Who is Jesus?

Front matter

—

PILATE ASKED THE PEOPLE OF HIS TIME, “WHAT SHALL I DO WITH JESUS?”

We recall their answer, "Let him be crucified.”

Book 1

BOOK ONE

Book 1 - Part 1

PART ONE

THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASE

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

As he spake these words, many believed on him.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

John VIII: 28 to 32.

Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

John XII: 44, 45.

Jesus answered, . .

I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

John X: 30, 31.

Book 1 - Part 1 - Chapter 1

WHO IS JESUS? — I. A FASCINATING QUESTION —

I HAVE a very definite message to present to the world, one that cannot fail to be supremely interesting to multitudes, for it is about Jesus, and beyond all controversy Jesus of Nazareth, whom all good men admire, and some men worship as the Saviour of the world, is the most fascinating figure of history.

All men feel his uniqueness. We cannot resist the appeal he makes to the noblest part of our nature. He is not only the ideal man, but something more. This is certainly the conviction of our hearts, for "never man spake like this man," never did any one realize so perfectly in his daily life such an ideal of unselfish living, one never before even imagined by any mortal. More books are written about him because men like to study his character and his claims better than they care to study the character and claims of any other.

Whatever truths other religions contain,—and they all contain some,—it is certain that the religion founded by Jesus, as given in his life and words, makes the truest appeal to the religious instinct, which is the highest instinct, or motive force, of our lives. Nineteen centuries have passed since he appeared upon the earth, and the interest in him is as fresh as it ever was; indeed, it seems to grow stronger as time elapses. It is as if his words had come true, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." His enemies during the ages since he came have been compelled to exclaim again and again, with the Pharisees of old, "Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold the world is gone after him."

Critics have disposed of him and his claims often enough to have eliminated any other man from human interest; but somehow he is not eliminated. When the mists of their criticism, like the smoke of a fireworks display, has drifted away, we still behold him looming up above the plain, dominating the landscape like some lofty mountain peak which lifts our thoughts to heaven even as it lifts itself in eternal beauty to the sky. Even in his remoteness he is accessible; even in his sublimity he is not cold. Supremely above us, he is intensely human. No, the critics cannot destroy him. They may temporarily in individual cases weaken his appeal, but he endures and overcomes. We cannot escape his spell. He fascinates us, compels our attention, delights us, arouses our affections, awakens our reverence. Who is he—this Unique Man of History?

For he is unique. There is no doubt of it.

Book 1 - Part 1 - Chapter 2

II. OPPOSING VIEWS —

IT IS true that some evil men do not even take the name of Jesus upon their lips except by way of an idle curse, but even so, they pay him an involuntary homage.

Some in their hatred insist that such a man never existed, that he is a pure invention; but the fact of Jesus as a historic personage does not admit of serious question. Such an effect as he has produced in human history cannot be accounted for except by an adequate reality back of it. And, moreover, his historic existence is proved to the satisfaction of mankind from profane as well as from sacred sources. To doubt it is to place oneself among the sophists, who end by doubting everything, even themselves, and who become at length incapable of passing a rational judgment upon any matter.

Other men claim that Jesus uttered nothing new, pointing to Confucius, Gotama, Zoroaster, and other religious teachers whose teachings teem with interesting truths, some of which resemble those enunciated by Jesus. Is not this resemblance a kinship inherent in the nature of the truth? Perhaps for fair-minded men it is needful only to submit the documents in the case and leave them without discussion. Possibly, indeed, the world has already decided this question. It would seem so if we judge from the scant attention which the sayings of Confucius, Gotama, Zoroaster, and others obtain in the world of thought. Are these latter not obsolete and half-forgotten, merely remembered because of an influence they once exerted? The teachings of Jesus are the inspiration of our civilization, the noonday splendor of a sun which illumines with spiritual light every problem of humanity.

Still others, even though they admire the character of Jesus, claim that the story of his life is a gross exaggeration, as well as his reputed claims concerning himself. It is, of course, possible to assert that while such a man as Jesus lived, the accounts given of him in the Bible are highly exaggerated, written by people who lived long afterward and who desired to throw around the founder of their religion a glamour not warranted by the facts as they occurred. If this is true, it is remarkable what success they have had in creating a character and a life so positively unique that the whole world acknowledges it to have been the greatest character and the greatest life in history. If the Bible account of Jesus was invented, herein is a marvel, for it must have been invented in such a case by ignorant fishermen or their unknown successors; if they are the creators of the character and life of Jesus, we should find them out and honor them as we now honor him, for it is Jesus as presented in the Bible we admire and love; if perchance any of us now worship him as Divine, we should honor them instead; for, as some one has said, only Divinity itself could have invented such a character and such a life.

It must suffice here to say that the only documents claiming to be authoritative which we possess concerning Jesus are contained in the Bible. There are traditions, and a few confirmatory references in profane history, enough to establish the general fact of the existence of such a character, but nothing else which claims to be authoritative as a statement of his life and teachings. If the Bible contains exaggeration, it would be an extremely difficult task to separate the exaggeration from the fact. Who that claims there is exaggeration is fitted by his lack of prejudice to do the work of separation?

Is it not true that the claim of exaggeration is merely an assumption, and based entirely upon preconceived theories of critics whose opinions vary with their prejudices? They say in effect: "According to my ideas the thing cannot be true; therefore it is not true." It is the kind of reasoning which forced Galileo to recant and has opposed all progress. These critics have formulated their own theories of the complete truth of the universe, and whatever facts do not accord with their theories they exclude. Is not disbelief sometimes as bigoted and dogmatic, as intolerant of inconvenient facts, as were the opponents of Galileo?

One of these critics has recently rewritten the Gospels without the account of the virgin birth and omitting John altogether. Does any one fancy that this rewriting will fare better than other attempts to discredit the Bible story? It is hard to believe that the world will ever be satisfied with the Bible rewritten by its critics. They do well to leave the original statements alone. They have indeed the right of private interpretation; but the Bible they cannot destroy, nor can we accept their alterations.

The Bible has stood the test of time, It has been chained, locked away from the sight of men, torn to pieces, and burned, but it still endures, and it gives every evidence of possessing a vitality as lasting as the ages. To class it with the folklore, the myths, the traditions, the sacred literature of other nations, is still to place it first.

Book 1 - Part 1 - Chapter 3

III. THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH —

I CANNOT hope to have every one accept my message as the truth, even if it be true. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that it is the very truth itself; that I wrote with the eloquence of an angel, adduced the most convincing arguments, proved my case perfectly for most men—there would still be many who would criticize and find fault and reject, for the possession of the truth may involve sacrifice of cherished opinions.

There are men who love reasonings about the truth; they delight in scientific processes of thought, but they have somehow lost sight of the object of their thought, truth itself, and the common sense that ought to characterize the search. Their critical faculty has become so highly developed that it is excessively exacting in its demands; it is critical beyond use or reason. It cannot see the end or aim of their endeavor, but loses itself in the processes of the study.

They have lost their perspective. Great things to them are small and small things great. And of all men they are the most sure of themselves, most satisfied with their ability as seekers after truth. They know how to analyze, to examine critically, and to define scientifically. They are better satisfied with the minute study of a butterfly's wing than they are with a satisfactory theory of creation. It is indeed an endeavor and a delight with them as a side issue to weave theories of creation from the wing of a butterfly. Even though all creation might be pictured in the microcosm, it does not strike them that with their imperfect equipment in the way of previous knowledge and powers of observation it may not be possible for them to perceive it.

They are those who refuse to consider the factor of the unseen forces above or within nature, the real causes of phenomena, reasoning altogether from sense impressions, and they are as unsatisfactory in their conclusions as were those who accepted the rising and the setting of the sun as real facts instead of as apparent facts. The process of obtaining knowledge, it is true, is from sense impression, thence worked over into knowledges or related impressions, thence worked over into reasonings based upon knowl . By a posteriori processes we all form theories from the facts of the world as we see them, but the theories, once formed, are applied a priori to all facts, new or old. If our theories thus formed do not fit all the facts (and the above-nature facts are often left out because unseen, except in their effects) we are too often prone to reject undeniable but undesirable facts. Mr. Podsnap's method, with which Dickens made us acquainted, of eliminating from our consideration whatever we find inconvenient by a simple wave of the arm, is possibly far more prevalent with us all than we care to admit.

Do we love the truth sincerely and honestly, love it for its own sake, love it in spite of the disagreeable things it may reveal? Perhaps we are a little cautious in our reply. We do not know just what the possession of the truth involves. It may mean that we shall have to regard things differently from what we do now, and we are pretty well satisfied with our present views. The truth may be unpleasant to us in many ways. Not only may it necessitate the giving up of our present comfortable theories in the domain of thought, but a possible change in our present comfortable attitude toward life. We do not like to change either our thoughts or our manner of life. We like the old ways. Like old shoes, they are more comfortable. We would probably declare, if asked, that we want to know the truth, but we are pretty well satisfied that we already know it. So if we chance to find that a knowledge of the truth involves a giving up or a laying down, a renunciation, a sacrifice of something that we have learned to love because we have had it in our possession a very long time, we may decide that the new thing is not the truth because it is not so comfortable as the old view. This is the selfish spirit, the spirit that makes old abuses of so long a life and reform so interminably tedious. The new thing may be true, but it is new.

The message of Jesus to us is: "If ye continue in my words, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." It follows that in such a case we shall see our errors and our evils, but at least we shall get rid of them and be free men. Let us then be brave men who, because we desire to be free, do not fear the light whatever of sacrifice it may involve. If the thing is true, we want to know it. The vision of it may so entrance us that nothing will be accounted sacrifice if so be that we at last possess it.

Book 1 - Part 1 - Chapter 4

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.

Book 1 - Part 2

PART TWO

A DEMONSTRATION BASED UPON THE FACTS

Book 1 - Part 2 - Chapter 1

I. GOD IS ONE —

CAN there be any doubt that God is one? Only in degraded forms of religion do we ever find men worshiping more than one God. Plato and Aristotle confessed that the many deities of the Greeks were only so many properties, qualities, and attributes of the one God. Reason revolts against the thought of more than one God, confirming itself by the unity of nature and the obviousness of this unity in the entire created universe. For, since the universe acts together as one great whole, as a cosmos not a chaos, it is evident that there is only one creating and directing force at the head of such a unified system.

Is it necessary in this our day to argue for the existence of only one God? Do not all men admit it? They admit it as a general proposition in theory, but their theologies have not always been in accord either with reason or Scriptures in this regard. But it is indispensable for my purpose that this point shall be clear beyond all question. To that end I shall put forth a familiar statement of the case, which should put the matter forever beyond controversy. It is necessary that every mind shall give assent to the fact of the impossibility of there being more than one God.

Every one admits that in the very nature of the case God is infinite. It is an attribute which the adherents of all religions accord Him. They cannot avoid it, for it requires an infinite being to create and rule an immeasurable universe; it requires an infinite being to be without beginning or ending in point of time; it requires an infinite being to possess and be the source of all love, all wisdom, and all power. We attribute all these things to God. We cannot conceive of two definite Divine beings existing from eternity to eternity in the form of two creators and two rulers of the universe. Such a thought is as monstrous to the reason as it is foreign to the Bible. Nor can we conceive of two who are infinite in love, wisdom, and power, for infinity is indivisible, The moment that we speak of two infinites we are speaking of the impossible. The very quality of infinity implies that the one who possesses it is unbounded as to place, as to time, and as to quality. He is omni-present, eternal, and complete or comprehensive. To say that there are two infinites is to attempt to bound the boundless, to limit the limitless. Two infinites cannot exist together, for each would limit the other, and hence neither would be infinite.

God must be one because He is everywhere-present, always-existing, all-loving, all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful, uncreated, absolute, complete, unconditioned, infinite, hence indivisible. The moment He ceases to be any of these things He ceases to be God, and hence becomes a finite being.

The Athanasian creed says:

There is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreate, infinite, eternal, omnipotent, God, Lord; so likewise is the Son, and so likewise is the Holy Spirit.

Also, the Father was made and created of none, the Son was born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. Thus there is one Father, one Son, and one Holy Spirit, and in this Trinity all the three persons are together eternal, and are altogether equal.

From these words it is impossible for any one to think otherwise than that there are three Gods. And this is shown to be the thought of the makers of this creed, for it is added: "As we are obliged by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord, yet we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there are three Gods or three Lords." This cannot be understood in any other sense than that we may acknowledge three Gods and three Lords, but we may not name them such; or that we may think of three Gods and Lords, but we must not speak of them.

Is not this polytheism, pure and simple? Is it not, therefore, necessary to argue to prove that God is one? I am aware that people of our day will reject the Athanasian creed when it is brought before them in this way. Each individual clergyman, for example, when confronted by such contradictory statements as it contains, such obviously impossible things, will either say that it is beyond our understanding, yet true because the fathers of the Church have hitherto accepted it, but that he himself believes in only one God.

There are many things difficult for us to com , especially in the realm of the infinite, but we certainly are not required to believe that the infinite is divisible, for we immediately see that it cannot, in the very nature of the case, be true. God is one, complete and indivisible. There cannot exist three Gods and three Lords, thus three Infinites. Any creed which so states is untrue, it makes no difference what sanctity it has acquired from long acceptance.

If asked, not only will every clergyman of today, but also every Christian, declare most solemnly that he personally believes in only one God. If that is the case, why are such creeds still permitted to exist as nominal fundamentals of the Christian Church?

It is not necessary, perhaps, to add the testimony of Scripture to refute such confusing, contradictory, and rationally impossible statements, yet it is worth while to recall that both in the New Testament and the Old we find it written:

"Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." (Deut. 6:4; also Mark 12:29.)

And again: "I am Jehovah, and there is none else, there is no God beside me." (Isa. 45:5.)

And again: "Am not I Jehovah? and there is no God else beside Me." (Isa. 45:21.)

This is obviously an absolute, complete, and indivisible being who is speaking.

And again in Isaiah: "Thus saith Jehovah, the king of Israel, I am the First and I am the Last, and beside Me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6.)

And in Zechariah: "In that day Jehovah shall be king over all the earth; in that day Jehovah shall be one and His name one." (14:9.)

The Bible certainly clinches the matter, and for those who have hitherto accepted such creeds its authority is final.

Book 1 - Part 2 - Chapter 2

II. WHO, THEN, IS JESUS? —

HERE, then, we are confronted by the crux of the matter. It is the essential question. If Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, is the one only God of heaven and earth, as He has proclaimed times without number throughout the Old Testament; if He is absolute, complete, indivisible, Creator and Ruler of the universe, such as the world accepts Him, who, then, is Jesus?

The answer is plain and indisputable: If Jehovah and Jesus are not identical, as we believe they are,—not merely united as Father and Son are united, by kindred interests; if they are not identical, unmistakably the same person and being—then Jesus is not God. There is no escape from this conclusion. For God is one and indivisible. He cannot exist in two separate and distinct persons, any more than you or I can. He must exist precisely as we do, one soul in one body, except that the Divine soul and the Divine body must be infinite.

The Jehovah of the Old Testament does not leave any room for quibbling in this matter. Not only does He insist that He is God alone, but He says that He will not give His glory to another.

"I am Jehovah: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another." (Isa. 42:8.)

Nor will He permit any other to be called Saviour or Redeemer. Think of the significance of these statements:

"I, even I, am Jehovah; and beside me there is no Saviour." (Isa. 43:11.)

"I am Jehovah thy God, and thou shalt acknowledge no God beside Me; for there is no Saviour beside Me." (Hos. 13:4.)

"That all flesh may know that I Jehovah am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer." (Isa. 49:26; 60:16.)

"Thus saith Jehovah, the king of Israel, and His Redeemer, jehovah of Hosts, I am the First and I am the Last; and beside Me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6.)

These statements would seem to be final in the matter. We repeat:

If Jehovah is not identical with Jesus, then Jesus is not God, nor is He Redeemer and Saviour. We must accept the indisputable documents in the case.

Book 1 - Part 2 - Chapter 3

III. THE FORCE OF FACTS —

THE obvious impossibility of dividing the Infinite enables us to perceive the force of the Unitarian point of view. If we regard Jesus as a semi-Divine being or only a man as other men, in either case possessing a life independent of the Father, then he is not God in any special sense, and they are correct. The weakness of their case is the assumption that God cannot manifest Himself as a man, except as He manifests Himself through all men. It is true that we cannot divide the Infinite; but it is not necessarily true that God cannot temporarily limit Himself in manifestation and still be God.

The weakness of the Trinitarian position is that they base their religion upon the assumption that the duality of personality in the Father and the Son which is suggested in the Old Testament and appears more definitely in the New Testament is a fact, and not an appearance. We maintain that if this duality of per is a fact, a reality, and not merely an appearance, then Jesus is not God—he is only a man as other men, with a human father, and the Unitarians and the other opponents of the deity of Jesus are correct—for the Infinite is not divisible.

Now let us assume that it is difficult to understand how the Infinite God could temporarily limit Himself and still be God. Let us also assume that it is difficult to understand why the Old Testament should suggest, and the New Testament state, a duality of personality in the Father and the Son if it is only an appearance. In doing this we recognize the merits of both the Unitarian and the Trinitarian positions, opposed as they may be.