Did Humans Make Jesus Divine? - Part 3

Next to consider in the subject of "Did Humans Make Jesus Divine?" is whether the Old Testament scriptures present the Messiah as one who would be Divine? Or was the Messiah just going to be another human leader that would make Israel victorious? Have we misunderstood God altogether?  

"Messiah," is a term found deep in the Old Testament, having the concept of an "anointed one." It was a term in Levitical days that was used as an adjective in referring to Priests (Lev.4:3,5; 4:16; 6:22), but was predominantly used in reference to the Kings (1Sam.24:6,10; 2 Sam.19:21; 23:1; Lam.4:20).  However, it was in the time of the captivities, that Isaiah was the first of the prophets to refer to an extraordinary king of the future to come (Isa.8:8; 9:6; 53) an enigmatic one who would be sent from God, called by the designations of God, with the attributes of God and born of a young maiden or virgin. Isaiah adds that this enigmatic one would die in a shameful and pitied way.  Similarly, his contemporaries Amos (Ams. 9:11) foretold of a time when the shattered fortunes of Judah would be restored by God, and Hosea (Hos.3:5) speaks of the reunion of the two kingdoms under David's line, adding yet another characteristic. 

It was a foregone thing, that by the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, that the throne of David was seen as gone forever. Jeremiah, a child of the captivity then speaks longingly of a Messiah called the “righteous Branch” who is to be raised after the concept of David. This Messiah would be called “God (is) our righteousness,” that is, God as the one making righteous dwell in him (Jer.23:5; 30:9). His contemporary Ezekiel alluded to a future king as the coming one “whose right it is” (Ezk.21:27), and as God's “servant David”, a “prince” or “king” who would rule forever over a reunited people (Ezk.34:23 37:24). While the argument might be made that they are simply pining for a new human king to bring them out of their despair; it is difficult to avoid  the language of Ezekiel makes that it is the ideal Messianic ruler who is here being spoken of. In Ezekiel's vision, the Prince plays a subordinate part, yet is connected to the complete ideal of God. Zechariah sees the Messiah, the futuristic King regarded as the sign of the coming Branch (Zech.3:8). Though unique to Zechariah, is  Zech.9:9 where the Messiah comes not on a splendid charger like a warrior king, but upon the foal of an ass, righteous and victorious, yet lowly and peaceful, strong by the power of God to help and save.

So, did they make the Messiah divine? It is interesting how that even though different men, living at different times, their concepts and writings are similar. They describe not what a human would want, but what meets the ideal of God. Yet, notice again, it is not with the arrogance of a human king, a dominating rule, or vanquishing military leader that they say will describe the one who is the Messiah.  He is lowly, despised of men, no one who you would look upon to be a leader. He is humble, He is going to die and yet, He will be victorious. 

Does this make Him divine? Not per se'.  Yet, to describe this Messiah as they did, they could not do so without appointing him the same designations that they would apply to God. the point that they make is that only God could fit this role. 

So, the next question that we have to ask for the next article, is if man did not make the Messiah divine, who did?  Is Jesus the Messiah and if so, did Jesus make any claim to being divine? And if He is divine, what makes Him so?

Jim

Was Jesus made Divine by Humans? Part 2

The last article brought us in text to an accumulation of letters written by Paul, discovered in

Engraving of Polycarp

1937 and having been written around 175 A.D. In particular, the letter of Paul to the Phillippians was penned by Paul around 62 A.D. was quoted by Polycarp who lived in the latter half of the second century, quoting from the Philippians text of Ph'p.2:7-10, just as we have it in our bibles today. This tells us that the text of this was unaltered from the time that Paul penned it. In it, he says that, "So at the name of Jesus everyone will bow down, those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. And to the glory of God the Father everyone will openly agree, "Jesus Christ is Lord!" Php 2:10,11.

So, we have seen that the concept that Jesus was and is Divine was not something promoted simply by the Council of Nicea in 321 under Constantine. The Council therefore adapted a "tenet" that Jesus was the "true Son of God" ergo divine, therefore as with Php.2:7-10 He was God. It was not the Council that made Him God, but they were simply agreeing with what was already in the scripture of that day (300's A.D.) and putting down an argument they considered to be in controversy to that.  However, the next dart thrown, is that Jesus was made divine by Paul. The proposition is that Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus), who was a Jewish scholar at one point, became corrupted by the Greek polytheistic influences that he encountered and resulting from that he began to proclaim Jesus as Divine or God. This is supposedly in opposition to the original disciples/apostles who lived with and followed Jesus who claimed him to be the "Messiah" - not God.

Did the disciples/apostles (excluding Paul) proclaim Jesus as divine? 

Well, it is interesting that if we isolate certain things in the New Testament from others, we can make the apostles say anything that we want to. We need to remember that taking things in context here is going to be crucial. Another thing to take in mind, is that the things we see these men saying in the beginning of the gospels, are made in more mature statements by much older men by the time we get to their letters in the New Testament. That said, let's begin in the beginning - with the Gospels.

The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), containing narratives from the life of Jesus through His resurrection and ascension. A significant fact in dating these particular books, is a historical event, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Jesus foretold of this event (Mt.24), and the fact that this event is not included or mentioned outside of Jesus' prediction suggests their writing was before that date.  Matthew (originally in Aramaic or Hebrew) has dates ranging between 40-140 A.D. However as it was quoted by Iraneus in

Iraneus of Lyons

115 A.D. we know that it had to be written before then, and with no mention of the Temple's destruction outside of Jesus' prediction in Mt.24 gives us a rounded date of around 50 A.D.  Mark also, is supposed to have been written within 5 years prior to Matthew. While Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and it is suggested that it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name.  Luke also was not a direct disciple of Jesus, but a convert and partner with Paul. He was a physician and also a historian. Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). John's gospel is the only one of the four, which the date is uncertain. We know the Revelation (also penned by John supposedly near the end of the first century after the Temple's destruction) and it is assumed the gospel was written around the same timeframe. 

Did they simply proclaim Jesus as the Messiah, or did they - He proclaim himself to be divine?  Peter's statement in Mat 16:16 is a key one, "Simon Peter spoke up, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."  Not only does Peter state that Jesus is the Messiah (Anointed One of God), but he includes in this statement, "Son of the Living God."  He literally declares Jesus to be the Offspring of God - of God, i.e., Divine. What is also significant, is that Jesus in none of the gospels repudiates Peter for making this statement.   In Matt 14:33 after calming the storm on Galilee the statement "And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." Same as in Mt.16 and prior to Mt.16, where again the exclamation is made that they considered Him not just "Messiah," but Divine - God!  Again, the statement is not repudiated. One other key instance, is

Fragment  of Gospel of Mark

recorded in Mark 9:7,8 where Jesus is transfigured on the mountain. Peter, James, and John are there and the record states, " And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, "This is my beloved Son; listen to him." And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but Jesus only." So, if only the four of them were there, and Jesus is transfigured, who is the voice coming from the cloud saying, "This is my beloved Son"?  If we take this to be God speaking, saying "This is my beloved Son" then what does that tell you? It's not Peter, James, John, any of the apostles or Paul and definitely not the Nicean Council.  Perhaps the most significant of the gospels exclaiming that Jesus is Divine and God, is the gospel of John. The entire gospel is devoted to and presents this as a physically witnessed fact that "...the Word WAS God.....the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."  It is also presented to an audience that lived during the time of the events, and to those who were aware of the events about which John writes.

In our previous article, we have seen that the presentation of Jesus as divine, was not something made up by the Nicean Council. They believed it, but their declaration was based on belief and teaching that existed before they did, and it was in effort to squelch those who were teaching the opposite as "doctrine." To say that Paul was the one who made Jesus divine is another straw being grasped by those who have not seriously handled the scriptures with any depth. Yes, Paul does believe, preach, and proclaim that Jesus is Divine - the Son of God!  What is interesting to me, is that Paul came to this conclusion on his own  (Acts 9:6; 26:16) without the help of the other apostles, who even considered him a threat in the beginning. But, the teaching that Jesus was Divine, the Son of God, is as we have seen, inherent in the Gospels themselves. It is presented and proclaimed by those who were the initial disciples of Jesus, as well as presented outside of them. In fact, the conclusion the gospels expect you to reach after reading the accounts and weighing the events and history, is that Jesus is not only the Messiah/Christ, He is indeed the Son of the Living God!

Next to consider in this, is whether the Old Testament scriptures present the Messiah as one who would be Divine? Or was the Messiah just going to be another human leader that would make Israel victorious? Have we misunderstood God altogether?  Check out the blog next week!

Jim

Was Jesus made divine by humans?

A recent discussion that I had was interesting, where the question arose as to whether Jesus is/was "God" or he was made divine by Paul or by the Council of Nicea formed under Constantine. This has been a huge debate among many for years.  Jesus said , "During this very night, all of you will reject me, as the Scriptures say, 'I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.' (Mat 26:31) and this was to his own disciples. So, doubting Him, was something that even Jesus said would happen.The question is, whether the hypothesis presented is true. Was Jesus made divine by humans, did He claim to be divine, and then finally WAS He divine.

Needless to say, this is not something that can be diligently considered in one article, so I am going to try to approach this in several different articles. As such, I encourage you to follow them. This particular article will center on whether His disciples or Paul made Him Divine, or was it the Council of Nicea under Constantine that made Jesus divine.

The Council of Nicea in 321, arose partially because of what was known of as the Arian

controversy. Arius was a "presbyter" in Alexandria, who because of disputes over the words "begotten," "born" "created," "essence," "substance," nature," and "person" began to postulate that The Father alone was divine and since Jesus was "born" of a human mother he could not be divine or God.  The majority of the council argued against this, stating that the scriptures clearly stated Jesus' divinity therefore Arius' argument was rejected. The Council therefore adapted a "tenet" that Jesus was the "true Son of God" ergo divine, therefore as with Php.2:7-10 He was God. It was not the Council that made Him God, but they were simply agreeing with what was already in the scripture of that day (300's A.D.) and putting down an argument they considered to be in controversy to that. 

This brings us to another consideration in this, what were the scriptures between the first and third centuries?  It is a foregone conclusion, that the Old Testament as we have it in our own bibles today, was in existence even in the time of Jesus, and was quoted by Jesus and his Disciples in the New Testament. There were even Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek versions of the Old Testament that existed and were quoted within the time frame of the first century. But what about the New Testament (33 A.D.-100 A.D.)?  There has been much controversy over this as well, as well as many spurious books that came up in the latter first century through fourth centuries. All making their claim for a position to be recognized as "true" scripture. So, this section will deal with how do we establish the books of the New Testament and the second part of this shall be do they proclaim Jesus as God or divine.

What is called by scholars as the "canon" of the New Testament, are the 26 books or letters

that we have assembled in our bibles today. This was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of the Year 692, although it was universally accepted in the mid 300's to be the most accurate records of Jesus and his apostles. The "original" letters written by the apostles (gospels and letters) have not been authenticated of found. What we do have though are copies written by fellow Christians so that they could be circulated among the numerous churches of the day. The latest substantial find was in 2008, when 47 new manuscripts were discovered in Albania; at least seventeen of these were unknown to Western scholars. In 1937 a manuscript containing the majority of the letters written by Paul were discovered and are on display at housed in part at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland. While the earliest manuscript is dated to 175 A.D., it is interesting that Polycarp (69-156 AD) quoted from 2 Thessalonians, Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, Acts of the Apostles, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Epistle to the Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, 3 John. Paul is said to have  penned the letter to the Philippians in 62 A.D. which is only 29 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, and Polycarp is quoting this in the mid First Century. What is the point of all of this tracking and dating?  It shows that the text of Php.2:7-10 existed in the form that we have it without change or alteration. So it wasn't the Nicean Council that was proclaiming Jesus as God, they were quoting Paul who penned it in 62 A.D.

Now we come to another argument raised, that it was Paul that made Jesus "divine" and that before Paul neither Jesus or his apostles taught such. That - we shall examine in the next article. 

Jim