17
INTRODUCTION
That Jesus is both God and man simultaneously is directly stated in the so-called Nicene Creed issued by the Council of Constantinople in 381 and in the creedal formulation issued by the Council of Ephesus in 431. The simultaneous god-man dichotomy finds its fullest expression, however, in the statement issued by the Council of Chalcedon in 451:
“…our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in deity and perfect in humanity… in two natures, without being mixed, transmuted, divided, or separated. The distinction between the natures is by no means done away with through the union, but rather the identity of each nature is preserved and concurs into one person and being. “
There are two natures that are neither “mixed” nor “separated,” yet “the distinction between” the human and divine “is preserved.” How are two things distinct from each other, yet not separated or divided? To use the analogy of apples and oranges, an apple is distinct from an orange, just as the alleged divinity of Jesus is said to be distinct from his humanity. But, that very distinction makes it logically impossible that the apple and the orange are not “divided or separated” from each other. Furthermore, one cannot resolve this dilemma by dropping the apple and the orange into a blender and pureeing them, because the doctrine tells us that the two natures are not “mixed, transmuted” or “done away with through the union.” Clearly, this is a doctrine that can be maintained only through recourse to the phrase “divine mystery,” because it defies all human reason, logic, and intellect.
It is perhaps because the doctrine of Jesus as both God and man is so difficult to comprehend that one finds a variety of beliefs about the nature of Jesus among Christians, despite the “official” statement of the Council of Chalcedon. In a nutshell, these beliefs can be categorized into three different positions: 1) Jesus is God; 2) Jesus is both God and man simultaneously; and 3) Jesus was a man, although one who was divinely inspired by God. Common to the first two positions is the belief that Jesus was divine in some way or other. In what follows, all three positions are addressed, although the first two are discussed jointly, as they both allege the divinity of Jesus.
JESUS VS. GOD
The Bible gives several examples in which Jesus distinguishes himself as being separate from God and clearly subordinates himself to God.
But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32).
Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except one—God.” (Mark 10:18; see also Matthew 19:17 and Luke 18:19).
Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise…`I am not able of myself to do anything; according as I hear I judge, and my judgment is righteous, because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me.” (John 5:19, 30)
… my Father is greater than I (John 14:28).
…I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God, and your God (John 20:17).
Of these verses, the last is particularly striking, for Jesus reportedly said that he was going “to my God, and your God,” which appears to be an explicit denial of his being God. There is one more verse that needs to be presented, one which says that after his ascension Jesus “sat down at the right hand of God,” obviously implying that Jesus and God are separate and distinct entities.
So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19).
Of most importance in considering this last verse, one should note that the verse does not say that Jesus sat down at the right hand of “the Father,” but that he “sat on the right hand of God.” As such, attempts to salvage a Jesus-as-God concept from this verse cannot resort to contrasting “the Son” with “the Father,” but are forced to contrast Jesus with God.
Additional Biblical examples of the separation of Jesus from God are readily available: 1) James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted, yet Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, and Luke 4:1-15 say that Jesus was tempted; 2) I Kings 8:27 states that God cannot dwell on earth or be contained, yet Jesus dwelt on earth. Further, how did the body of Jesus contain the uncontainable? 3) The Bible repeatedly says that Jesus prayed to God and asked things of Him (Matthew 14:23, 19:13, 26:39-44, 27:46; Mark 1:35, 6:45-46, 14:35-36, 15:33-34; Luke 3:21, 5:16, 6:12, 9:18 & 28, 11:1, 22:41-44, 23:46; John 14:16, 17:1-15), implying Jesus’s separation from and subordination to God; 4) God is all-powerful, yet Jesus needed to be strengthened by an angel (Luke 22:43); 5) Speaking out against Jesus can be forgiven, but speaking out against the Holy Ghost will never be forgiven (Matthew 12:32).
Finally, the Bible has Jesus frequently referring to himself as the “son of man” (e.g., Matthew 8:20, 9:6, 10:23, 11:19, 12:8 & 12:32, 13:37-41, 16:13 & 27-28, 17:22; 24:27-31, 26:24, 45, & 64). But, the Bible also states that God is not a man or the son of man.
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent (Numbers 23:19).
THE “SON OF GOD”
Some Christians may want to cling to the alleged divinity of Jesus by reference to the concept of the “Son of God” as stated in Matthew 16:16. However, a quick perusal of the Bible demonstrates that “Son of God” was a title that was used metaphorically, not literally. For example, the Bible refers to all of the following individuals and groups as being the “Son of God”: 1) the people of Israel (Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1-3; and Jeremiah 31:9); 2) the Israelite sub-tribe of Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9, 20); 3) David (Psalms 2:7 and 89:3, 26-27); 4) Solomon (II Samuel 7:13-14—it was Solomon who built the “house”/temple of God in Jerusalem); 5) the angels (Job 1:6); and 6) all faithful Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:1). As can be seen by these above verses, the Bible refers to numerous people and entities as being the “Son of God.”
JESUS AS PROPHET
Islam and the Qur’an view Jesus as being a man, although a man who was a prophet and messenger of God. The Bible provides numerous references indicating that the contemporaries of Jesus also viewed him as being a prophet, not a deity. A representative sampling of these references includes Matthew 21:10-11, 45-46; Mark 6:14-15; Luke 7:14-16, 9:7-8, 24:19; and John 4:16-19, 6:14, 7:40, 9:17. As these verses demonstrate, the contemporaries of Jesus Christ repeatedly considered him to be a prophet. It mattered not whether those contemporaries were the crowds of Jerusalem, the Israelite people in general, those who had witnessed the reported miracles of Jesus, those who had talked with Jesus and been confronted by him, or those who were healed by him. Across all these groups, the above verses of the New Testament indicate that there was a consensus that Jesus was a prophet of one kind or another.
Having presented the above, it must be acknowledged that the Christian reader will probably be quick to claim that these contemporaries of Jesus were wrong and that they misperceived him and did not know him well enough to understand him and his “divine” nature. It is instructive to note, however, that neither Jesus nor the authors of the New Testament books cited above ever said that the contemporaries of Jesus were wrong in saying that he was a prophet. Moreover, in several New Testament passages, Jesus appears to be referring to himself as being a prophet.
He that receives you receives me, and he that receives me receives him that sent me. He that receives a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward. (Matthew 10:40-41)
Several points need to be made with regard to the above quoted verses: 1) The statement that “he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me” cannot be used to equate the nature of Jesus with that of God unless one is willing to use the statement that “he that receiveth you receiveth me” equates the nature of others with that of Jesus, and then by extension with that of God; 2) The first sentence also has Jesus referring to “him that sent me,” clearly implying that Jesus was subordinate to the One who sent him; 3) If the statement that “(h)e that receiveth a prophet” is not a self-reference to Jesus’ own prophethood, then to what prophet is Jesus referring? This becomes a crucial question, because the alleged statement of Jesus is not made in the past tense.
In a second statement attributed to Jesus, he refers to himself and to his having just been rejected by the people of Nazareth after attempting to preach there.
But Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. (Matthew 13:57; see also Mark 6:1-4, Luke 4:16-24, and John 4:43-44)
In a third statement attributed to Jesus, albeit one that is sometimes interpreted by Christians as referring to the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, Jesus again refers to himself as being a prophet.
Yet today, tomorrow, and the next day I must be on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem. (Luke 13:33).
JESUS AND ADOPTIONISM
Given the above Biblical verses, how is one to understand the title of “Son of God” when it is applied to Jesus? The answer is to be found in the Adoptionist movement within early Christianity. The Adoptionist trajectory in early Christianity begins with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. According to the usual Adoptionist formulations, it was at his moment of baptism that Jesus moved into his special relationship or metaphorical “sonship” with God—not at his conception or virgin birth. With regard to the baptism of Jesus, the account of Luke is especially relevant. As noted in appropriate footnotes to the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, the oldest Greek manuscripts of and quotations from Luke render the key verse in question as follows.
Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my son; today I have begotten you” (Luke 3:21-22).
“Today I have begotten you,” i.e., at the time of baptism, not at the time of conception. Given that Jesus was clearly an adult at the time of his baptism, under this ancient reading of Luke, “begotten” must be understood metaphorically, not physically or literally. In other words, the “sonship” of Jesus was a created relationship, not a begotten relationship. Furthermore, before the contemporary Christian rejects this most ancient wording of Luke 3:22, he should realize that this exact wording regarding the baptism of Jesus is also to be found in Hebrews 1:5a, Hebrews 5:5, and Acts 13:33. This same wording is also found in Psalms 2:7 in reference to David and in the apocryphal Gospel of the Ebionites in reference to the baptism of Jesus.
THE EARLY CHURCH AND ADOPTIONISM
Numerous examples of Adoptionism and of the subordination of Jesus to God can be found within the history of the early church, e.g., the Ebionites, the Elkesaites, the Nazarenes (not to be confused with the modern denomination of the same name), Theodotianism or Dynamic Monarchianism, Arianism, Anomoeism, Nestorianism, and the Paulicians of Armenia. Furthermore, a listing of key individuals who supported an Adoptionist position or the subordination of Jesus to God reads like a Who’s Who of early Christianity. Included among these individuals are: 1) Theodotus the Tanner, a second-century theologian; 2) Origen, a third-century priest, theologian, and head of the catechetical school at Alexandria; 3) Dionysius, a third-century bishop and head of the catechetical school at Alexandria; 4) Paul of Samosata, a third-century bishop of Antioch; 5) St. Lucian of Antioch, a third-century theologian; 6) Arius, a fourth-century priest at Alexandria; 7) Eusebius of Nicomedia, a fourth-century bishop of Berytus and Nicomedia; 8) Macedonius, a fourth-century bishop and patriarch of Constantinople; 9) Aetius, a fourth-century deacon at Antioch, who was later elevated to the episcopacy in 361; 10) Nestorius, a fifth-century bishop and patriarch of Constantinople; 11) Theodore of Mopsuestia, a fifth-century “guardian of right faith” in the Persian church; and 12) St. Clothilda, a fifth and sixth-century princess of Burgundy and queen of the Salian Franks.
While space does not permit a review of each of the above, it is instructive to look at the teachings of Arius. Arius taught that God is absolutely unique and incomparable, is alone self-existent, unchangeable, and infinite, and must be understood in terms of his absolute Oneness. Given this all-important first premise, Arius concluded that: 1) the life of Jesus demonstrates that Jesus was not self-existent, that he changed and grew over time, if in no other way than in passing through the stages of birth, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, and that he was finite, having a definite time of conception and birth; 2) therefore Jesus was God’s created being, who was called into existence out of nothingness, who could not have shared in the absolute uniqueness, immutability, and infinity of the Godhead without compromising them, who could not have been of the same substance as God without compromising the Oneness of God, and who could have had no direct knowledge of God, other than that which God chose to reveal to him.
Many Christians mistakenly believe that the questions concerning the nature of Jesus were resolved at the Council of Nicaea in 325 with the issuance of a doctrine saying that Jesus and God were of the same substance or essence. But a quick review of the decisions of subsequent church councils reveals that the issue was hardly resolved. For example, the Council of Antioch in 341 released a new creed that omitted any mention of Jesus and God being of one substance. Furthermore, at the Council of Sirmium in 357, the creedal formulation was that Jesus was unlike God. Only in 381, at the Council of Constantinople, was the Adoptionist position temporarily put to rest by the issuance of the so-called Nicene Creed. But, Adoptionism was so popular, probably representing the majority position within Christianity through at least the fourth century, that repeated church councils had to reaffirm the Nicene Christology.
JESUS IN ISLAM
Like many Adoptionists among the early Christian saints, theologians, and bishops, Islam maintains that Jesus was a man, albeit one who was a prophet and messenger of God and who performed many miracles by God’s leave. Islam also affirms the virgin birth of Jesus, but sees this as a miraculous creation, not as an act of divine begetting.
The angels (appeared) to Mary and said, “Mary! God has chosen you and purified you. He’s chosen you above the women of all nations”…When the angels (again returned to Mary after some time had passed), they said, “Mary! God gives you the good news of a word from Him. He’s going to be called the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary. He’ll be honored in this world, as well as in the next, where he’ll be among those nearest (to God)…” “But my Lord!” she cried out. “How can I have a son when no man has touched me?” “And so it is that God creates whatever He wants,” the angels replied. “When He decides something, He only has to say, ‘Be,’ and it is.”…The example of Jesus in the sight of God is like that of Adam. He created him from dust, saying, “Be,” and he was. (Quran 3:42, 45, 47, 59)
As to Jesus being the son of God in any literal sense, the Qur’an adamantly rejects such a possibility, just as did the aforementioned Christian saints, theologians, and bishops.
It’s not right (to say) that God has taken a son. All glory be to Him! Whenever He decides something, all He has to do is say, “Be,” and it is! (Quran 19:35)
(Excerpt from book "Easily Understand Islam")
Click to read sample chapters from the book below
Table of Contents
Why is there Evil and Suffering?
Why I Believe in God — A Muslim Speaks
The Quran, Modern Science, and More
Islam & Racism
Islam: A Solution for America’s Social Problems?
Some Muslim Virtues (Sayings of the Prophet)
Section IV: Islam & Christianity
Common Ground: Judaism, Christianity & Islam