Source: The Trinity — Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey Chapter 17, p. 276
If the authors of the New Testament believed that Jesus was both God and man at the same time, how would they express that idea in the Greek language of their day? What words would they use to describe the person and work of Christ? We expect to find that the Son will be described as both Creator and creature; God of very God and man of very man.
The anti-Trinitarians begin with the a priori assumption that the authors of the New Testament did not believe that Jesus was divine. If their assumptions are valid, then we would not expect to find passages in the New Testament which describe Jesus as true deity. To them Jesus was only a carpenter or a prophet. Is this the view of Jesus found in the New Testament?
Those who grew up with Jesus in Nazareth assumed that He was, like his "father" Joseph, a carpenter. And, of course, for most of His life Jesus was a carpenter by trade. But to assert that He was only a carpenter is an illustration of what is called a "secular" or naturalistic view of Jesus.
If, as some modern liberals assert, Jesus never claimed to be anything more than a simple carpenter, then how can they explain all the opposition Jesus encountered in Nazareth?
Mark 6:2-4 (NASB) 2 When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?
3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.
4 Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household."
The opposition Jesus faced in Nazareth was generated by His powerful sermons, wonderful miracles, and astounding claims. If, as some modern secularists assert, Jesus did not claim to be anything more than a carpenter, if He did not do any miracles, and if He did not speak those sermons attributed to Him in the Gospels, then why did people get so upset? Why all the opposition? Obviously, He was more than a mere carpenter.
Nicodemus addressed Jesus as "Rabbi" and identified Him as a "teacher."
John 3:1-2 (NASB) 1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;
2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."
Some modern Jews now accept that Jesus was one of the greatest Jewish Rabbis who ever lived. But how could the Rabbi Jesus generate so much hatred and rage from His fellow rabbis? Why all the later harsh Talmudic statements against Him? If the Rabbi Jesus never said or did anything to get anyone mad, why all the fuss?
When we consider the constant opposition Jesus encountered and the fact of His crucifixion, it is extremely unlikely that Jesus was just a simple Jewish Rabbi who never said or did anything to generate such opposition.
Nicodemus went on to state that Jesus was more than a simple Jewish Rabbi because Jesus was able to do "signs," which was one of three biblical words denoting miracles (signs, wonders, miracles).
... "for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." (John 3:2b)
In Nicodemus' view, Jesus was a great teacher and a miracle worker, which is true. He was the greatest teacher and miracle worker who ever lived. But to say that He was only a teacher or a miracle worker is not true. This is why the rest of the chapter stresses that the Father sent His Son to be the Savior of the world (John 3:16). The apostle John is clearly elevating Jesus from Rabbi to the Son of God and from miracle worker to the Savior of the world.
It is just as unlikely that Jesus was a simple moralist who spoke only of loving one's neighbor as yourself. Who could get mad at that kind of Jesus? Thus, any "Jesus" who would not sufficiently generate enough fear, hatred, and anger to lead to several assassination attempts culminating in His crucifixion, cannot be the historical Jesus.
The intensity of the hatred generated against Jesus cannot be minimized. Just reading the following passages is sufficient to reveal that He was not an ordinary man:
Matthew 12:14 (NASB) But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.
Mark 14:1 (NASB) Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away; and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and kill Him;
Luke 4:28-29 (NASB) And all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage as they heard these things; and they got up and drove Him out of the city, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city had been built, in order to throw Him down the cliff.
Luke 22:2 (NASB) The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people.
John 8:59 (NASB) Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
John 11:53 (NASB) So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.
All the modern secular views maintain that the "real" Jesus did nothing miraculous, did not preach the sermons or parables attributed to Him in the Gospels, and never claimed to be the Messiah or God incarnate. The "Jesus" they are left with after they have stripped him of anything miraculous is so anemic and pale that the crucifixion becomes an enigma.
Even more to the point, a secular "Jesus" who was a simple Jew is not only unworthy of our ultimate faith and love is a bore. Such a "Jesus" could not have commanded the allegiance of the kind of men and women who have willingly lived and died for Him throughout the centuries. Obviously, the historical Jesus was more than a carpenter, a Rabbi, a teacher, a miracle worker, or a moralist.
Just as there were those who held a secular view of Jesus, there were those who thought He was more than a carpenter. He was not an ordinary man, but someone special. In Matthew 16:13-14, Jesus asked His disciples an important question.
Matthew 16:13-14 (NASB) Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
Because Jesus was obviously more than a carpenter or mere Rabbi, different explanations arose as to who Jesus realy was. Some thought He was John the Baptist who had been resurrected after being beheaded. Even King Herod thought this was a possibility.
Matthew 14:1-2 (NASB) At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the news about Jesus, and said to his servants, "This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him."
Others thought Jesus was the "Elijah" whose coming was prophesied in Malachi 4:5-6. Or, perhaps He was a resurrected prophet, such as Jeremiah or one of the other prophets. But whoever He was, He was a great prophet:
John 6:14 (NASB) Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, "This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world."
That Jesus was a prophet is true. As the only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5) Jesus is the great prophet whose coming was predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18-19 (cf. Acts 3:17-26).
Despite his abysmal ignorance of the Bible, even Muhammad understood that Jesus was a great prophet (Sura 19:30). But while Muhammad correctly believed that Jesus was more than a carpenter, he failed to understand that Jesus was more than a mere prophet.
After Jesus asked the disciples what people were saying about Him, He asked them a direct question:
Matthew 16:15-16 (NASB) He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Peter's statement reveals that Jesus was more than a prophet as well as more than a carpenter, Rabbi, or miracle worker. In fact, Jesus was the long awaited Messiah who was the divine Son of God. No wonder Jesus went on tot identify Peter's confession of faith as the rock on which the Christian Church was founded:
Matthew 16:17-18 (NASB) And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."
Peter's understanding of the person and work of Jesus was not just his personal opinion. The knowledge that Jesus was the Messiah, the divine Son of God, was revealed to him by God the Father in heaven.
This is the fatal flaw in most secular views of Jesus. Because a secularized Jesus would have never been accused of blasphemy, how can they explain all the opposition Jesus encountered, particularly the charge of blasphemy? (Mat 26:63-68; John 5:17-18; 8:58-59; 10:30-33) They can't.
The biblical definition of blasphemy is found in Revelation 2:9 (NASB) "I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." (Other verses which use the word "blasphemy": Mat 26:63-65; Mrk 14:61-64; Jhn 10:33)
Even after Jesus' resurrection, people continued to develop false views of who He was. The Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians that there were "false apostles" who were actually the ministers of Satan who preached "another Jesus" who was different from the one revealed in Scripture and in the Gospel.
2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (NASB) But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 (NASB) For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.
Paul condemned anyone who preached "another Jesus." Paul used the word "αλλον" to deny that there can be more than one Jesus. The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament explains that:
when the existence of "ἄλλος" is denied, then another, a second, or additional persons or things of the same rank or nature are excluded... The existence of even theoretical possibility of additional things or person of a particular kind, of something identical or of the same nature or worth is denied ... could have accomplished the deeds performed by Jesus. According to Acts 4:12 salvation is in no other one. Paul makes the same claim for the gospel which he preaches. Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church, laid in the proclamation; no one can lay any other (1 Cor. 3: 11). There is no other gospel than that of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:6).
The Greek word "αλλον" means that not all views of Jesus are created equal. There is only one view which can be true and all the others must be false. There is only one true view of Jesus—the One found within the pages of Scripture.
Paul goes on to condemn those who preach "another Jesus" as being motivated by "a different spirit" and being guilty of preaching "a different Gospel."
The idea that any view of Jesus is "Ok" as long as it is sincerely held and makes people happy is totally foreign to the New Testament. Any view of Jesus not found in Scripture must be condemned as "another Jesus."
The Apostle John was also quite severe in his condemnation of those who preached "another Jesus." Anyone who denies that Jesus was the Messiah is an antichrist:
1 John 2:22 (NASB) Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
To deny the Messiahood of Jesus was to deny that He was the divine Son of God. To deny that He was the divine Son of God was to deny the Fatherhood of God. In his commentary on John's Epistles, Professor I. Howard Marshall, Senior Lecturer in New Testament Exegesis at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, explains:
From verse 9 it is, however, clear that he believed that a false view of the person of Jesus destroyed the possibility of a religious relationship with God. From 1 John it is apparent that for the elder "Christ" and "Son of God" were virtually synonymous; hence a denial that Jesus was the Christ was a denial that God's Son had truly become incarnate and revealed the love of God by dying as an atoning sacrifice for sin. The historical basis of Christian faith was thus removed.
Morgan and Cox in their classic commentary point out that:
It is observable that, in treating of truth and error, the whole subject of the apostle is concerning Jesus Christ. He assumes that if our views of Him are correct, so will be our apprehension of the whole circle of truth; but that if they be erroneous, we shall not rightly perceive any other truth.
Those who deny the pre-existence of Jesus and His incarnation are false prophets and antichrists according to 1 John 4:1-3:
1 John 4:1-3 (NASB) Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
John warns the Elect Lady not to invite anyone to preach in her house church who does not hold to the orthodox doctrine of Christ. Anyone who preaches another view of Jesus is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2 John 7-11 (NASB) For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 12 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
Prof. Marshall comments:
We should, however, pause to note that for John the height of heresy is to deny that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and Savior. To reduce Jesus to the status of a mere man, or to allow no more than a temporary indwelling of some divine power in him is to strike at the root of Christianity. Modern thinkers may have more refined ways of stating similar denials of the reality of the incarnation. It may be doubted whether they are any more immune to John's perception that they take the heart out of Christianity. For the person who denies that Jesus is the Son has no share in God the Father. If heretics thought that they could "have" God without believing in Jesus, they are completely mistaken. It is only through the Son that we know that God is Father, and it is only though the Son and his propitiatory death that we can have access to God as Father.
Liberal theologians should take to heart the warning of the Apostle John because they are not immune from the charge of heresy.
The "Jesus Seminar," which gained some notoriety in the early 1990's was composed of atheists, agnostics, Jews, university professors, students, liberal Protestant and Catholic clergymen, theologians, a Hollywood movie producer, and some other non-scholars. They represented the radical wing of the religious left.
What brought them together was their common denial of the New Testament's claim that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. On this there was complete agreement. No conservative theologians or philosophers were part of the Seminar.
In order to keep out conservatives, the Seminar set forth "Seven Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom" and thirty-four "Rules Of Written Evidence" which set up a liberal litmus test to limit membership to those who embraced certain radical liberal dogmas. While anyone who did not agree with these dogmas was was labelled a "non-scholar" or "uncritical thinker," anyone who did agree with their dogmas was called a "true scholar," "honest scholar," and "critical thinker." For example, one "rule" set forth to guide the members of the Seminar in deciding what Jesus could or could not say was that "Jesus makes no claim to be the Anointed, the messiah".
The Seminar, then, began with the assumption that the "historical" Jesus never claimed to be the "messiah." Neither did he perform any miracles. Thus, whenever they ran into a Gospel text where Jesus claimed to be the Messiah or where he performed a miracle, they dismissed it as a pious fraud invented by well-meaning, but deluded disciples.
The "Pillars" and "Rules" of the Seminar reveal that a secular view of Jesus was the only view allowed. What is secularism? As a philosophy and methodology, secularism is the vacuum created by the denial of the sacred. Its goal is to strip away anything remotely sacred. Thus, the Seminar rejected the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. They ridiculed evangelical and fundamental Christians in general and Southern Baptists and Missouri Synod Lutherans in particular. The biblical doctrine of Creation was denounced and Darwinian evolutionism put in its place. They dogmatized that the Jesus of history was not the Christ of the Gospels or the creeds. They naively assumed the Wrede-Boussett thesis that Paul created Christianity from the Greek mystery religions and that Jesus was not a Christian but a simple Jew. Thus, the picture of Jesus given in the New Testament is a "Christianized" Jesus invented by the early Church.
While the members of the Seminar were unanimous in denying the Gospel, they could not agree as to who the "real" Jesus was or what he really did or said. Once they were no longer bound to the authority of Scripture, each member felt free to create a Jesus in his or her own image. This has resulted in chaos, conflict, and confusion as many contradictory views of Jesus emerged from the liberal matrix of subjectivism and relativism. So many different and conflicting Jesus's have been created that it is almost comical to see them fighting among themselves as to who has the "real" Jesus.
| Was the "real" Jesus | ||
|---|---|---|
| gay | or | heterosexual? |
| pacifist | or | revolutionary? |
| mystic | or | rational? |
| immoral | or | moral? |
| teacher | or | bandit? |
| feminist | or | woman hater? |
| black | or | white? |
The chart above reveals the almost psychotic mentality that prevails among liberal when it comes to Jesus. While liberal homosexual theologians picture Jesus sleeping with his male disciples, such as John, the liberal heterosexual theologians have him sleeping with his female disciples, such a Martha! Will the "real" Jesus please stand up!
Some members of the Jesus Seminar are not oblivious to this situation and they recognize that they have a real problem on their hands. Some have even admitted that far too often "the Jesus we have found is the Jesus we wanted to find." They faced the constant temptation:
to create Jesus in our own image, to marshal the facts to support preconceived convictions ... of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to [us].
John Dominic Crossan, professor of religion at DePaul University, was co-founder and co-director of the Jesus Seminar. He admitted that:
Historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke. There were always historians who said it could not be done because of historical problems. There were always theologians who said it should not be done because of theological objections. And there were always scholars who said the former when they meant the latter.
... It seems we can have as many pictures of Jesus as there are exegetes... But that stunning diversity is an academic embarrassment. It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do auto-biography and call it biography.
Every time a new view of Jesus was published by a liberal scholar, Crossan admits that it "adds to the impression of acute scholarly subjectivism." He even lists some contemporary conflicting views of Jesus among liberals:
Brandon: Jesus was a political revolutionary
Smith: Jesus was a magician
Vermes: Jesus was a Galilean charismatic
Chilton: Jesus was a Galilean rabbi
Falk: Jesus was a Hillelite or an Essene
Sanders: Jesus was an eschatological prophet
Whereas the average person would look upon such chaos with dismay, Crossan thinks that all these conflicting views are good:
What is happening now is rather a positive one. It is the number of competent and even eminent scholars producing pictures of Jesus at wide variance with one another.
This is no doubt why he felt free to throw his hat into the ring and create his own view of Jesus. This view gained some notoriety in the media due to his assertion that the body of Jesus was not resurrected but was actually devoured by wild dogs.
In his books Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography and The Historical Jesus, Crossan assumed that the "historical" Jesus was not the "Christ of faith." The "real" Jesus who actually existed in history was not the virgin-born Messiah, the Son of the living God. He did not in fact do any of the miracles attributed to him in the Gospels. In fact, neither did he say most of what is attributed to him in the Gospels. He was executed for revolutionary activities and, instead of being resurrected, his body was devoured wild dogs. The last view we have of Crossan's Jesus is a dog running down the road with Jesus' leg bone in his mouth.
Crossan's methodology is based upon the Kantian dichotomy between the phenomenal (fact) and the noumenal (faith), Hegelian dialectism, Darwinian evolutionism, Marxist ideology, and liberation theology. His claim that Jesus was a 60's style hippie is illustrative of the fact that Crossan's work is more an autobiography of himself than of a biography of Jesus.
Crossan's view of Jesus is just one more attempt by liberals to pass off their theology as history. He looked into the well of his own belief system and whon he saw his own reflection, he thought he was seeing the "real" Jesus! This explains why Crossan could describe Jesus as a Neo-Marxists revolutionary peasant who tried to transform society into the Marxist's dream of a classless society where everyone was equal. Crossan's Jesus is only himself writ large.
C.S. Lewis, in The Screwtape Letters, recorded a letter from Screwtape to Wormwood in which the search for the "historical Jesus" is revealed as a device of Satan to turn men away from the real Jesus found in the Gospels. What Lewis says clearly applies to the Jesus Seminar:
You will find that a good many Christian-political writers think that Christianity began going wrong, and departing from the doctrine of its Founder, at a very early stage. Now this idea must be used by us to encourage once again the conception of a "historical Jesus" to be found by clearing away later "accretions and perversions" and then to be contrasted with the whole Christian tradition. In the last generation we promoted the construction of such a "historical Jesus" on liberal and humanitarian lines; we are now putting forward a new "historical Jesus" in Marxian, catastrophic, and revolutionary lines. The advatages of these constructions, which we intend to change every thirty or so years, are manifold. In the first place they all tend to direct men's devotion to something which does not exist, for each "historical Jesus" is unhistorical. The documents say what they say and cannot be added to; each new "historical Jesus" therefore has to be got out of them by suppression at one point and exaggeration at another, and by that sort of guessing (brilliant is the adjective we teach humans to apply to it) on which no one would risk ten shillings in ordinary life... We thus distract men's minds from Who He is, and what He did... we substitute a merely probable, remote, shadowy, and uncouth figure, one who spoke a strange language and died a long time ago... The "historical Jesus," then, however dangerous he may seem to be to us at some particular point, is always to be encouraged.
The fatal error of liberalism is its a priori assumption that the early Church created Jesus. But they have it backwards. The Church did not create Jesus--Jesus created the Church! They have forgotten the words "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mat 16:18).
The second search for a "historical" Jesus will sink into the quagmire of its own subjectivism and relativism just as surely as the first search. The view of Jesus found in the New Testament is the historical Jesus of fact as well as of faith. He is the Christ, the Son of the living God and the only Savior of sinners.
The word "Jesus" is found in the New Testament 919 times (NASB: 947x). Is this "Jesus" a mythological symbol or was He a real historical person who lived and died nearly two thousand ago?
Except for a few bigoted atheists, the existence of the historical Jesus is not doubted or debated anymore. There is more than sufficient historical evidence to demonstrate that Jesus actually lived and died.
Is the name "Jesus" a metaphor for some kind of non-personal force or energy? Is He only a name for the good side of "the Force?" Or, is Jesus a true historical person with intellect, emotion, and will?
The Trinitarian begins with the a priori assumption that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person. Thus, we expect to find in the New Testament that Jesus manifested the attributes of personhood, i.e., Jesus will be described by the authors of the New Testament as doing and saying those things which only a person can do and say. And when we turn to the New Testament to see whether these assumptions are verified, we find that they are.
Jesus knows (John 2:24), speaks (Mat 5:2), sees (John 1:48), loves or hates (Mark 10:21), wills (Mat 26:39), gives or does not give (John 17:2), reveals or hides (Mat. 11:27), is pleased or is not pleased (2 Cor 5:9), forgives or does not forgive (Mark 2:5), sends (John 20:21), dies (1 Cor 15:3), etc. It is not a surprise that such pronouns as "he," "him," "his," etc., are used in reference to Jesus. These passages clearly demonstrate the personhood of Jesus.
Just as 1 John 1:3 demonstrated the absolute necessity of the personhood of the Father, it likewise demonstrates the absolute necessity of the personhood of the Son. The fact that any and all believers in every generation can at any time and in any place have fellowship with the heavenly Jesus reveals that He has to be a person:
What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3)
As we already pointed out, because the word μετά "with" is used three times in this passage, it grammatically means that just as we are not the Father, the Father is not the Son:
our fellowship is with (μετά) you
our fellowship is with (μετά) the Father
our fellowship is with (μετά) the Son
Any believer can stop what he or she is doing at any time and have fellowship with the risen Christ in heaven. This means that we can offer our praises and prayers to the ascended Son of God (Acts 7:59). First John 1:3 presupposes that Jesus is aware of and is capable of responding to our prayers and praise. While Trinitarians are completely comfortable with this truth, anti-Trinitarians have yet to face the implications of 1 John 1:3.
One possible objection to the personhood of Jesus is that on several occasions He referred to Himself using the neuter gender instead of the masculine. In Matthew 12:6, we read:
Matthew 12:6 (NASB) But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.
Jesus referred to Himself as μειζον which is the neuter of μέγας and means that He was "a greater thing" than the temple (Thayer, 395).
In Matthew 12:41-42, Jesus referred to Himself as πλείον which is the neuter of πλείων and means that He was "a superior thing" to Jonah and Solomon (Thayer, 516).
Jesus used the neuter instead of the masculine because He had in mind His divine nature which was "greater" than the physical nature of the temple and "superior" to the human nature of the prophets and kings. He was more than a carpenter, rabbi, prophet, etc., because He was greater in nature than all these things.
One reason why the Jews became so enraged with Jesus is that He claimed to be greater than the most important people and places in Judaism. Jesus was greater than the Patriarchs, such as Abraham and Jacob (John 8:53; 4:12). He was greater than the prophets, such as Jonah (Mat 12:41). He was greater than the Kings, such as Solomon (Mat 12:42). He was greater than Moses (Mat 5:22,28,32,34,39,44). He was even greater than the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). But the most astounding claim of all was that He was greater than the Temple itself (Mat 12:6).
The Jews clearly saw the logical implications of such claims. The only One who was "greater" than all these things was God Himself. Therefore, Jesus was claiming to be God. That is why they picked up stones to kill Him for blasphemy (John 8:52-59).
What must be in order for what is to be what it is? Given the theophanies of the Old Testament and the early Jewish literature, we would expect to find that the first heresy to afflict the Church would be a denial of the humanity of Jesus. And when we turn to the New Testament, we find that the earliest heresies refuted in the New Testament denied the humanity of the Christ, but not His deity.
The deity of the Christ was not controversial until much later because the theophanies in the Old Testament had already established the idea of Yahweh coming to earth in human form. The literature of early Judaism already spoke of Yahweh coming to earth as a man (Isa 40:10-11; Mal 3:1). It is, thus, no surprise to the Trinitarian that the first heresy to arise was Docetic Gnosticism. As Millard Erickson pointed out, it was probably "the original heresy" and "the object of the apostle's rebuttal in 1 John." He explains:
Docetism (from the Greek verb δοκέω , "to seem") was the belief that Jesus was not genuinely human, that he merely "seemed" or "appeared" to possess human nature. Just as the Docetic Gnostics had no difficulty accepting the deity of Jesus but only the humanity, so they had no difficulty accepting the idea that Mary was a virgin, but only that Jesus was genuinely born.
In his commentary on 1 John, Lias notes:
The Gnostics denied that the Deity could be united to matter, which they believed to be essentially alien to the Divinity. And so they denied the perfect manhood of the Son of God.
The classic commentator Robert Candlish explains:
In the dreamy and misty theosophy of the Gnostic anti-christs, any Christ whom they would acknowledge at all could be nothing else than a sort of effect or emanation of Deity, a detached portion of the divine nature, or wisdom or love; altogether visionary and unsubstantial; but withal very sublime. The idea of such a transcendental Christ being identical with the historical man, the man of "flesh and bones," Jesus, was an outrage on their philosophy ... that he was truly and personally himself the Christ, in his man-hood and in his manhood's history and experience, especially in his birth and in his death, their subtle notions of spirit and matter compelled them strenuously to deny.
The point of controversy in the earliest heresies had to do with a denial of the humanity of Jesus Christ, i.e., that the Christ was a real human being, a man of flesh and blood. The Gnostics claimed that the divine Christ was a phantom or spirit manifestation, but not a real human being. This is why the New Testament writers stressed the doctrine of the Incarnation as the test of orthodoxy.
If the authors of the New Testament believed that Jesus Christ was a real flesh and blood man, how could they express that idea? What Greek words would they have to use to communicate that concept to their readers? They would have to use the normal words for a flesh and blood body. And when we turn to the Scriptures, this is exactly what they did.
The apostle John was quite emphatic on the fleshly or human nature of the divine Logos. The eternal divine Word had now become incarnate, i.e., had become flesh and blood:
John 1:1 (NASB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 (NASB) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The fleshly nature of the Incarnation is stressed by John in order to avoid the idea that Jesus was just another theophany, i.e., a temporary manifestation of God in human form. This is why John says that the Word "dwelt" among us. The Greek verb is εσκηνωσεν "dwelt" which is the aroist form of σκηνόω and has a distinct Old Testament significance and refers to when God Himself came down to earth and physically "dwelt" in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple:
Exodus 25:8 (NASB) Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them.
2 Samuel 7:5-6 (NASB) "Go and say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD, "Are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in? "For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle.
The divine Word did not just visit us, but He actually set up a tabernacle of flesh to live permanently among us. The body of Christ is thus the New Testament equivalent of the Tabernacle of Temple where God dwelt on earth (John 2:19-22). Balz and Schneider agree:
σκηνόω appears only in John 1:14 and 4 times in Revelation. The meaning dwell in a tent is determined by the traditio-historical precedence of the OT, is in the meaning of σκηνόω. In the OT sakan (cf. Rabbinic s’kind) is used of God's revelation as an "indwelling" in a "tent" (Gese. 204).
The normal Greek word for a physical body (σῶμα) was used to describe His incarnated "flesh" (John 19:38). It was this body that needed food, rest, and sleep (i.e., John 4:6,7,31-34; 19:28, etc.). It was this body that hung on the cross and died (John 19:33). And it was this same body which was physically resurrected three days later (John 2:18-22).
The doctrine of the humanity of Jesus the Christ means that He was limited like any other mortal man, i.e., in the same ways that we are limited. For example, just as we cannot do miracles by our own power (Acts 3:12), neither could He (John 5:30). Just as the Father is "greater" than us, the Father was "greater" than Jesus (John 14:28). Just as we address the Father as God, so did He (Mat 27:46). Just as we can be overcome by emotion by the death of a friend, so was He (John 11:35). He was a "man" in the fullest sense of the term (John 8:40).
All the Gospel writers described Jesus Christ as a real human being. He was born of a woman. In his childhood years, Jesus had to grow in knowledge and physical strength just like any other child (Luke 2:52). He had to learn to crawl before he walked. He had to learn to talk. He did not know the alphabet automatically. He went to school with the other boys his age. He could get hungry and need food (Mat 4:2). At times He was physically exhausted (Luke 8:23) and needed rest (Mark 6:31). He learned obedience by the things He suffered (Heb 5:8). He had to ask the whereabouts of things (John 11:34) or to gain information. He did not know the time of the end of the world (Mark 13:32). He was tempted and tried in many ways (Heb 2:18).
The full humanity of Jesus is demonstrated by the fact that He possessed all the human emotions that we have. The greatest of the Reformers, John Calvin, points out:
Certainly those who imagine that the Son of God was exempt from human passions do not truly and sincerely acknowledge him to be a man.
Jesus had the full range of the positive and negative emotions found in human nature except for sinful emotions. Calvin explains:
Still the weakness which Christ took upon himself must be distinguished from ours, for there is a great difference. In us there is no affection unaccompanied by sin, because they all exceed due bounds and proper restraint; but when Christ was distressed by grief and fear, he did not rise against God, but continued to be regulated by the true rule of moderation. We need not wonder that, since he was innocent, and pure from every stain, the affections which flowed from him were pure and stainless, but that nothing proceeds from the corrupt nature of men which is not impure and filthy. Let us, therefore, attend to this distiction, that Christ, amidst fear and sadness, was weak without taint of sin; but that all our affections are sinful, because they rise to an extravagant height.
Jesus felt compassion and pity for the sick and the poor (Mark 1:41; 8:2). He became angry at sin and unbelief (Mark 1:25,43; 8:30,32; 10:41). He sighed with weariness at times (Mark 7:34) and at the stubbornness of sinners (Mark 8:12). He would like someone at first sight and then be disappointed with him later (Mark 10:21). Jesus went to a fig tree expecting to eat figs but was disappointed to find nothing (Mark 11:12-13). He coud be surprised and amazed (Mat 8:10; John 6:15).
John was so concerned that the humanity of Jesus be upheld as a core belief of the gospel, that he made it a test of whether or not one is a Christian:
1 John 4:1-3 (NASB) Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus [has come in the flesh] is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
In Greek grammar, an author at times will not repeat certain words because he assumes the reader is smart enough to add them himself. It is called an ellipsis. The reason we added certain words in verse 4 and put them in [ ] is that they are an ellipsis:
Though the words "come in the flesh" are not found in the text, they must of course be mentally supplied. — A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, F. Bass and A. Debrunner. 1961, p. 253f.
John is clearly quoting a phrase from one of the early baptismal creeds of the Church. But none of the English translations do justice to the Greek text:
ιησουν χριστον εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα εκ του θεου εστιν
John did not simply say, "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh." The Greek verb εληλυθοτα is a perfect participle. Rienecker and Rogers explain what this means:
The perf. tense indicates that the coming of Christ in the flesh was well known and that the effects of the Incarnation were abiding.
The Greek grammar indicates that the creed confesses "Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh and remaining so." Lenski comments:
"As having come in the flesh" describes the vital point confessed about "Jesus Christ." Namely his deity incarnate in flesh or human nature, once incarnate and remaining so (perfect participle)... It would be a serious mistake to think that John speaks of confessing only the one fact or doctrine of the Incarnation, of the Virgin Birth, of the two natures, so that it is of minor importance when other facts, doctrines, call them what you will, are either not confessed or are denied some way. "Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh" is not merely the center of the gospel but the whole of it.
This ancient creed set forth the following doctrines:
A.T. Robertson, the greatest Greek grammarian of the 20th century, points out that the early Christians confessed their faith in the true and full humanity of Jesus the Messiah in direct opposition to those heretics who denied it:
The predicate participle describes Jesus as already come in the flesh (his actual humanity, not a phantom body as the Docetic Gnostics held).
The humanity of Jesus Christ is also used as a test for orthodoxy in John's letter to the Elect Lady:
2 John 1:7 (NASB) For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
The Greek text is: "ιησουν χριστον ερχομενον εν σαρκι". The verb ερχομενον is a present participle. The significance of John's deliberate use of different tenses in his discussion of the Incarnation is noted in the chart below.
| Text | Verb | Tense | The Incarnation | Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 John 5:6 | ελθων | aorist participle | a completed event | past |
| 1 John 4:2 | εληλυθοτα | perfect participle | an abiding result | present |
| 2 John 1:7 | ερχομενον | present participle | a timeless fact | future |
By his use of different tenses, John is saying that the Incarnation was a completed event, a present reality, and a timeless fact. Prof. Marshall points out:
The use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed "in flesh." ... For him it was axiomatic that there had been a true incarnation, that the Word had become flesh and remained flesh.
Vincent, in his Word Studies In The New Testament, also points out the significance of the Greek tenses:
The verb is in the present participle, coming, which describes the manhood of Christ as still being manifested. In 1 John 4:2 we have the manifestation treated as a past fact by the perfect. tense, εληλυθοτα, has come.
The failure to grasp the significance of the different Greek tenses used by John has led to two very serious errors. On the one hand, there are those such as the Jehovah's Witnesses who claim that at His resurrection Jesus became a spirit and, hence, was no longer "in the flesh." Thus, the spirit creature whom we call "Jesus" is not a man.
John's use of the perfect and present participle is a solid refutation of any view which denies the eternal infleshment of Christ. He did not become an angel or spirit being at his resurrection. Just because He is now a glorified man does not logically imply that He is less than man.
On the other hand, there are those who claim that at His resurrection the humanity of Jesus took upon itself the attributes of deity and hence is no longer truly human flesh. In effect, His humanity was swallowed up by His divinity.
Is the resurrected body of Jesus still truly human and thus limited by space and time just like our bodies or has His body taken on such divine attributes as infinitude and omnipresence? If the body of Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, can it be somewhere else at the same time?
Those who say that after the resurrection the body of Christ became universal and infinite instead of being particular and finite as it was before its resurrection, have actually denied that the ascended Jesus is still truly and fully man. If our bodies after the resurrection, although glorified, are still particular and finite, then on what grounds is it assumed that the human body of Christ is now universal and infinite because it has been resurrected?
John's use of the perfect and present participle in reference to the infleshment of Christ and such post-resurrection passages as 1 Tim 2:5, prove that the ascended and glorified Son of God is still "the man Christ Jesus." In order for the resurrected Jesus to be truly and fully "man of very man," His resurrected human body must be limited and finite because it is still glorified flesh.
The humanity of Jesus Christ is one of the fundamental doctrines found in the Pauline Epistles. Why some liberals would claim that he did not know of or believe in the historical Jesus of theh Gospels is beyond comprehension. He clearly speaks of "the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5). Paul even notes that it was the Jews who killed Jesus (1 Thes 2:15). The descent of Christ to earth is taught in 1 Tim 1:15 and 2 Cor 8:9. And His descent into Hades at death is mentioned in Eph 4:9. Other references to the humanity of Jesus include:
One interesting question that arises is why there is no mention of Mary by name in the Church epistles. Although Paul does refer to her by the generic term "woman" in Gal 4:4, nowhere is she referred to by name. Why is this?
Mary had a significant role to play in the history of redemption as the woman blessed God to bare the Messiah. Thus, she is mentioned in the Gospels and the acts which are historical narratives.
In contrast, the Church Epistles are didactic in nature and explain the plan of salvation. Since Mary had no role in the work of redemption and Paul's focus is to explain salvation, there was no reason to bring her up. This is why she is never specifically mentioned in the Epistles.
The liberal assumption that Paul wrote his epistles before the Gospels were written is refuted by the fact that he quotes Luke 10:7 in 1 Tim 5:18 and refers to it as "Scripture." He appealed to the words of Jesus as being authoritative (1Tim 6:3-5) and knew when he was saying something that Jesus did not say while on earth (1 Cor 7:10 cf. 25).
The crucifixion is viewed by Paul as the climax of Christ's work of atonement:
Philippians 2:6-11 (NASB) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This passage is a hymn of praise to Christ in which His pre-existence, deity, incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, and glorification are celebrated.
Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost emphasized the humanity of Jesus:
Acts 2:22-24 (NASB) Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know — 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
In his epistles, Peter emphasized that the flesh of Jesus suffered and that His body was crucified for our sins:
1 Peter 3:18 (NASB) For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
1 Peter 4:1 (NASB) Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,
1 Peter 2:24 (NASB) and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
According to the authors of the New Testament, the man Jesus was born, lived, died, was resurrected, and is now seated in heaven at the right hand of the Father. As a man He will return to this world to resurrect and judge the righteous and the wicked (Acts 1:11).
Christ's humanity is as essential for our salvation as is His deity (Heb 2:17). A Mediator between God and man who is not fully God or not fully man is like a bridge broken at either end. In order to represent us to the Father, He must be truly man. A Mediator who is not quite God or not quite man is not capable of bringing the two together.
Unlike the first Adam, the man Jesus did not sin when tempted by the devil (Mat 4:1-11). His sinlessness is directly stated in the following passages:
Jesus came to undo all the evil the first Adam created. His sinlessness is as essential for our salvation as is His humanity because in order to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins, He could not have any sins of His own (2 Cor 5:21). He was the spotless Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world (John 1:29).
We have hopefully demonstrated the Jesus Christ was "man of very man" as the early creeds declare. For many, this is enough. They see no reason to go beyond the bare assertion of his human nature. He was a good man, a wonderful teacher, and a great prophet. Why go beyond this and say that Jesus was "God of very God" as well as "man of very man?" Why posit a second nature for Jesus?
Trinitarians struggle with the fact that if you look at Jesus one way, He is a man. But if you look at Him another way, He is God. When we say that Jesus has two "natures," all we mean is that one explanation of who Jesus was is not enough. There is more to Jesus than His human nature.
The word "nature" has proven to be a source of much contention. Process theologians throw up their hands and dogmatically assert that the word has no meaning. What they fail to understand is that the word "nature" was never intended to be used in an esoteric way. It was never intended to be a sophisticated philosophic term that only those who have had several years of philosophy could understand.
The word "nature" was a common word in its own day and was readily understood by the man in the street. When he looked into a mirror, he knew that he was seeing someone who was a human being by nature, i.e., he did not become a human being at a certain age. He did not have to go to school to become a human being. His humanness was not something conferred on him by others. No. His humanness was essential and necessary to what he is. That is what we mean by "human nature."
In order to convey the concept that Jesus Christ was both man and God, the early Church picked a word out of the language of its day that would indicate to the average person that the humanness and deity of Jesus were both essential and necessary to what He is. Any "Jesus" who is not both human and divine by nature (i.e., essentially and necessarily) cannot be the biblical Christ. This is what we mean by "two natures."
Did the authors of the New Testament believe in the two natures of Christ? If they did, then we will find them giving two explanations of Jesus. On the other hand, if they did not, then we should find them giving only one explanation for who Jesus was.
What must be in order for what is to be what it is? When we turn to the New Testament, we find two explanations of Jesus Christ. They looked twice at Jesus, not just once. To say that He was a good man was not enough for them. Several examples will verify this to be true.
Romans 1:1-4 (NASB) Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
In his introduction to his letter to the Romans, Paul begins by emphasizing that the Gospel is rooted in Old Testament theology and experience. Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from the works of the Law was not a new or novel idea. Paul did not invent it.
The gospel of free grace was the gospel of God the Father in Old Testament times before it was the "gospel of Christ" in New Testament times. This is why Paul quotes so profusely from the Old Testament throughout this epistle.
What is significant is that when Paul pauses to identify who "Jesus Christ our Lord" is he has to give two different explanations. The parallels and contrasts are clear even to the casual reader:
| Jesus Christ our Lord | |
|---|---|
| who was born the seed of David according to the flesh through his prophets |
who was declared the Son of God according to the Spirit by the resurrection |
Paul was not saying that Jesus became the Son of God at His resurrection, but that His resurrection was the final public proof that He was indeed the Son of God. The Father would not have raised Jesus if He were a fraud.
The resurrection was the final public proof that Jesus was more than a carpenter. If you look at Jesus one way, He was a descendant of David. But if you look again, He was more than that. He was the Son of God. G.T. Shedd comments:
The Son here spoken of is the incarnate Son, constituted of two natures which are described in the context ... The human nature in the incarnate Son was "born," or "made to become," from "the seed of David." Christ's humanity was not created ex nihilo, but was procreated... Christ's resurrection evinced his divinity, but did not decide or determine it. It was one of the indications of his super-human nature ... uios (Son) is here employed differently from what it is in verse 3; namely, in the metaphysical or Trinitarian sense, and denotes the unincarnate Son prior to his assumption of sarx (flesh). Uios (Son) is here equivalent to the Logos of John 1:1.
In Paul's mind, Jesus was two things: Son of David and Son of God. The first is proven by His genealogy and the second by His resurrection. The classic German commentator Olshausen concludes:
The words "Son of God" form, therefore, in this place, an opposition and climax to the "Son of David." Christ was both at the same time, the Son of God from eternity, the son of David in time.
Some modern commentators make the mistake of assuming that, because Paul points to two stages in Christ's life (birth and resurrection), he does not refer to Christ's two natures. But the Greek grammar is quite clear that it is the "Son" who was incarnate and whose sonship was declared at the resurrection (verse 3). The Son is never anything less than the Son from all eternity. Hendriksen comments:
Paul confesses Jesus to be God's Son. He means that the Savior was God's Son entirely apart from and antecedently to his assumption of the human nature. He is the Son of God from all eternity; hence, he is God.
The process from incarnation to glorification is possible only if Paul has in mind the two natures of Christ. That this is the case is seen from Romans 9:5 where the phrase "according to the flesh" is used once again to describe one side of the person of Jesus Christ our Lord:
Romans 9:5 (NASB) whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Once again Paul sets up a contrast where Jesus is seen as being two different things at the same time. The antecedent of the pronoun "whose" is the "Israelites" mentioned in verse 4. "According to the flesh" means that Jesus was a Jew. But Paul rushes on to add that Jesus was more than a Jewish male. He is also "over all, God blessed forever."
Since we will exegete Romans 9:5 later on in this chapter, we will not comment any further on it. The two natures of Christ are also seen in such passages as Philippians 2:5-22 and 1 Tim 3:16. Our point is that the writers of the New Testament give two explanations for the nature of Christ—not one. B.B. Warfield comments:
It is not necessary to labor the point. It is undeniable that the Christ of the whole body of New Testament writers, without exception, is a Two Natured Person—divine and human; and indeed this is scarcely any longer denied.
That is to say, the doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ is not merely the synthesis of the teaching of the New Testament, but the conception which underlies every one of the New Testament writings severally; it is not only the teaching of the New Testament as a whole but of the whole of the New Testament, part by part.
Historically, this means that not only has the doctrine of the Two Natures been the invariable presupposition of the whole teaching of the church from the apostolic age down, but all the teaching of the apostolic age rest on it as its universal presupposition.
If the dual nature of Christ was something assumed by the authors of the New Testament, then we would expect to find the concept in the writings of the early Church. And this is the case. The term "duo ousiai" (two natures) is found first in the writings of Melito of Sardis. But it is clear that Melito did not invent the term or the concept. It was already a part of the Church's confession before he came along. Later writers referred to it as "duo physeis" or "duae substantie."
But the issue of the two natures of Christ does not hang on when the final terminology to express that idea was developed. The idea can be expressed in numerous ways and thus even when we do not find the exact words "duo physeis" or "duo ousiai" in an apostolic Father, he may be saying the some thing in different words. For example, anyone familiar with the writings of Ignatius knows that he clearly believed in the two natures of Christ, although he did not use the terms developed later on by others who likewise believed in it.
The claim that the doctrine of the two natures of Christ was invented for the first time by the Council of Chalcedon is a liberal myth based on the erroneous idea that an idea cannot predate its final formulation. As B.B. Warfield points out:
it is clear that the doctrine decreed at Chalcedon was nothing new; and if, as is often the case, the further suggestion is conveyed that what was new in it was the "Two Natures" itself, the perversion becomes monstrous.
This same "monstrous perversion" is the basis of the erroneous assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity did not exist until the word "Trinity" was first used! Those who use such arguments fail to understand that a concept can predate its final formulation.
The Apostle was only following the precedent already set by the Old Testament in such passages as Isaiah 9:6 and Isaiah 7:14 which described the Messiah as the Son of God who would become the Child born of the Virgin. This Messiah is both Son of God (Psa 2) and son of David (2 Sam 7:12).
In line with the intertestamental Jewish teaching of the eternal pre-existence of the Messiah, the authors of the New Testament clearly taught that Jesus Christ did not begin His existence in the womb of the Virgin. He actually pre-existed from all eternity.
By "pre-existence" we mean that while the body of Jesus began with its conception in the womb, the mind or soul of Jesus existed before the conception of His fleshly body. Jesus is, thus, unique in that He was the only man whose soul pre-existed his conception in the womb of his mother. Whereas we begin to exist at conception, the Son of God pre-existed His entrance into this world.
When we turn to the Old Testament, we find such texts as Proverbs 30:4 which speak of the Son of God as someone who existed at that time. It is, thus, no wonder, as we have already documented, that the early Jewish literature described the Messiah as pre-existing His coming to earth. The New Testament picks up this concept and applies it to Jesus without hesitation.
We have already seen that in the Old Testament times Yahweh came to earth in human form and communed with the Patriarchs and prophets of old. The link between this God-man and the Messiah was given in the name "Wonderful"which is found in Judges 13:17-18 and Isaiah 9:6. The New Testament then links together Jesus and the God-man seen by Isaiah in John 12:
John 12:36-42 (NASB) "While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light." These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them. 37 But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?" 39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40 "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM." 41 These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. 42 Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;
The passage is quite straightforward:
According to the apostle John, when Isaiah said that he had seen יְהֹוָה, he was speaking "about Him," i.e., Jesus. As Hengstenberg points out, "αυτου (autou) refers back to verse 37."
Of this there can be "no doubt," according to the famous Greek scholar J.B. Lightfoot in his Commentary On the New Testament From The Talmud and Hebraica. The classic French commentator Godet explains:
Ver. 41. "These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him." — St. John justifies in this verse the application just made by him of the visions of Isaiah to Jesus Christ. The Jehovah of the 0. T., the Adona'i whom Isaiah beheld in this vision, is the Divine Being who became incarnate in Jesus. St. Paul says the same thing in 1 Cor. 10:4, by calling Christ the spiritual rock which followed our fathers, and in Phil. 2:6, by attributing to Jesus before His incarnation the form of God, the Divine state.— Godet
The ancient Latin and Syriac versions of John's gospel agree with this understanding. The Syriac text says:
It was of Christ, who manifested Himself to him as Adonai, that Isaiah spoke when he uttered such words.
This is no doubt why John pictured Jesus as "coming" into this world because He was "sent" here by the Father (John 1:3; 3:16-17,19; 1Jn 4:3, etc.) When Jesus claimed to have existed before Abraham, the Jews clearly understood that this was a claim not only for pre-existense, but also for deity, and they picked up stones to kill him for the blasphemy (John 8:53-59).
The other writers of the New Testament likewise described Jesus as "coming" to this world from a previous place (1 Tim 1:15; Heb 1:6; 2:14, etc.). We are then told that He came "down from heaven" to earth:
John 6:38 (NASB) "For I have come down from heaven"
John 3:13 (NASB) "He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
John 3:31 (NASB) "He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.
1 Corinthians 15:47 (NASB) The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
The Lord Jesus Christ left heaven to embrace our poverty so that we might leave earth and inherit His riches!
2 Corinthians 8:9 (NASB) For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.
One significant passage which establishes the pre-existence of Christ as the eternal Son of God is Romans 8:3, The doctrine of Christ's Eternal Sonship is clearly taught in this text:
Romans 8:3 (NASB) For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
The phrase "sending His own Son" is very significant. Who did God send to earth? "His own Son." Thus Jesus was the Son before He came to earth. As the German commentator Heinrich Meyer pointed out, "the conception of the pre-existence and metaphysical Sonship of Christ is to be recognized." The great Princeton theologian Charles Hodge comments:
... his own Son, τον εαυτου υιον. The term Son here evidently designates the eternal personal Son. He was from eternity, and in virtue of his Divine nature, and not in virtue of his miraculous birth, or his exaltation, the Son of God.
There are three terms in the New Testament which indicate the eternal pre-existence and deity of Christ:
| Term | Text | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| μονογενής | John 3:16 | His unique Son |
| ἴδιος | John 5:18 | His own Father |
| ἑαυτοῦ | Rom 8:3 | His own Son |
William G.T. Shedd, in his commentary on the GReek text of Romans, points out:
These three epithets distinguish the eternal sonship of the second Trinitarian person, from the adoptive sonship of believers, spoken of in Rom 8:14-17, et alia.
The eternal pre-existence of Christ is something clearly assumed by the authors of the New Testament. Indeed, it would be impossible from them to write such passages as Romans 8:3, if they did not believe in it.