The First Christians Believed That Jesus Was God Incarnate

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

You have to love urban myths. Our favourite is about parasites which lay their eggs on the edge of first class stamps. If you get a paper cut licking the stamp the eggs get implanted in your tongue. Then, after several weeks gestation, a small bug chews its way out! Of course, the story is sheer nonsense; but the image is so wonderfully vile, we almost want it to be true. Like all good urban legends, once this tale is retold, its survival is guaranteed.

So it isn’t that surprising to find another urban myth resurfacing each Christmas: that Christians did not believe that Jesus was God the Son until the council of Nicaea invented this doctrine in 325AD.  We wouldn’t expect sceptics to accept the deity of Christ; but we worry when “free-thinkers” take Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code seriously. The doctrine of the incarnation precedes the council of Nicea by centuries; furthermore, it is clearly assumed by the Gospel writers. They recognised that only God could match what was expected of Israel’s Messiah; as Jesus was the Messiah, therefore Jesus was God himself.

Granted, Jesus prayed to His Father in heaven, and taught his disciples to do the same. Jesus was an orthodox Jew, who held that the Lord his God was one God without equal, who would tolerate no rival. Despite all this, the Gospels, written within a generation of Jesus’ crucifixion, and undoubtedly using sources that go back to Jesus himself, clearly identify Jesus with God. It is easy to miss the point if you are unfamiliar with Israel’s scriptures –  but time and again Jesus does what only God can do, or says what only God can say.

We can give a few quick examples here. Jesus says that he has “come to seek and save those who are lost” (Luke 19 verse 10). In Ezekiel 34v 16 God says that he will come to seek and save those who are lost. In Ezekiel 34 God describes himself as a good shepherd; this is a role that Jesus assumes in the Gospels. In the same passage God says that he will judge between the sheep and the goats. Jesus reserves that right for himself in Matthew 25. In Matthew 25 Jesus describes himself as a bridegroom coming to claim his bride; this was a common Old Testament image for God’s relationship to Israel.

Jesus calms the storm on his own authority, and walks on the waves.  Psalm 89 asks  “O LORD God Almighty, who is like you? …You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them.” Psalms 65, 93 and 107 declare that God, uniquely, is mightier than the storm. Job 9 teaches that “[God] alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. The New Testament is clear about the identity of Jesus, if you are prepared to read it with knowledge of the Old Testament – and this is always how it was meant to be read!

It is plain that the Jesus of the Gospels has the rights and prerogatives of God. Every Gospel contains passages that strongly imply that Jesus is, somehow, identical with the God of Israel. This is hardly the sort of teaching Jesus’ Jewish disciples would create if they wanted to make their Rabbi popular with other Jews. Greek and Roman culture is not the source of this doctrine either; as we have noted, it is expressed with Jewish thoughts, in terms that would only make sense to Jewish readers.

So how did orthodox first century Jews, with their firm belief in the uniqueness of God and his superiority to all creation (especially human beings) come to believe that a crucified and shamed man was not only Messiah, but equal to and identical with God? We will leave that question for the reader to decide. However, those who knew Jesus, who memorised his teachings and passed on his story, were in no doubt. They believed with all their hearts that in Jesus Christ God had come down to be fully human, and to take his place as Israel’s true king.

 

 

Posted in Quick Thoughts, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Blogs About Nothing

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The New Atheism has attempted to re-brand atheism. Once upon a time, many atheists (the continental, existential type) were angry at God for not existing; God’s absence robbed the world of significance. Marxists rejected God for a monumental struggle with history. Most atheists were outraged at the great suffering in the world (Schopenhauer wished that the earth was as lifeless as the moon) and argued that a good God would never have allowed such a world. This “problem of evil” was the bedrock of atheism.

But a gloomy demeanour doesn’t sell in the modern marketplace. The New Atheists realised that a makeover was necessary before religion could be challenged as a source of meaning and hope. So some atheists have taken to labelling themselves “Brights”; no sense of despair there, then. If God doesn’t exist, we should get on with enjoying life and deciding what values we would prefer to live by. New Atheist bloggers are wild and witty (in a Python-esque way). They would rather write worship songs for a Flying Spaghetti Monster than engage with existential angst. A sort of cheerful, cheeky nihilism has been embraced, mass produced and widely distributed. The New Atheism may not be deep, but it sure is fun!

Now, New Atheists will chafe at the title “nihilist”. Nihilism sounds much too philosophical and much too gloomy. But we’re using the term in its technical, philosophical sense[1]. A nihilist simply denies that there is any overarching purpose to our lives; they do not recognise any transcendent value that gives our existence meaning. To state it bluntly, here and now is all we’ve got. Consider the universe according to PZ Myers:

The universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions.[2]

Now, you can believe that and sink into a deep melancholy; or you can rage at the absurdity of human existence; or you can just make the best of what you’ve got.  There’s no point in wallowing in your own misery.  After all we can just impose our own values on the world if God isn’t around to tell us we’re wrong.  We can decide what gives our lives meaning. As The Life of Brian puts it:

For life is quite absurd
And death’s the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow
Forget about your sin – give the audience a grin
Enjoy it – it’s your last chance anyhow

Now, this is mildly amusing verse, and the song has a pleasant tune. However, mild entertainment is all that cheerful nihilism can manage. It is utterly devoid of content and it lacks the courage to face the consequences of its convictions. Whether the wits like it or not, the “genetic hardwiring that [we’ve] inherited from your ancestors” gives us an insatiable hunger for meaning, purpose and redemption.

The human race suffers; an unshakeable feeling, deep in our bones, protests that the world shouldn’t be like this. So, when we experience tragedy we instinctively search for hope. The human race is as ephemeral as the universe it occupies; the stars will vanish like a vapour, and life will die with the light. So if there is hope, if there is consolation, it cannot be something that we impose on the universe. The meaning we crave cannot be created by “a lot of social enculturation, and…a bit of genetic hardwiring.”

So “cheerful nihilism” lacks integrity; if Myers and Coyne and their kin are correct, nature has played a horrible trick on us, setting us up to thirst for waters that can never be found. It would have been better if the universe had remained lifeless. Worse, their brand of nihilism has nothing to say beyond “aren’t we terribly clever and amusing!” Search their blogs for something, anything, beyond quips, complaints, insults and platitudes; it won’t take you long to read through your findings. This is the New Atheist’s greatest problem; when you believe that nothing ultimately matters, you’ll find that you have nothing worthwhile to say.



[1] See Shows About Nothing: Nihilism in Popular Culture from The Exorcist to Seinfeld by Thomas Hibbs (Spence:2000)

[2]“Pharyngula”  August 24, 2009 7:25 AM

Posted in Quick Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment