birth of Christ, and does not even mention the specific day of the year of the event. Why then is it one of the most celebrated days of the “Christian calendar” Every year we hear people, even pastors, bemoaning the paganization of Christmas – how Santa Claus and greed have taken over this holy day. Little do they know the 25th of December was never holy to God but has long been a pagan festival season celebrating the birth of the Sun god. According to Bible:
Luke 2:8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
Palestine in December is very cold, it is not possible for the shepherds to be in the field with flock at night, the flock would have frozen to death.
So, if we follow the reasoning, based on the scriptural evidence, a case can be made that Jesus Christ was born on the 15th day of the month of Tishri, on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, which corresponds to the September – October timeframe of present calendar!
The date for Christmas may also bear a relation to the sun worship. According to the scholiast on the Syriac bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi, writing in the 12th century: “It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day. [Wikipedia]
December 25 seems to have been chosen on account of the Roman custom of keeping this day as the festival of Sol Invictus i.e., of the re-birth of the sun god; it was judged fitting to substitute for the pagan feast a Christian one.
Similar is the case of Trinity. The Trinity is defined in Catholic Encyclopedia as: “The three Persons (The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) are Co-Equal and Co-Eternal: all alike are Uncreated and Omnipotent (supreme). There is no clear verse in the bible which support the doctrine of “Trinity”, except 1 John; 5:7,8; “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.” (In some volumes this changed as: “There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree”. In the foot note of this verse in “New International Version Bible” it is written, “not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century. Dr. C.I, Scofield, D.D. backed by eight other D.D.” s in a footnote to this verse opine: “It is generally agreed that this verse has no manuscript authority and has been inserted the fundamentalist Christians still retain this fabrication whereas in all the modern translations including the Revised Standard Version (RSV) this pious deceit has been unceremoniously expunged.
The other verses from the Bible which have been interpreted by the Catholic and Protestant Churches to support the Divinity of Jesus Christ are vague. Critical analysis of these verses, reveals that, either their wordings are ambiguous, leaving them open to a number of different interpretations, or they are later additions not found in the early manuscripts of the Bible.
Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) never claimed divinity, there is not a single unequivocal statement in the entire Bible where Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) himself says, “I am God” or where he says, “worship me”. In fact, the Bible contains statements attributed to Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) in which he preached quite the contrary: (John; 14:28, John;10:29, Matthew;12:28, Luke;1:20, John;5:30, Matthew;19:16-17, Luke;24:39-43.
Allah says in the Qur’an: “O people of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so, believe in Allah and His Apostles. Say not “Trinity” desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One Allah: glory be to him: (for Exalted is He) above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (Qur’an; 4:171).
Right from early days till Trinity gained the official status at the council of Nicea in 325 C.E monotheistic groups like Ebonite, Aries, Jesuits remained active and despite persecution have survived till now. According to some scholars, one of the first men to believe in the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) was an Ebionite monk named Waraqah ibn Nawfal, the distant cousin of Hazrat Khadijah, whom Muslims highly honour as a pious man with deep knowledge of the Christian scriptures.
The counter-missionary group “Jews for Judaism” favorably mentions the historical Ebionites in their literature in order to argue that “Messianic Judaism” as promoted by missionary groups such as Jews for Jesus, is Pauline Christianity misrepresenting itself as Judaism. Some Messianic groups have expressed concern over leaders in Israel that deny Jesus” divinity and the possible collapse of the Messianic movement due to a resurgence of Ebionitism. In a recent polemic, a Messianic leader asked whether Christians should imitate the Torah-observance of “neo-Ebionites” The website “Judaism vs. Christianity” rejects Paul, and along with him, Peter and Luke (who acknowledge Paul’s ministry), in favor of a more Jewish Christianity.
Presently there are many Christian groups who reject Trinity and believe in One God, hence coming closer to Islam:
“and nearest in affection to the believers are those who say: “We are Christians.” That is because among them there are men that are priests and monks, who do not behave arrogantly.” (Quran; 5:82).
Allah says: “O people of the Book! Let us get together on what is common between us and you: that we shall worship none but God; that we shall not associate any partners with Him and that we shall not take human beings for our lords besides God;” If they turn away then tell them: “Bear witness that it is we who have surrendered ourselves unto Him (in Islam).” (Qur’an; 3:64).
Who is Jesus? A Christian’s Perspective
Anthony F. Buzzard is leading one such monotheistic Christians groups “Restoration Fellowship” dedicated to recovering the beliefs of the first-century disciples of Jesus, the Messiah. Sound theology begins with the creed to which Jesus subscribed in Mark 12:28-29 the creed of Israel (Deut. 6:4) and the Gospel about the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15). Jesus commanded belief in that Gospel Message in contrast to much modern evangelism which often ignores Jesus” Message about the Kingdom of God. Restoration Fellowship was founded by Sir Anthony Buzzard, Bt., MA (Oxon) MA Th in 1981. The subject matter of our literature is not new and has been held by small groups of believers throughout the centuries, notably by some Anabaptists and the Church of God General Conference whose headquarters and college, Atlanta Bible College, are located in McDonough, GA, USA.
Anthony F. Buzzard was born in Surrey, England and educated at Oxford University and later at Bethany Theological Seminary. He holds Master’s Degrees in theology and modern languages. Retiring after 24 years on the staff of Atlanta Bible College, Anthony continues to write, teach and travel, fulfilling a lifelong desire to make the best of Bible scholarship available to the wider churchgoing public. He serves as co-editor of A Journal from the Radical Reformation. His book “Who is Jesus” is full of scholarship and authenticity to break the myth of Trinity, which will be of great interest to the readers, especially those Christians who have zeal to explore the truth. Being a Christian work for the Christians, a Muslim reader may feel uncomfortable to find some things not in agreement with their beliefs. Muslims do not believe in the death of Jesus at the cross and his resurrection. According to Qur’an: “ That they said (in boast) “ We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah” but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not. Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself and Allah is Exalted in Power Wise. And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death (As only as a Messenger of Allah and a human being); and on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness against them (Qur’an; 4:157,158,159). Here are extracts:
Jesus as God?
The suggestion that Jesus is not, according to the Bible, “very God of very God” is likely to prove startling to those accustomed to the widely held views of the major denominations. It is not generally known that many students of the Bible throughout the ages, including a considerable number of contemporary scholars, have not concluded that Scripture describes Jesus as “God” with a capital “G.”
A difference of opinion on such a fundamental issue should challenge all of us to an examination of the important question of Jesus” identity. If our worship is to be, as the Bible demands, “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), it is clear that we will want to understand what the Bible discloses about Jesus and his relationship to his Father. Scripture warns us that it is possible to fall into the trap of believing in “another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:4) a “Jesus” other than the one revealed in the Bible as God’s Son, the Messiah promised by the prophets of the Old Testament.
It is a striking fact that Jesus never referred to himself as “God.” Equally remarkable is the New Testament’s use of the word “God in Greek ho Theos to refer to the Father alone, some 1325 times. In sharp contrast, Jesus is called “god” [judges, prophets, even Satan 2Co 4:4] in a handful of texts only perhaps no more than two. Why this impressive difference in New Testament usage, when so many seem to think that Jesus is no less “God” than his Father?
Old Testament Monotheism Confirmed by Jesus and Paul
Readers of Scripture in the 20th century may not easily appreciate the strength of the monotheism belief in one God which was the first principle of all Old Testament teaching about God. The Jews were prepared to die for their conviction that the true God was a single Person. Any idea of plurality in the Godhead was rejected as dangerous idolatry. The Law and the Prophets had repeatedly insisted that only one was truly God, and no one could have envisaged “distinctions” within the Godhead once he had committed to memory texts like the following (quoted from the New American Standard Bible):
“Hear, O Israel! The LORD our God is one LORD!” (Deut. 6:4).
“Do we not all have one Father? Has not one God created us?” (Mal. 2:10).
“Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me” (Isa. 43:10).
“I am God, and there is no other” (Isa. 45:22).
“I am God, and there is no one like Me” (Isa. 46:9).
Examples of strictly monotheistic statements can be multiplied from the Old Testament. The important fact to observe is that Jesus, as founder of Christianity, confirmed and reinforced the Old Testament insistence that God is one. According to the records of his teaching compiled by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus said nothing at all to disturb belief in the absolute oneness of God. When a scribe (a theologian) quoted the famous words, “God is one, and there is none else besides him,” Jesus commended him because he had “spoken intelligently” and was “not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:29-34).
In John’s account of Jesus” ministry, Jesus equally confirmed the unrestricted monotheism of his Jewish heritage in words which cannot be misunderstood. He spoke of God, his Father, as “the one who alone is God” (John 5:44) and “the only true God” (John 17:3). Throughout his recorded discourses he referred the word “God” to the Father only. Not once did he ever say that he was God, a notion which would have sounded both absurd and blasphemous. Jesus” unitary monotheistic phrases in John 5:44 and 17:3 are echoes of the Old Testament view of God as one unique Person. We can easily discern the Jewish and Old Testament orthodoxy of Paul who spoke of his Christian belief in “one God, the Father” (1 Cor. 8:6) and the “one God” as distinct from the “one mediator between God and man, Messiah Jesus, himself man” (1 Tim. 2:5). For both Jesus and Paul, God was a single uncreated Being, “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:3). Even after Jesus had been exalted to the right hand of the Father, the Father is still, in Jesus” own words, his God (Rev. 3:12).
We may summarize our discussion so far by quoting the words of L.L. Paine, at one time Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Bangor Theological Seminary:
The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a Trinity is to be found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumption that has long held sway in theology, but is utterly without foundation. The Jews, as a people, under its teachings became stern opponents of all polytheistic tendencies and they have remained unflinching monotheists to this day. On this point there is no break between the Old Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament Scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new Gospel indeed, but not a new theology. He declared that He came “not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill” them, and He accepted as His own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.” His proclamation concerning Himself was in line with Old Testament prophecy. He was the Messiah” of the promised Kingdom, the Son of Man” of Jewish hope…If He sometimes asked Who do men say that I the Son of Man am?” He gave no answer beyond the implied assertion of Messiahship” (A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, 1900, pp. 4, 5).
The strength of Jewish feeling about monotheism is well illustrated by the following quotations:
Ezra D. Gifford, in The True God, the True Christ, and the True Holy Spirit, says: “The Jews themselves sincerely resent the implication that their Scriptures contain any proof, or any intimation of the doctrine of the orthodox Trinity, and Jesus and “The belief that God is made up of several personalities such as the Christian belief in the Trinity is a departure from the pure conception of the unity of God. Israel has throughout the ages rejected everything that marred or obscured the conception of pure monotheism it has given the world, and rather than admit any weakening of it, Jews are prepared to wander, to suffer, to die” (Rabbi J.H. Hertz). The Jews never differed on this subject, both maintaining that God is One only, and that this is the greatest truth revealed to man.”
If we examine the recorded teachings of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, remembering that these documents represent the understanding of the apostolic church in the 60s-80s AD, we will find not a hint that Jesus believed himself to be an uncreated being who had existed from eternity. Matthew and Luke trace the origin of Jesus to a special act of creation by God when the Messiah’s conception took place in the womb of Mary. It was this miraculous event which marked the beginning the genesis, or origin of Jesus of Nazareth (Matt. 1:18, 20). Nothing at all is said of an “eternal Sonship,” implying that Jesus had been alive as a Son before his conception. That idea was introduced into Christian circles after the New Testament documents had been completed. It does not belong to the thought world of the biblical writers.
Whoever Said the Messiah Was God?
Most readers of Scripture approach the divine records with a well-established set of assumptions. They are unaware of the fact that much of what they understand about Jesus is derived from theological systems devised by writers outside the Bible. In this way they readily accept a large dose of tradition, while claiming and believing that the Bible is their sole authority.
The crucial question we must answer is this: On what basis did Jesus and the early church claim that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah? The answer is plain. It was by contending that he perfectly fulfilled the role which the Old Testament had predicted of him. It had to be demonstrated that he fit the “specifications” laid out for the Messiah in Hebrew prophecy. Matthew, particularly, delights in quoting the Old Testament as it was fulfilled in the facts of Jesus” life and experience (Matt. 1:23; 2:6, 15, etc.). But Mark, Luke, and John and Peter (in the early chapters of Acts) equally insist that Jesus exactly fits the Old Testament description of the Messiah. Paul spent much of his ministry demonstrating from the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus was the promised Christ (Acts 28:23). Unless Jesus” identity could be matched with the Old Testament description of him, there would be no good reason to believe that his claim to Messiahship was true!
It is essential to ask, therefore, whether the Old Testament suggests anywhere that the Messiah was to be “coequal God,” a second uncreated being who abandons an eternal existence in heaven in order to become man. If it does not say anything like this (and remembering that the Old Testament is concerned even with minute details about the coming Messiah) we will have to treat as suspicious the claims of anyone saying that Jesus is both Messiah and an uncreated, second eternal Person of the Godhead, claiming the title “God” in the full sense.
What portrait of the Messiah is drawn by the Hebrew Scriptures? When the New Testament Christians seek to substantiate Jesus” claim to Messiahship they are fond of quoting Deuteronomy 18:18:
“I will raise up a Prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put my words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I commend him.” Both Peter (Acts 3:22) and Stephen (Acts 7:37) used this primary text to show that Jesus was “that promised prophet” (John 6:14), whose origin would be in an Israelite family and whose function would be similar to that of Moses. In Jesus, God had raised up the Messiah, the long-promised divine spokesman, the Savior of Israel and the world. In Peter’s words, “God raised up his servant and sent him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways” (Acts 3:26).
Other classic Messianic texts promised that “a son will be born to Israel” (Isa. 9:6), the “seed of a woman” (Gen. 3:15), a descendant of Abraham (Gal. 3:16), and a descendant of David’s royal house (2 Sam. 7:14-16; Isa. 11:1). He would be a ruler born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:6; Micah 5:2). Of his several titles one would be “mighty god” and another, “everlasting father” (Isa. 9:6). It is this single text in Isaiah 9:6 which might appear to put the Messiah into a category of uncreated beings, though this would of course provoke a crisis for monotheism. However, the sensitive reader of Scripture will be aware that a single text should not be allowed to overthrow the Old Testament’s insistence that only one Person is truly God. It should not be forgotten that the sacred oracles were committed to the Jews, none of whom thought that a divine title given to the Messianic King meant that he was a member of an eternal Godhead, now composed suddenly and mysteriously of two Persons, in contradiction of all that the heritage of Israel had stood for. The “mighty god” of Isaiah 9:6 is defined by the leading Hebrew lexicon as “divine hero, reflecting the divine majesty.” The same authority records that the word “god” used by Isaiah is applied elsewhere in Scripture to “men of might and rank,” as well as to angels. As for “eternal father,” this title was understood by the Jews as “father of the coming age.” It was widely recognized that a human figure could be “father to the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem” (Isa. 22:21).
In Psalm 45 the “ideal” Messianic King is addressed as “god,” but there is no need whatever to assume that Jewish monotheism has therefore been compromised. The word (in this case Elohim) was applied not only to the one God but “to divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power” (Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs, pp. 42, 43). The Psalmist, and the writer to the Hebrews who quoted him (Heb. 1:8) were conscious of their specialized use of the word “god” to describe the Messianic King and quickly added that the Messiah’s God had granted him his royal privileges (Ps. 45:7).
Even the frequently quoted text in Micah 5:2 about the origins of Messiah does not necessitate any kind of literal, eternal pre-existence. In the same book a similar expression dates the promises made to Jacob from “days of old” (Micah 7:20).5 Certainly the promises of Messiah had been given at an early moment in the history of man (Gen. 3:15; cp. Gen. 49:10; Num. 24:17-19).
Approaching the question of Jesus” Messiahship as he and the apostles do, we find nothing at all in the Old Testament predictions about the Christ which suggests that an eternal immortal being was to become human as the promised King of Israel. That King was to be born in Israel, a descendant of David, and conceived by a virgin (2 Sam. 7:13-16; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23). And so, during the reign of Emperor Augustus, the Messiah arrived on the scene.
The Son of God
The source of much longstanding confusion about Jesus” identity is the assumption drawn from years of traditional thinking that the title “Son of God” must mean in the Scriptures an uncreated being, the member of an eternal Godhead. That notion cannot possibly be traced to the Scriptures. It is a testimony to the power of theological indoctrination that this idea persists so stubbornly. In the Bible “Son of God” is an alternative and virtually synonymous title for the Messiah. Thus, John dedicates his whole gospel to one dominant theme, that we believe and understand “that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (John 20:31). The basis for equating these titles is found in a favourite Old Testament passage in Psalm 2:
“The rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Messiah” whom He has installed as King in Jerusalem (v. 6), and of whom He says: “Thou art My Son, today I have begotten thee. Ask of Me and I will give you the nations as your inheritance” (vv. 7, 8). Jesus does not hesitate to apply the whole Psalm to himself, and sees in it a prediction of his and his followers” future rulership over the nations (Rev. 2:26, 27).
Peter makes the same equation of Messiah and Son of God, when by divine revelation he affirms his belief in Jesus:
“Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16).
The high priest asks Jesus:
“Are you the Messiah, the son of the blessed One?” (Mark 14:61).
Nathaniel understands that the Son of God is none other than the King of Israel (John 1:49), the Messiah (v. 41), “him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote” (v. 45; cp. Deut. 18:15-18).
The title “Son of God” is applied also in Scripture to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Gen. 6:2, 4; Ps. 29:1; 89:6; Dan. 3:25), to Adam (Luke 3:38), to the nation of Israel (Exod. 4:22), to kings of Israel as representing God, and in the New Testament to Christians (John 1:12). We would search in vain to find any application of this title to an uncreated being, a member of the eternal Godhead. This idea is simply absent from the biblical idea of divine Sonship.
Luke knows very well that Jesus” divine Sonship is derived from his conception in the womb of a virgin; he knows nothing at all of any eternal origin: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason the holy thing which is begotten will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). The Psalmist had ascribed the Messiah’s Sonship to a definite moment of time” today” (Ps. 2:7). The Messiah was begotten around 3 BC (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35). His begetting is thus related to his appearance in history (Acts 13:33, not KJV), when God became his Father (Heb. 1:5; 1 John 5:18, not KJV).
Here, clearly presented by the Scriptures which Jesus recognized as God’s Word, are the biblical ideas of Jesus” Sonship. It is to be dated from Jesus” conception, his resurrection, or from his appointment to kingship. Luke’s view of Sonship agrees exactly with the hope for the birth of the Messiah from the woman, a descendant of Adam, Abraham, and David (Matt. 1:1; Luke 3:38). The texts we have examined contain no information about a personal pre-existence for the Son in eternity.
The Son of Man, the Lord at God’s Right Hand
The title “Son of Man” was frequently used by Jesus to refer to himself. Like “Son of God” it is closely associated with Messiahship; so much so that when Jesus solemnly affirms that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, he adds in the same breath that the high priest will see “the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61, 62). The title “Son of Man” is most fully described in Daniel 7:13, 14, where a human figure (a “Son of Man”) receives the right to world dominion from the Father. The parallel with Psalm 2 is obvious, as well as the close connection with Psalm 110, where David refers to his “lord” (the Messiah) who is to sit at the Lord’s (the father’s) right hand until he takes up his office as world governor and “rules in the midst of his enemies” (Ps. 110:2; cp. Matt. 22:42-45). The Son of Man has an equally clear Messianic connection in Psalm 80:17: “Let your hand be upon your right-hand man, upon the Son of Man whom you made strong for yourself.”
It is significant that the New Testament writers lay the greatest stress on Psalm 110, citing it some 23 times and applying it to Jesus, who had been by that time exalted as Messianic Lord to immortality at the right hand of the Father just as the Psalmist had foreseen. Once again, we must recognize that eternal Sonship is alien to all the descriptive titles of the Messiah. This startling fact should lead Bible students everywhere to compare what they have been taught about Jesus with the Jesus presented by Scripture. It would appear that an eternal Son will not match the Bible’s account of the Messiah. In opting for a Jesus who is an eternal being passing through a temporary life on earth, many seem, so to speak, to have “got the wrong man.
Jesus Claimed NOT to Be God
In the Gospel of John, the identity of Jesus is a principal theme. John wrote, as he tells us, with one primary purpose: to convince his readers that Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (20:31). According to John, Jesus carefully distinguished himself from the Father who is “the only true God” (17:3; cp. 5:44; 6:27). If we are to find in John’s record a proof that Jesus is “coequal” God, in the Trinitarian sense, we would be discovering something which John did not intend and, in view of his Jewish heritage, would not have understood! Alternatively, we would have to admit that John introduces a brand-new picture of Messiahship which contradicts the Old Testament and overthrows John’s (and Jesus”) own insistence that only the Father is truly God (John 5:44; 17:3). Such a glaring self-contradiction is hardly probable.7
It is high time that we allow Jesus to set the record straight. In Matthew’s, Mark’s, and Luke’s accounts we are told that Jesus explicitly subscribed to the strict monotheism of the Old Testament (Mark 12:28-34). Did he therefore, according to John, confuse the issue by claiming after all to be God? The answer is given plainly in John 10:34-36 where Jesus defined his status in terms of the human representatives of God in the Old Testament. Jesus gave this account of himself in explanation of what it means to be “one with the Father” (10:30). It is a oneness of function by which the son perfectly represents the father. That is exactly the Old Testament ideal of sonship, which had been imperfectly realized in the rulers of Israel, but would find perfect fulfillment in the Messiah, God’s chosen King.
The argument in John 10:29-38 is as follows: Jesus began by claiming that he and the Father were “one.” It was a oneness of fellowship and function which on another occasion he desired also for his disciples” relationship with him and the Father (John 17:11, 22). The Jews understood him to be claiming equality with God. This gave Jesus an opportunity to explain himself. What he was actually claiming, so he says, was to be “Son of God” (v. 36), a recognized synonym for Messiah. The claim to sonship was not unreasonable, Jesus argued, in view of the well-known fact that even imperfect representatives of God had been addressed by Him in the Old Testament as “gods” (Ps. 82:6). Far from establishing any claim to eternal Sonship, he compared his office and function to that of the judges. He considered himself God’s representative par excellence since he was uniquely God’s Son, the one and only Messiah, supernaturally conceived, and the object of all Old Testament prophecy. There is absolutely nothing, however, in Jesus” account of himself which interferes with Old Testament monotheism or requires a rewriting of the sacred text in Deuteronomy 6:4. Jesus” self-understanding is strictly within the limits laid down by God’s authoritative revelation in Scripture. Otherwise, his claim to be the Messiah would have been invalid. The Scriptures would have been broken.
John’s Jewish Language
Since Jesus expressly denied that he was God in John 10:34-36, it will be most unwise to think that he contradicted himself elsewhere. John’s Gospel should be examined with certain axiomatic principles firmly in mind. Jesus is distinct from “the only true God” (John 17:3). The Father alone is God (5:44). John wishes his readers to understand that all that he writes contributes to the one great truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31). Jesus himself says, as we have seen, that the term “god” can be used of a human being representing God, but certainly does not imply “coequal Godship.” Jesus” own self-designation is plainly “Son of God” (John 10:36). In John 10:24, 25 Jesus told them “Plainly” that he was the Messiah, but they did not believe him.
Jesus states often that he has been “sent by God.” What the average reader hears in that phrase is not at all what John implies. John the Baptist was also “sent from God,” which does not mean that he preexisted his birth (John 1:6). Prophets in general are “sent” from God (Judges 6:8; Micah 6:4), and the disciples themselves are to be “sent” as Jesus was “sent” (John 17:18). “Coming down from heaven” need not mean descent from a previous life any more than Jesus” “flesh, which is the bread which came down from heaven,” literally descended from the sky (John 6:50, 51). Nicodemus recognized that Jesus had “come from God” (John 3:2), but did not think of him as preexistent. Nor did the Jewish people, when they spoke of the prophet “who was to come into the world” (John 6:14; cp. Deut 18:15-18), mean that he was alive before his birth. James can say that “every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the father” (James 1:17).
“Coming down from heaven” is Jesus” and the Jews” graphic way of describing divine origin, which certainly belonged to Jesus through the virgin birth.
The “preexistence” statements in John (John 3:13; 6:62) are connected with the Son of Man, which means human being. The most that could be proved from these verses is that Jesus was a human being alive in heaven before he was born on earth! This sort of explanation is unnecessary, however, once it is noted that Daniel had 600 years earlier seen the Son of Man in vision seated at the right hand of the Father, a position which the New Testament says Jesus gained by resurrection and ascension. As Messiah, Jesus saw himself in the role of the one who was later to be exalted to heaven, since this, according to Daniel’s inspired vision, was the destiny of the Messiah prior to his second coming in glory. Jesus does indeed “preexist” his future return to the earth. All this had been seen in advance by Daniel before the birth of the Messiah. Thus, Jesus expected to ascend to the right hand of the Father where he had been seen before in vision as an exalted human being Son of Man (John 6:62). To say that Jesus was actually at the Father’s throne in heaven as a human being before his birth in Bethlehem is to misunderstand both John and Daniel. Jesus had to be born before anything predicted of him in the Old Testament could take place!
Glory Before Abraham
Jesus found his own history written in the Hebrew Scriptures (Luke 24:27). The role of the Messiah was clearly outlined there. Nothing in the divine record had suggested that Old Testament monotheism would be radically disturbed by the appearance of the Messiah. A mass of evidence will support the proposition that the apostles never for one moment questioned the absolute oneness of God, or that the appearance of Jesus created any theoretical problem about monotheism. It is therefore destructive of the unity of the Bible to suggest that in one or two texts in John, Jesus overturned his own creedal statement that the Father was “the only true God” (17:3), or that he took himself far outside the category of human being by speaking of a conscious existence from eternity. Certainly, his prayer for the glory which he had had before the world began (17:5) can be easily understood as the desire for the glory which had been prepared for him in the father’s plan. The glory which Jesus intended for the disciples had also been “given” (John 17:22, 24), but they had not yet received it.
It was typical of Jewish thinking that anything of supreme importance in God’s purpose Moses, the Law, repentance, the Kingdom of God and the Messiah had “existed” with God from eternity. In this vein John can speak of the crucifixion having “happened” before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8, KJV). Peter, writing late in the first century, still knows of Jesus” “preexistence” only as an existence in the foreknowledge of God (1 Peter 1:20). His sermons in the early chapters of Acts reflect exactly the same view.
But what of the favorite proof text in John 8:58 that Jesus existed before Abraham? Does Jesus after all confuse everything by saying on the one hand that the Father alone is the “only true God” (17:3, 5:44) and that he himself is not God, but the Son of God (John 10:36) and on the other hand that he, Jesus, is also an uncreated being? Does he define his status within the recognizable categories of the Old Testament (John 10:36; Ps. 82:6; 2:7) only to pose an insoluble riddle by saying that he had been alive before the birth of Abraham? Is the Trinitarian problem, which has never been satisfactorily resolved, to be raised because of a single text in John? Would it not be wiser to read John 8:58 in the light of Jesus” later statement in 10:36, and the rest of Scripture?
In the thoroughly Jewish atmosphere, which pervades the Gospel of John it is most natural to think that Jesus spoke in terms that were current amongst those trained in the rabbinical tradition. In a Jewish context, asserting “preexistence” does not mean that one is claiming to be an uncreated being! It does, however, imply that one has absolute significance in the divine plan. Jesus is certainly the central reason for creation. But the one God’s creative activity and his plan for salvation were not manifested in a unique created being, the Son, until Jesus” birth. The person of Jesus originated when God’s self-expression took form in a human being (John 1:14).
It is a well-recognized fact that the conversations between Jesus and the Jews were often at cross purposes. In John 8:57 Jesus had not in fact said, as the Jews seemed to think, that he had seen Abraham, but that Abraham had rejoiced to see Messiah’s Day (v. 56). The patriarch was expecting to arise in the resurrection at the last day (John 11:24; Matt. 8:11) and take part in the Messianic Kingdom. Jesus was claiming superiority to Abraham, but in what sense?
As the “Lamb of God” he had been “crucified before the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8, KJV; 1 Pet. 1:20) not, of course, literally, but in God’s plan. In this way also Jesus “was” before Abraham. Thus, Abraham could look forward to the coming of the Messiah and his Kingdom. The Messiah and the Kingdom therefore “preexisted” in the sense that they were “seen” by Abraham through the eyes of faith.
The expression “I am” in John 8:58 positively does not mean “I am God.” It is not, as so often alleged, the divine name of Exodus 3:14, where Yahweh declared: “I am the self-existent One” (ego eimi o ohn). Jesus nowhere claimed that title. The proper translation of ego eimi [I egwam eimi] in John 8:58 is “I am he,” i.e., the promised Christ (cp. the same expression in John 4:26, “I who speak to you am he [the Christ]. Before Abraham was born Jesus had been “foreknown” (cp. 1 Pet. 1:20). Jesus here makes the stupendous claim to absolute significance in God’s purpose.
The Logos in John 1:1
There is no reason, other than force of habit, to understand the “word” in John 1:1 to mean a second divine person, before the birth of Jesus. A similar personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8:22, 30 and Luke 11:49 does not mean that “she” is a second person. There is no possible way of accommodating a “second divine Person” in the revealed Godhead as John and Jesus understood it. The Father remains, as He always has been, “the only true God” (17:3), “the one who alone is God” (5:44).
Reading the term logos (“word) from an Old Testament perspective we will understand it to be God’s activity in creation, His powerful life-giving command by which all things came into existence (Ps. 33:6-12). God’s word is the power by which His purposes are furthered (Isa. 55:11). If we borrow from elsewhere in the New Testament we will equate the word with the creative salvation message, the gospel. This is the meaning throughout the New Testament (Matt. 13:19; Gal. 6:6, etc.).
It is this complex of ideas which go to make up the significance of logos, the “word.” “Through it all things were made and nothing was made without it” (John 1:3). In John 1:14 the word materializes in a real human being having a divine origin in his supernatural conception. From this moment, in “the fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4), the one God expresses Himself in a new creation, the counterpart of the original creation in Adam. Jesus” conception and birth mark a new unprecedented phase of God’s purpose in history. As the second Adam, Jesus sets the scene for the whole program of salvation. He pioneers the way to immortality. In him God’s purpose is finally revealed in a human being (Heb. 1:1).
All this does not mean, however, that Jesus gave up one life for another. That would seriously disturb the parallel with Adam who was also “Son of God” by direct creation (Luke 3:38). It would also interfere with the pure monotheism revealed throughout the Scriptures which “cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Rather, God begins to speak to us in the first century AD in a new Son, His last word to the world (Heb. 1:1). It is the notion of an eternally existing Son which so violently disrupts the biblical scheme, challenging monotheism and threatening the real humanity of Jesus (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7).
This understanding of Jesus in John’s Gospel will bring John into harmony with his fellow apostles and the monotheism of the Old Testament will be preserved intact. The facts of church history show that the unrestricted monotheism of the Hebrew Scriptures was soon after New Testament times abandoned under the influence of alien Greek ideas. At the same time the predetermined framework for Messiah hood was forgotten, and with it the reality of the future Messianic Kingdom. The result was years of conflict, still unresolved, over how an already existing second divine Person could be combined with a fully human being in a single individual. The concept of literal preexistence for the Messiah is the intruding idea, the part of the Christological puzzle which will not fit. Without it a clear picture of Jesus emerges within the terms of the Hebrew revelation and the teachings of the apostles. God, the Father, remains indeed the only true God, the one who alone is God (John 17:3; 5:44) and the oneness of Jesus with his Father is found in a unity of function performed by one who is truly the Son, as the Bible everywhere else understands that term (John 10:36). If Christianity is to be revived and unified it will have to be on the basis of belief in Jesus, the Messiah of the Bible, unspoiled by the misleading speculations of the Greeks who displayed very little sympathy for the Hebrew world into which Christianity was born.
To be concluded in part-2, in next issue
References
