Dear Theophilus, 

I see that you again raise the issue of Jesus' divinity in your last letter. I grant you that this is a troublesome point and maybe it is time that we explored this question in greater depth.

Once, the major claim for saying that Jesus was divine was to refer to his miracles. This approach was bound to fail because even Jesus Himself condemned a faith which was based only on miracles and signs.

To many, the question of whether Jesus was divine or not is unimportant. What is crucial is what He taught. However, in any position such as this, it should be remembered that the divinity of Christ is not only a question of who Jesus is but also touches on the doctrine of God. What is the nature and purpose of God? Without a good Christology (teaching about who Christ is) we cannot have a good theology (teaching about God).

In order to answer the question of who Jesus Christ is, we have to go to our primary sources which are the Gospels and other writings of the New Testament. Here a common objection is that the Gospels are documents of faith and therefore, their historicity is suspect. But, in the previous letter, I have pointed out some objective pieces of evidence which support the historicity of the New Testament reports. To say that we cannot trust the New Testament accounts cannot be defended. Having said this, let us see what we learn about God in the New Testament.

What kind of God do we see there? One waiting to be discovered by philosophers and learned scholars? This is hardly the picture that Jesus paints because what we see there is a God who passionately seeks men, whether they are righteous or sinners. He accepts not only those who turn towards Him but actively seeks out those who are lost.

We think that the Incarnation is difficult to understand (it certainly is) and to accept as if it is a much easier matter to believe in the existence of God or to talk about what God is like. Maybe it is easier to accept the god of philosophical proofs or a Deistic god, but, not the God encountered in the Gospels. The Incarnation does not add to our difficulties but, paradoxically, makes the acceptance of this living God easier and I hope to clarify this point as I go along in this letter.

John, in his first letter, in the twenty third verse of chapter two, writes that no one who denies the Son has the Father and he who confesses the Son also has the Father. In order to know God one must know Christ. An English theologian puts this matter succinctly: the wise question is not whether Christ is divine but, what is God like. We assume that we know the attributes of God but on what basis do we make this assumption? On the basis of our logic or desires or leanings? Do you see what I am driving at? If I were to say that God is personal, you could counter that He is not. How would we resolve this question? It is interesting that in the New Testament, we do not find what I would call a "Jesus cult", that is, an exclusive veneration of Jesus. The New Testament writers are not interested in Jesus separate from the Father. Thus, when the early Christians spoke of the crucifixion they emphasized not so much Christ's love in this act as God's love. This is ludicrous and highly presumptuous unless.... unless Jesus and the Father are one which means that Jesus is divine. In Patristic writings, questionings about Jesus were almost always questionings about Jesus' relationship to the Father. How far and in what way was God involved in Jesus? Jesus redemptive work and love - is that what God is like?

It is quite instructive to consider one of the major heretical groups called the Arians, after Arius. The Arians accepted Jesus' virgin birth, his crucifixion, that he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. But, the Arians said that God and Christ were not of one essence which simply means that Christ is not divine. You would probably say to yourself, so what? They accept most of the Christian teachings, they are logical and consistent and many found this to be so as many joined the Arians. But it is interesting that Arius, in his writings, never speaks about God's love. In the confession presented by Arius to his bishop in AD 321 the word Father as applied to God is avoided. Arius' Christology is easier to grasp and more popular but, it is wrong because it presents a sub-Christian view of God.

The arguments used by the Arians are quite revealing about the consequences of viewing Jesus as simply another creature created by God. The Arians constantly supported their position by referring to scripture, but, understood in a very literal manner. It should be remembered that arguments based only on scripture are suspect because the scriptures give witness to Christ but do not contain a developed theology which is being worked out over time and which explores the meaning and significance of the scriptures. The central fact of the Christian faith, the Incarnation, is mystery and each generation works at wringing as much meaning from the mystery as they can. By mystery what I mean is something that is so complex and so alive that it cannot be satisfactorily explained by words or definitions. Again, allow me to illustrate with an example. There are two different types of maps of the world. One is contained in two circles representing the two hemispheres. The other is an oblong called Mercaptor's projection. Each map is a map of the whole world and each is true and untrue at the same time. They contradict each other and yet, both are necessary to describe the world. Taken together they correct each other and give us as complete a picture of the world as possible. Moreover, using these incomplete maps we can navigate the seas and get around the world quite satisfactorily. But, we never confuse the world or the seas with the maps. Theological dogma is somewhat along these lines. It may seem a challenge to rational considerations and it may be incomplete, but it is still sufficient to guide us to God and that is its only purpose.

One of the mysteries and paradoxes is the one we have been looking at, the divinity of Christ. A seemingly powerful argument against the Incarnation is that God cannot become human. The only reason for this is that we cannot imagine this happening. But if we use our imaginings as to what can or cannot happen then we would find much in this world that cannot be. So we see that this path does not really lead to fruitful results. In fact, if we were to say that God cannot incarnate, then we would run into very difficult problems with such fundamental concepts as history. If God cannot enter history in the sense of experiencing it and living in it, that is incarnating, then the whole of history is false. And if it is false then we should stop talking about it because we cannot learn anything from it. This is absurd and drives us to an impossible situation and therefore, there must be something wrong with this position. So we can see from this that the Incarnation, far from making things more complex and more impossible, makes them more understandable.

I want to consider another paradox or mystery that is present throughout the whole of the New Testament and it is sometimes used as an argument against Christ's divinity. What we will see is that this paradox in fact argues for Christ's divinity.

If we were to look at John's Gospel, we would encounter what is referred to as a high Christology, that is, Christ's divinity is accepted and frequently underlined. And yet, it is in this very Gospel that the following fact is stressed - Jesus says words to the effect: not I but the Father. Some have taken this to mean that Jesus is subordinate to God and is therefore lower than God, not divine. This is again to interpret the matter too rationalistically, ignoring the inherent paradox and it is to assume a too human concept of power. Christ cautions the apostles from being like Gentiles who lord it over others. Our concept of power is frequently coercion. This is not true. Secondly, this paradox has a mirror image when Paul declares - I, yet not I, but Christ in me. What Christianity has brought is a new mode of existence and this way of living is characterized by a deep humility and the realization that in some sense it is not we, but God acting through us who saves us. Not I but God is a truly unique Christian experience. God gives what He asks for. God forgives the repentant and goes to seek out the unrepentant. Already, in the Old Testament, Isaiah writes (50:7) of the idea of sin as a moral transgression and that God will forgive even without a sacrifice. It is God who initiates the saving process and all of this would not be known to us without the Incarnation. The Incarnation is not some epiphany (a brief revelation of God) but something that is more permanent revealing the paradoxical eternal nature of God. Jesus is still man today and we as a result, have a new understanding of God since He is the Father of Jesus. In many places, Paul writes of God's love as being expressed in Christ's crucifixion. How is this to be understood? Only if the Father and Jesus are one. Paul's theology is not fully developed; he is still groping to express and to comprehend the stupendous event that the disciples have experienced but even in his groping the theology is already pointing to the divinity of Christ. Just think of it. If Christ were not divine, he would be more loving, more sacrificial than God and does this make sense? Some atheists find the thought of God repugnant because of all that the world suffers and this again underlines the difficulties that result from denying Christ's divinity. You can see from this that saying that Christ is only human and not divine does not make matters easier to understand or see; it makes things infinitely more difficult to explain.

With this, I leave you, and until I hear from you again, I remain,

Bar-Abbas

Return to Index