Jesus New

Jesus' New Identity and Divinity

Previous Home Next Table of Contents

6. Jesus’ New Identity and Divinity

In looking at how the existentialist will view such things as the divinity of Christ, the nature of His work, and His second coming, one must first remember the fundamental problem this approach view's man as facing. The idea of “being” is at the root of how everything is viewed. Rollo May defines being as:

...individual’s unique pattern of potentialities. These potentialities will

be partly shared with other individuals but will in every case form a

unique pattern for this particular person. (p. 19)

Equally, this “being is defined by the choices and expressions of the individual. The problem which man faces is described as non-being, or in other words, that man is cut off from living authentically due to the inherent inability to rise above the confusion, anxiety, estrangement, and unfulfilled responsibilities. Thus, when a person’s potential is inhibited, man falls into conformity of the beliefs and behavior of the larger group rather than escaping from it. This most commonly happens when society, groups, ideas or values tend to deny or hinder individuals from being able to actualize. For man stuck in this endless struggle, Jesus of Nazereth appears as an example and encouragement for others to break from the fear of non-being and live authentically. Admittedly, this is a very simple understanding of the existentialist position. However, in the following pages this basic idea of man’s problem will be developed more fully and how it affects the views of several critical doctrines of the Bible.

The first doctrine that is important for the present discussion involves the divinity of Jesus. Scripture, in many different ways, affirms that Jesus of Nazereth was fully divine, “God with us.” Interestingly, there is little among existential writings about the divine nature of Jesus. When Jesus’ divinity is spoken about, the truth is usually referred to as either a “myth” ascribed to the historical Jesus by his followers, or that His “God-consciousness” and “utter dependence” upon God added up to God’s existence in Jesus, or He is represented as being the “New Being,” as Tillich calls Him. In all of these statements or beliefs about Jesus, the historical interpretation of who Jesus Christ is represented to be is changed for a more “academic” appraisal of Him. Having divorced the truth from the historical Jesus, all that is left is what Jesus means today. It is as if the word “Jesus” becomes symbolic of a new attitude toward life and the way man becomes conscious of this new way. It is only at this point that the historical Jesus is of any great significance, namely, because He was the first to realize the new life of authentic existence.

Tillich, a recent theologian and influential existentialist, provides an excellent expression of the modern view of Jesus. Tillich contends that nothing can be known with certainty regarding the historical Jesus. Whether he truly was divine, the Son of God, cannot be positively spoken of as fact. As a result, Tillich regards the ascription’s of divinity largely as a myth. For Tillich, however, Jesus still remains the object of faith because He represents the “New Being,” or the symbolic person who shows that man does not have to live in estrangement from God. Thus, the historical Jesus becomes of importance only as it can be pointed out that an “authentic” being has already lived. In this way, Jesus Christ becomes the archetype of the New Adam referred to by Paul in Romans. Tillich explains this position in his Systematic Theology as follows:

If Theology ignores the fact to which the name of Jesus of Nazereth

points, it ignores the basic Christian assertion that Essential

God-Manhood has appeared within existence and subjected itself

to the conditions of existence without being conquered by them. If

there were no personal life in which existential estrangement had been

overcome, the New Being should have remained a quest and an

expectation and would not be a reality in time and space. (Vol. 2, p. 98)

The significance of Jesus is not His divinity, but what He demonstrated to man, the new reality of becoming or of authentic existence. In other words, Jesus has demonstrated that a new reality, a new way of living has become possible for man because Jesus accomplished it and was not conquered by the world around Him. For Tillich, the question of whether Jesus is the Son of God is not even a useful question. In his Systematic Theology he explains this in this way:

Literalists often ask whether one believes that “Jesus was the Son of

God.” Those who ask this question think that they know what the

term “Son of God” means and that the only problem is whether this

known designation can be attributed to the man Jesus of Nazereth.

If the question is asked in this way it cannot be answered, because

either an affirmative or a negative answer would be wrong. The

only way to answer the question is to ask another one, namely,

What do you mean if you use the term “Son of God?” If one receives

a literalistic answer to this question, one must reject it as

superstitious. If one receives an answer which affirms the symbolic

character of the term “Son of God,” the meaning of this symbol

can then be discussed. (Vol 2., p. 110)

What this suggests is that the symbols used by the Scriptural writers is what is important, not the historical validity of their meaning since this is impossible to know with certainty. The main problem with this idea is that symbolic words can come to mean a wide variety of things. This is the same principle that would occur when looking at designs of clouds. See how many different things can be imagined out of one cloud by different people or even on person. Interestingly, the symbol in this case becomes what these theologians have made Jesus, the Son of God, to be. The designation “Son of God” is given an existential meaning. This meaning has been determined by the existential view of man and how Jesus helps man in hi existential dilemma. Thus, He is the “New Being.” I find it interesting that these reinterpretations are supposed to make the gospel more meaningful. My only question is to whom are they trying to make the gospel more meaningful? Is it for the philosophers, theologians, people with degrees and plenty of time to contemplate the possibilities of their reinterpretations?

Proponents of this reinterpretation will immediately suggest that they are doing nothing but what the first century writers were doing. They point to the fact of the Jewish sources which influenced the writers with a long expectation of a Messiah. This Messiah was viewed as one who would establish His kingdom upon the earth and reign forever. Drawing from these symbolic traditions and aspirations of their heritage, the writers only used concepts which would give meaning to the person of Jesus. For the Scriptural writers, Jesus was all that they expected the Messiah to be. He could be called the Son of God because that symbolically explained best how they viewed and felt about Jesus. When it comes to the present century, the reinterpreters state that they are merely trying to express the same existential value of Jesus in terms that are commonly used and meaningful in today’s world view. Thus, reinterpeters will validate their exegesis in this manner. I find it interesting that the same ones who want to express their feelings of Jesus in modern terms are the same ones who object to the use of “inerrancy” as a description of the Scriptures. There seems to be a double standard here. What this really proves is that this type of logic is useful only as it justifies and proves the existential position.

Thus, the question for Tillich and others who follow this type of scholarship is not whether Jesus was divine, rather, what existential purpose does the term “divine’ serve when it is applied to Jesus of Nazereth? When the answer to this is found, then an honest assessment of the meaning of Scripture can be determined. It is clear, as has been shown, that the existential purpose that Tillich and others find in Jesus is that He points man to the possibility of new being. In other words, man can end his quest of trying to find what it means to be human. In achieving this recognition, man is no longer estranged from God, which for Tillich and others is not the biblical understanding of God, but the “ground, source and power of being.” In other words, the being behind our being. The historical and objective sense of the designations given to Jesus are reinterpreted to given new meaning, as this quotation suggests:

None of the traditional ways of speaking about Christ, e.g., as God,

as Son of God, as God incarnate, as revelation of God, as Salvation

event, and so on, are acceptable unless they are translated out of the

dimension of objective events in world history unto the dimension

of personal history in the present. Christological statements must

therefore refer to the significance of Christ for our lives rather than

to his natural or essential being. (Young, p. 103-104)

This suggests that what the historical Jesus was and is in reality is not of importance. Only the symbolic importance that this man came to express for those around him is important. The revelation of who Jesus was is not to be looked upon as objective facts to be received and believed, but as mythological elements that express the existential need that Jesus came to hold and command.

The problems with this approach are numerous. For one, this type of approach to Scripture is reminiscent of the antiquated allegorical method of interpretation. In this method, Scripture truths came to mean whatever the interpreter wanted them to mean, usually to justify some doctrinal position or philosophical perspective. In fact, I can see very little difference between the two approaches. If there is a difference, it can be found in the fact that existentialism would allow only a much narrower range of interpretation, dealing essentially with matters of man’s ability to actualize and find authentic existence. Another problem with this position is it assumes that man has the liberty to subject Scripture to this type of analysis. It is probably time to turn the question on the proponents of this view and ask, “By what authority do you do these things?” Another problem is that the idea of what constitutes “authentic living” and the commitment to live toward this goal sounds a lot like man is making a commitment to become a god himself. Afterall, if Jesus was not truly divine and the word “divine” is only symbolic of what man can be, does this not suggest that the goal of these reinterpretations is to raise man to the position of God? If God is a God which goes beyond the traditional expressions of Him and may be simply referred to as the ground of being, then it might be argued that the ability to become, that point at which man actualizes, is the same nature as the ground of being. Afterall, if Jesus was not truly divine, but because He was able to live authentically was ascribed the symbol “divine,” then when man lives authentically he should by logic also be referred to as “divine,” if you were to use first century symbols of expression. It is obvious that this reinterpretation is nothing other than the goal of glorifying man rather than God. If this is the case, these interpretations are nothing other than the worship of Satan who seeks to divert worship from God to the created or himself. Indeed, it would be very easy for Satan to do so if a person who is now alive on earth was able to actualize and find authentic existence before others did. He could rightly command that he was the Son of God and divine. People would flock to him to see and hear how they might also reach this level of faith and living. No doubt, the spirit of the anti-christ would be expressed in those or that group which sought to deny the world this opportunity for actualization.

At any rate, these reinterpretations also destroy the idea and necessity of Jesus’ continued ministry and activity in the church, a truth which is affirmed in many places in Scripture. The Evangelical Dictionary commenting on these new approaches in Christology states this truth this way:

In the midst of such desire to express the meaning of Christ in new ways,

Jesus is often spoken of simply as an agent through whose mediation and

example we are enabled to find authentic self-expression and new being,

and enter into a meaningful experience of reality and the world. Doubt

is raised about our need for his continuing work and ministry. Even

when we are directed to his person, it is as if to One who is symbolic of

something else, and who points entirely beyond himself. We seem at times to be confronted by an Arianism content to affirm that the Son is simply

“of like substance” with the Father, at times with a docetism for which

the reality of the human nature is of little importance. (Wallace, p. 227)

As the above comment shows, the fact of Jesus’ divinity is denied in favor of more meaningful understandings. Jesus is important for preaching only as He enables the listener to grasp the reality that it is possible to move toward authentic existence. The idea of Jesus being the “Head of the church” is reinterpreted to mean He is just the “archetype” of all who will follow Him in this actualization. Jesus Christ who was said to be the “express image of God” is reinterpreted to mean that Jesus was the ultimate expression of authentic existence, what man is supposed to be, and that He was dependent upon the ground and power of being only.

The Scriptures, however, ascribe divinity to Jesus not only in the thoughts and expressions about Him, but also in the works and events surrounding Him. It has been adequately pointed out in the systematic theologies of men like Strong, Chafer, Theismann, Hodge, and others, that Scriptures affirm Jesus’ divinity in many ways. For instance, Jesus is characterized by the attributes of deity, such as, His external existence (Col. 1:15; John 1:1-14), omnipotent ability (Luke 8:24), and omniscience (John 4:29, 6:70f.; Luke 6:8). Other Scriptures ascribe to Jesus the divine functions of being Creator and Sustainer of the world (John 1:3; Heb. 1:3,10; Col. 1:16-17). Furthermore, Jesus was reported and seen forgiving the sins of sinners. On one occasion, the Pharisees condemned Jesus for this because they knew that only God was able to forgive (Matt. 9:1-9). But was this not the point anyway? Jesus was God and exercised the reality of who He was with demonstrations of power over sin, demons, sickness and death. The truth of the matter is that Jesus’ whole life was a demonstration to the fact that God was at work to redeem man, knowing man was and is unable to do this.

If it be argued that these are merely symbolic expressions given to Jesus, the evidence is against this idea. Listen to the words of John and feel the intensity that he spoke of Jesus:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we

have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands

have handles, of the Word of Life; (For the life was manifested and

we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal

life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; That

which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye may

have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father,

and with his Son Jesus Christ. ( I John 1:1-3 KJV)

Does this sound as if John believed that Jesus was symbolically what He claimed to be? On the contrary, Jesus’ life was not the symbolic answer to an existential quest for being or authentic existence. The followers may have lived in a new relation to the world, however, it was a relation which was born out of the historical fact that Jesus, God with us, was in the flesh reconciling man to God by His actions on the cross of Calvary. In fact, the followers would go on to give their very lives in defense of the truth of who Jesus was and is. The evangelical burden was not that a new way of life in which man can reach his potential was upon the world. Rather, the truth that in Jesus Christ a man may escape from the coming judgment and wrath of God is affirmed. The early Christians were not looking for society reaching some actualized state, they looked and believed, often at the mistake of being lazy, for the physical return of Christ. That people today can reinterpret it does not prove their scholarship, rather it proves they are scoffers saying “Where is the promise of his coming?”

Consequently, the question remains. Does the truth of Christ’s divinity need to be reinterpreted? Can these reinterpreters explain the power which faith in Jesus Christ effects in a poor struggling and bound sinner, who has no desire to find meaningful existence now or in the next life, who suddenly is transformed into an evangelist for the truth and fact of Jesus and His message? On what basis does the need for reinterpretation proceed? What is more alarming is that it is suggested that believers should continue to fellowship with those who believe this way and support this type of scholarship. The problem is the gospel which is proclaimed by these reinterpretations is of man’s imaginations which have little to do with the historical truths of Scripture. Equally, the end of this type of proclamation seems to be the glorification of man. The goal of Scriptural proclamation is for man to die to himself and become immersed in the goal of evangelizing the world before millions perish in hell. Moreover, the Jesus proclaimed in this view is not divine, other than the symbolic nature given to Him. The Jesus of Scripture, however, is both divine and human. What kind of fellowship are those who believe in this type of interpretation asking me to enjoin? But this is not the end of this reinterpretation. Let us turn the attention to another area of reinterpretation, the work of Jesus, and see what common ground, if any, may be found.

Previous Home Next Table of Contents