Back up. Pop quiz.

• Did Jesus ever stumble and fall down?
• Did Jesus ever get sick?
• Did Jesus have any grey hairs?
• Did Christ ever get depressed?
• When did Jesus know he was God?
• Could Jesus have gotten a math problem wrong?

These are interesting questions as they all center around the relationship of Christ’s humanity to his deity while here on the earth. I think I know the answer to most of these. I am sure that Christ could misstep and fall down. Yes, I imagine he was sick from time to time. Grey hairs? Why not? No, he did not have a sin nature, but he did live in a fallen world whose inhabitants suffer the effects of the fall. Concerning being depressed, I imagine that Christ was depressed from time to time. He was a “man of sorrows” and even cried.

When did Jesus know he was God? That is a good question. I am not sure about this one. It seems as if he knew at least by the time he was twelve as he expresses this self-realization in Luke 2:42-49. But how long before that? Who knows? However, I do think that his self-realization was a realization that was communicated by the Father and the Holy Spirit according to “the plan.” In other words, I don’t think that he knew it from the womb of Mary. I think his humanity had to grow as any normal human would have to grow, therefore his knowledge was tied to his limitations as a human. After all, Luke 2:52 says that Christ “grew in wisdom.” In other words, he went from the lesser to the greater in his humanity, even in knowledge and wisdom.

This brings us to the question of the hour: Could Jesus have gotten a math problem wrong? Here are some options and the implications:

1. Yes, he could get a math problem wrong. He was human.

Problems: You are saying that Christ could have been mistaken about a factual error. I suppose that this is not problematic for the most part, right? I mean what are the harm in getting a math problem wrong or accidently saying the nails are in the second drawer when they were actually in the third. Harmless mistakes are not sinful. However, it is hard not to translate this into the words of Christ as recorded in the Scripture. What about the problem a Abiathar in Mark 2:23? You know where Christ said that Abiathar was the high preist at the time David took the bread but it seems like it was actually Ahimelech the 1 Sam. 21:1-7. The solution to that problem is not the issue. The very fact that it is a problem is the issue. If Christ could have gotten a math problem wrong, then he can be wrong about factual information. If he was wrong about factual information, then who cares about the Abiathar slip? But, conversly, if he could get a 90% on these type of factual quizzes, how do we determine the 10% that he missed? Is it only when it does not matter? How do we know what matters and what does not? Is it only when it is not in Scripture? So, technically speaking, Scripture is more inspired than Christ?

2. No, he could not get a math problem wrong. He was God.

Problems: This option is difficult because we want to be careful not to seem to “apollinarian” in our view of Christ. You know, the view that Christ was just “God in a bod”? If Christ was no more than pure divinity, knowledge and power, housed temporarily in human flesh, then we don’t have a redeemer because we don’t have full human representation. We all know the saying “to err is human.” I don’t really like that since it is not necessary for a human to err to be truly human. So I would not say that unless Christ erred, he was not really human. But I don’t think that Christ had to have perfect knowledge at every stage of his development. If he grew in wisdom, remember, this is from the lesser to the greater. Maybe the lesser got things wrong from time to time. Maybe he sent his dad to the wrong drawer to get the nails. To suggest otherwise seems very apollinarian and unnecessary.

I don’t know where I stand on this. I have to admit I do have trouble with the implications and problems of both answers. Maybe he could have gotten a math problem wrong simply because he left the answer blank!! That way he did not err and he could still grow from the lesser to the greater!

What do you think? Could Christ have gotten a math problem wrong?Similar Posts:

• Was Christ Ever Depressed? or “Why Didn’t Christ Know the Time of His Coming?”
• Why Didn’t Christ Know the Time of His Coming? or “How Can Christ Really Relate to Us?”
• Do Catholics Deny Chalcedon in their View of Mass?
• Heresies: Subordinationalism – A Lesser Christ
• Why Didn’t Christ Know the Time of His Coming?

Those who deny the deity of of Christ often use this passage in Matthew 24 (and others like it) to say that Christ must not have truly been God. After all, if Christ was God, they would argue, he would have known everything. However, I think that this represents a very common and fundamental misunderstanding of the mission of God in Christ and the relationship between Christ’s divine nature and his human nature.

Now, lets start with a chart!

In securing his right to be the second Adam and represent humanity on the cross, Christ had to be fully human. But in order to represent God to man and offer the atoning sacrifice to the Father, Christ has to be fully God. Therefore, after the incarnation, Christ had two complete natures, in one person. Got that? Two natures, one person. This chart illustrates the state of affairs which Christ was in while on earth before the resurrection. Notice that the two natures of Christ do not “communicate” with each other. This does not mean they don’t talk, it means that the natures do not co-mingle. In other words, the attributes or properties of one nature do not change the attributes or properties of the other. Though Christ’s divine nature is eternally omnipresent, it does not make his human nature omnipresent. Likewise, though Christ’s human nature was limited by time and space, it does not effect his divine nature. The Definition of Chalcedon in 451 says that Christ two natures were “without confusion” and “without change.” Were Christ’s human nature to mix with the divine nature, Christ would have be something else all together. He would have been a “humine.” Therefore, he could only represent other humines on the cross. But in order to represent us, he had to have an untainted and complete humanity.

But while the human and divine natures never communicate their properties to each other, as we will see, it is possible for them to communicate their properties to the one person of Christ. This is often referred to as the communicatio idiomatum (“communication of properties”). Berkhof speaks of it this way: “that the properties of both, the human and the divine natures, are now the properties of the person, and are therefore ascribed to the person” (Berkhof, L., Systematic Theology, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1988, p. 324.)

So far so good?

Now, notice that in my chart, before the resurrection, the human nature communicates its attributes to the person of Christ, but the divine nature does not. Why? Because Christ had to live as a human, completely dependent on his human nature to make it through this life. Why? Because that is the way you and I have to live. We can’t drawl from omniscience, omnipresence, or omnipotence to aid us in living. How much easier would things be if we could! But Christ came to represent us. Therefore he had to live just like us, in utter dependance on God for his life. Of course Christ still had “access to” his divine nature, power, and properties at any time since he was always fully divine. At the snap of a finger he could have done this:

However, had Christ accessed his divine nature to make it through this life we would have lost our representation and salvation because we would have no one who serves as the ”new Adam.”

Think about this: What was the first temptation that Satan brought to the table when confronting Christ in the wilderness? Remember? It was to turn a stone into bread (Luke 4:3). This is Satan’s diabolical plan? To cause the Son of God to turn a stone into bread? Is it some eternal sin that man shall not turn stones into bread when they are hungry? After all, Christ did turn a few fish into thousands of fish and a few loaves of bread into enough to feed five thousand later in his ministry. So there is obviously not a problem with feeding the hungry through miraculous means. So why did Satan tempt Christ in such a way? What was he trying to accomplish? Well, considering Christ’s obligation to live according to his humanity, Satan was tempting him to access his divine nature for self-abasement. This would have immediately disqualified him from being our representative since neither you or I can turn stones into bread when we are hungry.

Notice how Donald MacLeod puts it when speaking about Satan’s temptation of Christ:

“Part of the truth here is suggested by the first of the three temptations in the desert: ‘tell these stones to become bread’ (Mt. 4:3). The essence of the temptation was that the Lord disavow the conditions of the incarnation and draw on his omnipotence to alleviate the discomforts of his self-abasement. He could have turned the stones into bread . . . But the latter would have undone his work as surely as the former. Christ had to submit to knowing dependently and to knowing partially. He had to learn to obey without knowing all the facts and to believe without being in possession of full information. He had to forgo the comfort which omniscience would sometimes have brought.” (The Person of Christ, 169)

The point is that Christ had to live as a human, with all the limitations of a human. So when it comes to Christ not knowing the time of his coming, we should not be surprised. Christ only knew what needed to be known in order to fulfill his mission. Sound familiar? That is just like you and I. We live with a great degree of uncertainty every day. We can’t look ahead into the future and see what is going to happen tomorrow. How much easier things would be if we could? But we can’t; therefore, Christ could not either. I believe that what he knew and what he did were all under the provisional hand of the Father, through the power of the Spirit.

MacLeod goes on:

“The other line of integration between the omniscience of the divine nature and the ignorance of the human is that just as Christ had to fulfill the office of Mediator within the limitations of a human body, so he had to fulfill it within the limitations of a human mind.” (ibid)

“Omniscience was a luxury always within reach, but incompatible with his rules of engagement. He had to serve within the limitations of finitude.” (ibid)

Millard Erickson shares similar thoughts:

“Perhaps we could say that he [Christ] had such knowledge as was necessary for him to accomplish his mission; in other matters he was as ignorant as we” (Christian Theology, Baker, 726; Leon Morris shares the same thoughts in Lord from Heaven, 48).

And then there is my (ahem) friend (whom I stalk) Thomas Oden:

“During his earthly ministry, the communication of divine power to the human Jesus was administered by the Holy Spirit, upon whom he constantly relied. Jesus taught, acted, and suffered what the Spirit enabled, directed, and permitted.”

“[T]here was sufficient impartation of divine empowerment to Jesus as was needed for each stage of the fulfillment of his office of Mediator” (The Word of Life, Prince Press, 183-184).

Therefore, Christ did not know the time of his coming because he did not need to know it to fulfill his mission.

After the resurrection, however, the person of Christ regained full access to his divine nature and properties and they were, once again, communicated to his person. This is the way Christ looks now:

Notice, though, that, in my estimation, there is still no communication of properties or attributes between the two natures of Christ. Christ’s human nature, even after the resurrection, does not become divinitized. This is the view of most reformed theologians. The person of Christ is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient today. He does know the time of his coming now. He knew it when the disciples asked before he ascended (Acts 1:6). However, his human nature is still limited in all the respects that humanity is (and always will be) limited. Christ’s resurrection body is in some place right now.  It cannot be everywhere. Why? Because that is the limitations of humanity. Therefore, when Catholics, Lutherans, and Eastern Orthdox say that Christ’s body can be at countless places around the globe during the Lord’s Supper, they are expressing their view that somehow after the resurrection there can be a communication between the two natures of Christ (just erase that line blocking the human and divine natures in the illustration and you will see what I mean). However, I believe that Christ still represents us as our high priest and pioneer to the new life and resurrection. Therefore, he still has a complete and untainted human nature.

Setting aside the debatable issues, one thing is clear: Christ really does sympathize with us in all that we are. I don’t know about you, but this fact comforts me a great deal. It comforts me to know that Christ had the same limitations as I have. It lets me know that when I turn to him in time of need, he really does understand.

“For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.” (Hebrews 2:17)

 Similar Posts:

• Why Didn’t Christ Know the Time of His Coming? or “How Can Christ Really Relate to Us?”
• Was Christ Ever Depressed? or “Why Didn’t Christ Know the Time of His Coming?”
• Do Catholics Deny Chalcedon in their View of Mass?
• Heresies: Nestorianism – A Divided Christ
• The Discipleship Book: Christ

The only real debate in which the virgin birth played a central role was the translation of Isaiah 7:14 by the RSV (Revised Standard Version) in 1952.  The translators rendered the Hebrew term alma (עַלְמָה) as “young woman.”  Conservatives railed against the translation as trying to discredit the virgin birth.  But in point of fact, while the term may refer to a virgin, that is not a necessary nuance of alma.  When the translators of the RSV translated the Matthean passage citing Isaiah 7:14, Matthew chose the Greek term parthenos (παρθένος), which does mean virgin.[2]  Clearly Matthew understood the conception of Christ to have been both virginal and a divine miracle.

The fact of the virgin birth is key in understanding the importance afforded Mary in both the Catholic and Orthodox communions. The Catholic Church has taught the immaculate conception of Mary (that she was born without original sin) to further theologically guard the sinlessness of Jesus, i.e., that he was born into unfallen Adamic humanity.  While Protestants have eschewed the Immaculate Conception, they too have asserted that Jesus inherited unfallen humanity from his mother.

 In general[3], throughout the centuries, only pagan critics of Christianity and rationalists have denied that Jesus was born of Mary without a human father.  Discussions of the virgin birth over the past two centuries have fallen largely in the realm of apologetic defenses of its reality.[4]

For example, Charles Briggs (who, in 1893, was convicted by the Northern Presbyterian Church of denying inerrancy) saw the virgin birth as a touchstone doctrine, the denial of which put one on the proverbial “slippery slope” towards theological apostasy.

It is not merely the virgin birth that is in ques­tion, in the interest of the more complete hu­manity of our Lord; it is also the doctrine of original sin and the sinlessness of Jesus; it is also his bodily resurrec­tion and ascension. . .  It is the whole nature of the atonement and Christian salvation with the doc­trine of sacrifice and propitiation.  All these doc­trines are hanging in the balance in those minds which doubt or deny the virgin birth.  Those who give up the virgin birth will be compelled by logical and irresistible im­pulse eventually to give up all of these. [5]

Indeed, Briggs desired to have A. C. McGiffert, his former student and later President of Union Seminary New York, fired from his post at Union for denying the Virgin Birth.[6]

During the 1930s, J. Gresham Machen published his magisterial The Virgin Birth of Christ, a volume that has never been equaled in comprehensiveness and scholarship on the topic. It too was apologetic in nature.

During the era of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, the Virgin Birth attained a quasi-official touchstone status as one of the five fundamentals of the faith.  The rationale was that accepting the virgin birth was a quick and easy test to see if someone believed in miracles.

Surprisingly, despite its professed importance as being foundational to the Christian faith, relatively little profound theological reflection has taken place regarding the virgin birth.  In fact, prominent evangelical theologian Millard Erickson (who does accept the truth of the virgin birth) denies its necessity, as does Wayne Grudem (who also accepts the doctrine), to name just two. Erickson says,

But, we must ask, is not the virgin birth important in some more specific way? Some have argued that the doctrine is indispensable to the incarnation. Without the virgin birth there would have been no union of God and man.³⁸[7]If Jesus had been simply the product of a normal sexual union of man and woman, he would have been only a human being, not a God-man. But is this really true? Could he not have been God and a man if he had had two human parents, or none? Just as Adam was created directly by God, so Jesus could also have been a direct special creation. And accordingly, it should have been possible for Jesus to have two human parents and to have been fully the God-man nonetheless. To insist that having a human male parent would have excluded the possibility of deity smacks of Apollinarianism, according to which the divine Logos took the place of one of the normal components of human nature (the soul). But Jesus was fully human, including everything that both a male and a female parent would ordinarily contribute. In addition, there was the element of deity. What God did was to supply, by a special creation, both the human component ordinarily contributed by the male (and thus we have the virgin birth) and, in addition, a divine factor (and thus we have the incarnation). The virgin birth requires only that a normal human being was brought into existence without a human male parent. This could have occurred without an incarnation, and there could have been an incarnation without a virgin birth. Some have called the latter concept “instant adoptionism,” since presumably the human involved would have existed on his own apart from the addition of the divine nature. The point here, however is that, with the incarnation occurring at the moment of conception or birth, there would never have been a moment when Jesus was not both fully human and fully divine. In other words, his being both divine and human did not depend on the virgin birth^[8]

Clearly, the virgin birth is not a central part of the apostolic proclamation, but I find the lack of theological reflection on the virgin birth to be remarkable. In checking several conservative systematic theologies, I found one, Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (which for half a century was the standard) that didn’t even mention the virgin birth!

I also tend to react to the type of argumentation that Erickson and Grudem put forth – that the issue is not what God might have done, but what he has revealed that he has done - as being specious and pointless at best, and dangerous at worst, since it involves ripping the doctrine out of its larger Christological context.

Biblical Evidence

T. F. Torrance, the premier English speaking theologian of the late 20^th century, in his posthumously published Incarnation, The Person and Life of Jesus Christ[9] stands as one who breaks the pattern.  Torrance argues that while the virgin birth is indeed only mentioned by Matthew and Luke, if we take the time to look more closely we find the virgin birth, lurking beneath the surface in Mark, John and Paul.

For example, while Luke speaks of Jesus as the son of Joseph, Mark in relating the same event refrains from this identification, and instead identifies Jesus in a very non-Jewish way: as the “son of Mary”[10] Luke has already established the virgin birth whereas Mark has not mentioned it.  It appears that Mark is deliberately avoiding any reference to Joseph. Likewise Mark (along with Matthew and Luke) quotes Jesus as saying of the Messiah, “David himself calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?” “How can Jesus be Lord and son of David—that is, how can a divine Christ be born of human stock?”[11]

Moving on to John, 1:13 which has historically been translated: “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (KJV, ESV, NASB, ASV, etc.) but has more recently been translated “children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God”( NIV, NET, etc.).   According to normal Greek usage the recent translation is more accurate, because the term used by John is andros, i.e. male or husband as opposed to anthropos, i.e man(kind), humanity. But this raises the question: What in the world does this mean? As the text is translated it seems to make no sense.

There is also a textual problem in the verse: should the “who” be singular or plural. Without going into too much detail, the early church fathers all cited this “who” as being singular.  In fact, Tertullian, the late 2^nd early 3^rd century theologian and apologist tells us that the gnostic teacher Valentinius corrupted the text at this point changing the singular to a plural.[12]  Such a change was theologically motivated to get away from the idea of the virgin birth! If indeed the text is to be read as a singular rather than a plural, then it makes much more sense. The  “who” refers to The Word /Jesus, “who was born . . . by God.”  T. F. Torrance says, “If the text is to be read in the singular, then we have in the fourth Gospel quite explicit direct reference to the virgin birth of Jesus.”[13] 

Turning our attention to Paul, we again find the virgin birth behind his language in Romans 5 with his Adam-Christ parallel.   In discussing the origin of both Adam and Jesus, Paul uses the term gínomai (γίνομαι, to become, or come into existence).  He does not use the normal Greek terminology for human birth: gennáo (γεννάω).  Like Adam, Jesus comes into existence: he is not generated.  But while the first Adam came into existence from earth, the second Adam’s existence is from heaven, “sent of God, he came into existence of woman, but from heaven.”^[14]

In Galatians 4 we see the same sharp distinction.  Three times in this chapter Paul uses the term gennáo (γεννάω) speaking of human birth. ^[15]But when he speaks of Jesus’s earthly origin he eschews the uses of gennáo (γεννάω) and opts again for gínomai (γίνομαι).^[16]This would appear to be a conscious effort on the part of the Apostle to clearly distinguish the method of Jesus’ origin/birth from that of all other humans born since Adam’s  “coming into existence.”  While Bloesch suggests that Paul does not know of the virgin birth,[17] it seems far more likely that in the closely reasoned passages of Romans 5 and Galatians 4 that explicit mention of what seems assumed by the very wording Paul adopts, would add topic that is on the surface extraneous to his argument.

The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth[18]

Preliminaries

• The Virgin Birth is not a theory of explanation

We do not think of the virgin birth properly if we understand it to be a theory explaining the incarnation. It is rather an historical fact indicating what happened. We recognize that the source of the virgin birth is an act of creative divine grace that took place within our human existence. We must draw the distinction between apprehending the reality of the work of God in the birth of Christ and comprehending it.

The virgin birth has two sides to it, one side visible and the other invisible: Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit. This presents us with two questions: What? and How? It is at this point we see clearly that there is no natural understanding of the how that corresponds to the what. The how: the work of the Holy Spirit is an in-breaking of God into our human nature.

In a very real sense the virgin birth is related to God’s creative activity of Genesis. By means of his creative act the creator himself has stepped into his creation and is re-creating fallen humanity.

When confronted with the issue of the virgin birth we as Westerners who think in scientific categories immediately ask questions that are biological in nature seeking a scientific explanation.  I have in my younger years engaged many times in these kinds of discussions/debates:

“Procreation requires both a male and a female.”

“Scientists can manipulate an egg to start the process of development.”

“That may be true, but then the egg always develops into a female because there is no Y-chromosome.”

“But the Holy Spirit must have somehow supplied the X-chromosome.”

And so goes the conversation. Another variant on these types of debates is as follows:

“Jesus had no human father. He was born through a special work of the Holy Spirit and God is his father.”

“So Jesus is both God and man? Doesn’t that mean that he is some kind of a demigod like the children of the gods in Greek mythology?– That he is half man and half God?”

“Christianity has always insisted, on the basis of what the Bible says that he was fully God and fully man.”

“100% God and 100% man and we have just one man?  That is really bad math!”

Again, so goes the conversation. The problem is that in focusing on the mechanism of the virgin birth and trying to understand how the Holy Spirit accomplished it, we lose sight of the theological reality because biological questions yield only biological answers or in this case non-answers.

In the case of the virgin birth this is a unique event in which God chose to act and take on our humanity, our creatureliness and although he was not a creature he voluntarily bound himself for eternity to our created fleshly state.

It is a new creative act, but unlike the original creation this creation does not take place out of nothing (ex nihilo) but from within our human existence.

•  Virgin Birth is not to be separated from the mystery of Christ

The Virgin Birth cannot be understood alone and apart from the mystery of the union of deity and humanity in the one person of Jesus Christ. It is a sign that God is doing something . . .  something that is mysterious, something that can be apprehended but not comprehended. It is a sign of the union of deity and humanity and of God’s radical identification with the crown of his creation.

• The Virgin Birth is not to be separated from the resurrection

The Virgin Birth must be seen in conjunction with the Resurrection as concrete signs bracketing these 33 years of history in which God himself has acted in incomprehensible  solidarity with us, sharing with us on this earth a common humanity  while  at the same time sharing it  in such a way that by his sharing in our humanity we are liberated from the bondage, decay,  corruption and  sin, and as a result freed us to life from the bondage of that common humanity and now participate in the new humanity of Jesus Christ, the last Adam.

As Thomas Torrance has said:

The birth of Jesus tells us that God acts in Jesus Christ in such a way that his birth does not fall under the power of man, under the arbitrary forces in human history, or under the causal determinisms of this world, but that in his birth God the son freely and sovereignly enters into them from without. The resurrection tells us that the life and person of Jesus are not held under the tyrant forces of this world, that though he was born of a woman and made under the law, Jesus Christ was not dominated and mastered by our fallen flesh in its judgment, but is triumphant over all, in achieving his redeeming purpose of reconciling our humanity to fellowship with God.[19]

•  The Virgin Birth and empty tomb as pointers to the mystery of Christ

The virgin birth acts as a pointer to the mystery of God’s self-revelation within the life of fallen humanity, and that this revelation veils itself in our humanity.

The resurrection of Christ points to the fact that God unveils himself, reveals himself within human life.

Positive teaching

• The reality of Jesus’ humanity

As 21st century Western Christians we often think of the virgin birth as a sign of Jesus deity. From the perspective of the biblical writers in the early church it signified something very different – his true humanity. Even within the lifetime of the apostles we find professing Christians denying the humanity of Jesus. This is one of the key reasons for the writing of John’s first epistle: members of the church were denying that Christ had “come in the flesh.” As the church moved out of its early Jewish worldview and confronted the Greco Roman world steeped in dualism particularly a dualism that saw the spiritual in stark opposition to the physical and who scoffed at the idea that God become man, the virgin birth was truly offensive to the point that it had to be rejected. The apostle calls this rejection “the spirit of antichrist.”

Jesus did not appear on the scene full-grown and out of nowhere. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels makes clear that he was a Jew, from Nazareth, one whose parentage and relatives were well-known. The explicit accounts of the virgin birth given by both Matthew and Luke make it clear that he is the son of Mary. His birth is unique, but he is human.

The addition of the words born of the Virgin Mary to the earliest creeds were in direct opposition to the claims of the docetic teachers (prevalent during the late first and second century) who argued that Christ only appeared (dokew, δοκέω ) to be human while in reality he was a spiritual being without physical substance. On the other hand the virgin birth also testifies to the fact in uniting himself with humanity the second person of the Trinity did not simply come upon an already existent man — that is God did not simply adopt a human, who then became the “Son of God” but rather vitally united himself with humanity.[20] The virgin birth also gives the lie to any teaching that would make God and man co-equal partners in redemption. God joined himself with true and complete humanity by his own sovereign decision. Of course humanity is involved, that is the contribution of Mary but as has been said humanity “is the predicate not the subject, not Lord of the event.”[21]

• Disqualification of human capabilities

The virgin birth is an act of divine grace coming into humanity but in such a way that it denies any possibility of an approach of man to God beginning inside humanity itself.

The virgin birth signals a move from God to man not man to God. Human powers and abilities are not in play. The fact that Mary was a virgin disqualifies her from active participation in the even the conception of Jesus. The incarnation is not a cooperative effort between God and man. It is in no sense a product of human activity. With this in mind John’s statement in chapter 1 verse 13 of his gospel makes sense. The birth of Jesus the Messiah marks a unique entry of eternity into time.  As such the virgin birth marks off this supernatural event is utterly unique. The virgin birth is a signal of an internal unconditional act of pure grace on the part of God apart from any human activity.

•  A re-creation out of the old creation

The virgin birth is a creative act of God which is in a real sense parallel to the original creation.  But this creative act has a specific focus. It is not a creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) as was the original creation; it was a creation ex virgine and signifies both a new creation in one sense but a re-creation in another.  It is the fountainhead of a new humanity out of the old humanity and a humanity that now participates in the very life of the triune God.

Western Christendom has from its early centuries insisted that the human nature of Jesus was unfallen, because only as a person with an unfallen human nature as well as being a person who had actually  never sinned could he have been the perfect sacrifice. Over the past century numerous New Testament scholars and theologians have challenged this assumption on both exegetical and theological grounds.   Exegetically we find in Luke, in Paul and particularly in Hebrews language that asserts that Jesus’ humanity was like ours in all ways, but that he never sinned.  Theologically if Jesus’ humanity was unfallen, he certainly was qualified to be the perfect sacrifice, but his humanity did not touch our humanity in its fallen condition.  The patristic dictum “that which he did not assume, he did not heal” expresses the ancient faith of the church—that Jesus assumed a humanity like our own and sanctified it from within through his divine union with it.  Luke says that he grew (the Greek term here,  prokoptw, προκόπτω,  speaks of hammering hot iron on an anvil) in favor with God and man. This sanctification of fallen humanity involved a lifelong struggle of beating back, blow by blow the fallen condition which was twisted and in opposition to God and required a constant reliance upon the Father through the Spirit throughout his life.

The result of this process was that Jesus became the Last Adam who put to death Adamic humanity reconciling it from within in his death and was raised the progenitor of a recreated humanity. This recreated humanity participates in this new humanity of Christ.

• The setting aside of human autonomy

We have mentioned this above but to reiterate.  The virgin birth is a sovereign act of Almighty God which bypasses all human autonomy. Had Joseph been Jesus’ human father, Jesus would have indeed been born of a husband’s will, but Joseph was in fact left “sitting on the bench,” so to speak. He is not consulted until after the divine work has begun. His only part is to provide human care for Jesus and his mother. He excercises no autonomy, he like Mary adopts the role of a servant in the great drama of the incarnation.

The necessity of the virgin birth does not put any stigma on marriage, human sexuality and birth. The entry of God incarnate into the human condition sanctifies human nature and joins it to God in his purity.  Mary herself was not immaculately conceived but she too was sanctified through her calling as the mother of our Lord.

• ·The Virgin Birth, the pattern for grace, the model of faith

The virgin birth is a sign (semion) of the gracious act of God, which becomes a pattern for understanding God’s working in grace.  It is God who takes the initiative through the appearance of the Angel Gabriel to Mary announcing to her that she has been elected by God in his grace for this unique task. She receives the word, the announcement and believes. But this belief is not of herself but of the strength given by the Lord—and for that she is blessed (not because of her virginity).[22]

Mary becomes the pattern for our faith: 

  . . . it is not of our self-will or free will that we are born from above,  ‘But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become the children of God.’ Here there is a ‘become’ dependent on the  ‘become’ of the Word become flesh.’, grounded in it and derivative from it..  What happened once and for all, in utter uniqueness in Jesus Christ happens in every instance if rebirth into Christ. . . . Just as in the birth of Jesus there was no preceding action on our part, or human co-operation, such as the co-operation  between a human father and human mother. Just as there was no prior human activity there, so in our salvation and our knowledge of God . . .[there is] no human presupposition, no Pelagian, semi-Pelagian or synergistic activity.[23]

• Demonstration of the virgin birth only through the Spirit

The virgin birth like its twin doctrine, the resurrection, is not demonstrable by the rationalistic canons of historiography. These canons rule out a priori the possibility of the in-breaking of God into the created order to work miracles. The only demonstration possible is through the work of the Holy Spirit (see 1Cor 2:1).

The virgin birth has archetypal importance for all other acts of grace. While it is true that the reality of the virgin birth is not an explicit part of the apostolic proclamation, it forms a vital place in the substructure upon which the apostolic proclamation and all other Christian doctrines stand.

• The necessity and importance of the virgin birth

While even some evangelical theologians seem to relativize the importance of the virgin birth (see above), it is vital to note that denials of the virgin birth (and/or the resurrection)  have historically inevitably been accompanied by heresies that undercut an orthodox understanding of the person of the incarnate Christ. In other words the sign of the virgin birth cannot be separated from the thing signified, a true incarnation of God in human flesh.  Attempts to do so empty the Incarnation of its content and with it the possibility of salvation which is anchored fully in the grace of God.

Similar Posts:

• The Most Amazing Verse in the Bible
• Heresies: Nestorianism – A Divided Christ
• Could Jesus Have Gotten a Math Problem Wrong?
• Why Didn’t Christ Know the Time of His Coming?
• Why Didn’t Christ Know the Time of His Coming? or “How Can Christ Really Relate to Us?”

“With this doctrine of exaltation or human deification, though, Joseph Smith wasn’t actually moving away from Judeo-Christian tradition. He was returning to a forgotten strand of it. For ancient Christians and Jews also had a doctrine of human deification, which scholars call ‘theosis.’”

Scholars do indeed use the term theosis for what can be called a doctrine of human deification. Specifically, this term has its customary or primary usage with reference to the doctrine of deification taught in the Eastern Orthodox theological tradition. The roots of this Eastern Orthodox doctrine are to be found in the teachings of the early church fathers, especially (though not exclusively) the Greek-writing ones. This is the context in which Peterson offers brief quotations from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (2nd century), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen (all third century), and Jerome (fifth century).

It is not an accident that Peterson’s article includes more quotations from the church fathers (six) than from all of his other sources combined (two from the New Testament, one from the Book of Mormon, and one from a medieval Jewish text). The church fathers did indeed teach a doctrine of deification. The question is what they meant by it and whether it provides any support for Peterson’s claim that Joseph Smith’s doctrine of deification was a restoration of an ancient doctrine that had been forgotten.

1. The church fathers whom Peterson quotes were, from the LDS perspective, part of the Great Apostasy.

We may start with an ironic observation. The church fathers whom Peterson quotes were among the leading architects of the religious and theological tradition that Mormons regard as the Great Apostasy. These were all theologians, not prophets. The very writings in which an explicit Christian doctrine of human deification first appears are the earliest documents from what the LDS Church teaches was a growing apostasy, a spiritual and theological darkness that overcame the Christian movement in the second, third, and fourth centuries. This should be just about the last place Mormons would want to look for ancient precedent for their “restored” doctrines! Yet this is where Peterson draws the majority of his quotations. The problem may be illustrated by the following comments from Spencer W. Kimball:

“Many men with no pretense nor claim to revelation, speaking without divine authority or revelation, depending only upon their own brilliant minds, but representing as they claim the congregations of the Christians and in long conference and erudite councils, sought the creation process to make a God which all could accept. The brilliant minds with their philosophies, knowing much about the Christian traditions and the pagan philosophies, would combine all elements to please everybody. They replaced the simple ways and program of the Christ with spectacular rituals, colorful display, impressive pageantry, and limitless pomposity, and called it Christianity. They had replaced the glorious, divine plan of exaltation of Christ with an elaborate, colorful, man-made system” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 425).

The traditional LDS position is that this corruption of Christianity was largely an accomplished fact already in the second century. LDS apostle and teacher Bruce R. McConkie claimed, “In the Old World the great apostasy was complete sometime during the second century A.D.” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, 477). Similarly, LDS theologian Stephen E. Robinson states that “Latter-day Saints trace the Apostasy to roughly the second century and reject subsequent orthodoxy” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow [New York: Macmillan, 1992], 400). Yet Peterson’s earliest explicit examples of a Christian doctrine of believers becoming “gods” come from the second half of the second century, and most come from the third century or even later.

Of course, it is theoretically possible that the church fathers might have been right about humans becoming gods and wrong about other things. A Mormon could argue that the Great Apostasy led to the loss of divine authority and to the gradual loss of some doctrinal truths but not others, with the doctrine of people becoming gods as one that was not lost right away. This might seem a sufficient explanation for how it was that the church fathers believed in humans becoming deified even while they also taught what Mormons regard as false doctrines. However, this explanation doesn’t really address the point, which is that the church fathers were the first Christian teachers to articulate an explicit doctrine of the deification of believers.

The fact that Peterson can document a patristic (church fathers’) tradition of deification from the second, third, and fifth centuries leads to another problem.

2. The doctrine of theosis cannot be “restored” because it was never lost.

The writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome have played an ongoing, continuous role in theological studies and reflection throughout church history. We are not talking here about long-lost writings like the Nag Hammadi “Gnostic gospels” or miraculously restored texts such as Mormons believe the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham to be. We are talking about the writings of men whose writings have never stopped circulating and that have been cited, quoted, and discussed in every generation from their own time to the present.

Moreover, the specific patristic idea of deification, or theosis, was never lost in any sense. It has been taught continuously in the Eastern Orthodox Church throughout its history with no interruption. It was being taught in Eastern Orthodox congregations in Joseph Smith’s day (although the first such congregation was not established in the continental United States until 1857, thirteen years after Joseph’s death).

3. The church fathers’ doctrine of deification lacked all of the distinctive elements of Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation and explicitly differed from his view in crucial respects.

Establishing that the early church fathers taught a doctrine of deification does not, in and of itself, show that Joseph Smith’s doctrine of deification is a restoration of ancient truth. One must compare the substance of the two doctrines of deification in order to determine if the two doctrines are at all close in meaning. To that end, I will repeat here the seven specific doctrinal elements of Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation:

1. God has not always been God; it is not true that he has been God from all eternity (though he may have existed from all eternity, he has not always existed as God).
2. God was once a man like us before becoming God our Heavenly Father.
3. God became God and is an exalted man, an exalted being.
4. Human beings are the spirit offspring of God, our Heavenly Father. We lived in heaven with God before becoming physical beings here on earth.
5. We became human beings precisely so that we would have the opportunity to attain exaltation just as God did.
6. Human beings can become “gods” in the sense of becoming exalted beings fully like Heavenly Father in all essential respects, just as he did before us.
7. As exalted beings or gods, we can become creators and have all the power, glory, dominion, and knowledge that God the Father has (in the worlds we create).

Read through Peterson’s quotations from the church fathers and you will quickly see that they express none of these seven doctrinal elements. Readers lacking some background in the theology of the church fathers might wonder if some of the quotations at least might reflect an acceptance of the last two doctrinal elements, but nothing in the quotations would even suggest to any reader a belief in the first five elements listed above. Here are Peterson’s quotations:

Justin Martyr: “All men are deemed worthy of becoming gods, and of having power to become sons of the Highest.”

Irenaeus: “We have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods. … (Jesus Christ) became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”

Clement of Alexandria: In the “future life” we will be among “gods … those who have become perfect … and become pure in heart … They are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior.”

Tertullian: Through divine grace the saved “shall be even gods.”

Origen of Alexandria: He believed in “the Father as the one true God,” but acknowledged “other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God.”

Jerome: “God made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. … They who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice, and are become perfect, are gods and sons of the Most High.”

There is no suggestion in any of these quotations that God the Father was a man who progressed to Godhood, or that God has not always been God. There is also no notion in any of these statements that human beings preexisted in heaven as gods in embryo prior to their physical lives here on earth. The core theological and anthropological premises of Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation are completely absent from these patristic quotations—and indeed are absent from the corpus of the church fathers’ writings as a whole.

Justin states that all people may “become gods,” and similarly Tertullian says that those saved through God’s grace “shall be even gods.” But what do these statements mean in context? They did not mean that believers will become deities possessing the same powers as the Creator of the universe. Let’s look at their statements in context. Justin wrote:

“But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point [the fall of Satan], but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming ‘gods,’ and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 124, emphasis added).

We see here that Justin specifies precisely what he means by “gods”: that human beings were created with the intention that they be “free from suffering and death.” In other words, to be “gods” in this context means to be immortal beings. That is all that one can fairly understand Justin to mean by this language here. Furthermore, according to Justin, we are not already God’s children (as the LDS Church teaches), but may become his sons. What Justin teaches here is incompatible with the LDS doctrine that we were God’s preexistent children in heaven and that we came here to make progress toward “growing up” to become full-fledged Gods like our Heavenly Father.

Tertullian’s statement that “we shall be even gods” also does not mean that humans will become the same kind of beings as God:

“Truth, however, maintains the unity of God in such a way as to insist that whatever belongs to God Himself belongs to Him alone. For so will it belong to Himself if it belong to Him alone; and therefore it will be impossible that another god should be admitted, when it is permitted to no other being to possess anything of God. Well, then, you say, we ourselves at that rate possess nothing of God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do— only it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we shall be even gods, if we shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, I have said, You are gods, and, God stands in the congregation of the gods. But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us, because it is He alone who can make gods” (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 5, emphasis added).

Tertullian here insists that certain properties belong to God alone, and that human beings will never possess those unique properties of deity. They will be “gods” only in the sense that God will declare those to be “gods” whom he graciously deems deserving of this honor, not by virtue of them attaining “any property” that qualifies them as deities. The point here must be understood very precisely. Tertullian is not merely saying that human beings can become gods only by God’s “grace.” The LDS Church could (and in some contexts does) use these same words. Tertullian, however, means by this statement that human beings are accorded a status of “gods” as a gracious honor and not, as Joseph Smith taught, that they are transformed (even if by “grace”) into beings possessing the same properties as God.

Every quotation that Peterson (and other Mormon scholars and apologists before him) quote from the church fathers is like the ones just considered from Justin and Tertullian. If one reads the statements in context, one discovers that they express a doctrine that in substance is obviously different from the doctrine of Joseph Smith.

4. The view of God, man, Christ, and salvation taught by the church fathers is radically opposed to Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation.

The difference between the patristic doctrine of deification and Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation can be fully appreciated only by placing these doctrines in their larger theological and worldview contexts. A full-blown treatise on this point is out of the question here; I will content myself with a brief summary and a few example statements from the church fathers.

The doctrine of God. In Joseph Smith’s teaching, all humans and all other spirit beings in our world are eternal beings that had no beginning and no creation. Thus, the idea that God is an eternal being is, for Mormonism, in no sense unique. Furthermore, God, though he has existed eternally, has not always been God, but instead became a God by a process of exaltation that we can also undergo. God, according to Joseph Smith (notably in the Book of Abraham), was also not the sole creator or maker of the world. Rather, a plurality of Gods got together and “organized” this world into its present form. God the Father is a physically embodied being, an exalted, immortal Man of flesh and bones, of the same species or kind of being as we are but in a perfected state.

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the writings of the church fathers knows their view of God was radically different. For them, God is the only being with no origin, no beginning; he is the only uncreated, unbegotten, unoriginated being. God is the sole creator and everything else, including all other intelligent beings, exist solely as the result of his creative will. God is by nature an incorporeal being who transcends space, and who has been God from all eternity, and who is eternally unchanging in his divine being.

So, according to Justin Martyr, “That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things—that, indeed, is God” (Dialogue with Trypho 3). Justin denies that God is a physical or embodied being. “And again, when He says, ‘I shall behold the heavens, the works of Thy fingers,’ unless I understand His method of using words, I shall not understand intelligently, but just as your teachers suppose, fancying that the Father of all, the unbegotten God, has hands and feet, and fingers, and a soul, like a composite being; and they for this reason teach that it was the Father Himself who appeared to Abraham and to Jacob” (Dialogue 114). Robert M. Grant comments on Justin’s theological reasoning here: “Justin absolutely rejects a literal interpretation of biblical metaphors: God does not have hands, feet, fingers, or soul, for he is not composite (Dial. 114, 3); he is not moved nor does he walk, sleep, or wake. Though he can be said to be ‘in the heavens’ or ‘above heaven’ or ‘above the universe,’ he is not really located in space at all (Dial. 127, 3)” (The Early Christian Doctrine of God [Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1966], 22).

Other church fathers also taught that God is the sole uncreated Creator of all else that exists. Here are a couple of examples:

“Our God did not begin to be in time: He alone is without beginning, and He Himself is the beginning of all things. God is a Spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things” (Tatian, Address to the Greeks, ch. 4).

“But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who has made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.8.3).

Doctrine of Christ. According to Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ was one of God’s billions of spirit children, but the first to become a God alongside God the Father. When Christ became a physical man on earth, he was progressing toward a fuller or more complete realization of his divine potential because the Father himself is an exalted man of flesh and bones. Deity and humanity are simply two different phases of the same species or kind of being.

In the teaching of the church fathers, however, the Son was already fully God before he became a man, and he was God’s “Son” in an absolutely unique sense. To be “the Son” meant that he was of the same nature as God the Father—that he was deity by nature, just as the Father was. The Incarnation was God the Son’s gracious act of humbling himself for our salvation and the Father’s honor, not a stage of the Son’s own full deification. In becoming a man, Jesus Christ assumed human nature united perfectly and uniquely to his divine nature. Thus the incarnate Son is a paradoxical person, the union of infinite deity with finite humanity.

We see this doctrine expressed in startling clarity very early in the second century: “Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes” (Ignatius, To Polycarp 3.2 [short version]). According to Irenaeus, the Logos (John’s name for the preincarnate Christ in John 1:1, 14) “took up man into Himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering” (Against Heresies 3.16.6).

If God the Son, the Logos, was eternal, invisible, impassible Deity, who then became incarnate as a man in order to be a visible, material human being and suffer in history for our salvation, then Christ is the only human being who was or ever will be Deity. He is not a man who became a God, but was rather God who became a man for our sakes. The patristic doctrine of Christ, understood in its full context, is absolutely incompatible with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation.

Doctrine of man. We have already touched on some of the obvious differences between Joseph Smith’s doctrine of man and that of the church fathers. For Joseph Smith, human beings have existed from eternity, with no beginning; they are uncreated beings. Moreover, they were gods in embryo existing in heaven before coming to the earth for the purpose of continuing their maturation toward becoming full-fledged Gods.

For the church fathers, human beings are creatures made by God and having a definite beginning to their existence. Most of the church fathers were very clear on the point that human existence begins with our physical lives, not as preexistent spirits (the third-century Origen was a notable exception, though even he believed those spirits were created beings). Human beings are not naturally disposed toward becoming gods, but God graciously adopts humans as his children and bestows on them immortality so that they may live as honorary “gods” with eternal life. A clear statement of the sharp divide between God and man is offered, for example, by Clement of Alexandria:

“But it has escaped their notice, though they be near us, that God has bestowed on us ten thousand things in which He does not share: birth, being Himself unborn; food, He wanting nothing; and growth, He being always equal; and long life and immortality, He being immortal and incapable of growing old” (Stromata 5.11).

Doctrine of salvation. In Joseph Smith’s teaching, we were already eternal beings before coming to the earth. We came as mortals here in order to become resurrected beings with physical immortality, which is what Joseph Smith taught that God the Father had done. To become “Gods,” in his doctrine, meant to become omnipotent beings, to become beings of the same nature as our God and with the capacity to do the same sorts of divine acts (e.g., creation) as our Heavenly Father.

For the church fathers, as we have already seen, we are physical, temporal beings by nature, created as such by God, though with the intended purpose that God would eventually make us immortal. Through our faith relationship and spiritual union with Christ, we who are redeemed will participate in God’s immortality, incorruption, and holiness, and in that sense will be “gods”; but we will not become Gods by nature, that is, omnipotent beings of the same nature as God that will be able to do the same sorts of divine acts that God alone does. Irenaeus explained:

“For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality” (Against Heresies 3.19.1).

When all is said and done, the church fathers’ doctrine of deification is more notable for its sharp contrasts with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation than for its superficial verbal similarities to some of the things that Joseph said. G. L. Prestige, in his classic textbook on the patristic doctrine of God, offers an exceptionally clear statement of the nature of their view of deification:

“All such expressions of the deification of man are, it must be remembered, purely relative. They express the fact that man has a nature essentially spiritual, and to that extent resembling the being of God; further, that he is able to attain a real union with God, by virtue of an affinity proceeding both from nature and from grace. Man, the Fathers might have said, is a supernatural animal. In some sense his destiny is to be absorbed into God. But they would all have repudiated with indignation any suggestion that the union of men to God added anything to the godhead. They explained the lower in terms of the higher, but did not obliterate the distinction between them. Not only is God self-dependent. He has also all those positive qualities which man does not possess, the attribution of which is made by adding the negative prefix to the common attributes of humanity. In addition, in so far as humanity possesses broken lights of God, they are as far as possible from reaching the measure and perfection with which they are associated in the godhead. Real power and freedom, fullness of light, ideal and archetypal spirit, are found in Him alone. The gulf is never bridged between Creator and creature. Though in Christ human nature has been raised to the throne of God, by virtue of His divine character, yet mankind in general can only aspire to the sort of divinity which lies open to its capacity through the union with the divine humanity. Eternal life is the life of God. Men may come to share its manifestations and activities, but only by grace, never of right. Man remains a created being: God alone is agenetos [without origin].”—G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1959), 74-75.

In conclusion, Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation was not in any meaningful sense a restoration of a lost doctrine of theosis. The doctrine of theosis was never lost, and the doctrine of deification taught by the church fathers was radically different from the doctrine Joseph Smith taught. Joseph taught that God was once a mortal man who became exalted to Godhood, and that we can do the same thing and become Gods of the same nature and powers as our God. The church fathers taught that God is the only uncreated, eternal Being, existing eternally and unchangeably as God, and that he created human beings to become “gods” in the sense that they may be adopted as his children and receive immortality as the gift of his grace.Similar Posts:

• Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part One: The Mormon Doctrine of Exaltation
• Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Three: The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s Doctrine of Exaltation
• Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Four: Esoteric Jewish Theology and Joseph Smith’s Doctrine of Exaltation
• Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Two: The New Testament and Joseph Smith’s Doctrine of Exaltation
• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? C: John 17:21-23

What were Christ’s limitations? Did he have any? What did Christ know and when did he know it? What could Christ do and how could he do it?

Most Christians view Christ, first and foremost, through his deity. Sure, we believe that Christ is both God and man, but when it comes to our default understanding of him as we read the Scriptures, we normally see only his deity. If he knew something which ordinarily could not be known, we attribute it to his deity. If he did something that could not normally be done, we credit his divine nature.

However, when it comes to some of the more troublesome passages, we find ourselves scratching our heads. For example, when Christ was in the Garden and asked that the cup of suffering pass from him (Lk 22:42), we are confused. When he asks the Father, “Why have you forsaken me?” from the cross (Mk 15:34), we don’t know how to take it. And (here is the big one) when he says that he does not know the day or the hour of his coming (Matt 24:36), we are baffled. In fact, so confused was one early scribe concerning Christ’s confession of ignorance here, he omitted the phrase “nor the son” from the manuscript.

The question is: How could Christ, who is God, not be omniscient (knowing everything, including the future)? Why didn’t Christ know the time of his coming? I think if we answer this question, we will find answers to the others as well.

There are a few options:

1. Christ really did know; we just don’t know why he said this.

2. Christ did not know for some unknown reason, but he knew everything else.

3. Christ did not know because, being a man, he was no longer omniscient.

4. Christ did not know since he did not access his omniscience due to the rules of the incarnation.

My contention is that number four is correct.

Let me be brief and clear with my thesis:

Although Christ was fully God, he never independently accessed any of his divine powers or knowledge while incarnate. All of his miraculous deeds and understanding were the result of his submission to God, and came by way of the power of the Holy Spirit. Further, if Christ had at any time accessed his own power or omniscience independently, he would not be qualified as the second Adam and could not represent us in redemption.

This means there were many things Christ did not know. It was not simply that Christ chose on a case-by-case basis what not to know, but that he, like every human, had limitations of knowledge. He had to grow and learn just like all people (Luke 2:52). When he knew things that are beyond the abilities of normal humanity, like when he knew the background of the woman at the well (Jn 4:17-18), he knew them by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just like the prophets. When he did things that are beyond the abilities of normal humanity, like walking on water, he did so by the power of the Spirit.

In summary, I believe that while Christ exercised divine prerogatives (forgiving sins, claiming to be God, receiving worship, etc.), he did not ever exercise his own divine attributes independently of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. His knowledge and miracles do not alone substantiate his deity, as parallels to all Christ’s miracles and knowledge can be found in the prophets. But his miracles substantiate his deity because they substantiate his testimony.

Concerning this, there is no one “orthodox” belief to which all Christians through all time have held.  There seems to be a spectrum of belief here. While orthodox Christianity does not entertain the idea that Christ was no longer God in the incarnation (kenotic theory), it does not necessarily speak to whether or not he used his own divine powers independently, or submitted completely to the Holy Spirit.

I believe the latter is correct for the following reasons:

1. It seems biblically correct:

There are many places in Scripture that speak of Christ’s limitations and about his complete submission to God and the Holy Spirit.

In Luke 4:1 we are told that Christ was “full of the Holy Spirit” and that the Spirit “led” Christ into the wilderness to be tempted. Why didn’t he lead himself?

When Christ is tempted in the wilderness, he responds to the devil by quoting the Old Testament Scriptures, not using his own words (which, by definition, were inspired). Why not just speak directly?

Luke 2:40 speaks of Christ’s growth in wisdom, implying a previous lack of wisdom.

In John 14:10 we understand that Christ does not speak on his own initiative, but on the Father’s. Why not his own?

Acts 1:2 tells us that Christ instructed the Apostles through the Holy Spirit’s authority. Why not through his own authority?

Acts 10:38 tells us that Christ’s anointing was through the Holy Spirit and his power was from the Father. Why not use his own power?

In Acts 2:22 we are told that it was the Father’s power that gave Christ the ability to do the miracles. Again, why didn’t he use his own power?

Mark 13:32 demonstrates that Christ did not know the day or hour of his coming. How do we explain this void of knowledge?

In Luke 8:45 Christ was ignorant of who touched him. What a mundane thing to be ignorant of. Why didn’t he know?

John 11:34 tells us that Christ was ignorant of where Lazarus had been laid. Again, another mundane statement of ignorance.

Is seems theologically correct:

Have you ever wondered why the Devil’s first temptation to Christ was to turn a stone into bread? What is the big deal in that? It does not seem like a sin. If I had that power, would it be a sin for me to use that power? However, the Devil’s plan was much more strategic than we often think. His goal was not simply to have Christ turn a rock into a meal, but to have Christ independently access his own omnipotence (power) for self-satisfaction. You see, Christ had to become like us in every respect in order to represent us. This is why the dictates of Chalcedon (451) are so important. If Christ did not become fully man, then we lose representation. If Christ was not fully God, there is no power of salvation. Christ had to be fully God and fully man for redemption to be accomplished and applied. Satan was tempting Christ to do something that would forfeit his representation of us and therefore forfeit redemption. Had Christ turned the stone into bread based on an independent use of his own power and authority, he could only represent those of us who can do the same by our own power and authority. Since there is no one who has such abilities, no one could be represented.

With this in mind, it is perfectly understandable why Christ did not know certain things, including the time of his coming. Christ only knew what needed to be known for his mission. This is like us. For both Christ and us, we must rely upon and trust in God completely for the unknown future.

Lest you think I am saying something novel here, let me quote a few sources:

Donald Macleod:

“The other line of integration between the omniscience of the divine nature and the ignorance of the human is that just as Christ had to fulfill the office of Mediator within the limitations of a human body, so he had to fulfill it within the limitations of a human mind.”

Concerning the temptation in the wilderness he writes,

“Part of the truth here is suggested by the first of the three temptations in the desert: ‘tell these stones to become bread’ (Mt. 4:3). The essence of the temptation was that the Lord disavow the conditions of the incarnation and draw on his omnipotence to alleviate the discomforts of his self-abasement. He could have turned the stones into bread; he could have (perhaps) known the day and the house of his parousia. But the latter would have undone his work as surely as the former. Christ had to submit to knowing dependently and to knowing partially. He had to learn to obey without knowing all the facts and to believe without being in possession of full information. He had to forgo the comfort which omniscience would sometimes have brought.”

He goes on,

“Omniscience was a luxury always within reach, but incompatible with his rules of engagement. He had to serve within the limitations of finitude” (The Person of Christ, IVP, 169).

Millard Erickson:

“Perhaps we could say that he [Christ] had such knowledge as was necessary for him to accomplish his mission; in other matters he was as ignorant as we” (Christian Theology, Baker, 726; Leon Morris shares the same thoughts in Lord from Heaven, 48).

Tomas Oden:

“During his earthly ministry, the communication of divine power to the human Jesus was administered by the Holy Spirit, upon whom he constantly relied. Jesus taught, acted, and suffered what the Spirit enabled, directed, and permitted.”

He goes on:

“[T]here was sufficient impartation of divine empowerment to Jesus as was needed for each stage of the fulfillment of his office of Mediator” (The Word of Life, Prince Press, 183-184).

One point that needs to be reiterated here: While Christ did not independently utilize his divine attributes to make it through this life, he always had immediate access to them. Christ never ceased to be God and did not give up his divine attributes at the incarnation. He simply chose not to use them in order to qualify to be our representative. This is made clear by the very fact that Satan tempted him to use his own power to satisfy his hunger. If Christ did not have access to this power, then the temptation is meaningless. According to this line of reasoning, Christ’s full deity is actually substantiated. After all, how many normal humans are tempted to do the things that Satan tempted Christ to do?

But don’t be misled here. Ignorance does not equal error. Just because Christ, living according to the rules of the incarnation, was ignorant of some things, this does not mean he was ever wrong. He never spoke in error.

Having said this, I do believe that such line of reasoning causes us to pause and reflect on just how much Christ can relate to us in every way as a mediator. He was just like us. He had to trust in God for his future as you and I do. He had to rely on the Holy Spirit for his mission and power just like us.Similar Posts:

• Was Christ Ever Depressed? or “Why Didn’t Christ Know the Time of His Coming?”
• Why Didn’t Christ Know the Time of His Coming?
• Heresies: Nestorianism – A Divided Christ
• Could Jesus Have Gotten a Math Problem Wrong?
• Do Catholics Deny Chalcedon in their View of Mass?

This book will be written chapter-by-chapter through the Parchment & Pen blog. The printed form of the book, along with a study guide, will be released in connection with the DVD/Workbook study entitled: The Discipleship Program. A projected release date is May 2011.

There are so many big questions that I have in life. So many questions that involve the day to day details that living places on your desk. Some are more significant than others. For instance, I (Michael) have been married for over a decade now. I have four children, two girls then two boys. My family is my greatest joy. I remember the day I asked Kristie to marry me. I was scared beyond belief. It was at her apartment. We were watching a Dallas Cowboys game. As much as I like the Cowboys, I did not have a clue what was happening on the field. I had decided the day before that I was going to take the plunge and ask her to marry me. As we sat on the couch together I could literally feel my heart about to beat out of my chest. My anxiety was so intense that Kristie, who sat beside me as I had my arm around her, said, “What is wrong with you? Why is your heart beating so hard?” Busted. There was no turning back with her question. After a few moments of mounting courage, I finally asked her, “Will you marry me?”

It is funny to think about how much our life and future hinges on such an important question: “Will you marry me?” Had she said “No,” not only would I have been heart-broken, but so much of who we are now would be different. You see, this is not a casual question. In fact, as I tell couples who come to me to get married, who you marry is the second most important decision anyone will ever make in this life. It effects everything. Everything! I can’t imagine what my life would be like had I not asked that question. I can’t imagine my life without Katelynn, Kylee, Will, and Zach.

However, there is one question that is more important than this. Infinitely more important. As a Christian, there are so many questions, thoughts, struggles, and confusing theological forks in the road that you will come upon. Get ready for it. We don’t have all the answers. What we have chosen to include in this book are those issues that are far beyond idle speculation or triviality. They are the central issues of Christianity. They are those which define the Christian faith and you as a disciple of Christ. They are the things that we believe most. However, there is one question that all others gravitate around. There is one question the answer to which unites us in a greater unity than all the others. It is the key essential to our faith: “Who do you say that I am?” No, not me, Michael. Let me back up. . .

While Christ was here on the earth, people who were exposed to him were often left scratching their heads wondering who this person was. He was doing miracles and teaching with authority beyond anything they were used to or had ever seen. He seemed to be friends with bad people and come down hard on the self-righteous. He was wise, yes. But there was something else about him that transcended anything they had ever know. At one point in his ministry, he asked Peter, one of his twelve students (“The Twelve Disciples” we call them) who he had chosen to have hang with him, the central question. The story unfolds in Matthew 16:13-17.

“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?’”

Did you catch that? Don’t miss the drama. Wait, I am getting ahead of myself. Here is how they answered Part 1 of this question:

“And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.’”

You see, the world was confused and divided. Most did not know how to place this guy. Some people thought he was John the Baptist (who had just died a few months ago!). They knew he was something special, but their opinions varied, more often than not landing on one of the heroic prophets of old come back to life. Why? Because Jesus seemed to have “insider” knowledge of things that humanity was not privy to. He transcended everything they knew.

Christ responds with Part 2 of his quiz, asking the key question of all existence:

“But who do you say that I am?”

That is it! That is the most monumental question ever asked. The importance of the response far outweighs my question to Kristie that Sunday afternoon. Who is Christ? The answer has divided all of history. It has divided mother and father, sister and brother, and father and son. Get this answer wrong and it matters not what answers we get right. Simply put, one cannot get this question wrong and have any accepted voice in the presence of God.

Just for fun, the following is a graphical representation of the Gospel of John. The words are sized based on usage. Notice which word stands out:

Who do we say that he is? Let us devote the rest of the chapter to this question.

Fully God

We spent quite a bit of time in the last chapter walking through the difficult doctrine of the Trinity. In that chapter, I tried to make it clear that God is both one and three. He is one in essence, three in person. Christ is often referred to as the “second person of the Trinity.” Again, this does not mean he is in second place or is second best. It simply means that Christ is one of the three members of what we call the “Godhead.” The most important thing to recognize here is that Chirst is fully God. He is not 1/3 God. He is fully God sharing in the eternal essence of the Trinity.

Son of God

The most common designation of Christ in the Gospel is the “son of God.” In fact God the Father (the “first person of the Trinity”) speaks from heaven at the initiation of Jesus’ ministry during his baptism identifying who Jesus is:

Matthew 3:16-17
“After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.’”

To be the “son of God” speaks of Christ’s relationship to the Father and his essence. The Father/Son analogy must be kept within these confines. For if Christ is eternally God, he was not, as is the case with purely human offspring, brought into existence by the Father. However, it does well to communicate the unique relationship and shared nature between the first and second person of the Trinity.

As C. S. Lewis put it:

“Now that is the fist thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain way, but they are not of the same kind.” (Mere Christianity, 157-158)

The “Christ”

When Christ put Peter on the spot (much like I did with Kristie) and asked who do you say that I am?  Peter’s answer was two-fold: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). It may surprise you to learn that this term “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name. It is a title equivalent to the Hebrew “Messiah.” The concept of the Messiah goes all the way back to the book of Genesis.

Just after Adam and Eve had disobeyed God, God pronounces a curse upon them and the serpant. At the cursing of the serpant, we get our first taste of what the Messiah would do: “I will put an enmity between your seed and her [Eve's] seed. You shall bruse his heel, but he will crush your head” (Genesis 3:15). This is often referred to as the protoevangelion or “first Gospel.” As confusing as this promise undoubtedly was for Adam and Eve, one thing they knew for sure: There would be a man who came from the woman who would crush the works of the serpant. In other words, the things that were broken there that day would someday be fixed. So, in essence, the Messiah was the one who was going to fix what man broke. How he was to do this was still a mystery.

Throughout the Old Testament, this promise of a head-crushering-fixer became more and more defined. In fact, it could be said that the primary purpose for most of the Old Testament is to trace the linage of the Messiah. He was to be a decendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:3), Isaac (Genesis 17:19), Jacob (Numbers 24:17), Judah (Genesis 49:19), Jesse (Isaiah 11:10), and David (Jeremiah 23:5-6). He was to be the prophet of God (Deuteronomy 18:15) , who delivers Israel from oppression through his death and resurrection (Isaiah 53), and to establish an eternal throne (Isaiah 9:7).

He was the hope of Israel and the hope of the entire world. When Christ came on the scene, declaring him as the Christ was nothing less than declaring him as the ultimate apex of history. He was the one everyone was waiting for, the savior, deliverer, king, the anoited one of God, the Messiah.

Fully Man

The Gospel of John makes it clear: Jesus was fully God, yet he was also man:

John 1:14
“And the Word [Jesus] became flesh [man], and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Think about that. The eternal second person of the Trinity who spoke and brought all of existence into being, became man. No, not a man glowing with the glory of God. No, not a man surrounded by a legion of angels. No, not a man who did not leave footprints when he walked. In fact, he was so much a man that the average Joe who came into contact with Christ had no idea that he was in contact with his creator:

John 1:10
“He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.”

Amazing! Jesus ate and drank (Matthew 11:19), had to use the bathroom, got cramps in his stomach, needed to rest (Mark 6:31), fell asleep when tired (Matthew 8:24), cried (John 11:35), grew in knowledge (Luke 2:52), got splenters, needed to shower, and had to open doors to go inside places. Oh yeah, and he did leave footprints in the sand. Point being: Christ was every bit as human as you and I.

Why did God become man? Why couldn’t God accomplish his purpose of redemption (i.e. “fixing what is broken”) without something so drastic as becoming a man? Great question.

Simply put: Our old representation was tainted. We need new representation.

Simply put (another way): The race related to Adam (all people other than Christ) was infected with a virus called “sin.” Therefore, it was condemned. We need a new or “second Adam” to be related to.

Jesus had to do what the first Adam could not. He had to succeed where Adam failed. He had to live a life as a human and never sin. He had to gain the right to be our representative on the cross. If Christ was not man, man could not be saved. Christ was born of a virgin so that he would not have a fallen sinful nature. But he was still born of a woman so that he would be fully man.

1Corintians 15:45
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’ The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit.”

I don’t think I can put it any better than the author of Hebrews:

Heb 2:17-18
“Therefore, He [Jesus] had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.”

Christ can come to our aid as a priest (representative to God for the people) and die on the cross bearing the wrath of God precisely because he is one of us.

As Paul expresses it:

1 Timothy 2:5
“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

The primary reason why we know that Christ’s representation fixed what was broken, is through his resurrection. The bodily resurrection of Christ is the stamp of approval upon Christ’s mission. It is the “redemption accomplished” act that we can look to with great confidence, knowing that the mission of God to restore his creation is complete. Things got fixed. Because he rose from the grave, so we too can be confident that one day we will raise with him. Our bodies will be restored and sickness, sin, and death will be no more.

This is why Paul says that Christ’s resurrection is the essence of the Gospel. It is that which is of “first importance.”

1Corinthians 15:1-4
“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”

Read that again. Read it slowely. Now memorize it. In one paragraph, we have the Gospel. Without the resurrection, nothing is fixed.

Ways to Go Wrong with Christ

Now that we know that Christ is both God and man, how do the two relate? Thoughout history, like with many other things, the doctrine of who Christ is becomes articulated through bad ideas.  We have the truths in the Bible and they are unchanging. But often, it take a little time for these truths to work themselves out in history. Let me give you three ways that people have gone wrong. I am going to use some pretty fancy terms here, but hang with me.

Nestorianism

Named after a bishop of the fourth-century, Nestorianism proposed that Christ was of two natures that formed two persons. Picture this: The second person of the Trinity, Christ, comes down from heaven and finds person named “Jesus.” From there he procedes to say, “Hello Jesus. My name is Christ. It looks like we are going to be working together for a while.” For the Nestorian, when Christ was here on earth walking on water, that was his divine person showing through. When he was ignorant of the time of his coming (Matthew 24:36), that was the human person.

The basic problem with Nestorianism is that we fail to have a human reprentative that was qualified to fix what broke. What we really have is an unqualified man who was possessed by the divine. In this situation we have neither representation before God nor representation before man.

This is not what we mean when we talk about Christ being the God-man. 

Apollinarianism

Another view to throw its hat into the forth-century ring was a view called Apollinarianism, named after another well-meaning bishop named Apollinarius of Laodicea. He proposed that Christ took on flesh, meaning that all Christ had was deity surrounded by the skin of a man. In other words, Christ did not have a human soul/spirit, just human flesh and bones. Think “God in a bod” and you will be pretty close.

The major problem with Apollinarianism is that, as Gregory of Nazianzus made clear during the discussions, “What God has not assumed is not healed.” In other words, you and I need someone to die for our body and soul/spirit. If Christ did not become fully man, then we are not fully saved.

This, “God in a bod” option is not what we mean when we talk about Christ being the God-man.

Eutychianism

Finally, I must mention Eutychianism. During the fourth and early fifth-century, one final option was under discussion, but decisively rejected. Eutyches was another well-meaning theologian who made this proposal (this is the best way I can put it): Christ humanity was mixed with and swollowed up by his deity. When Christ became man, the divine overwhelmed the man and the distinction of the natures essentially mingled. Human and divine came together and formed a “humine.”

I hope you can immediately sense what the issue with Eutychianism is: There is no such thing as a humine! Therefore, because Christ no longer had a complete human or divine nature, no one could be represented.

Solution

The solution comes when we understand that Christ must remain fully divine and fully human. He is not 50/50. He is not 90/10 or even 10/90. He is 100% God and 100% man. As the definition of Chalcedon, a great historic creed of the Christian faith, said in 451: “Christ is very God of very God and very man of very man.” Whereas the Trinity, as we said, is one nature and three persons, Christ is one person of two natures. This is what we call the “Hypostatic Union.” I know. Big word. But rich word. Remember it.

Conclusion

Christ is fully God and fully man. He is in heaven now making intercession for you (i.e. when we do wrong, he says of believers “I got this one covered. Put them on my tab”). He is the eternal God-man. He is the center of our theology. We are called “Christians” which means we are followers of Christ.

Concerning his deity, Christ said to the religious leaders of the day, “Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins” (Joh 8:24). This phrase “I am he” is a translation of the Old Testament name of God who introduced himself as the great “I am”, the “being One”, the “eternal God”. Unless we believe that Christ is God, we die in our sins.

The Apostle John says that “everyone who confesses that Jesus Christ has become human is from God” (1 John 4:2). This speaks to both his humanity and deity. For if Christ were not God, why would it be hard to say that he was man? But since he is God, we must confess that he also became man.

Christ, in every way and every step of his life had to represent man perfectly. While he always had access to his divine power, omniscience, and authority, he did not use them so that he could truly represent us.

This is the message that we bring to people. There are lots of important questions and issues in this life, not the least of which who we marry. But Who do you say Christ is? is by far and away the most important. As a disciple of Christ, you are a Christopher, a “Christ bearer.” The God-man Messiah who lived a sinless life, died for you, rose from the grave, and now stands at the Father’s right hand making intercession for you is who you are bearing. He is the center of all things. He is the great divide. He is Christianity.

Christ asked Peter, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter made the great confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” After this, Christ 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” (Matthew 16:17). Blessed are you, disciple of Christ. For your trust in and confession of Christ has been given to you by God.

(Oh, and Kristie said “Yes”.)

Discussion Questions

1. The person and work of Christ are the central most essential issues of Christianity. The question “Who do you say that I am?” is the most important question ever asked. Why do you believe that God cares so much about your knowledge and relationship with Christ?

2. There are many doctrines that Christians believe, but Christ defines Christianity. In what ways have you seen Christianity misdefined as something other than who Christ is and what he did?

3. It was said in Matthew 24:36 that Christ, while here on earth, did not know the time of his coming. Though we believe that Christ could have known the time of his coming, being God, we believe that he did not know the time of his coming, being man. Why do you think Christ did not access this information?

4. Satan tempted Christ to turn a stone into bread (Luke 4:3). It is not a sin to turn stones into bread. Why do you think that Satan was trying to get him to use his divine power to satisfy his hunger? (Hint: had he followed through, humanity would have lost representation).Similar Posts:

• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? C: John 17:21-23
• Heresies: Nestorianism – A Divided Christ
• Why Didn’t Christ Know the Time of His Coming?
• Heresies: Subordinationalism – A Lesser Christ
• Why Didn’t Christ Know the Time of His Coming? or “How Can Christ Really Relate to Us?”

One way to answer this question is by pointing the finger at either the historical or the heavenly cause of his death. Looking at his death from a purely historical perspective one might conclude that the Jewish religious leaders, in cahoots with Herod and Pontius Pilate, killed Jesus. There is certainly support for this in such texts as 1 Thess. 2:13-16; Acts 2:23; 4:27; Mt. 21:33-46; 1 Cor. 2:8.

Looking at his death from a heavenly perspective, one might conclude that God the Father killed Jesus. Although that sounds strange to some, carefully read Isaiah 53. There we are told that the Messiah would be “smitten of God” (v. 4). It is “the Lord” who “has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” (v. 6). Perhaps the most startling statement of all is found in v. 10 where we read: “But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief.”

But there is yet another answer to the question, “Who killed Jesus?” Charles Spurgeon explains:

“There was a day, as I took my walks abroad, when I came hard-by a spot forever engraven upon my memory, for there I saw this Friend, my best, my only Friend, murdered. I stooped down in sad affright, and looked at him. I saw that his hands had been pierced with rough nails, and his feet had been rent in the same way. There was misery in his dead countenance so terrible that I scarcely dared to look upon it. His body was emaciated with hunger, his back was red with bloody scourges, and his brow had a circle of wounds about it: clearly could one see that these had been pierced by thorns.

I shuddered, for I had known this friend full well. He never had a fault; he was the purest of pure, the holiest of the holy. Who could have injured him? For he never injured any man; all his life long he ‘went about doing good;’ he had healed the sick, he had fed the hungry, he had raised the dead. For which of these works did they kill him? He had never breathed out anything else but love; and as I looked into the poor sorrowful face, so full of agony, and yet so full of love, I wondered who could have been a wretch so vile as to pierce hands like his. I said within myself, ‘Where can these traitors live? Who are these that could have smitten such a One as this?’ Had they murdered an oppressor, we might have forgiven them. Had they slain one who had indulged in vice or villainy, it might have been his desert. Had it been a murderer and a rebel, or one who had committed sedition, we would have said, ‘Bury his corpse; justice has at last given him his due.’ But when thou wast slain, my best, my only beloved, where lodged the traitors? Let me seize them, and they shall be put to death. If there be torments that I can devise, surely they shall endure them all. Oh! What jealousy, what revenge I felt! If I might but find these murderers, what would I not do with them!

And as I looked upon that corpse, I heard a footstep, and wondered where it was. I listened, and I clearly perceived that the murderer was close at hand. It was dark, and I groped about to find him. I found that, somehow or other, wherever I put out my hand, I could not meet with him, for he was nearer to me than my hand would go. At last I put my hand upon my breast. ‘I have thee now,’ said I; for lo! he was in my own heart! The murderer was hiding within my own bosom, dwelling in the recesses of my inmost soul. Ah! Then I wept indeed, that I, in the very presence of my murdered Master, should be harbouring the murderer, and I felt myself most guilty while I bowed over His corpse, and sang that plaintive hymn:

“‘Twas you, my sins, my cruel sins,
His chief tormentors were;
Each of my crimes became a nail,
And unbelief the spear.”

My sins were the scourges which lacerated those blessed shoulders, and crowned with thorns those bleeding brows. My sins cried, ‘Crucify him! Crucify him!’ and laid the cross upon his gracious shoulders. His being led forth to die is sorrow enough for one eternity; but my having been his murderer is more, infinitely more grief, than one poor fountain of tears can express.”

Who killed Jesus? I did. You did. We all did.Similar Posts:

• Do People Who Commit Suicide Go to Hell?
• How to be a child of God forever?
• Lordship Salvation, Free Grace, and Easy-Believism
• Would Christ have died had he not been killed? (2)
• Keeping Holy Week Holy

Similar Posts:

• Credo Clip: What is a Commentary?
• Credo Clip: Will theology kill my faith?
• Credo Clip: What is Theology?
• Credo Clip: Is the Bible Reliable?
• Sam Storms on What is the Gospel (in Three Minutes)

John’s statement is made all the more amazing when it is seen in the light of John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Note the contrasts. In John 1:1 the Word “was”. In John 1:14 the Word “became”. In 1:1 the Word was “with God” whereas in 1:14 the Word dwelt “among us”. In 1:1 the Word was “God” but in 1:14 the Word became “flesh”. Eternal, unchanging God “became” “flesh” and dwelt among “us”. Amazing!

John doesn’t say that the Word became a “man” (although that’s true). Nor does he say he became a “human”, or even that he took to himself a “body” (although both are again true). Rather, the Word became “flesh”, a strong, almost crude way of referring to human nature in its totality: true body, soul, spirit, will, and emotions.

We also note that the Word didn’t pretend to be a man or play at being human. The Word “became” flesh. The Word did not “beam down” in full bodily form. The Word did not enter into flesh, as if to suggest that there was a man, a human being, into which the Word made entrance. He doesn’t say the Word “dwelled” or “abided in” human flesh. What John means is that the eternal Word, God the Son, entered into this world by being born as a human being.

Whatever else Christmas may mean to you, it is first and fundamentally about the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Word. The Incarnation means that two distinct natures (divine and human) are united in one person: Jesus. Jesus is not two people (God and man). He is one person: the God-man. Jesus is not schizophrenic. When the Word became flesh he did not cease to be the Word. The Word veiled, hid, and voluntarily restricted the use of certain divine powers and prerogatives. But God cannot cease to be God. In other words, when the Word became flesh he did not commit divine suicide.

When the Word once became flesh he became flesh forever. After his earthly life, death, and resurrection, Jesus did not divest himself of the flesh or cease to be a man. He is a man even now at the right hand of God the Father. He is also God. He will always be the God-man. Thus, we might envision Jesus saying: “I am now what I always was: God (or Word). I am now what I once was not: man (or flesh). I am now and forever will be both: the God-man.”

Take a deep breath and ponder what this means. Don’t dismiss it as theological speculation. This is a truth on which your eternal destiny hangs suspended. This is a truth the beauty and majesty of which will captivate your attention and cause sin to sink in your estimation. Wherein lies the power to turn from iniquity and say No to sin? It lies in the power and irresistible appeal of an uncreated God who would dare to become a man!

The Word became flesh!

God became human!

the invisible became visible!

the untouchable became touchable!

eternal life experienced temporal death!

the transcendent one descended and drew near!

the unlimited became limited!

the infinite became finite!

the immutable became mutable!

the unbreakable became fragile!

spirit became matter!

eternity entered time!

the independent became dependent!

the almighty became weak!

the loved became the hated!

the exalted was humbled!

glory was subjected to shame!

fame turned into obscurity!

from inexpressible joy to tears of unimaginable grief!

from a throne to a cross!

from ruler to being ruled!

from power to weakness!

Max Lucado put it this way:

“The omnipotent, in one instant, made himself breakable. He who had been spirit became pierceable. He who was larger than the universe became an embryo. And he who sustains the world with a word chose to be dependent upon the nourishment of a young girl. God as a fetus. Holiness sleeping in a womb. The creator of life being created. God was given eyebrows, elbows, two kidneys, and a spleen. He stretched against the walls and floated in the amniotic fluids of his mother” (“God Came Near,” pp. 25-26).

As Paul said in 1 Tim. 3:16, “great is the mystery of godliness: God was revealed in the flesh!”

Stay with me for just a moment more. If it hasn’t hit home yet, perhaps the following will do the trick.

Conception: God became a fertilized egg! An embryo. A fetus. God kicked Mary from within her womb!

Birth: God entered the world as a baby, amid the stench of manure and cobwebs and prickly hay in a stable. Mary cradled the Creator in her arms. “I never imagined God would look like that,” she says to herself. Envision the newborn Jesus with a misshaped head, wrinkled skin, and a red face. Just think: angels watched as Mary changed God’s diapers! Tiny hands that would touch and heal the sick and yet be ripped by nails. Eyes (what color were they?). Tiny feet (where would they take him?) that likewise would be pierced by nails. She tickled his side (which would one day be lanced with a spear).

Infancy: God learned to crawl, stand, and walk. He spilt his milk and fell and hit his head.

Youth: Was he uncoordinated? How well did he perform at sports? Perhaps Jesus knew the pain of always being picked last when the kids chose up sides for a ballgame. God learned his ABC’s!

Teenager: Jesus probably had pimples and body odor and bad breath. God went through puberty! His voice changed. He had to shave. Girls probably had a crush on him and boys probably teased him. There were probably some foods he didn’t like (no doubt squash among them).

Carpenter: Calloused hands. Dealings with customers who tried to cheat him or complained about his work. How did he react when they shortchanged him?

Some are bothered when I speak of Jesus like this. They think it is irreverent and shocking! As Max Lucado has said,

“It’s not something we like to do; it’s uncomfortable. It is much easier to keep the humanity out of the incarnation. Clean the manure from around the manger. Wipe the sweat out of his eyes. Pretend he never snored or blew his nose or hit his thumb with a hammer. He’s easier to stomach that way. There is something about keeping him divine that keeps him distant, packaged, predictable. But don’t do it. For heaven’s sake, don’t. Let him be as human as he intended to be. Let him into the mire and muck of our world. For only if we let him in can he pull us out” (pp. 26-27).

The marvel of it all is that he did it for you and me! It was an expression of the depths of his love for you that the Word entered the depths of human ugliness, human weakness, human humiliation.

As you gather with your family this Christmas, meditate on the amazing implications of this most amazing verse:

He was conceived by the union of divine grace and human disgrace.

He who breathed the breath of life into the first man is now himself a man breathing his first breath.

The King of Kings sleeping in a cow-pen.

The Creator of oceans and seas and rivers afloat in the womb of his mother.

God sucking his thumb.

The Alpha and Omega learning his multiplication tables.

He who was once surrounded by the glorious stereophonic praise of adoring angels now hears the lowing of cattle, the bleating of sheep, the stammering of bewildered shepherds

He who spoke the universe into being now coos and cries.

Omniscient Deity counting his toes.

Mary playing “this little piggy went to market” on the toes of God (well, being Jewish, maybe it was “this little pony”).

From the robes of eternal glory to the rags of swaddling clothes.

The omnipresent spirit, whose being fills the galaxies, confined to the womb of a peasant girl.

Infinite power learning to crawl.

Mary playing “patty-cake” with the Lord of Lords!

The Word became flesh! Amazing! Merry Christmas!Similar Posts:

• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? C: John 17:21-23
• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? B: The Father Is Greater than All
• Heresies: Nestorianism – A Divided Christ
• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? Calvin's View
• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part II: One in Power?

I have been teaching theology now for over ten years. Teaching theology carries the burden of not only education, but one of correction. When it comes to heresies about the doctrine of the Trinity, there are two that stand out more than any other as being common among average Christians: subordinationalism and modalism. I will talk about modalism soon, but here I want to devote our time to subordinationalism.

We need to be careful as subordinationalism comes in two varieties, one orthodox and the other heretical. The orthodox version is called “functional subordinationalism,” while the unorthodox version is called “ontological subordinationalism.”

Ontological Subordinationalism

To subordinate something is to distinguish and lessen the value of that which is subordinated. The word “ontological” comes from the Greek, ontos meaning  ”essence,” “stuff,” or “substance.” So, Ontological Subordinationalism is to lessen the value of the substance. When it comes to the doctrine of God, Ontological Subordinationalism is the belief that there is a hierarchal subordination among the members of the Trinity in their essence.

For example, many people think that God the Father is the greatest and most powerful among the members of the Trinity. Christ comes in second and the Holy Spirit third. In order to do this, the Ontological Subordinationalist must distinguish between the members of the Trinity in their essence. Orthodox Christianity finds this heretical due to the fact that the Trinity is united in essence. Each member of the Trinity, though distinct in person, shares in the same substance. This sharing makes it impossible for any member to be less in any way in their essence. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all equal in essential power, authority, and dignity. There cannot be one that is subordinate to the other in their essence since this would divide the essence making three Gods. The Bible is clear that God is one in essence (Deut. 6:4; 1 Tim. 2:5), but three in person. Therefore, the Father is not more powerful than the Son, nor the Son more powerful than the Holy Spirit. All three are equal and eternal.

Functional Subordinationalism

While orthodoxy does not allow for any hierarchy in the essence of the members of the Trinity, it does allow for a hierarchy in function or role among the members of the Trinity. Jesus tells us in John 14:28 that his Father is greater than he is. The greatness of which he speaks is tied to Christ’s role as redeemer and, possibly, as Son. While on the earth Christ submitted to the Father in everything in order to qualify to be the representative of mankind on the cross. The same is true of the Holy Spirit as he is sent by the Father and the Son and is in submission to their guidance (John 16:13-15).

One may ask how it is that one can be subordinate in role yet equal in essence. Yet we have many examples to which we can compare this relationship. While a king enjoys a role or function that is greater than his subject, the essential humanity of the both is equal. An officer who pulls you over for a traffic ticket has greater authority and power than you, yet his essential being is no greater. In the marital relationship (for those who hold a complementarian theology), the husband is the head of the wife, but they share equal value and dignity before God. Among the members of the Trinity, at least for the purpose of redemption, their is a functional hierarchy, even though there is not an ontological hierarchy. There is legitimate disagreement throughout church history about whether this functional hierarchy is temporary or eternal, but we wont go there now.

Any time we make Christ or the Holy Spirit a lesser God than the Father, we have fallen into the heresy of Ontological Subordinationalism. It is important for us to understand that there is one God who eternally exists in three persons, all of which are fully God, all of which are equal.Similar Posts:

• "The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements
• The Doctrine of the Trinity in a Nutshell
• The Discipleship Book: Trinity
• Another Illustration of the Trinity
• Must One Believe in the Trinity to be Saved?