Jesus' humanity, deity and the power of the Spirit

I posted some time ago, here and here, regarding Jesus' humanity, mission and anointing by the Spirit. It seemed to cause quite a stir in certain quarters. There was particularly some concern expressed over Bruce Ware's The Man Christ Jesus.

In my previous posts, I argued the miracles of Jesus did not prove his divinity. Rather, they proved his anointing by the Spirit for his specific mission from God. I went on to argue that Christ lived his life in the Spirit, yielding perfectly to his power, such that the works he did were not acts of his deity but were done in his humanity by the Spirit's power. It is his perfect human life accounted to all true believers and this same Spirit given to all true believers.

Following his excellent The Good God, I recently received Michael Reeves latest book Christ Our Life for Christmas. Thus far, it is excellent and can be highly recommended. One particular point pressed by Reeves is that the Son (or Word) of God never acted alone. He always worked in conjunction with the Spirit (as in Genesis 1, when the Word of God is spoken into the darkness borne by the Spirit). Reeves argues, in relation to the incarnation, "And as it had always been,so it was when the Word became flesh: he did all that he did in the power of the Spirit".

I was particularly struck by the force of his argument. He goes on to comment:

Born in the power of the Spirit, he lives and acts as a man in the power of the Spirit. At his Baptism in the Jordan, the Spirit anoints him, then sends him into the lifeless wilderness just as he had once sent him into the lifeless void in Genesis 1. Returning to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, he announced and defined his ministry in the synagogue at Nazareth using the words of Isaiah 61: 'The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour' (Luke 4:18-19). So he healed, did good, and drove out demons - all in the power of the Spirit (Matthew 12:28; Acts 10:38). Later he would offer himself up on the cross by the Spirit (Hebrews 9:14) and be raised from the dead by the power of the Spirit (Romans 8:11)

In line with Ware's argument, Reeves states "Christ shows what it is to be a human, fully alive in the Spirit. And he is the head of a new, Spirit-filled humanity: all in him share in this anointing of his".

The importance of this cannot be missed. Though the impeccability of Christ must be defended, we mustn't miss the distinction between why he couldn't sin and why he didn't sin. As God, Jesus Christ could not sin yet, in his humanity, the reason he did not sin was because of his perfect reliance upon the power of the Spirit.

It is this distinction that means Christ's perfect life, lived in the Spirit, can be fully accounted to those who believe by faith in him. If the perfect righteousness of God could simply have been accounted to us, as God, Christ's humanity would have been unnecessary. Likewise, if Christ shifted at will between his deity and humanity during his ministry, it seems there would be aspects of his perfect humanity that could not be accounted to us (as he would have lived them out under his deity). Similarly, the call to "walk as he walked" must be rendered wholly impossible because he would have walked as God, in his deity, something we can never aspire to do. Instead, in his humanity, Christ perfectly yielded to the power of the Spirit - the same spirit he gives to all those who believe by faith in him and who are united with him in his death.

It is equally why believers, who receive the Spirit upon conversion, are now able to live lives that are truly and actually pleasing to God. Not in our own power, suddenly changed to be "good", but in the work of the Spirit in our lives when we yield to his power. Thus, when we sin as believers (and we always will until we reach glory), it is not because we have no means to put sin away (as when we were unbelievers) but rather because we are not fully yielding to the power of the Spirit at work in our lives. It is a tendency to yield to the call of sin (which we could only do as unbelievers) rather than the power of the Spirit (which we are now able to do as believers).

On idols

Some time ago, I posted here regarding the difference between the first and second commandments. I argued that idolatry is best understood as anything that changes, obscures or alters the true character, or nature, of God.

It is worth noting that the incident of the Golden Calf in Exodus 32 was not an exercise in worshiping a false god per se. The people said "This is your God who brought you up out of Egypt!" (Neh 9:18) and simultaneously dedicated the following day "a feast to the LORD" (Ex 32:5). The people were not attempting to worship another god. Rather, they had changed the character and nature of the true God so that they were, in fact, worshiping a false image. The list of idolatrous behaviours in Col 3:5 is such because, as Christians, we are called to be Christlike and pursue godliness. In indulging such behaviour, we suggest God's character is in line with these things. We change God's character and worship a false image.

Now, it wouldn't be false to say those things that vie for our affections are idols. If we suggest the key to our happiness and fulfillment lie anywhere other than in God, we may not put these things before God but we certainly fall foul of the second commandment. In effect, we suggest God cannot, or will not, meet our particular need and thus we change his character and obscure his nature. If we put this false image before God, we would then fall foul of the first and second commandments simultaneously. Yet, those things that vie for our affections, and by which we suggest God will not meet our needs, are modern day idols. They may not be before God but they are nonetheless gods we worship and seek as a means of fulfilling particular needs.

What is worth bearing in mind is that an idol is only an idol so long as we treat it like an idol. If Paul's comments in 1 Cor 8:4-6 and 1 Cor 10:19f teach anything, it is that idols are nothing. They are either lumps of clay, pieces of wood, bits of stone, moulded metal or conceptual ideas. What they are not is gods.

This is an issue with which many people tie themselves in knots. I have a bust of C.H. Spurgeon on my office desk. Most people rightly conclude this is not an idol - I don't worship it, I don't find any fulfillment in it and I don't believe, nor act, in any way to suggest it is a god. Now, suppose it wasn't C.H. Spurgeon but was one of those Buddha statues, or one of those Hindu deities. Presuming I treat it the same way as my Spurgeon bust, are these any more idols to me?

We may want to have a discussion about the wisdom of associating yourself, as a Christian, with the idolatrous statues of false religion. It may not be helpful to people coming into your home and may lead to all sorts of conversations that are not particularly profitable. However, Paul is clear, in and of themselves, they are nothing and have no power.

I knew somebody who was given a Hindu statue by a colleague (it was a genuine gift in an attempt to be thoughtful). They concluded it would be wrong to smash it to bits, or throw it in the bin, in front of their colleague. I think they were right. In fact, I think - partly because they decided it wouldn't be helpful to display and partly because it was so grotesque - to shove it in the garage out of the way. Did they invite evil into their home? I don't think so. Did they engage in idolatry? I don't see how. Were they sinful to have this thing in the house? No. Paul is quite clear idols are nothing. They have no power. They are simply lumps of clay, wood, stone or metal. It would certainly be wrong to worship these things but an idol is only an idol so long as you treat it like an idol.

If you believe these statues have some sort of power, if you think you are inviting evil into your home by keeping one (perhaps having been given it), ironically you are being idolatrous. You are investing into a lump of material the characteristics of God. You are making out that something God says is nothing is actually really powerful. 

Again, we may want to have a discussion about the wisdom of associating yourself with such things. But that is not a sin issue. That is not an issue of idol worship. It is purely a matter of sensitivity and that which is helpful to others in the gospel.

God is a Liberal Democrat - really?!

The Telegraph, Mail and Guardian have all picked up on Steve Webb's assertion that God 'must be a liberal'. Webb, himself a Liberal Democrat MP and Minister of State for Pensions, claims 'the most fundamental reason why Christians should feel at home in the Liberal Democrats is that the character of God, as revealed in the Christian Gospel, would suggest that God must be a liberal'. He goes on to argue 'there is no other conclusion that can be drawn from a reading of the New Testament'.

Now, clearly Christian Labour and Conservative party members - not to mention the many Christian members of many smaller, fringe parties - disagree. I am unsure whether Webb is claiming that Christians in other parties truly know that God sides with the Lib Dems and they rebelliously refuse to acknowledge God's own political preferences; or, whether he genuinely believes that all theological understandings of scripture that do not lead to immediate Liberal Democrat membership are somehow misinterpretations of scripture. In either case, this seems something of a bold, unsubstantiated claim.

At the most basic level, Webb states the issue the wrong way round (if, indeed, this issue should be stated at all). At best, Webb could try to argue that the Liberal Democrats most closely represent God's revelation of himself (though even this would be something of a tall order, hotly disputed). However, he has not chosen to argue that the Liberal Democrats most closely represent scripture but that God himself would be a Liberal Democrat - quite the claim indeed! Even before we look at Liberal Democrat policies and typical voting patterns of Liberal MPs, Webb suggests that God, by his very nature, is a Liberal. I must admit, I missed that in any of the historic creeds but perhaps Athanasius included it in a footnote somewhere. Unfortunately, Webb doesn't leave much room for doubt. He doesn't suggest the Lib Dems most closely adhere to scripture but argues that in God himself is revealed the very nature of a Liberal.

Now, putting one's own political persuasion to the side, there is no getting away from the fact that Christian's exist across the political spectrum in the vast majority of political parties. Nor can we escape that all parties, at some time or other, alight upon policies that accord with scripture and, equally, often find themselves falling foul of scriptural principles too. Indeed, it is for this reason that many think politics is all too worldly and compromised, believing scripture  would have us take no part in it. The very nature of scriptural interpretation means that Christians of different theological persuasions and backgrounds will place greater or lesser store by different issues. Many will highlight social need, some personal morality whereas others find different issues more pressing still. Moreover, although many Christians may agree a particular need exists this does not imply they agree on the means by which such needs ought to be met.

For the Christian, the political task is to determine which issues of the day are most pressing and which solutions most closely conform to scriptural principles (or, in some cases, which least divert from scripture). Inevitably, Christians are going to disagree over the key issues and the best approach to tackling them. To align oneself uncritically to any particular party is therefore problematic. That is not to say  one cannot join, support or vote for a particular party or align oneself in any way with a political view. It is to say that an uncritical stance with a party or political ideology will inevitably end up conflicting with scripture some time or other.

This means that Christians can join, support and vote for the Liberal Democrats (if, indeed, one comes to such a considered position). But to claim, like Steve Webb, the Lib Dems are somehow the very party of God himself is not simply to overstate the case but ignores the compromised position of all political parties. It overemphasises the good the Liberals may do at the expense of the unscriptural things they almost certainly do and utterly misunderstands the nature of a holy God who could have no part with many of the things in which all political parties engage. If God could not always bear the choices of his chosen people, under a theocratic state enshrined by himself, what chance have secular British political parties of that?

Jesus' miracles do not prove he was God

It is a common enough Sunday School application to assert Jesus' miracles prove he was God. Surely, were anything in scripture obvious, it's that!

Except, it isn't true.

We cannot simply look at Jesus' miracles and claim they are proof of his deity. Many people, including prophets and apostles, did miracles yet we, quite rightly, don't argue they too are gods. Therefore, miracles are not, of themselves, proof of deity.

No doubt, many of us would look at Jesus' miracles and say 'Only God could do that!'. On one level, this is true. However, Jesus did these miracles - not in his deity - but in his humanity. On this understanding, Jesus did these miracles by the power of the Spirit (see Acts 10:38). This still suggests Jesus' miracles could only be done by God. However, they were done by the person of the Spirit empowering Jesus in his humanity.

This is not mere academics nor just semantics. This is an issue that really does matter and truly makes a difference to how we view Christ's life.

On a lesser level, it is important that we don't load the miracles of Jesus with a burden they cannot bear. It doesn't take much to see the problem of citing Jesus' miracles as proof of his deity (what about the others who did miracles?). It is always important to avoid poor argument in a bid to convince people of biblical truth (see here for further thoughts). In the end, such shoddy arguments are usually seen as hollow and often leave people further from Christ than when they first engaged with us.

In reality, Jesus' miracles were never intended to prove he is God - just as the apostles miracles were never intended to prove they are gods (which, for the avoidance of doubt, they are not). Instead, the miracles of Jesus, by the empowering of the Spirit, speak of the Father's appointment of Jesus to his very specific mission. Each miracle Jesus does acts as a pointer to his ultimate work through his death and resurrection (well explained here). That Jesus was empowered by the Spirit to do these miracles acts as proof - not of Jesus' deity - but of his special appointment by the Father for this work.

More importantly, we make a nonsense of Hebrew 4 (amongst other passages) if we argue that Jesus' miracles act as proof of his deity. As explained here, if Jesus can switch at will between his humanity and his deity, we have real problems upholding the view, taught throughout scripture, that Jesus' full human life is counted to those that believe in Him.

If, however, Jesus' miracles testify to his anointing by the Father for his salvific work on the cross, we can uphold the truth of Jesus' full humanity, the truths expressed in Heb 4:15 and the truth that Christ's humanity is counted as righteousness to those who believe, all whilst simultaneously upholding his miracles prove he was anointed by the Father and, as a result, his work on the cross would be effective.