IS JESUS CHRIST THE TRUE GOD?

IS JESUS CHRIST THE TRUE GOD

TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE?

Bienvinido C. Santiago

MANY PEOPLE TODAY who unquestioningly hold that Jesus Christ is the true God take it as a matter of course that the deity of Christ explicitly taught in the Bible, without checking out if what they assume to be in the Bible is actually not mentioned there.

Most of them are likely to be offended when we say that the Bible does not teach that Christ is the true God. Having been brought up in religious traditions that believe in the deity of Christ, most of them feel that in so saying that He is not the true God we are denigrating Him or are simply expressing a disbelief in Him.

But that is not so. Nothing could be farther from our minds. We believe in Christ, as we have always so professed. We recognize Him as the Son of God, as our Lord and Savior, as the head of the true Church, and as everything in the Bible says He is, no more no less. After all it is through the Bible that we believe and derived our knowledge of Christ.

FINAL AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE

For us members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, the Bible is the final authority of faith and morale. We cannot, and shall never, subscribe to any belief alien to the Bible just because they are popular and widely accepted.

So, although we have been roundly criticized for our belief that the only true God is the Father and that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is a man, we adhere to this teaching, confident that such belief is solidly grounded on the Holy Scripture. In fact we can cite several texts in the Bible that point unequivocally to the Father as the only true God.

The Prophet Isaiah affirms that from the beginning of the world man have not heard nor seen any God besides the Father (Is. 64:4,8). The Prophet Malachi writes that the one God who created us all is the Father (Mal. 2:10). Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, teaches that to know the Father as the only true God is eternal life (Jn. 17:1, 3). The Apostles of Christ did not deviate from this teaching, “For us”,  says Apostle Paul, “there is only one God, the Father whom are all things…”(I Cor. 8:6).

Now is there a dearth of evidence from the Bible to support the belief that Christ is a man. We can easily make long list of biblical verses that state, in no uncertain terms, that Christ is man. Let us quote some of these verse.

Christ’s testimony about himself:

 “But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God.” (Jn. 8:40, Revised Standard Edition).

From Apostles Paul’s teaching:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (I Tim. 2:5, King James Version)

From Apostle Peter:

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty wonders and signs which is God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22, RSV).

We can go on and on, but we need not labor this point. Suffice it to say, at this juncture, that the belief in the humanity of Christ should not be disputed by those who accept the Bible as the final authority, especially in matters of doctrine.

BIBLE TEXTS MISUSED TO PROVE CHRIST'S BEING GOD

But those who teach that Christ is the true God adduce to biblical texts as their basis. And many of those who believe them may even be under the impression that there is an overwhelming number of texts used to prove that the Bible calls Jesus Christ “God.” They would be surprised when they find out that is not the case. And they would have to reconsider their long held view of the nature of Christ when they also find out that the few biblical verses where Christ is purportedly called God are grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted.

What are these Biblical texts where Christ is supposed to have been called God?

We must identify and study those verses because they are crucial to the position of those who believe that Christ is God. If Christ, indeed, were God it should have been explicitly stated in the Bible. In fact, Christ should have said it Himself considering that He, in the verse we have quoted above, has positively affirmed that He is man. If He were also God, He would have said so, considering also that one of His greatest missions is to make known who the true God is (Jn. 5:20).

So it is absolutely important for the exponents of the Christ-is-God theology to point to biblical texts where Jesus introduced Himself as God or, if that cannot be found, at least where He is clearly called God.

It is to this problem that a Catholic biblical scholar, Raymond E. Brown, S.S. addresses the first chapter of his book, JESUS GOD AND MAN: MODERN BIBLICAL REFLECTIONS.* In the said chapter, entitled “Does the New Testament call Jesus God?” Brown mentions, among other things, the reasons for other people’s “Uneasiness about calling Jesus God.” He says, “First, it has been argued that the statement ‘Jesus is God’ is not biblical formulations.” (The two other objections mentioned are: the contention “that this formula objectivizes Jesus.” (pp. 3-4)

Brown dwells on the first objections, that which argues that the statement “Jesus is God” is not a biblical formulation, and sets out to answer the question he posed: Does the New Testament call Jesus God? To do these, he identifies and discusses the relevant New Testament texts which he placed under three readings: “(1) text that seems to imply that the title ‘God’ was not used for Jesus; (2) texts where, by reasons of textual variants or syntax, the use of ‘God’ for Jesus is dubious; (3) texts where Jesus is clearly called God.” (pp.5-6)

Brown begins his discussion of the texts under the first heading with an interesting concession. He says:

“It is quite obvious that in the New Testament the term ‘God’ is applied with overwhelming frequency to God the Father, i.e., to the God revealed in the Old Testament to whom Jesus was a man attested by God (2:22) and that God preached to Israel through Jesus (10:36). Throughout most of the New Testament there tends to be a distinction between God (the Father) and Jesus.” (p.6)

Under the heading, “Texts that seem to imply that the title ‘God’ was not used for Jesus,” Brown discusses Mark 10:15-34; Matthew 27:46; Ephesians 1:17; “several passages that by means of immediate juxtaposition seem to distinguish between the one God and Jesus Christ,” such as John 17:3; I Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:4-6 and I Timothy 2:5; and “a number of texts which seems to state that Jesus is less God or the Father”, such as John 14:28; Mark 13:32; Philippians 2:5-10 and Corinthians 15:24.

These verses which Brown placed under this category are obviously those that cannot be adduced to prove Christ’s deity. Rather, these are the verses that can effectively be used to disprove that He is God. Take for instance Mark 10:18. In verse, Christ, in response to the man who calls Him “good teacher,” says:  “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” Brown has observed that “this text strongly distinguishes between Jesus and God.” And rightly so. For herein Christ refused to be addressed with a description that properly belongs to God only.

Mark 15:34 is another text quoted by Brown that implies that the title “God” is not used for Christ. This verse contains Christ’s famous last words before He die: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” If Christ were the true God, this cry would not have made sense. For why would he address another as “My God.” The true God of the Bible recognizes no other God besides Himself. The Prophet Isaiah recorded:

“This is what the Lord says – Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God… You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me.? (Is. 44:6, New International Version)

We need not discuss one by one the other verses that Brown included in the first category. But before we proceed to the next group of verses, there are some points worthy of note that we should ponder regarding the first group. These verses clearly distinguish Christ from God. One who is distinct from another cannot be that other at the same time. Christ cannot be distinct from God and yet be that God also. To believe that Christ is different from the one true God and at the same time believe that Christ is also that one true God is absurd because these beliefs are contrary to each other.

The next category in Brown’s essay includes the texts where the use of ‘God’ for Jesus is dubious. Since in these verses, they cannot be used to prove that the Bible calls Jesus God beyond doubt. “The doubts about these texts,” says Brown, “arise on two scores, namely, the presence of textual variants and problems of syntax.” (p.10)

The verses with textual variants, says Brown, are Galatians 2:20; Acts 20:28 and John 1:18. Those where “obscurity arises from syntax” are Colossians 2:2; II Thessalonians 1:12; Titus 2:13; I John 5:20; Romans 9:5 and II Peter 1:1.

Those who still cite these verses to prove the deity of Christ should take note of Brown’s comments and conclusions. For instance, after weighing the variant renderings of Galatians 2:20, he concludes that “this text should not be counted among those passages which calls Jesus God.” Next he discussed the two problems interpreters encounter in determining the best reading of Acts 20:28, namely, that which concerns the variants reading and that which concern grammatical understanding. The King James Version renders this passage, thus:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

Other translation render the phrase “church of God” as  “the church of the Lord.” Still another rendering is “the church of Christ” as George Lamsa’s version. Brown contends that the rendering “the church of God” is more original, and then he speculates on why some scribes may have substituted “Lord” for “God” saying that “a reading which has God sheeding blood seems to smack the Patricianism.” Still and all, he concludes that “even if we read ‘church of God’ we are by no means certain that this verse calls Jesus God.” (p.12).

We need not discuss in detail the other verses which Brown cited under this category. Suffice it to note the concessions he grudgingly offered with regards to these verse. On Colossians 2:2, he said: “…this text is not a good one to use in our discussion.” (p.12). On Thessalonians 1:12, he said: “…this text cannot be offered as an example of the use of title “God” for Jesus.” On I John 5:20 “…there is a certain probability that I John call Jesus God.” (p.19) Note that he said probability no certainty. On Romans 9:5, he said “…one may claim a certain probability that this passage refers to Jesus as God.” (p.22). Again, he is dealing here with probabilities because he himself notes the objection to this interpretation: “nowhere else does Paul speak of Jesus as God.” (p.21). Other very probable instances where Brown believes the Bible calls Jesus God are in Jn. 1:18 and II Peter 1:1. We need only to remember that even those who believe that Christ is called God in the Bible recognize that there are valid grounds to doubt that these verses indeed call Jesus God. Therefore, as we have said earlier, these verses cannot be used to prove and doubt that Jesus is called God in the Bible.

In the third group of biblical passages that Brown cited under the title, “Text where Jesus is clearly called God,,” he mentions “three passages that explicitly use theos (God) of Jesus.” Although he asserts that there are a number of passages in the New Testament which imply that Jesus is divine, it is interesting to note that as far as clear and explicit statement is concerned, he can cite only three out of the 7,959 verses of the New Testament to substantiate this claim, These are Hebrews 1:8-9; John 1:1 and John 20:28.

The paucity of biblical texts that purportedly call Jesus God is remarkable. This should correct the common impression that there is an overwhelming number of biblical passages that can be adduced to support the belief that the Bible calls Jesus God. It should be noted further that the interpretation given to these few text prove Christ’s deity is unquestionable either.

HEBREWS 1:8-9. The King James Version of the Bible renders these verses thus:

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, had anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”

The Revised Standard Version render these verse in almost the same way but indicated in the footnote an alternative reading: “Or God is thy throne.”

James Moffat’s translation gives that alternative reading: “He says of the Son, ‘God is thy throne for ever and ever’”. This we believe is the correct translation of the verse because it does not run afoul of the teaching on the absolute oneness of God, a teaching carefully upheld throughout the whole Bible. In this verses which we earlier quoted in full, the Son who is being addressed to, is said to have a God. “…God, even thy God…” because He recognizes another God, His God. This would contradict another verse in that same epistle, Hebrew 8:10”…And I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” (Ibid.)

So the reading that make it appear that the Son of God could not be the correct ones. What then is the Son according to the same epistle to the Hebrews? The Son is spoken as a man:

“By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament … But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.” (Heb. 7:22,24, Ibid)

Therefore, Christ is not called God in Hebrews 1:8-9 as far as the correct rendition of the text is concerned.

JOHN 1:1.  This verse states: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Ibid). Contrary to what Brown says, this verse does not say that Christ is God. It is not clearly or explicitly stated here that Christ is the true God. Those who use this verse to prove that Christ is God explain that Christ is referred to as the Word, and since the Word is God, they infer that Christ is God. That, however, is just an interference and not a valid one at that.

We reject this inference on the following grounds:

1.  It will lead to conclusion that there are more than one God. If the Word who “was with God” were God himself, and the God with whom it was is also God, then we would have two Gods in these verse. This will run counter to the biblical teaching on the oneness of God. Christ will not countenance this conclusion because He himself taught that we should know only one God, the Father (J. 17:1,3).

2.  The “Word” is used in this as an expression of God’s thought, or plan, concerning Christ. That thought or Word was in the mind of God in the beginning, which was why John said, “the Word was with God.”

I Peter 1:20 proves that Christ was already in the mind of God or that He was already planned by God even before the foundation of the world. It says there:

 “Foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, he has been manifested in the last times for our sake.” (New American Catholic Version).

When the thought or plan concerning Christ was just a thought or plan, he was not existing yet. He came to be when God carried out His plan:

“And of making of all people see how God’s secret plan is to be put into effect. God, who is the Creator of all things, kept His secret hidden through all the past ages….God did this according to His eternal purpose which He achieved through Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Eph. 3:9,11), Today’s English Version). The Word or plan of God about Christ found fulfillment when Christ was born: “But when the fullness of the time come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” (Gal. 4:4, KJV).

Why then did John say that the Word is God? Because the Word possesses a power like that of God’s. The term “God” was used simply to describe the quality of the Word. It was not used as a noun but as an adjective: it modifies the term “Word”. This fact can be plainly seen from the phrase “the Word” in which the term “God”  is without definite article “the” which would have been necessary if that term was used as a noun. Goodspeed’s translation reflects this understanding:

“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”

JOHN 20:28.  The verse, according to Raymond Brown, “is the clearest example in the New Testament of the use of ‘God’ for Jesus.” (p.28).

It says there: “And Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and My God.” Before anyone makes the hasty conclusion that this apparent use of “God” for Christ is reasonable basis for the teaching that Christ is the true God, it is of vital importance to consider first the circumstances that led to such utterance and the circumstance that comes after that.

First, let us consider the circumstances that led to the utterance. What was the context in which it was given? Was it the nature of Christ that was at issue here? No, it wasn’t. Rather it was His resurrection. Christ was resurrected from the dead, in fulfillment of the prophecy of the scripture “that he must rise again from the dead” (John 20:9). He, then, appeared to Mary Magdalene (verse 14) at the same day, at the evening, to the disciples in whose midst He stood and said: “Peace be unto you” (verse 19). When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you”. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them ‘Received the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. No Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him. “We have seen the Lord’. But he said to them, ‘unless I see in his hands the prints of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hands in his side, I will not believe’. Eight days later, his disciples are again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The door shut out, but Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you”. Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing’.  Thomas answered him ‘My Lord and my God’.” (Verse 2:28, RSV)

It is clear then that the words Thomas uttered as recorded is the verse 28 was spoken in the context of his doubt about the resurrection of Christ. The significance of that fact cannot be ignored. Resurrection presupposes that the one who is resurrected had died first. And dying is not an attribute of God. The true God is immortal. Says Apostle Paul:

“To the King of the Ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (I Tim. 1:17, Ibid.)

It should be noted too that Christ did resurrect Himself but was raised up by God. (Acts 2:32).

Therefore, the proof that Christ gave Thomas that His resurrection did indeed take place, which he gave by making Thomas to see His hands and His side and put his finger and hands thereon, proves not only the fact that He was raised up from the dead but also the fact that He is not the true God. In view of this we can plainly see the error in Thomas who committed that error. If we read Luke’s account of the incident, we would learn that the other Apostles too “supposed that they saw a spirit” when Christ appeared to them.

And this brings us to the circumstances that came after Thomas uttered those words which contained the thought shared by the other Apostles. They were corrected immediately by our Lord Jesus Christ.

“And He said to them. ‘Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is myself; handle me, and see me; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have’.” (Lk. 24:38-39, RSV).

As has been shown, Apostle Thomas’s utterance recorded in John 20:28 was an error and the thought it conveyed which was shared by the other Apostles – as indicated in Luke 24:37 – was corrected by Christ. John 20:28, therefore, cannot be a valid basis for the teaching that Christ is the true God.

From this brief discussion, we learned that the few biblical texts being adduced to show that Christ is called God in the Bible are misunderstood and misinterpreted by the exponents of that doctrine. Disinterestingly, none of the last three verses we have discussed – Heb. 1:8, 9 Jn. 1:1, and Jn. 20:28 – contains Christ affirmation that He is God. We take note of this fact because He has made it sufficiently clear that He is a man (Jn. 8:40)

The reason Christ never said He is God, and even corrected those who mistook Him for God, is because He is man, not God. There are numerous passages in the Bible we can cite to prove this. Indeed, not even those who teach that Christ is God contradict this fact. Christ’s being man, proves that He is not God. Because the true God said: “I am God and not man” (Jos. 11:9 KJV). And to man, God said: “Thou art a man, and not God.” (Ezek. 28:2, Ibid.)

In view of this, we can conclude, in answer to the question that forms the title of this article, that Christ is not the true God taught by the Bible.

* Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Jesus God and Man; Modern Biblical Reflections. Milwaukee. The Bruce Publishing Company. 1967 (Nihil Obstat: John A. Sohulien, S.T.D. Censor Librerum; Imprimatur. William E. Cousins, Archbishop of Milwaukee)