JESUS CHRIST:  THE GOD-MAN OR JUST A MAN?

 

By:  Moses Flores

 

 

Dan Brown uses the character of Leigh Teabing to make some fraudulent claims about Jesus Christ.  For instance, in reference to the Council of Nicaea, Teabing says:

 

“…until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet…a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.  A mortal….Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God; was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea…many scholars claim that the early Church literally stole Jesus from His original followers, hijacking His human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power….almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false[1].”

 

            These are certainly claims that are not to be taken lightly as the whole of Christendom would be in jeopardy if these were true.

            But are these assertions true?  What are the facts?  What does the Bible teach about Christ?  What did the early Fathers before the Council of Nicaea believe about Christ?  What really happened at the council of Nicaea?  Let’s get the facts straight.

 

The Council of Nicaea

           

            The council of Nicaea was summoned by the Roman emperor, Constantine to settle the issue of the relation of Christ to the Father.  It was not, as Dan Brown would have us believe, over the issue of the Deity of Christ.  On one side were the Arians who believed, much like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today, that Christ was the highest creation of God, and a god in a secondary sense, but not of the same substance with the God the Father.  Rather, they believed he was of similar substance.  On the other side, were the orthodox Christians who held that Christ was indeed “very God of very God” or of the same substance with the Father.  Thus, there was no question about the divinity of Jesus on either side for both believed Jesus was divine though not in the same sense.  In the middle of these two groups was a party led by Eusebius, who had Arian tendencies.  This middle group made up the majority of those in attendance at Nicaea[2].

            Dan Brown, on the other hand, would have us assume that the issue of Nicaea was whether Jesus was divine or just a man.  This is clearly not the case.  Anybody willing to examine the history of the Christian Church and its Creeds, which are not secret information by far, can find out what really happened at the Council of Nicaea[3].   

            During this discussion on the Council of Nicaea, Sophie asks Teabing, “Hold on.  You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?”  Teabing replies by saying, “a relatively close vote at that…” (pg. 233).  A “relatively close vote”?  What are the facts here?

            The facts here are that the Council of Nicaea was attended by some 318 Bishops[4] who formed the “voting members” of the Council.  Also in attendance were many elders and deacons driving the total attendance up to almost 2,000 people[5]!  After a bit over a month of delegation and debate, all but 2 bishops – Theonas and Secundus, both from North Africa[6] – refused absolutely to sign the proposed Creed that came to be known as the Nicene Creed!  The percentage of affirmative votes for the Nicene Creed comes out to roughly 99%!  Hardly a “close vote”. 

           

 The Early Fathers of the Church

 

One of Sir Leigh Teabing’s claims is that nobody believed Christ was Divine, or God, until the Council of Nicaea.  Is there any validity to this claim?  Is there further proof that the divinity of Christ was not made up before the Council of Nicaea?  There sure is.  Irrefutable proof, at that, which comes from the earliest Christians after the apostles: the early Church fathers. 

The early Fathers wrote from around late first century A.D. and include the writings of disciples of the apostles, like Polycarp, who studied and was taught by the apostle John himself.  Did these men believe that Christ was divine?  Without question, there is evidence from their very words that they believed in the divinity of Christ well before the Council of Nicaea.

            Take the words of Irenaeus of Lyon, for instance.  Irenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp, who was mentioned as a disciple of the apostle John.  Irenaeus’ greatest work is titled “Against Heresies” which was primarily written to counter the Gnostic heresies in the late 2^nd century.  Listen to what this early Father said about Christ and see for yourself what the early “orthodox” belief about Christ was.

 

“It is now plain from the evidence that the Logos who ‘existed in the beginning with God,’ ‘through whom everything was made,’ and who has always been humanity’s companion is the one who, in the last days, at the moment preordained by the Father, was united to the creature he had shaped, and became a human being subject to hurt.  Consequently, there is no place for the objection of those who say, ‘If the Christ was born at that moment, then he did not exist prior to it.’  We have shown that, since he has always existed with the Father, he did not begin to be God’s Son at that particular point.  Nevertheless, when he was enfleshed and became a human being, he summed up in himself the long history of the human race and so furnished us with salvation in a short and summary way, to the end that what we had lost in Adam (namely, to be after the image and the likeness of God) we might recover in Jesus Christ.[7]”

 

            Such lofty words about the eternal existence of Jesus Christ can hardly be understood within history to say that nobody believed in the divinity of Christ until the Council of Nicaea. 

            We have also the words of Ignatius of Antioch (A.D 30-107) wrote in his letter to the Ephesians, that it is necessary not only to confess Christ in word, but in deed as well.  In his letter, he says,

 

It is better for a man to be silent and be [a Christian], than to talk and not to be one. “The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” Men “believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth,” the one “unto righteousness,” the other “unto salvation.” It is good to teach, if he who speaks also acts. For he who shall both “do and teach, the same shall be great in the kingdom.” Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, “whose praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches.[8]”

 

He also wrote,

 

“Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal. ‘Where is the wise man? Where the disputer?’ Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent? For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.[9]”

 

            These are just a few of the quotes from Ignatius that mention the Deity of Jesus Christ.  In total, Ignatius refers to Christ as God sixteen times in seven letters! 

            There is no shortage of works that pre-date the Council of Nicaea that irrevocably prove that the divinity of Christ was believed before Nicaea, and which are sufficient to silence the claims of the Da Vinci Code.  So many, that the point is certainly not going to be belabored in this work.  However, one final quote from Melito of Sardis is in call for.  Melito wrote in the late 2nd century.  In one sermon on Easter, he writes this:

 

“And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was provided too, to indicate who was being killed.  Who was it?  It is a heavy thing to say, and a most fearful thing to refrain from saying.   But listen, as you tremble in the face of him on whose account the earth trembled.  He who hung the earth in place is hanged.  He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place.  He who made all things fast is made fast on the tree.  The Master is insulted.  God is murdered…This is he who made the heavens and the earth, and formed humanity in the beginning, who is announced by the Law and the Prophets, who was enfleshed in a Virgin, who was hanged on the Tree, who was buried in the earth, who was raised from the dead and went up into the heights of heaven, who is sitting on the right hand of the Father, who has the authority to judge and save all things, through whom the Father made all things which exist, from the beginning to all ages.  This one is ‘the Alpha and the Omega,’ this one is ‘the beginning and the end,’ the beginning which cannot be explained and the end which cannot be grasped.   This one is the Christ.  The one is the King.  This one is Jesus.  This one is the Leader.  This one is the Lord….[10]”

 

            The sheer audacity to try to pass the assertion that the divinity of Christ was made up by Constantine in the light of such clear evidence in the writings of the early Fathers is certainly misleading and false!  

 

The testimony of the Apostles

 

While the testimony of the early Fathers can take us to the end of the first century,  the accounts may still go back even earlier.  Indeed, we may trace the teaching back to the apostles themselves in their writings that make up the New Testament Scriptures, who had the very words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself and were eyewitnesses to His very life.  What do the closest followers of Christ have to say about him?  Did they believe that he was merely a man?  The earliest Christian writers speak forth.

            The latest writings of the New Testament include the writings of the Apostles John (Gospel, Revelation, epistles).  Some scholars place these as early as just before 70 A.D. up to as late as 95 A.D.  John’s Gospel has some of the clearest references to the eternal nature of Christ, which implies, without question, His deity.  For instance, in John 1:1 we read,

 

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

 

            The word translated “was” in the Greek is the imperfect tense form of the verb “to be[11]”.  Thus, our understanding of the text should be “In the beginning, the Word always was, and the Word was always with God, and God was always the Word.”  What this means theologically, is that there was never a time in which the Logos of God did not exist.  Rather, the Logos, or Word, of God was always with the eternal God.  To further this point, John continues to say that,

 

“He was in the beginning with God.  All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (1:2-3)

 

            Through the Word of God, all things were created.  No created thing came into existence apart from the Word of God.  Now, if Dan Brown is correct in asserting that Christ was merely a man, then John, an eyewitness to the teachings, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ[12] is, essentially, being called a liar.  Now, imagine the audacity and arrogance of someone to tell an eyewitness that they are a liar and yet the accuser was nowhere near to know what happened.  John was there.  John saw Christ.  John heard Christ. 

            John is not finished with his testimony about Christ.  He goes on in 1:14 to say more about this “Word of God”.  He says, that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”  When he says the Word “became” flesh, he is implying that the Word of God did not always exist in such a manner, but rather took upon himself a body.  Thus, God the Word became flesh!  John thus furthers the uniqueness of Christ as a human being, or a God-man, and describes Christ as the “only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father…”(1:18). Interestingly, some older Greek texts do not have the word “Son” here.  Rather, they have that Christ is the “only begotten God[13].” 

            If those words from the last and oldest living apostle are not enough, he concludes his first epistle with this statement: “…and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.  This is the one true God and eternal life.[14]”  Who is the “one true God”?  The closest noun is “Jesus Christ”.  Jesus Christ is the “one true God.” 

            That nobody believed Christ was divine or the Son of God before the Council of Nicaea?  Hardly the case at all!  Did the early Church “steal Jesus from His original followers”[15] as Sir Leigh Teabing asserts?  No serious scholar could argue such a point without first ignoring the earliest Christian testimony.

Even earlier Christian records include the writings of the apostle Paul, who wrote a large portion of the New Testament letters before or around the mid 60’s A.D.  In his letter to the Colossians, Paul describes what he believes about Christ.  He said,

 

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.  For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.  All things were created through Him and for Him.  And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.   And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.”  (1:15-18)

 

            There is no question that Paul presents Christ here as the Creator of all things, himself being uncreated.  The only being that belongs in the category of uncreated, and hence, Creator, is God Himself!  Clearly, Christ is believed here by Paul, to be God[16].  There is no getting around this.  The beliefs about Christ are similar with those expounded from the Gospel of John above.

            Another passage from Paul includes the early Christian hymn about Christ found in Philippians 2:5-11.  The passage reads,

 

“…Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men….Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

 

            The passage is primarily about Christian humility and service to one another.  The supreme example of humility is Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ was in the “form of God.”  In order to show what humility is, it shows that Christ was “in nature, God” (Gr. morphe) yet, he was willing to lay aside all claims to the rights of Deity and rather take on the “form of a bondservant.”  Thus, true humility reveals to us its ultimate example: That Christ, though divine, was willing to lay aside any rightful claims in order to serve.  Thus, Christians should be willing to lay aside some of their rightful claims in order to serve. 

            Interestingly enough, Paul’s point is not to prove the Deity of Christ with this.  Rather, it is presupposed that the readers already know that Christ is divine.  Paul’s main intention is to exhort the Christians at Philippi to Christian service.  In order for the example to work, it is obvious that Paul’s readers would either have to be taught the doctrine in the letter, unless, they are already familiar with and believe in the deity of Jesus Christ!

            The final part of this verse is very revealing as well.  When the text says, “Jesus Christ is Lord,” there is much that is presupposed here.  In the Old Testament, the tetragrammaton, YHWH, is translated as “LORD” – all capital letters.  This is the designation of the One True God of Israel.  After their captivity to Babylon, the Israelite people learned to never believe or bow down to any other gods.  Now, with that principle of monotheism so engrained in their minds and hearts, and with the reciting of the Sh’ema (“Hear O Israel…the LORD is One”, Deut. 6:4), a Jewish mind, like Paul’s, would dare not call any other God except the LORD.  Thus, to acknowledge “Jesus Christ is LORD” is to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is God, to the glory of God the Father. 

            Now what are often proposed to be the earliest Christian records, or at the very least the primary Christian records about Christ, are the Gospels which we know as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  In the Gospels, we have different perspectives of the life of Christ that all give evidence to the Deity of Jesus Christ.  Now, it should be noted that there are no direct statements for the Deity of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.  Rather, the Deity of Christ is heavily implied in the words and acts of Jesus that would categorically be attributed to God alone.  For instance, in Mark 2:1-12, Jesus says to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.”  The evidence that implies the Deity of Christ is revealed in the words of the Scribe in reaction to Jesus’ words.  They openly acknowledge, “Who can forgive sins but God?”  Thus, they believed Christ was being blasphemous for essentially, if not explicitly, supposing His deity with God.

           

Point in fact, as one goes through the New Testament Gospels, one finds that the teachings of Jesus are quite egocentric, to say the least.  That is, the deity of Jesus Christ is implied heavily from His words and ascribed functions (like forgiving sins, demanding absolute loyalty, etc…)  The Gospel of John is filled with the “I AM” references of Jesus which, to a Jewish mind, would have only been worthy of God Himself (cf. John 8:23, 28, 58).  At one point, Jesus says, while discussing His origin with the Pharisees, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God…”  At the end of this conversation one thing becomes clear for the hearers:  They believe Jesus is blaspheming in making himself out to be equal to God.  Thus, they pick up stones to kill a blasphemer as prescribed by the Law (Leviticus 24:16).  Therefore, the implication in the reaction of the Jews is the understanding that Jesus claimed to be the equal of God. 

           

Statements like these and other that have the implied meaning of Jesus’ deity are considered the most admirable.  But they can only be considered admirable if they are true; that is,  that they really mean that  Jesus is God.  Otherwise, we are left admiring the words of a liar and a blasphemer according to Jewish law.  Interestingly enough, Jesus never denies that He is God when His audience understands Him as saying that.  We don’t find Jesus saying, “Wait a minute brothers!  There is no need to stone me….I’m not saying that I’m God.  What I really mean is…” and then deny their understanding.  He stood by it. 

            In fact, among the most direct affirmations of the Deity of Christ is the trial before the High Priest, Caiaphas(Matthew 26:62-65).  At one point, Caiaphas plainly declares, “Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”  Caiaphas’ meaning is to know if Christ is saying He is equal to God.  The response of Christ is the calm and intent words, “It is as you say…”  Caiaphas understands that Jesus has affirmed his inquiry and, according to Jewish law and tradition, tears off his clothes and acknowledges that Jesus has spoken blasphemy. 

            Thus, while there is no direct statement that Jesus is God by Jesus himself, it is certainly the case that Jesus assumes divine status, functions, and prerogatives[17].  It should also be noted that the Gospel accounts never apologize for the claims.  Surely if it was the earliest teachings of Christ that he was merely a man, then, within the earliest accounts these statements would have been qualified in some way. 

           

            The Da Vinci Code would have us believe that all we have learned about Christ is false.  However, when history is allowed to speak for itself, the records unanimously show that Dan Brown is wrong.  The facts about the Council of Nicaea reveal that there was no “close vote” that gave us the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ as all but TWO bishops, out of 318 total, did not sign the Nicene Creed.   As seen previously, the issue at Nicaea was not even the Deity of Christ for all those present believed in it.  It was rather the relationship between the Deity of Christ and that of the Father.  The Arians argued Christ was “a god” while the “orthodox” party argued that Christ was “very God of very God.” 

            Contrary to Dan Brown’s assertions that the earliest followers of Jesus believed Him to be merely a man, we have seen some of the records of the earliest followers of Jesus and even their own disciples, like Ignatius and Irenaeus, even Melito of Sardis, proclaim without apology the Divinity of Jesus Christ almost two centuries before the Council of Nicaea.

            The claim that the documents represented in The Da Vinci Code are accurate stands clearly refuted and the lies of the author’s research are exposed and laid bare for all.  Jesus has been believed to be God well before Nicaea.  The Council merely upheld what the previous Fathers held to and to what the apostles clearly taught in their own writings.  These are the facts.

            But now we still have to ask the fundamental inquiry that Dan Brown’s work leaves us?  That is, Who do YOU say that Jesus Christ is?  On one hand, we are asked to believe that He was merely a man with our same passions and flaws in The Da Vinci Code.  On the other hand, we are given evidence that Christ was God in His miracles, life, teachings and sacrificial death.  Da Vinci Code or not, we must all make a choice about who we say that Jesus Christ is?