This episode consists of our opening statements. In my opening statement (slides here), I first briefly explain why a trinitarian should not want to identify Jesus and God. I assume that when my opponent says that “Jesus is God” he means that Jesus is fully divine/has the divine nature. I then explain a terrible problem of the official Christology of the Council of Chalcedon in 451: the implication that the divine nature of Christ is a someone (self, person) and the human nature of Christ is another someone (self, person). They try to fix this by asserting that there is only one someone there, but that’s no real solution.
I then explain how later, the fully developed Chalcedonian catholic tradition does solve this problem by saying that Christ’s “complete human nature” (human type of body + human type of soul), is not, because of its “assumption” by the divine nature/eternal Son/Word, a human person. But this clashes with the clear New Testament teaching that Jesus is a man/human person. It is no help to say there there is a “human” person here, meaning a divine person who now bears some mysterious relationship to a human type of soul and a human type of body which don’t compose a human person. The problem is only exacerbated by the sixth ecumenical council in 681 at Constantinople, which seems to make each of Christ’s natures a person/self/someone by saying that each has a will (an ability to choose).
Against this messy, catholic Christology I set out the clear New Testament teachings that the one God is (only) the Father himself, and that Jesus, his Messiah/Christ, is a miraculously conceived man, a human person born to Mary who did not have a biological human father. Properly trinitarian (tripersonal-God-involving) ideas seem to have originated in the latter half of the 300s, and so are alien to the thought world of the New Testament. Against various later speculations, the New Testament Jesus is the Messiah (a.k.a. the Son of God), a man, not an additional, lesser god to the one true god (the Father), or the same god as the Father, or a “divine Person” in an imagined triune god. I then explain five qualities which according to the New Testament Jesus has which rule his being fully divine.
About Dr. Bird’s claim in his book Jesus Among the Gods that the New Testament Jesus is an ungenerated or unbegotten god, I point at that this is contrary to catholic traditions that say the Father “eternally generates” the Son. He also says there that the New Testament Son is supposed to “a Jewish god,” but, I object, that would make him the Jewish god, and so, the Father/Yahweh. I then lay out four lines of evidence that the New Testament authors did not think Jesus to be fully divine, and rebut Dr. Bird’s claim that early Christian theology should be seen as “incipient trinitarianism.”
Dr. Bird says that he holds Jesus to be the second Person of the Trinity because this is what best makes sense of all of Scripture. The Bible teaches monotheism, that there is, strictly speaking, only one god, the creator, Yahweh. He points out that the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher-theologian Philo rejected the possibility of a human becoming a god and the possibility of God becoming a human. He suggests that if Philo had read John 1:1-14 he would have accepted all but the final verse. The author of the Fourth Gospel, Bird says, believes that Jesus in the eternal, divine Son, the Word–not (only) a man attested by God. The one God is known through his actions and is said in the Old Testament to create by his word and by his wisdom. Also, “the angel of the LORD” seems to be both God himself and someone else–a contradiction, or maybe a merely apparent one, a paradox. New Testament authors, he suggests, did not consider Jesus to be only human. In particular, the give him religious worship. They all thought Jesus to be “divine”–the only question was: In what sense? As Thomas said (John 20:28), Jesus is his god. Jesus is worthy of our worship. Paul closely associates together Jesus and God, often mentioning them together. Engaging with Jesus is engaging with the divine.
Jesus in the New Testament doesn’t claim to be God, Bird argues, but texts like Mark 1:1-3, where the author applies a Yahweh text to Jesus, imply that he is Yahweh returning to Zion. Again, in Mark 2 we see Jesus forgiving human sins, which only God can do. And in Mark 14, before the high priest, Jesus claims that he will be co-enthroned with Yahweh, so that Jesus has divine authority. And John 1 teaches that God’s Word is one and the same with the man Jesus. Philippians 2 teaches the full deity of Jesus and says Jesus is worthy of worship–and so we see that Jesus participates in the divine identity.
In 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Bird says, Paul gives a revised, duality-including version of the Shema. And in Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is a representation of God’s own being, not a mere man. This Jesus has a unique relationship with the Father, enabling us to have a relationship with him. His opponents understood (John 10:33) that he was claiming ontological equality with God. Thus in Revelation 5 we see the Lamb getting the same worship that was given to God Almighty in the vision of Revelation 4. But Jesus does not deserve that worship unless he is fully divine. It would be blasphemy to worship Jesus if he were a creature. Jesus’s full divinity is also implied by prayer to Jesus. Of course, it took mainstream tradition a few centuries to work it all out. But Bird cites Eusebius the historian, Melito of Sardis, the Sibylline Oracles, Justin Martyr, and Ignatius of Antioch as early recognizers of the deity of Christ. He also mentions two pagan testimonies of the early worship of the Son–yet more support for “early high Christology.”
Bird says that he’s not impressed with analytic theology, but at any rate, many analytic theologians are trinitarians, such as Oliver Crisp. He says that he is an exegete, historian, and theologian, suggesting that he is more qualified to answer historical questions about early Christianity. In his view early Christians closely associated Jesus with God and thought Jesus was “from the same source of divinity.” Trinitarian theology, he suggests, is not so much taught in the Bible as it is a hermeneutic, a way of reading it, a way of making sense of what the Bible as a whole affirms and denies. He points out that it does better, for instance, than modalism when it comes to reading the accounts of Jesus’s baptism.
Contrary to what I said it my opening, Dr. Bird says we should think and take comfort in the fact that God was and is one of us, mentioning this 1990s song. In this way, he says, God moved from empathy to sympathy. This was far greater, he says, than sending “a super-human Messiah” to help us.
Finally, while conceding that some early Christians may have thought something like what I presented, he suggests that the closest analogue to the Christology I presented was the Christology of the pagan Neoplatonist and critic of Christianity Porphyry, who acknowledged Jesus as (only) a pious and wise man. Bird’s Christology, he suggests, far better fits the Bible and the facts of history.
Which side put forward the better opening case, and why? Leave us a comment below.
Here below is the UCA-produced video. Special thanks to Canterbury Christadelphian Hall for hosting and recording this debate, and to UCA Podcast host Mark Cain for his expert help in producing the audio for this episode and for the video.
https://youtu.be/tJKFqF7lYKY?si=KIfP2ez2tekxkztH
Dr. Michael Bird’s YouTube channel
Dr. Bird’s blog, Substack
Bird, Jesus Among the Gods (interview on Transfigured)
Bird, Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed.
Ehrman, Bird, and Stewart, When Did Jesus Become God?
podcast 270 – Origen’s “one God”
podcast 348 – Novatian’s On the Trinity – Part 2 – Two Thieves and Three Arguments
podcast 277 – Was Christ tempted in every way?
podcast 391 – Jesus’ Temptations and Ours – Part 1 – Luke 4
podcast 392 – Jesus’ Temptations and Ours – Part 2 – Things Apologists Say
podcast 384 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the Late 100s – Early 200s and Early Trinitarian “Fool’s Gold”
podcast 381 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the year 240: What Trinitarian Apologists Don’t Know
Tuggy, Nicaea at 1700: Myths vs. Reality
podcast 291 – From one God to two gods to three “Gods” – John 1 and early Christian theologies
Catholic Theologian Hans Küng on New Testament theology
This week’s thinking music is “Ignite! (instrumental)” by Lemon Knife.
