The New Testament Presents Jesus Christ as God Incarnate, Fully Man and Fully God
Christians maintain that the comprehensive witness of the New Testament is that in the human person of Jesus of Nazareth, the one eternal God assumed human nature: God became incarnate in Jesus, fully God and fully man. The Incarnation forms the apex of God’s self-revelation to humankind.
The Letter to the Hebrews states, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom he made the universe” (Hebrews 1:1–2) The Gospel of John identifies Jesus with the preexistent Word (the Logos), who “was with God and who was God” and through whom “all things were made,” and it then asserts that “the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:1–4, 14). Throughout the New Testament, sometimes explicitly but often implicitly, Jesus is placed in an unprecedented relationship of identity with Yahweh, the everlasting creator God of the Old Testament. Jesus is presented as claiming the authority to do things that only God can do, such as forgive sins (Mark 2:5–11); judge the world (Matthew 19:28; 25:31–46); give life, even to the dead (John 5:21, 25–29; 11:17–44). Jesus states that anyone who has seen him has seen the Father (John 14:9)—a remarkable claim in the context of Jewish monotheism. Jesus identifies himself with the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14 and in so doing is understood by his contemporaries to be identifying himself with God (John 8:58). The apostle Paul asserts that all of the “fullness” (pleroma) of God is present in the human person of Jesus: “In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 1:19; 2:9). Understood within the context of first-century Jewish monotheism, the assertion that in Jesus of Nazareth the one eternal God has become man is unique in its audacity and is unparalleled in other religions.
It is sometimes said that Jesus himself never taught anything like the orthodox Christian teaching on the incarnation and that this was a much later doctrinal innovation of the Christian church. The human Jesus, originally regarded by his followers as just a great teacher and perhaps even the Messiah, over time became revered as more than merely a man, resulting, under Greek influence, in the metaphysical conceptions of him as Son of God, God the Son, and finally the Second Person of the Holy Trinity in the sophisticated Trinitarian formula.
There is much that could be said by way of response to this claim, but we will confine ourselves to two related points. First, there simply is not sufficient time during the writing of the New Testament for such a dramatic evolution in understanding the significance of Jesus. Second, while some development within the New Testament writings themselves can be traced, the “high Christology” that identifies Jesus with Yahweh, God the creator, is actually found in the earliest evidence we have of Christian belief and practice.
As noted above, all the writings of the New Testament were completed by about AD 90 (most considerably earlier) so that at most there is a gap of some sixty years between the death of Jesus and the completion of the last book of the New Testament. This is not sufficient time for a radical evolution from the view that Jesus is just an extraordinary man to that of him as in fact God-the-creator-become-man. New Testament scholar C. F. D. Moule maintains that the suggestion that such “high” Christology evolved from a primitive “low” Christology by a gradual process over time simply does not fit the data. To the contrary, he argues, the transition from invoking Jesus as revered Master to the acclamation of him as divine Lord is best understood as a development in understanding according to which “the various estimates of Jesus reflected in the New Testament [are], in essence, only attempts to describe what was already there from the beginning. They are not successive additions of something new, but only the drawing out and articulating of what is there.” Moule claims, “Jesus was, from the beginning, such a one as appropriately to be described in the ways in which, sooner or later, he did come to be described in the New Testament period—for instance, as ‘Lord’ and even, in some sense, as ‘God.’”56 Some of the most elevated Christology and clearest affirmations of the deity of Christ are in the Pauline epistles, widely accepted as the earliest documents in the New Testament (cf. Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:5–11; Colossians 1:15–17, 19; 2:9).
One way to determine early perspectives on Christology is to examine not only the language the New Testament uses in reference to Jesus but also the practices of the early Christian community. Larry Hurtado has demonstrated that Christian worship of Jesus is presupposed by the earliest New Testament writings and thus that the practice of worshiping Jesus as divine by his early followers—most of whom were Jewish—is even earlier than these writings.57 Hurtado claims that within the first couple of decades of the Christian movement, “Jesus was treated as a recipient of religious devotion and was associated with God in striking ways.”58 He states,
The origins of the worship of Jesus are so early that practically any evolutionary approach is rendered invalid as historical explanation. Our earliest Christian writings, from approximately 50–60 C.E., already presuppose cultic devotion to Jesus as a familiar and defining feature of Christian circles wherever they were found (1 Cor. 1:2).59
Furthermore, Hurtado maintains,
This intense devotion to Jesus, which includes reverencing him as divine, was offered and articulated characteristically within a firm stance of exclusivist monotheism, particularly in the circles of early Christians that anticipated and helped to establish what became mainstream (and subsequently, familiar) Christianity.60
Jesus Does Not Merely Teach the Way to Reconciliation with God—He Claims That He Himself Is the Way to Salvation
As we have seen, it is possible with some religions to separate the religion’s teachings from the historical events in life of the religion’s founder. This is the case, for example, with Gautama and Buddhism. Moreover, there is within the teachings attributed to the Buddha a strong sense of each individual being responsible for his or her own liberation. The Buddha did proclaim the dharma, the teaching leading to liberation, and in this way he can be said to assist all sentient beings. But it is up to each person to grasp the dharma, to act upon it, and thereby to attain nirvana.61 Rahula puts it this way: “If the Buddha is to be called a ‘saviour’ at all, it is only in the sense that he discovered and showed the Path to Liberation, Nirvana. But we must tread the Path ourselves.”62 Much of Buddhism teaches “self-effort” in attaining liberation.
But with Jesus the situation is different. According to the Christian Scriptures, we cannot save ourselves; we are utterly helpless and hopeless apart from the grace of God and the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross for us (Ephesians 2:1–10; Romans 3:9–28). Jesus is consistently presented in the New Testament as the one Savior for all people in all cultures (John 3:16; Acts 2:37–39; 4:12; Romans 3:21–25; 1 Timothy 2:5–6). Jesus called upon others to believe in him and to find salvation in him (John 5:24; 6:35–58). Jesus does not merely teach the way—he claims to be the way to the Father (John 14:6). It is not simply that Jesus has discovered the truth and that if we follow his teachings we too can find the way for ourselves. The Buddha can be understood as saying, “Follow my teachings, follow the dharma and you too can experience the way leading to enlightenment.” But Jesus claims much more than simply that he has discovered the way to the Father and that if we follow his teachings we too can find the way. He puts himself forward as the very embodiment of the way and the truth and the source of life. It is because of who he is and what he has done for us on the cross and in the resurrection that he is himself the way, the truth, and the life. Thus, the truth of Jesus’ teachings cannot be separated from the ontological grounding of this truth in the person of Christ as the incarnate Word of God.
10. An Evangelical Theology of Religions
We have seen that religious pluralism is inadequate as a general theory about the relationship among the religions. Not only does it suffer from internal inconsistencies, but it is incompatible with Christian commitments concerning the reality of God and the person of Jesus Christ. But if religious pluralism is to be rejected, how should Christians think about other religions? What theological principles should guide us in our approach to religious diversity? Christians maintain that the eternal creator God has spoken to humankind in an intelligible manner in the incarnation and the written Scriptures. Thus, in thinking about other religions, we are to submit to God’s revelation as truth, allowing it to control our beliefs even when this truth may not be particularly palatable to contemporary tastes.
Thinking theologically about other religions involves us in what is sometimes called the theology of religions. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen defines theology of religions as
that discipline of theological studies which attempts to account theologically for the meaning and value of other religions. Christian theology of religions attempts to think theologically about what it means for Christians to live with people of other faiths and about the relationship of Christianity to other religions.63
A theology of religions must address two basic questions: First, how do we explain theologically the sheer fact of human religiosity? Why are people incurably religious? Second, how do we account theologically for the particularities of religious expression, the many diverse beliefs and practices we find among the religious traditions? Both similarities and differences between Christianity and other religions are to be explained theologically. An evangelical theology of religions should be shaped by four major Biblical themes: creation, general revelation, sin, and demonic influence.64
Creation and General Revelation
The religions, in varying degrees, do manifest elements of truth, goodness, and beauty. The Confucian Analects, for example, based upon the sayings of Confucius some five centuries before the time of Christ, contains two statements of the Golden Rule.65 At a more basic level, it is because God has created human beings with certain dispositions and capacities that we find among humankind the capacity for religious expression, the recognition of a reality transcending the physical world, the yearning for the Creator and life beyond physical death, the acknowledgement that the world as we experience it is not the way it is supposed to be, and the search for ways in which to appease God or the gods and to attain a better existence. Scripture teaches that human beings are created in God’s image (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9) and that God has revealed something of himself and what he expects from humankind in a general manner through the universe and the human person, especially the human conscience (Psalm 19:1–4; Acts 14:15–17; 17:22–31; Romans 1:18–32; 2:14–15). The fact that all human beings are created in God’s image with a rudimentary awareness of God’s reality and our obligation to him, as well as the biblical themes of God’s general revelation throughout the created order, help to explain the commonalities that we see between Christian faith and other religions.
Sin
But religious expression also includes much that is false, idolatrous, and a perversion of God’s creation and revelation. Thus, the biblical emphasis upon human sin and rebellion against God (Genesis 2:16–17; 3:1–24; Romans 5:12) is critical for a theology of religions, for this accounts for the fact that we find in the religions not only goodness but also much that is profoundly evil. Sin is a pervasive corruption of the human heart, and it affects all aspects of our being. All people are sinners. There is no one who is naturally righteous before God and consistently does what is right (Psalm 14:2–3; Isaiah 53:6; Romans 3:10–18, 23). Sin is both personal and social in its manifestation, and it is found both in the individual and collectively in cultures and societies. Not surprisingly then, the impact of sin is evident in the religions as well as in other dimensions of life.
Demonic Influence
Finally, while it would be simplistic to attribute all of the phenomena of the religions to the influence of demonic powers, it would be equally naive to pretend that the Adversary, Satan, is not active through the religions. The demonic is present in other religions just as it is active in the many domains of life. The apostle Paul reminded his readers that the pagan sacrifices of Corinthian religion, which seemed rather innocent to some, were in reality offered to demons (1 Corinthians 10:20).
Religions are complex phenomena that include, in any particular case, varying degrees of truth and goodness along with much falsehood and evil. Chris Wright captures this dialectic when he says,
The fallen duplicity of man is that he simultaneously seeks after God his Maker and flees from God his Judge. Man’s religions, therefore, simultaneously manifest both these human tendencies. This is what makes a simplistic verdict on other religions—whether blandly positive or wholly negative—so unsatisfactory and indeed unbiblical.66
But to the extent that they distort God’s truth as revealed in Scripture and lead people to place their trust in anything apart from the living God, the religions, like anything else that has this effect, are to be rejected as idolatrous.