A Historical and Philosophical Defense of High Christology in the Gospels

Introduction

            Christology is our concern, and this is the study of Christ and more specifically I will be considering a high view of Christ which could be viewed as a top-down or divine look at Jesus. The goal in this discourse is to not be completely exhaustive but to present, at the very least a foundational case for a high view of Jesus for being divine. Ideally, there will be a presentation of a historical perspective and a philosophical in nature discussion of Jesus and point this to him being the Christ/ Messiah. There is historical evidence from those who wrote the Gospel accounts that can point us towards a high Christology and they also left ideas that can be considered philosophically which will be shown as a defense for an overall high or divine view of Jesus of Nazareth. Again, I do not intend for this to be an exhaustive account of all of the evidence or arguments that can be gleaned but rather an overarching, foundational start to the cause which should set the precedent.

People and Jesus

            What is being captured in this section (as can be seen from the title) is that this is how people interacted with the idea of Jesus and the idea of his being divine. This is the historical side of things and thus will include a look at what the Gospel writers had to say concerning Jesus. Though not all accounts are created equal they each have something to offer to the high view of Christ.

New Testament Attests Christ’s Pre-existence/ Eternality

            One of the clearest indications of this fact comes from Jesus’ very own mouth and is found within the Gospel of John 8:58 and 17:5, 24. The first situation is where Jesus states that he was even before Abraham which in this sense is a hyperbolic statement indicating that he goes far beyond that and has always been, not that he was simply a couple thousand years old. The main reason for thinking this is because in the following verse the crowd picked up stones to stone Jesus because they understood the meaning of what he was saying. Had it been the latter of the previously mentioned the crowd would have surely laughed it off and thought that Jesus was insane but clearly Jesus was claiming something that placed him in a divine category because he was calling for a pre-earthly existent self. Now at this point, I do not desire to go in depth with the “I Am” statement found in the John passage but the significance of what this meant should be stated in short. Morris says, “Perhaps more important for what John is telling us is the fact that ‘I am’ is in the emphatic style of deity, a form of expression that recurs,”[1] and this recurrent theme can be seen throughout the Gospels but particularly John’s.

New Testament Credited Creation to Christ

            A common theme that one will notice is that much of what will be discussed can be found within the last Gospel, the stand-alone Gospel of John, I say stand alone because it is not part of the Synoptics, but it is a Gospel account nonetheless. However, John wrote much later than the other Gospel writers (roughly thirty years, 85-90AD), so we can presume that he was able to better form his theology but much of the same information can be seen through all of the Gospel accounts. John within his opening sequence of his Gospel attributes Christ being part of the creation event thereby stating clearly that he believed Jesus to be that vision of the Christ. John at this point in his discourse does not mention Jesus’ name in connection to this office (i.e. Christ) but as his writing develops the connection is clearly indicative of Jesus because John paints him with several names that would indicate this connection (which will be covered later). Towns talks about the work of creation and Jesus and says, “Another proof for the deity of Jesus Christ is the description of his works. John sets him forth as Creator: ‘all things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made’ (John 1:3).”[2]

            What is interesting, though not directly connected to the creation specifically but particularly, is found in Matthew 4:7-11 and this is where Jesus is tempted by Satan in the desert. The connection to creation is the very last temptation found within this Gospel because Satan is appealing to all of the kingdoms of the world or all of creation in a sense. MacArthur points out something interesting about this particular temptation, “As God’s own proclaimed King of kings, Jesus had a divine right to all kingdoms, and it was to that right that Satan appealed in this last temptation. ‘Why should you have to wait for what is already rightfully yours?’ he suggested to Jesus.”[3] Now, of course, this connection is not by all intensive purposes rock solid but what it showcases is that Satan knew that he could appeal to Jesus’ divine nature and the fact that he created the world would mean that he had a right to it and thus points to a high view of Jesus from the very beginning.

Divine Attributes Given or Shown to be in Christ

            Having attributes of divinity are surely something to boast about (from the writers’ perspective) because it gives the Christian faith some depth based on the person whom the faith is surrounded. There are of course several attributes that have been attested to Jesus within the Gospels (and elsewhere but the main focus is the Gospels). These attributes include: life (John 1:4; 14:6), self-existence (John 5:26), truth (John 14:6), holiness (Luke 1:35), eternity (previously mentioned, John 1:1), omnipresence (Matt 28:20), omniscience (Matt 9:4; John 2:24-25), and omnipotence (Matt 28:18).[4] This list is not exhaustive but is simply limited to the contents of the Gospels specifically since that is the scope of this discourse but there are other ascriptions of attributes that can be found throughout the NT documents and should be investigated to gain a full perspective.

Worship was Given and Accepted by Christ (Jesus)

            Though some may look at this point and think that any person can do this, and society will simply think them a madman, but I would like to submit something to counter this thinking. Jesus, and for that matter his followers, were devout Jews and against the backdrop of Judaism during this time there is no way that Jews would have allowed people to worship them or anyone else because that would have been considered blasphemy. This was not a pervasive issue where people were going around pleading or expecting worship from the masses but rather this was almost unheard of within the Jewish community and that is why this was such a difficult concept for first century Jews to grasp when Jesus accepted such acts towards him. Specific references for these occurrences can be found in Matt 14:33; 28:9, 17; John 20:28-29. There are more but these showcase the point well enough. Something else to be noted here, Bauckham states, “also noteworthy is Matthew 28:17, where, in the closing scene of this Gospel, the disciples worship Jesus as he declares that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him.”[5] Again, this idea that Jesus was worshipped and accepted that worship showcases what people thought of Jesus and what he believed about himself. Of course, objections can be said at this point, but the point is to build a cumulative case not rest all of you support into one premise.

Jesus was Given Divine Titles

This provides a very early and solid foundational idea of the view the early church had of Jesus going from the outset because this precedent is set out in the Gospels and in the Pauline letters as well as other Epistles in the NT. This is important because it shows that Jesus had names attached to his being that would indicate that he was something more than the outside world saw (more on being later). There is a plethora of names that are attributed to Jesus, not all of them could be considered divine but many of them surely indicate this idea. For example, just from John 1 there are twenty-four names of Jesus and fourteen of those names (by my estimation, others may count more or less but this estimate seems fair) would indicate divinity or a high view of Jesus (word, God, only begotten Son, Lamb of God, Son of Man, Life, True Light, Lord, Son of God, Messiah, only begotten of the Father, Jesus Christ, Christ, and King of Israel).[6] This is not the entire list but only the names that I feel attribute a high view to Christ out of the entire list.

            Something that is important to the current discussion is probably the most prominent in the Gospels and that is the “I Am” statements of Christ. These hold a great amount of meaning into who Jesus believed he was and who ultimately the early church saw that he was. Though these “I Am” statements are found exclusively in John’s Gospel this does not mitigate the message and power behind these statements. The prime reason for this is that these words can be traced back to Jesus and John is simply highlighting in his own Gospel something that the other Gospel writers did not feel the need to put down because it did not fit into their theological and thematic plan. Bauckham states,

 the Johannine choice is the concise statement ‘I am he’, in Hebrew ni hu, usually translated in the Septuagint Greek as ego eimi (‘I am’), the form in which it appears in John’s Gospel. This sentence occurs as a divine declaration of unique identity seven times in the Hebrew Bible: once in Deuteronomy, in one of the most important monotheistic passages of the Torah, and six times in Deutero-Isaiah.[7]

Now, the Greek Septuagint (for those who do not know) is the Greek translation of the OT Scriptures which is why this above statement from Bauckham is important. It traces back in the original languages, both Greek and Hebrew, the internal meaning of the “I am” statements which have immense properties when tied to an earthy person such as Jesus and that is why many times the Pharisees desired to stone him and ultimately had him crucified.

            Something else worth noting at this point about titles is that of kyrios (Gk for Lord or Master). This can be found throughout but seems to be central to Markan context and thematic development within his Gospel. Johansson suggests, “Mk 1.3 suggests a more complex understanding of kyrios; it seems to refer both to Yahweh—in its original context—and Jesus—in the Markan Narrative.”[8] The idea presented here is that kyrios carries with it some very divine implicative connotations since they are linked to the OT God. Mark connects this to Jesus and directly insinuates that Jesus shares in this kyrios-ship with God himself. Johansson states, “Mark quotes the OT passages that lie behind 1.2-3 in such a form and context that the four genitives of the pronouns ‘you’ and ‘he’ and the noun ‘Lord’ refer exclusively to ‘Jesus Messiah, the Son of God’ and not as originally to ‘God’.”[9]

Literature

            Though this section is subdivided into its own main section it should be stated that this is still part of the historical discussion since it is dealing primarily with the historical documents that are from that time period. Also, the content to follow is indicative of a historical perspective because the NT authors call upon the writings of OT authors to showcase that Jesus was, in fact, an answer to what the nation and the world needed, Jesus was to bring about completion.

Prophecies

            Prophecies are no small matter since they are in the minds of skeptics, a long shot. But what is shown throughout the NT documents is a proclivity of Jesus fulfilling things that were state long before he existed (in an earthly sense). So, the idea here is that if Jesus fits into the prophetic filling mold then he deserves a high view since no figures prior to him fulfilled these sayings nor has anyone since fulfilled these things. It is important to note that the Gospel writers were devout Jews who know the Torah, the Pentateuch, and all of the Hebrew Scriptures well and called upon the prophets and their “future sayings” because they believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of these prior sayings.

Predicted his own Death, Burial, and Resurrection

            This is something that finds itself neatly seated amongst all of the Gospel accounts, Jesus foretold that he would have to go to Jerusalem, suffer, die, and rise on the third day. Obviously, the Resurrection is something that is foundational to the Christian faith and Paul talks about this fact in 1 Corinthians 15 but that is outside the scope of what I am discussing at present. The list of Gospel references that talk on this point are as follows: Matt 12:40; 16:21-28; 17:9,12, 22-23f; 20:18-19f; 27:63; Mark 8:31-9:1; 9:12, 31; Luke 9:22-27; 17:25; 18:32-33; 24:7; John 2:19. It should be seen that Jesus is not dead (Jesus is not speaking in all of these references but most of them) but rather is alive and in the middle of his ministry. What does this mean? This means that prior to Jesus being betrayed, put on trial, crucified, and raising from the dead on the third day he spoke to this fact before it happened, on more than one occasion (some of these accounts may reference the same event but not all of them do). This points back to the attributes (discussed above) that Jesus possessed divine attributes that enabled him to know things that normal human beings should not know. Objections can also come at this point talking about clairvoyants or mediums (and the sorts) in our modern times but again the cumulative case of all these attributions to Jesus as the Christ come together to form a complete picture of who he was.

The Virgin Birth

            The virgin birth is one account that may be difficult for those outside of the fold to accept because it is contrary to the law of nature but what we have are historical accounts that showcase this very idea from NT times and fulfilled OT prophecies and these are found in Jesus. In Matthew 1:22-23 we have an account of the virgin birth but with a reference to Isaiah. What makes this special is that it is showing that through the birth of Jesus a prophecy (discussed above) was fulfilled not only in terms of location and timing but in the person himself since as can be seen from the case above that from a very early stage there has been a high view. So, there are only two of the Synoptics that actually provide us with a virgin birth account (Matt 1:18-25; Luke 1:27-34) but these two accounts are sufficient for understanding the importance of knowing that Jesus did not come from man but from God. This is an important concept to understand because it is foundational to understand Jesus’ being in the sense that he was not stricken with the inherited sin nature from Adam but rather was freed from this nature by the fact of his separation from the seed of man. Dr. Towns brings home the main point of this study by saying,

The virgin birth of Christ is not an independent doctrine, which we can receive or reject without affecting our Christianity. It is one of the foundation stones of Christianity. Our faith will crumble if it is removed. This doctrine is tied to inerrancy, Christ’s sinless character, the atonement and other key doctrines of the Bible. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He would be unable to save Himself, because He would not be a sinless savior.[10]

As can be seen from the above statement this is not something that we should take lightly nor did the original writers take lightly, based on their presentation of the information and its overall connection to God (Yahweh).

Philosophical Considerations

            Found within this section will be what I consider philosophical considerations to a high view of Christ but some of the information does not come directly from the Gospel accounts, however, is linked in an intrinsic manner. By this, I mean that since the divinity of Christ is attested within the Gospels and the notions to be presented deal with qualities of being divine then these concepts find their foundational backing within the Gospel accounts though no outright notational support is specifically listed in them. It should be said however, that these concepts can be found within Pauline theology and thus would not be too far off to presume that the Gospel writers would have understood these concepts as Paul wrote about them but chose not to include them within the Gospel accounts, again because it did not fit within their theological and thematic plan.

The Kenosis

            This topic may be found within the field of theology, but it is deeply philosophical because it deals with being, necessarily and contingently. Poidevin describes the kenosis/ kenotic model as, “the incarnation as a self-emptying, or kenosis: not merely a taking-on of flesh, but a relinquishing or abjuring of those divine characteristics that would prevent complete participation in ordinary human mortal life.”[11] So this is a concept where Jesus being a pre-existent being decided that he would pour himself out or some of his divine attributes so that he could take on a fully human existence. This can be seen in the fact that Jesus during his life did not know certain things (but certainly knew some things as seen above). The only issue is to what extent was this emptying out and in what way would it affect the doctrine with a varying degree of this emptying. It should be understood that there are varying degrees by which to hold to this teaching, there is a strict and a less strict view. The essential difference between these views is that the strict view holds that the Son would have to change in his essential character to become human whereas the less strict view operates on the fact that no such change would need to occur for the Son to become fully human.[12]

            At the outset, if we understand that Christ was pre-existent that he would be a necessary being. Human beings are considered contingent beings because we rely on something outside of ourselves for our essential existence. This is the fundamental difference between necessarily existing and contingently existing. But if Christ had to empty himself out of divine attributes would it take all of these attributes to be relinquished in order for him to be considered human. A danger can be found within navigating this doctrine because the Arian concept of Christ is that he did not always exist but rather he was created by God at some point in the finite past. Though these dangers are ever-present understanding that, this concept is one that should be considered within a Christology since the Christian faith affirms both that Jesus was man and that he was in fact, God. This is a difficult teaching to fully understand since as contingent beings we only deal with our own essential, created being because we have always been human. But Christ (viewed as the saving Son) could not have come down and truly experienced human suffering had he not been human, and Scripture teaches that Christ had to deal with human frailties. Coming to understand the kenosis is just one aspect to a defense of a high view because based on the early view of the church we know that they believed he was, in fact, God in the flesh but also knew that he had human attributes. For more on the kenosis, you can reference the footnoted article by Poidevin.

The Hypostatic Union

            The hypostatic union is something that connects to the kenosis in the sense that it deals with the essential nature of Jesus being man and God or the God-man. Here, again is a teaching that proves to be somewhat difficult to understand but does have support from Scripture because John talks about Jesus being the Son of God (implying deity) and Luke, for example, talks about Jesus being the son of man (implying humanity). What is found is that we have a person that was believed to be God incarnate but also viewed as a human person, but questions arise concerning how two natures could inhabit the same being. That being said, this section will be relatively brief and is being mentioned for the fact of building a cumulative case for what is being defended.

            Since this teaching can be rather confounding when proper thought is put to it, it may prove helpful to look at some of the thoughts surrounding it. Some have thought there was in Jesus (who is a singular person), two hypostases’ (two essential natures). Thomas Aquinas spoke out against this view because he believed that how can two natures or hypostases inhabit one person or rather how can these qualities create a union based around the person, a view that he found unintelligible.[13] The view of two natures being united around a single person (in the classic definition) was determined to be heretical. But this still leaves how two essential natures could inhabit a single person or entity. A common early way in which this doctrine was viewed was as such, “the union of the human soul and body, and the union of heat and iron, neither of which loses its own properties.”[14] Since this concept is somewhat difficult to understand the early church fathers sought a way in which to make it a little more understandable and without getting to deep into philosophical discourse, since this would require defining and understanding concepts such as person, nature, subsistence, substance, etc., the little information painted with a broad brush will have to suffice for the time being. However, I understand that Jesus is talked about as having the qualities of a man (see above) and also understand that Jesus was viewed as something more than a man by the things that he had done and subsequent actions (see above). This leads one to think that Christ upon talking on human qualities had an essential pouring out of divine attributes that would preclude his taking on the human form in its totality. So, prior to the incarnation Christ would have had to empty himself of those qualities that would conflict with the possibility of uniting fully to a human form so that he could take on the human form in its fullest sense. This is not to say that the Son reduced his being God in anyway but rather that he suspended those things for a short time that would preclude the unity of natures within his human form so that his plan of salvation could be fulfilled.

The Resurrection

            This is the final section within this article because there is limited space to continue and also this is one event that should be discussed about Jesus since it is not only foundational to the Christian faith but also for the immense proportion that it speaks to the power of Jesus. As noted above, Jesus predicted that this event would indeed happen even prior to his death, so he said that this would happen before the event took place. This seems to be a powerful indicator to the fact that Jesus knew what was going on and had the power to overcome the forces against him.

            Something that is interesting about the resurrection account (or one could say started prior to it) was the fact that the disciples did not understand what Jesus was saying when he was predicting his own death and resurrection. I think based on their situation of being Jews during this period (Second Temple Jews) they may have had a different understanding of the resurrection and N. T. Wright places it like this, “the evangelists in retelling them, may intend the reader to understand that the disciples were assuming on the one hand that Jesus must be referring to the ultimate future resurrection, and/ or, on the other hand, that he was speaking metaphorically of the struggle for Israel’s restoration and the need to be prepared to risk all in the process.”[15] Why is this important to note? This may be important to note because upon the actual resurrection event the disciples were actually shocked that it took place as if they were not even expecting it to happen.[16] At least in my mind, if the ones who wrote the NT were not expecting Jesus to return in this manner why would they start spreading the testimony that it, in fact, did happen if it did not. I believe this gives credit to the resurrection happening for the disciples to not be prepared for this to happen and yet be totally transformed into tenacious messengers for the cause of Christ would take something rather stupendous to happen.

            What is also interesting is that during the time that this happened the people outside of the church started to say that the body of Jesus must have been stolen. Now, if something did not in fact happen, or at the very least if the body was in the tomb why would the Pharisees insist on spreading this story about the body of Jesus being stolen (Matt 28:11-15). The fact that this story was being spread meant that there was a concern on the political side of things during this time. The disciples were radically transformed (mentioned above) after the resurrection into bold witnesses which would indicate that they were not lying about what they believed (though this simply shows they were not lying).[17] What is more is that James, who did not believe in Jesus prior to the resurrection suddenly believed in Jesus after the resurrection which would indicate that something must have substantially happened to James for him to shift his perspective about Jesus.[18] There are other theories of contention that will not be mentioned here for the simple fact that this was meant to be a simple overview and defense of viewing Jesus in a high view of Christology. The resurrection has many defenders of just that event itself and cannot be done so in such a small piece such as this but there is substantial material on the topic.

Conclusion

            As can be seen from the above information, though what has been done here has been done using a broad brush the point was not to defend each individual point along the line but rather to mention each point as a supporting member in the idea the Jesus should be viewed in a high sense within a Christological framework. The deity of Christ was attested very early on within the church by the fact that the church attributed God attributes to him, gave him divine titles, credited Christ to the creation event, gave worship (and worship accepted by) to Jesus and expressly discusses Christ’s pre-existence and eternality. The early documents discuss Jesus within a prophetic mindset and link the life of Jesus to OT texts that explicitly or implicitly apply to Jesus. These pointed to his virgin birth, death, burial, and resurrection. Some difficult philosophical concepts were brought up but not discussed in any full sense but understanding that Jesus had to conduct a self-emptying (kenosis) of some of his Godly qualities so that he could take on the form of a man links closely to the idea of the hypostatic union where these two natures come together in a perfect union with the man of Jesus thereby giving us the God-man. Of course, I briefly reviewed the resurrection because this event is foundational to the Christian faith and Jesus rising from the dead would display the power that he had and the fact that the disciples were utterly transformed speaks volumes to the fact that they believed Jesus did rise. None of this information would do much as stand-alone evidence but rather the point during this discourse was to build a more cumulative case for the high view, specifically within the Gospels, but some of these concepts were linked to the Gospels by the fact that they are essential to the nature of Jesus. Jesus should be viewed in a high view because he was viewed as divine from a very early stage and the Christological position for Christ's deity have only gained strength throughout the years. Christ is the divine Son of God who came to free the world from the effects of sin and the Gospel accounts attest to this throughout.

Bibliography

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Barnes, Corey L. “Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas on Peron, Hypostasis, and Hypostatic Union.” The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 72, no. 1 (January 2008): 107-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/tho.2008.0038

Habermas, Gary R. and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004.

Johansson, Daniel. “Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark.” JSNT 33.1 (2010): 101-124. DOI: 10.1177/0142064X10380130

Kazen, Thomas. “The Christology of Early Christian Practice.” Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no. 3 (Fall 2008): 591-614. Accessed June 01, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25610141

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1985.

Morris, Leon. Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1989.

Le Poidevin, Robin. “Kenosis, Necessity and Incarnation.” The Heythrop Journal 54, no. 2 (2013): 214-227. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2012.00796.x

Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today. Mason: Cengage, 2008.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

---

[1] Leon Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 36.

[2] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today (Mason: Cengage, 2008), 159. This is under his extensive topic of Christology, giving a brief description of Jesus being linked to the creation of the world through the Gospel of John.

[3] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew (Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1985), 96.

[4] Towns, Theology, 159; this entire list did not come from this reference, only omniscience came from Towns the rest was built upon investigation of the documents. These attributes can be seen within the Gospels and provide a case for the view that early followers of Jesus had of him and that he displayed these attributes for them to see and attest to.

[5] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 25.

[6] Towns, Theology, 160. This list is only in reference to John 1, there is also a much greater list that encompasses all of the NT names that have been ascribed to Jesus Christ and the list is extensive.

[7] Bauckham, Jesus, 40. Deutero-Isaiah is Isaiah 40-55 according to scholars and Bauackham.

[8] Daniel Johansson, “Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark” JNST 33.1 (2010): 102. This is in response to Broadhead’s idea that kyrios strictly refers to God only and not Jesus except in the case in the Parousia (found on same page).

[9] Ibid., 103. This is a quote used by Johansson from Jack Kingsbury pointing at how Mark intended the use of kyrios within the context of his Gospel.

[10] Towns, Theology, 185.

[11] Robin Le Poidevin, “Kenosis, Necessity and Incarnation” The Heythrop Journal 54, no. 2 (2013): 215.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Corey L. Barnes, “Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas on Person, Hypostasis, and Hypostatic Union” The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 72, no. 1 (January 2008): 138.

[14] Town, Theology, 202.

[15] N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 410.

[16] Ibid., 409-410.

[17] Gary R. Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 94.

[18] Ibid., 95.