IV. THE QUESTION STATED
—
IN ASKING the question, "Is Jesus God?" I do so prompted by the belief that this is one of the most important as well as one of the most interesting problems which can come before the human mind. It is not my purpose to be controversial, but to show my own findings concerning the truth. I have the profoundest respect for all those who may differ from me in my conclusions. I wish to consider only the facts in the case, and to consider them in a frank, honest, straightforward manner, and with love in my heart for those who do not interpret them as I do.
Taking the Bible as we find it, whether we admit that it is Divinely inspired or not, we must admit that it is also unique—unique among books by reason of its virility, its vitality, its beauty, its satisfying spiritual power.
Now, accepting it as giving us practically all the information which we have concerning Jesus, and therefore providing in its unaltered form the only actual basis for a good or bad opinion of him, what does it claim for him? My conviction is that it claims for him that he is God.
"Your conclusions are absurd," at once cry out certain people. "We are ready to admit that he was a great teacher—possibly the world's greatest teacher, and also its greatest ethical ideal. In no sense Divine, but merely a good man."
"No, no, not so far with your claims," say certain others who admit a little more perhaps, and make use of the Bible, with appropriate reservations and interpretations, as the text-book of their religion. "We believe in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, and also in the leadership of Jesus. We admit that, as to his character and as to his teachings, Jesus is unique, but it is impossible that a human being can be God. We admit that he is Divine, as you and I and all men are Divine, but we cannot admit that he is God."
Looking on both these classes of friendly critics, who are so nearly akin, we must admit that we love them. They are so near to the truth, and yet their intellectual difficulties in many cases keep them content with shadows, preventing them from an attitude of perfect frankness toward the facts in the case. Their attitude is one of negation. Man cannot be God: therefore Jesus is not God. His Divinity is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.
But permit me to call their attention to the fact that they admit by implication the substantial correctness of the Bible accounts of Jesus, for, as we have already indicated, they have no other basis upon which to form their judgments. If the Bible accounts are gross exaggerations or myths, they should not serve as foundations upon which to establish conclusions so important and substantial. Thus we claim that whether they intend it or not, all who admit that Jesus is unique in being the world's greatest teacher or in being its highest exemplar of ideal living admit the authenticity of the Bible, since their opinion is a conviction based necessarily upon their assumption of the essential correctness of the Bible story.
If Jesus is not as the Bible represents him, we know nothing about him—our opinion in the matter is mere guesswork. If our opinion of his teachings and character is favorable, it is because of his words and portrait as given in the Bible. What right have we to interpret his words to suit our fancies? What right have we, as fair-minded men, wishing to be honest with the facts and ourselves, to exclude certain facts presented there because they do not coincide with our theories?
The attempt to rewrite the Bible to conform to the theories of its critics is to destroy it. Try it for yourself, if you will, and see what remains. Jesus made the most colossal claims for himself that any sane man has ever made. The good opinion of the critics is based upon these very statements; therefore, again we say, they accept the Bible as authentic. We have, indeed, the right of private interpretation of the facts, but we cannot, as honest men, so interpret them as to destroy them or even to twist them to fit our preconceived theories. We must be fair.
"You are quite right in your claims concerning Jesus," declare certain others. "He is Divine. He is unique. The Bible accounts of him are true. He is the Son of God in a special and unique sense. He is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. God is made up of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus Jesus is one Person of the Godhead. There are two other Persons, the Father and the Holy Spirit."
I interpret this statement to mean that Jesus partakes of a quality called Divinity or Deity, which is shared by two other individuals of the group; thus that he is God only in a partial sense; while he is Divine in a unique sense, yet he is not all of God, for it takes three separate and distinct Persons to constitute God.
I read in the Bible that Jesus is the Son of God; but I do not find there the words "Blessed Trinity," nor any statement of three Persons in one God, that is, as three distinct individualities or entities, as the Athanasian creed puts it, but rather as three distinct phases or manifestations of the one God, for God is one.