There is a persistent teaching floating around progressive Christianity and New Age circles which, at its most innocent is a simple ignorance or misunderstanding of history and the historical documents of Christianity, and at its worst is a pernicious falsehood. Like the Reformers reaction and rejection of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings because of its abuses, sometimes throwing out the baby with the bathwater, this too is a reaction against the abuses of modern Christianity, and it too is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This teaching is that Jesus wasn't taught to be either Christ or God until the Great Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 CE, almost three hundred years after His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. A related teaching is that the documents of the New Testament originated at this Council. Both are simply not true. While this Council and its succeeding Councils sought to codify and set in stone the theology which had always been universally accepted (to a greater or lesser degree of success), they were not attempting to invent anything which had not already been taught and accepted by the churches at large. They themselves were going off of the writings of their predecessors from both the New Testament authors and the writings of the bishops and church leaders that had come before them. Whether or not one agrees with their conclusions, their methodology and decisions were at least credible and well intended to reflect the historical belief system of their spiritual ancestors.
The first century historicity and authorship of the documents of the New Testament is well attested in a number of different ways. First, the internal language is reflective of the various dialects and modes of speech reflected in first century Common Greek. In addition, it's very clear that those documents ascribed to Paul were all written by a single author, those written by Luke were written by a single author, and so were those written by John. Those authors who only wrote a single document within the New Testament also reflect their own unique modes of speech and dialect distinct from the others. Second, the writings of the late first and early second century all cite various sections and passages from these primary New Testament documents, suggesting heavily that these documents had not only already been written long before the second century writings, but had been copied so many times that they were in widespread circulation. Third, it's clear that they were in widespread circulation by at least 120 CE when they were translated into Syriac in what is known as the Peshitta. Thus, while the Great Council in 325 CE may have acknowledged the twenty seven documents we now know as the New Testament as canon, they did not originate there, and they only chose these documents and not others because these were the ones everyone tended to use and agree on. Were there others? Yes, but not everyone agreed on them, and they were focused on canonizing what had been universally accepted, not what had only been accepted by a minority.
The Divinity of Jesus Christ likewise is a teaching which is found in not only the documents of the New Testament, but also in the earliest extant documents of the leaders of the church dating easily to the late first and early second century. First, Jesus Himself said in no uncertain terms, "I am the Son of God" in the Gospel of John. Further, John's writings go to great lengths in ways the other Gospel writers do not to not only equate Jesus with God, but to reinforce His divine parentage as Jesus refers to Himself as God's one of a kind Son, refers to God as His Father numerous times unambiguously, and of course, the very opening lines of John's Gospel declare, "At the start was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. ... And the Logos became flesh and camped out among us, and we looked at His glory, the glory as of the one of a kind Son of the Father..." It's clear from the context of the Gospel and John's first letter that He is referring to Jesus as the Logos become flesh. And it's also clear from first century understanding of the term "Logos" as used in John's writings that He is referring to the Logos in the same understanding as the Stoics and other philosophers would use the word, that is, the operating divine principle through which the world was created and continues to operate. It carries a similar understanding to the eastern concept of Tao, as well as the Hindu Om. You simply cannot read John's writings and come to the conclusion that neither Jesus nor the author believed that He was God, the Son of God, or Divine in some way. The same is true of Paul's writings, where Paul is explicit that the world was created through Him, and calls Him "our God and Savior." Peter's writings as well reflect this. This same understand continue on in the writings of Ignatius who was the Bishop of Antioch at the turn of the second century and was martyred by being thrown to lions in 105 CE. This understanding peppers the writings of the church fathers all the way through the second century and beyond. Even just the authors of the New Testament calling Jesus "Lord," that is, "kurios," was a kind of acknowledgement of His Divinity, being the same word used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to translate the Divine Name, and at the very least was a declaration that they were owned by Him as it literally means "owner or master."
Wherever someone might land in terms of whether or not Jesus is in fact the virgin born Son of God, it is clear from what documents we do have from the period prior to the councils that this is what the first disciples and their immediate successors came to believe and understand, and this is what Jesus Himself said He was according to what they wrote.
No comments:
Post a Comment