The question of the responsibility of the Jewish people for the crucifixion of Christ may well become one of the major theological issues of the day. The traditional view has been that the Jews through their leaders were responsible for the death of Christ and had admitted this by crying, “His blood be on us and on our children.”

These words have been used as an excuse for the most revolting anti-Semitism. The treatment of the Jews by the medieval Church has well been called “the shame of Christendom.” Jews were shut up in the ghettos of medieval cities in conditions of indescribable squalor. They were forbidden to enter most of the professions and were thus compelled to engage in commerce if they were to exist at all. Prevented from owning land and in constant danger of expulsion, prosperous Jews hoarded their gold, thus earning a reputation for miserliness. At a time when canon law forbade members of the Church to lend to and borrow from one another on “usury” (interest), Christians resorted to the Jews as convenient money-lenders, and the legend of Shylock soon arose. No accusation was too vile to bring against a people who had “murdered God.” They were accused of poisoning the wells to cause the Black Death and of murdering Christian children to use their blood in the Passover feast. Children sometimes disappeared then, as they occasionally do today. But the disappearance of any Christian child at Easter time was enough to start a fresh accusation of ritual murder and trigger a pogrom. And this is not all ancient history. As late as the early days of the present century, there were horrible Easter pogroms at Kishineff in Russia, when worshipers went straight from their Easter services to kill Jews as well as sack their homes and synagogues.

The Reformation made some difference in countries where it was influential. Yet even Luther was capable of violent diatribes against the unbelieving Jews, and the traditional Protestant attitude was that the Jews were under the wrath of God. They had rejected Christ: this was believed to be the reason for their long exile and many sufferings. The Evangelical Revival saw the renewal of missionary work among the Jews, but it was the concern of a very small minority. Those who engaged in it found the past treatment of the Jews by the Church an immense obstacle in commending as a Gospel of love the faith professed by the persecutors.

Today, however, there is a significant change. The massacre of over six million Jews under Hitler roused the Christian conscience at last. On both sides of the Atlantic, councils of Christians and Jews are working to combat anti-Semitism and promote mutual understanding. Successive assemblies of the World Council of Churches have discussed the problem and made pronouncements. The late Pope John XXIII ordered the deletion of some of the most offensive expressions from the Good Friday liturgy and received a delegation of Jews with much kindness, likening himself to Joseph receiving his long-lost brethren. The Jewish question was on the agenda of the Second Vatican Council.

It is in such a setting that recent statements on the degree of Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion must be evaluated. A statement of the Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches denounced anti-Semitism as “absolutely irreconcilable with the profession and practice of the Christian faith” and went on to say: “In Christian teaching the historic events leading up to the crucifixion should not be so presented as to fasten upon the Jewish people of today responsibilities which belong to our corporate humanity and not to one race or community. Jews were the first to accept Jesus and Jews are not the only ones who do not yet recognize Him.” Dr. Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, made a statement in almost exactly similar terms last Holy Week.

Now on the other side there comes a pronouncement from the Arab Evangelical Church Council issued over the signature of the Rt. Rev. Najib Attalah Cuba’in, head of the Arab Evangelical Episcopal (Anglican) Church, whose jurisdiction covers Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. This pronouncement opposes recent attempts by “Christian Heads in the West” to absolve Jews of responsibility for the crucifixion of Christ, expresses the “firm adherence of the Arab council to the clear teachings of the Gospel as dictated by Divine revelation,” and states its belief that any contrary teaching would be a departure from the Gospel.

No doubt many find such a pronouncement suspect because of its source. Politics and sound theology do not often mix well. The Arab Christians have the State of Israel on their borders but do not recognize its existence. To them, as to their Muslim brethren, what the rest of the world calls Israel is just “occupied territory.” This attitude raises great difficulties for Arab Christians in using traditional forms of Christian worship. The Old Testament and particularly the Psalter with its constant prayers for the victory of Israel over her enemies are full of embarrassment for Arabs, and many passages are deleted or never used. Yet in this matter of the crucifixion they claim to be faithful to Scripture when others have departed from it.

Some Liberal Views

It is true that certain extreme liberal statements must cause grave concern to all who respect the authority of the Scriptures. Paul Winter in The Trial of Jesus has sought to show that the Romans alone were responsible and that the whole story of Jewish participation is a later invention reflecting the hatred of the Church for the synagogue. Similar views have been advanced by Dr. James Parkes and others. In fact, it may be said that the general view of liberals today is that the New Testament records reflect the situation at the time they were compiled rather than that which actually existed at the time of the events they purport to describe.

In resisting these claims and reaffirming the truth and authority of the Scriptures, is the conservative believer forced back to the traditional view that the Jew is really the arch-villain? We do not think so. It is possible to accept the truth of the gospel records as they stand and yet recognize that Christian reading of them has often been prejudiced and misinformed.

Thus much care is needed in interpreting the word “Jew” and the expression “the Jews” as used in the Gospels, especially in the Fourth Gospel. Even those who deny the apostolic authorship of St. John’s Gospel generally recognize that its author was Jewish. Our Lord, his disciples, and all his supporters mentioned in this Gospel were Jewish; yet the expression “the Jews” is constantly used of his enemies. Therefore the expression here cannot possibly refer to the entire Jewish community. In some instances it appears to mean the inhabitants of Judea as distinct from those of Galilee; e.g., “After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him” (John 7:1, RSV). In other cases the expression “the Jews” seems to refer to the circle of scribes, lawyers, and priests who opposed him most vigorously in Jerusalem. The constant repetition of the words “the Jews” in an unfavorable context may cause an insufficiently instructed congregation to gain the impression that the entire nation was hostile to Christ. The Revised Standard Version gives “Judeans” as an alternative rendering. And it might indeed be wise to adopt this when reading the lessons to a mixed congregation.

On the scriptural evidence, however, it is impossible to deny that the chief priests and scribes played a major part in handing Jesus over to the Romans for trial and crucifixion. This was the result of sin, which had blinded their eyes (John 12:40). The blindness was real enough. They did not realize they were rejecting the true Messiah, let alone the Son of God. Peter, addressing the people of Jerusalem, said quite clearly (Acts 3:17), “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.” In the face of this, to accuse even those directly responsible of deliberate deicide is manifestly unfair. Moreover, can it not be reasonably argued that there was a sense in which these Jewish priests were acting as representatives not only of their own nation but of a whole sinful humanity—humanity that was not prepared to see the face of God in Jesus Christ?

The cry, “His blood be on us and on our children,” was terrible indeed. But had these men the power to impose such a curse upon all their descendants? It has been well pointed out that the blood of Christ falls on men only in forgiveness, never in revenge. The words were uttered to persuade the Roman governor Pilate to pass sentence, but they do not acquit him of the charge of corrupting Roman justice for fear of the consequences. Is it only coincidence that the historic creeds make no mention of Annas and Caiaphas but say, “He suffered under Pontius Pilate”? No doubt this was intended to fix the event in history. It also serves as a timely reminder that the Gentile as well as the Jewish world must take its share of the blame. No doubt a Jewish mob could have stoned Jesus, as happened later to Stephen; but a legal execution could be carried out only by the Roman authorities.

From ‘Hosanna’ To ‘Crucify’?

Peter does seem to speak as though the Jerusalem mob were in some sense personally guilty, since they “denied the Holy and Righteous one, and asked for a murderer to be granted to [them]” (Acts 3:14). But would he have judged the entire nation guilty? He was a Galilean. He would have remembered the “Hosannas” of the pilgrims from Galilee. Christian preachers have often assumed that those who shouted “Hosanna” were those who cried “Crucify” a few days later. There is no real evidence for this, although it is true that mobs can often be fickle. The hired mob was probably composed not of pilgrims from the country but of city-dwellers more easily worked upon by the priests.

What of the common statement that the centuries-long exile of the Jews from the promised land was a direct punishment for the crucifixion of Christ? The one passage that seems to support this is Luke 19:41–44, where Christ wept over the city of Jerusalem and foretold its destruction because its people “did not know the time of [their] visitation.” There is indeed a judgment in history, and the wrath of God has a real meaning if regarded as the spontaneous reaction of Absolute Holiness against evil. But analogies based on human anger, so seldom free from all sinful elements, are dangerous in the extreme.

There are indeed Old Testament passages that make habitation of the land conditional upon faithfulness to God’s law (e.g., Deut. 4:23–31), and in view of such Scriptures some Jewish thinkers regard the exile as a punishment for Israel’s unfaithfulness, though not of course for her failure to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Yet the belief that the Jews’ rejection of Christ caused their disappearance as a settled community, though not as a separate people, has an almost irresistible fascination for the Christian mind. It is easy to say that the Old Israel failed to grasp its moment of opportunity and therefore a new Israel, the Church, was brought into existence to replace it. But to prove this from the New Testament is difficult. Apart from the much discussed phrase “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16, no passage speaks definitely of the Church as the New Israel. There are indeed passages (such as the description in Revelation 21 of the founding of the new Jerusalem upon the twelve apostles of the Lamb rather than upon the twelve sons of Jacob) that may be used to support such an idea. And Gentile Christians are told, as were the Israelites of old, that they are the people of God, called out from the world. But is not the thought in such passages as Ephesians 2:11–22 that Gentile believers have been brought into Israel rather than that they are forming a new Israel? It is clear from Paul’s words in Romans 11:1, and indeed throughout chapters 9–11 of the great epistle, that God has not cast away his people in any final sense. In the end, Jews and Gentiles are to come together in the fulfillment of the wonderful purpose of God (Rom. 11:26, 33).

The one thing that the Gentile believer dare not do is to imagine himself in any sense superior to the Jew who fails to see Christ as Messiah. His own knowledge of Christ is all of grace. Left to himself, he would have fared no better than the scribe or Pharisee, since the spiritual pride that was their undoing is still the most subtle temptation of the Christian. His attitude to his Jewish brother must always be one of gratitude for all Israel has given him, of penitence for the terrible treatment that has needlessly added to the inescapable and true offense of the Gospel, and of loving compassion as in spite of all he seeks to commend to Israel Jesus of Nazareth, the true Messiah who by right belongs to her.

John 1:1. Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with “God” in the phrase “And the Word was God.” Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction. To have used it would have equated the Word and the Word only with God, whereas without it the force is “And the Word was Himself God.” The article is omitted, too, on occasion in other constructions; in fact, there are four instances of it in this very chapter (verses 6, 12, 13, 18), and in John 13:3, “God” is written once without and once with the article. To translate in any one of these cases “a god” would be totally indefensible (see R. Kuehner—B. Gerth. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Vol. I, pp., 591 f., and E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, Vol. II, pp. 24 ff.).

Strange literalistic interpretations, too, have been put on the word “beginning” in this verse, and to read as if it said “In the beginning the Word began,” whereas what is affirmed is that in the beginning he was already existing. The reference is to something within the divine, not the human, order of things, and to apply the analogy of temporal succession and progression to the presence of God (“And the Word was with God”) is utterly unwarranted. Equally narrow interpretations have been put on the word “Beginning” in such passages as Revelation 3:14: “the beginning of the creation of God.” The context, however, demands an agent as a parallel to “witness,” so the sense must be “Beginner” or “the first cause,” as is the case in Revelation 21:6 where “Beginning” is applied to God himself (compare the Greek translation of Genesis 49:3, and Colossians 1:18, and Revelation 22:13). To understand what John means by “Word” (Logos) read Revelation 19:13–16 in conjunction with First Timothy 6:14–16.

John 14:28. “My Father is greater than I.” This can refer only to the self-imposed limitations of the Son in his incarnation. He has already claimed equality with God (John 5:18), and oneness with him (John 10:30); but he was not only true God, he was now also true man. In fact, rightly understood this is a claim of the highest import, for only things of the same order of magnitude can be compared. No mere man or angelic being could ever say, “God is greater than I,” for created and uncreated are of different orders.

Mark 13:32 (Matthew 26:36 RV). “Concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the Son, but the Father.” This is in complete harmony with his consistent claim that he came to do the Father’s will. He came to reveal the redemptive purpose of God but certainly not his whole mind (see John 17:8). There is again nothing here to contradict the many passages where his deity is positively and clearly stated; on the contrary it is in itself a very extraordinary claim, when we consider the ascending order: men, angels, Son, Father. He places himself above the category of angels (the highest created beings) and classes himself with the Father (see Hebrews 1:13).

1 Corinthians 11:3. “And the Head of Christ is God.” Paul cannot imply by this inferiority, no more than in the case of the wife to the husband, which would be a contradiction of Galatians 3:28.

1 Corinthians 15:28. “And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son also himself will be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” Paul is speaking of the relation of the Son to the Father (verse 24) which was ever one of subjection (see John 5:30). But subjection does not imply subordination in the sense of inequality (see First Corinthians 14:32, “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets”). The reference in verse 28 may well refer to organizational matters that do not come within the purview of revealed knowledge.

John 17:21. This verse is quoted in an attempt to weaken the force of John 10:30, “I and the Father are one,” about the meaning of which his audience were in no doubt whatever (see verse 33). In 17:21, however, the second “one” is not the best manuscripts (see RV), thus simply, “that they also may be in us.”

Philippians 2:5–9. A fair rendering of this passage might be: “Cultivate this attitude of mind among you, which was in Christ Jesus, who being already in the form of God, did not treat it as a prize to be equal with God, but divested himself, taking the form of a servant.” No one would dispute that when Paul says, Christ was in the “form” of a servant, he means that he was a servant in the truest and fullest meaning of the word. There is no ground for taking the phrase “in the ‘form’ of God” to mean less. Now from the nadir of his humiliation God has re-invested him with the insignia of his ineffable and divine glory, “and has given him the name that is—without exception—above every name.”

Mark 10:18 (“And Jesus said to him. Why callest thou me good; but one is good, God”). “Good” in the phrase “Good Master” meant in the suppliant’s language (Aramaic) “benevolent,” not “morally good”; hence there is no question of Christ denying that he was sinless (see H. L. Strack, P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Vol. I, pp. 808 f., and Vol. II, pp. 24 f.). Moreover “The Good”—Psalm 145:9 was probably cited—was one of the many Judaic titles for God (op. cit., Vol. I., p. 809). The point of our Lord’s remark is that a word with such hallowed association should not be used in a merely conventional manner. He is not stating that God alone is sinless, but that he is the personification of benevolence. To deduce from this an unexpressed contrary: “I am not sinless” or “I am not God,” would be sheer sophistry. Besides, in all interpretation, situation and context, immediate and remote, must be taken into account. Now when Christ comes to disclose (verse 21) the full limit of benevolence (the end of selfish possessing), he demands a response that hitherto had been the prerogative of God alone: “And come, follow Me.” No prophet had ever presumed to say this. Even the great Samuel unshakable in his integrity (1 Sam. 12:3) did not suggest personal discipleship but said: “Turn not aside from following Jehovah” (verse 20). And invariably in the Old Testament “following” in a religious sense has as its object God (Num. 14:24 and passim). The implication is surely undeniable.

Mark 15:34 (Matthew 27:46). This prayer on the Cross (“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”) has been seized upon as a possible refutation of Christ’s claims to deity. We cannot, of course, know all that these words meant for him at that terrible moment, but there are several possible interpretations. First, he was still in communion with his Father, in spite of the past tense of the verb. Second, the meaning of these words to an attentive Jew would be that he was claiming all the Twenty-second Psalm for himself, for it was a common practice to name books and Psalms by their opening words, e.g., Psalm 113 was called the “Hallel,” from the Hebrew word with which it begins. An approximate analogy might be a dying Christian saying only: “Just as I am without one plea”; but his friends would know that the hymn as a whole was in his mind. The third possibility is that he was quoting it with the immediate context in mind, namely, forsaken with regard to present help. The fact that he did not use the Hebrew wording of the original but that of his mother-tongue serves only to bring out the poignant depth of his feeling of desolation.

The main argument of those who deny the deity of Christ seems to rest on a misconception of the full meaning of “Son.” The fallacy consists of arguing from the analogy of human experience, that “son” implies a pre-existing father in time. The truth is, however, that “son” is used widely in both the Old and New Testaments divorced from the idea of “generation” or “priority,” to denote relationship only. For instance in Hebrew, age is expressed by “the son of x years,” and in the New Testament in such expressions as “the sons of disobedience.” It was, in fact, one of the commonest ways of expressing identity. Again the phrase “only-begotten” refers to the uniqueness of Christ’s relationship to the Father. The word is even applied to God himself in John 1:18, where the reading in the most ancient and textually best manuscripts is “God only-begotten” (in Hebrews 11:17 of Isaac, one of several sons, where the stress is on relationship).

No clearer expression of the fact of the Trinity could be desired than that given by the risen Christ in the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, with its inescapable implication of the co-equality and hence co-eternity of the three persons of the Godhead. “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Notice that our Lord said “name,” not “names.” There subsist three co-eternal persons, but the divine essence or substance is one. The model for this formula is probably to be found in the benediction given by the Lord to Moses in Numbers 6:24, “Jehovah bless thee and keep thee, Jehovah cause his face to shine upon thee and be gracious to thee, Jehovah lift up his face upon thee and give thee peace.” And God adds: “That they may put my name upon the people of Israel and I will bless you.” Although there are three blessings there is only one Blesser; thus it is “name,” not “names.”

At the end of Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians he pronounces a benediction in which the three persons of the Trinity are named as partners with co-equal power to bless: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.” The use of all of Christ’s titles is significant: he is not merely Jesus Christ, he is the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 13:14).

Paul again in First Corinthians 12 gives us a passage in which the “trinitarian” pattern is obvious: “Now there are diversities of gifts of grace, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of services, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities but the same God, who is effecting all things in all” (verses 4–6). The mention of the same Spirit, the same Lord, the same God, demands the use of the word “trinity,” or another word meaning the same thing.

In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, within a brief compass he refers to the Trinity no fewer than four times. The first mention describes the trinitarian nature of our approach to God: “For through him [Christ] we both [Jew and Gentile] have access by one Spirit to the Father.” The word for “access” is that used of bringing a subject into the presence of his king, or as we would say, “to have audience of” (Eph. 2:18).

The second reference describes the collaboration of the “Trinity” in our edification (Eph. 2:22): “In whom [Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone, verse 20] you are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.” Again the same pattern: In whom—Christ; to whom—God; through whom—the Spirit.

The third passage is Ephesians 3:14–17, “For this cause I bow my knees to the Father, of whom the whole ‘repatriation’ in heaven and on earth is named. That he would grant unto you according to the riches of his grace, that ye may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may come and take up his abode in your hearts by faith.” Thus for enjoyment of abiding fellowship we have the cooperation of the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Christ.

Again Paul refers to the work of the Trinity in maintaining unification in his Church (Eph. 4:4–6). “One body, and one Spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.” Here we have unity in tri-unity.

In the first chapter of Colossians we have a number of significant statements concerning the person of Christ. In verse 15 we read: “who [the Son] is the image of the invisible God.” “Image” by the common process of extension came to denote not only representation but manifestation. Thus in Second Corinthians 4:4 we find it used in this latter sense: “that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.” But Christ is also: “the first-born of every creature.” The word first-born had long since ceased to be used exclusively in its literal sense, just as prime (from Latin primus—first) with us. The Prime Minister is not the first minister we have had; he is the most pre-eminent. A man in the “prime” of life has long since left the first part of his life behind. Similarly, first-born came to denote not priority in time but pre-eminence in rank. For instance in Psalm 89:27, “I have put him [given him] as first-born, higher than the kings of the earth.” In a given situation even a whole company may rank as first-borns, as in Hebrews 12:23, “and church of the first-born ones, who are enrolled in heaven.” But Paul leaves us in no doubt as to what he means by the word; for he proceeds: “for [because, for this reason] by him were all things created”; and the word Paul uses for “all” means without any exception whatever. Had Christ himself been a created being, Paul would have had to use the Greek word meaning “other things” or the word meaning “remainder, rest.” But then Paul would not have called him first-born but “first-created,” a term never applied to Christ. And verse 17 clinches the whole matter: “And he is before all things,” not “he was.” The force of this statement is equal to that of the “I am” of John 8:58.

Paul on occasions exploits language to its maximal limit to find terms in which to describe the absolute exaltation of Christ. To the believers in Rome he writes: “From whom [the Jewish nation] as concerning the flesh is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever” (Rom. 9:5). When speaking to the Corinthian converts about the Cross as the focal point of their salvation, he goes on to say: “To us there is one God: the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him” (1 Cor. 8:6). To the Ephesians, he asserts: “[He is set] far above all hierarchy, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come” (Eph. 1:21). To the Colossian Christians he says: “In him dwells all the fulness of the deity bodily” (Col. 2:9). Even in his short letter to Titus he must mention it: “Expecting the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and the Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

In the most unlikely places in the New Testament we find the deity of Christ taken for granted. James, his brother, begins his letter with the words: “James, a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” James must have heard our Lord often say, “No servant can serve two masters” (Luke 16:13). But the very title, too, that he gives to Christ, shows that he is placing him equal with God. And if emphasis was needed he provides it in chapter 2:1, “My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, with respect of persons.” For a Jew, glory was an attribute of God alone.

In First John 5:6–9 (as everyone knows, verse 7 is absent from all good manuscripts) there appears again the trinitarian pattern: the witness of the Spirit with the witness of God witnessing concerning his Son. Before John finishes his letter he leaves us in no doubt concerning the person of the Son (verse 20): “And we know that the Son of God is come and has given us understanding that we know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ, this is the true God and eternal life.”

It was evident for the writers in the New Testament, as it should be for us, that Christ could not save if he were not fully divine. The all-sufficiency of his sacrifice depends on his absolute authority. Had he been a created being, he would have been in some sense under compulsion, a victim. It is his possession of absolute free will that removes the stigma of injustice from the Cross. And only of one who had himself absolute immortality could it be said that “he became obedient unto death.”

Among the disciples was one who refused to believe in the resurrection of Christ without tangible proof. For him the witness of others was not sufficient in a matter of such momentous consequence. He demanded nothing less than positive proof within the domain of his own senses. When our Lord appeared to him, He did not rebuke him for his skepticism; rather He readily provided the kind of proof asked for. His confession, in words expressing the ultimate in Christian faith, could not have been a consequence of seeing someone risen from the dead, for he must surely have seen the risen Lazarus. There is no mistaking their intent: “Thomas answered and said to him, ‘My Lord and My God.’ ” And our Lord did not restrain him nor rebuke him; he received this as his rightful designation (John 20:24–29).

The claims of Christ to deity, embedded in the highest ethical teaching known to man, are expressed in irreducible matter-of-fact language. Either he was a fraud, or he was God. There is no middle position.

Paul provides a simple test for the sincerity of our faith. To be able to confess Jesus as Lord, Paul says, we need the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). Ask the one who places Christ any lower than the highest, if he will submit to this test. What is your own response, for this is a condition of salvation?

“Because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9).

Both Jehovah and Christ are said to have the power to give life. Hannah in her “Magnificat” says: “Jehovah is the one who causes to die and the one who makes alive” (1 Sam. 2:6). Eleven times in Psalm 119 alone Jehovah is credited with the power to make alive. In John 5:21 Christ claims to have this power in equal measure with the Father: “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will.” In First Corinthians 15:45, Paul quotes Genesis 2:7, “The first man Adam became a living being,” and adds, “the last Adam a life-giving spirit.” And, perhaps the best-known and most often quoted passage of all, the words of Jesus to Martha: “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live” (John 11:25).

Creator And The Act Of Creation

The Bible opens with the statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” that is, all things.

In Isaiah 40:28, “Jehovah is the eternal God, the creator of the ends of the earth.” Jeremiah calls him “The former [or creator] of all things” (Jer. 10:16). Paul speaks of Christ in similar terms. “For by [or in] him were all things created in the heavens, and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things have been created through him and for him” (Col. 1:16), and John 1:2, “He [the Logos] was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”

Some of the prophecies about Christ make it clear that he is more than man. Isaiah 9:6, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the princedom will be upon his shoulders, and his name will be called Wonderful, Counsellor, mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” No plainer words could be used to express his deity. Again, although often designated as the son of David, this implied more than an earthly descendant of David. The Lord makes this plain by quoting the words of David in Psalm 110:1, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I put thy enemies as thy footstool” (Matt. 22:43, 44). That an angelic Being is not meant is shown by Hebrews 1:13, “But to what angel has he ever said: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies thy footstool.’ ” Peter also quotes this passage in his sermon on the day of Pentecost to prove the Lordship and Messiahship of Jesus (Acts 2:34, 35).

One of the most remarkable things in our Lord’s ministry is the quiet assurance with which he unhesitatingly applies to himself titles from the Old Testament which are there indisputably used of Jehovah. Moreover, the New Testament writers ascribe such titles to Christ.

‘First And Last’

A significant title assumed by the Lord Jesus in the book of Revelation is “First and Last” (chapter 1:17; 2:8; 22:13). In 22:16 the speaker says of himself: “I Jesus have sent my angel to testify unto you of these things,” having already said in verse 13, “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.” Also in chapter 2:8, there is no doubt about the person to whom the words refer: “These things saith the first and last, who died and came to life.” Now this designation “First and last” occurs three times in Isaiah (41:4; 44:6; 48:12) where on each occasion Jehovah is the speaker.

The ‘I Am’

Jehovah, the incorrect but well-established rendering of the Hebrew consonants YHWH, was regarded by the Jews as too sacred to be pronounced and was replaced by a variety of substitutes, such as “Lord” (Adonai), or “The Name.” We can no longer say with certainty how it was pronounced, but from Exodus 3:14 we know that it was derived from the verb “to be”: “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am’; and he said: Say to the people of Israel ‘I am’ has sent you.” Now on more than one occasion our Lord refers to himself by using “I am” in a way that points unmistakably to this Old Testament title of Jehovah. In a controversy with the Jews he declared: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). Had he been merely a pre-existent Being, then he would have had to say “Before Abraham was, I was.” That the amazing implication of his claim did not escape the Jews is clearly shown by the extreme violence of their reaction in attempting to stone him to death for alleged blasphemy. Another occasion on which he used it was at the time of his arrest. To his question to his approaching captors, “Whom seek ye?,” they answered, “Jesus of Nazareth,” to which he replied, “I am.” The effect that this brief utterance had on them was dramatic: “They went backward and fell to the ground” (John 18:5, 6). The mere literal sense of these words could hardly have produced this extraordinary effect. Then again at the crucial stage of his trial, Jesus, being interrogated by the high priest as to his messianic claims, replied, “I am: and you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). The savage vehemence that this called forth in the high priest and the company can be explained only if it was understood by them to be a claim to personal deity, a blasphemy in their eyes of such magnitude as to be expiated only by death.

Author Of Eternal Words

The Old Testament constantly claims to be an authoritative and immutable communication from God. In Isaiah 40:8 we are told: “The grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of our God stands for ever.” To this view of the Old Testament as a divine revelation our Lord unquestionably subscribes. For instance, his words in Matthew 5:18, “For truly I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall not pass away from the Law, until all things are fulfilled.” For his own words he makes a substantially similar claim: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35).

Light

The coming Messiah is designated in two familiar prophecies as “Light” (Isa. 9:2, compare Matt. 4:16; and Isa. 49:6, compare Luke 2:32). Five times in the first chapter of John (verses 4, 5, 7, 8, 9) this description is used. His uniqueness is stressed in verse 9: “The true light.” Our Lord himself said: “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Now light is a well-known title of Jehovah in the Old Testament; for instance, Psalm 27:1, “The Lord is my Light and my salvation,” or even more specifically in Isaiah in a context of messianic prophecies: “Jehovah will be to you an everlasting light” (Isa. 60:19 and 20). Again, following on the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 59:20 we have in 60:1 “light” designating the Messiah, equated with the glory of Jehovah. “Arise, shine [that is, Zion], for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has dawned upon you.” It is instructive to see how John in his introduction to his first epistle uses the very same epithet of God that he had already used in the opening verses of his Gospel of the incarnate Son, who is there the “light that the darkness found invincible” while in First John 1:5, “God is light and in him is no darkness at all.”

Rock

There are two words commonly used in Hebrew for “rock,” as well as the word “stone.” One is used for instance in Psalm 18:2, “Jehovah is my rock,” the other in Psalm 95:1, “O come let us sing to Jehovah, let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.” Paul in First Corinthians 10:4 interprets the “rock” of Exodus 17:6 as referring to Christ. “Stone” is used as a title of God in Genesis 49:24, and in the messianic passage in Isaiah 28:16, “Behold I am laying in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tested stone.” Peter in his first letter (1 Pet. 2:6–8) understands this passage to be speaking of Christ as the foundation stone of the “spiritual house,” the Church. Although the word here is not the one used in Matthew 16:18 (“and upon this rock I will build my church”), the similarity of function is so obvious that Peter must also have had these words in mind. This seems all the more certain from his application two verses later of “rock,” a description of Jehovah taken from Isaiah 8:14, to Christ. On linguistic grounds there could be no objection to seeing in Matthew 16:18 another instance of our Lord’s taking to himself a common Old Testament title of Jehovah.

Bridegroom

The figure of a bridegroom is one that is frequently used either implicitly or explicitly of Jehovah in the Old Testament. In Hosea 2:16, for instance, Jehovah says, “You will call me ‘my husband.’ ” Again in Isaiah 62:5, “As a bridegroom rejoicing over the bride, your God will rejoice over you.” Our Lord early in his ministry and often subsequently depicts himself as a bridegroom. In a reply to the Pharisees, he says concerning himself: “Can the sons of the wedding chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?” (Mark 2:19). Again in the parable of the “Foolish Virgins” he is the bridegroom (Matt. 25:1–13). In that great final beatific vision (Rev. 21:2) the Church is depicted “as a bride adorned for her husband.”

Shepherd

In Psalm 23:1 we read, “Jehovah is my shepherd,” and in Ezekiel 34:15, “I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep.” In John 10:11, our Lord uses this title of himself, “I am the good shepherd, the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” Peter calls him “the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25) and again “the chief Shepherd” (1 Pet. 5:4). The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of him as “the great shepherd” (Heb. 13:20). That the title is unique is clear from John 10:16, “So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.”

Forgiver Of Sins

In the Old Testament, God alone has the right and power to forgive sins: Jeremiah 31:34, “For I [Jehovah] will forgive their wickedness, and their sin will I remember no more.” Or again Psalm 130:4, “For with Thee is forgiveness that Thou shouldest be feared.” In the New Testament we find our Lord claiming this right for himself. In Luke 5:21 we read of the Pharisees protesting that only God could forgive sins. This was to them, as it would be to us, self-evident. To this Christ replied by substantiating his authority to forgive, by healing the paralytic. In Acts 5:31 Peter proclaims Christ as the One whom “God has exalted at His right hand as Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” In Colossians 2:13 Paul speaks of God “having forgiven us all our transgressions,” while in chapter 3:13, it is, “the Lord [or Christ] has forgiven you.” If the right reading here is Lord, it must stand for Christ, as is clear from such a reference as “Christ Jesus the Lord” in chapter 2:6.

Redeemer

The act of redemption is peculiar to God in the Old Testament. Two Hebrew words are in use, and both occur in Hosea 13:14, “From the power of Sheol, I will ransom them, from death I will redeem them.” Again in Psalm 130:7, “For with Jehovah is grace and abundance of ransom and he will ransom Israel from all his iniquities.” A direct parallel to this is found in Titus 2:13 with the difference that now Christ is identified with God (see verse 10): “Our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might ransom us from all iniquity.” A different Greek verb for redemption is found in Galatians 3:13, “Christ has purchased us from the curse of the law.” Again in Revelation 5:9, “For Thou [the Lamb] wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood, men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

Saviour, Or Author Of Salvation

In the Old Testament Jehovah is frequently described as Saviour or as the author of salvation: Isaiah 43:3, “For I am Jehovah, thy God, the holy One of Israel, thy Saviour”: or Ezekiel 34:22, “And I [the Lord Jehovah, verse 20] will save my flock and it will no longer be for booty and I will judge between sheep and sheep, and I will establish over them one shepherd.” The resemblance to John 10:17, 16, is striking: “I [Jesus] lay down my life for the sheep” and “there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” In Isaiah 45:22 a world-wide salvation is promised: “Turn to me and let yourselves be saved, all the ends of the earth,” and a little later (verse 23): “To me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear,” words taken up by Paul in Philippians 2:10, “At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,” and (verse 11) “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” It would be impossible to quote all the passages in the New Testament that refer to the Lord Jesus as Saviour or the author of salvation. He was given the name Jesus expressly: “for he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21); in Hebrews 5:9, “He became unto all those who obey him the author of eternal salvation.” In harmony with all this is the significant parallel between “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” and “our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” by Peter (2 Pet. 1:1, 11).

Co-Partner Of Divine Glory

In Isaiah 42:8 we read: “I am Jehovah and I shall not give my glory to another,” and the phrase is repeated again in Isaiah 48:11. Now in that sacredest of all his prayers recorded in John 17, our Lord speaks of the reciprocal nature of his shared glory with the Father and says: “Father, the hour is come, glorify the Son, that the Son may glorify thee” (verse 1). And again a little later: “And now glorify me, Father, with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (verse 5). Paul sums all this up in an arresting phrase. When he confronts the abjection of His humiliation with the sublimity of His exaltation, the title he uses contains two superlatives. “For had they [the leaders] known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory” (1 Cor. 2:8).

Judge

One of the earliest titles of Jehovah is that of universal judge. Abraham standing before him says: “Shall not the judge of all the earth execute justice?” (Gen. 18:25). And in Joel 3:12 Jehovah says: “I will sit to judge all the nations round about.” Now from Matthew 25:31–46 we learn that Christ will occupy the throne of glory—and there can be none more eminent than this—and preside at the last judgment. Here it is not so much the assumption of a title as the exercising of an office. In Romans 2:3 Paul speaks of the judgment of God, but in Second Timothy 4:1 it is, “Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead.” It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Second Corinthians 5:10 speaks of the judgment seat of Christ.

The belief in the deity of Christ is derived directly from statements concerning him in the Bible. The references are so many and their meaning so plain that Christians of every shade of opinion have always regarded its affirmation as an absolute and indispensable requisite of their faith. It is proclaimed in the very first sermon of the infant Church (Acts 2:36) where Peter, to the loftiest title known to a Jew, adds a loftier still—Lord and Christ (Messiah); while in the last vision of the Book of Revelation the Lamb occupying one throne with God (Rev. 22:3) can betoken only essential oneness.

Christ’s claim to be equal with God underlies his teaching right from the start. The disciples could not long have missed the implication of the change in the very frame of his message from that of the Old Testament prophets, whose familiar introduction, “Thus saith the Lord,” was now replaced by “But I say unto you” (no fewer than nine times in the early part of the Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew, chapter 5).

In content and scope his teaching embraced much that was new about the nature of God. Not only the disciples but also the Jews soon recognized that he was affirming his equality with God (John 5:18). He was beginning to reveal that the “unity” of God involved a true uniting of three “persons” in the Godhead, of whom he was claiming to be one. (“Godhead” simply means “the divine nature”; “head” is an abstract ending, commonly appearing as “hood,” and it was just by chance that “Godhead” became current instead of the equally proper “Godhood.”)

The New Testament writers seem never to have felt the need to systematize the many statements of Christ on his unique relationship to the Father, or to define by way of a logical formulation the basis of their belief in the “Trinity.” For them this doctrine was practical and implicit, rather than theoretic. Not surprisingly, therefore, the word “Trinity” itself never appears in the New Testament. To see in its absence a possible objection to the doctrine would be as illogical as to deny that theological knowledge is to be found in the New Testament since the word “theology” is nowhere used.

It is, moreover, a well-known fact that evidence for the beliefs of a community does not demand the existence of a systematic statement. No one, for instance, would question the belief of certain primitive peoples in polytheism because it lacks orderly expression.

By “trinity” is meant “three in one” and “one in three,” “trinity in unity” and “unity in trinity.” Thus it is not “tri-theism” or “three Gods,” nor is it merely three aspects of God. The word “person” is the word that, by a process of transference, has been adopted to designate the distinctions existing in the Godhead, namely Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is probably the best term at our disposal to denote the possession of such decisive characteristics of personality as intercommunication and fellowship, as ascribed individually to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In numerous passages in the New Testament the “trinitarian” pattern is so clearly defined that one would be compelled to invent some such word as “trinity,” if it did not already exist, to describe the implications of the statements.

It was not until the Gospel had been preached for some three hundred years in New Testament terms that anyone took on himself to assail the belief of Christians in the deity of Christ. The person who did it was Arius. The novel form of his attack shows that Christians had hitherto accepted it without question. His arguments, as formulated by him, were clearly intended as an objection to the prevalent view, not as a correction of a heresy. If the state of affairs had been otherwise, that is, if Christians generally had denied the deity of Christ, then his opposition would have been meaningless. As promotion to a bishopric had been denied him, he has left himself wide open to the suspicion of having been motivated by a desire for personal revenge. He was evidently a man who knew how to exploit secular political influence to the full, and the story of his machinations makes sordid reading. As a consequence of strong political support, a controversy arose out of all proportion to the merits of his arguments. His views were finally shown to be at complete variance with Scripture and were pronounced heretical. Nevertheless, from time to time they have been revived, either deliberately or in ignorance, often peddled from door to door by text-mongers, unaware that the very passages which they have learned to quote so glibly were first used over sixteen hundred years ago by a frustrated “cleric.”

Within the brief compass of this booklet it will not be possible to quote all the passages referring to the deity of Christ and to consider all the ways in which this truth is indicated in Scripture. The reader should, however, find no difficulty in adding to the references given here. In the passages quoted, the original text has been kept constantly under review, and on occasion wording not to be found in any standard translation has been introduced, where it was felt that the meaning of the original could be made more apparent. In the section that immediately follows, the evidence is all the stronger for being of an incidental nature.

A twenty-four page pamphlet published earlier this year in Britain by the North of England Evangelical Trust attracted immediate interest in church circles. For one thing, it presented the case for “The Deity of Christ”—a neglected theme in contemporary Christianity—with biblical reverence and theological power. Even more significant, the treatise was the work not of ordained clergymen or theologians but of two laymen who used their initials, F.F.B. and W.J.M., rather than their full names. But the brief identification left no doubt in informed evangelical circles of the authors: Dr. F. F. Bruce, head of the Department of New Testament Language and Literature in the University of Manchester, and Dr. William J. Martin, head of the Department of Old Testament Languages in the University of Liverpool.

The essay appears simultaneously in CHRISTIANITY TODAY and in His magazine, a publication of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, by special arrangement. Copies of the essay are available in pamphlet form from the North of England Evangelical Trust in Manchester, England.—ED.

I believe … in Jesus Christ who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.…” Thus the Apostles’ Creed affirms a doctrine mentioned by both Matthew and the physician Luke and obviously known to the Apostle Paul. Yet this doctrine of the Virgin Birth has become a stone of stumbling to minds both ancient and modern. Its seeming impossibility has made it the object of numerous attacks, some scholarly, many ignorant. The passages on which the doctrine is based have been alleged to be later insertions into the gospel record and therefore to be deleted or ignored. The Virgin Birth has been dismissed as something borrowed from the pagan myths of the first century. Other persons have simply rejected the thought that a child, even Christ, could be born to a woman apart from a physical relationship with a man. Nevertheless, the doctrine has definite New Testament authority and was incorporated into the creeds of the Church. We are therefore forced to ask some basic questions. Was the Virgin Birth necessary? Is it important for our understanding of Christianity and the person of Christ? What is its significance? If we sacrifice this doctrine, do we lose anything of value?

We observe, first of all, that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ attests the reliability of the Scriptures and the promises of God recorded therein. As Matthew records the announcement to the wondering Joseph that Mary’s child has been conceived by the Holy Ghost, he is careful to point out that prophecy was being fulfilled. “Now all this was done,” he writes, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (1:22, 23). Matthew is referring to the prophecy recorded in Isaiah 7:14. This verse has become the battlefield of controversy, the test of many a version of the Scriptures. When some translator substitutes “young woman” for “virgin,” the cry of heresy is heard. So the translators of the Revised Standard Version have been charged with denying the Virgin Birth of our Lord.

Two Hebrew words can be translated “virgin.” The first, bethulah, can mean only “a virgin pure and unspotted.” The second, almah, can mean “a young woman of marriageable age” or a “virgin.” It is this latter word which Isaiah uses. His word can thus legitimately be translated either “young woman” or “virgin.” Other factors must prove decisive in arriving at the true significance of his prophecy.

Prophecy Twice Fulfilled

Many of the Old Testament prophecies have more than one fulfillment. Whenever a prophecy has two fulfillments, one is generally immediate and partial, the other future and complete. The context of Isaiah 7 shows that the birth of the child whose name was to be “Immanuel” was to be a God-given sign to King Ahaz indicating the imminence of the conquest of the kingdoms by the king of Assyria. This child would obviously have to be born during the lifetime of Ahaz. And this suggests a possible partial fulfillment of the prophecy. A comparison of Isaiah 7:16 and 8:3, 4 shows that the latter reference records the immediate fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. The prophetess bears a son, by “the will of man,” and this son is the promised sign to King Ahaz. If, therefore, we insist that Isaiah 7:14 be translated with “virgin” and never with “young woman,” we find ourselves with two virgin births recorded in Scripture, while we hold that the birth of Christ was unique! By acknowledging that almah can mean either “young woman” or “virgin,” we avoid this inconsistency. But Matthew, faced with the twin meaning of the word, by the inspiration of the Spirit chose “virgin.”

When Matthew selected his word and referred to this ancient prophecy, he was showing that the Virgin Birth had its roots not only in the Messianic hope of Israel but in the unbreakable promise and plan of God. As this Child is conceived in Mary, a young woman who is a virgin, the sure word of prophecy is attested, the authority of the Bible is still further confirmed, and the certainty of God’s promises is proclaimed.

In the next place, the Virgin Birth declares the presence of the supernatural. Biologically and medically, a virgin birth is a sheer impossibility. Equally impossible, however, are the feeding of the five thousand, the raising of Lazarus, and the resurrection of Christ. The Virgin Birth is the first of a long sequence of quite impossible events and miracles recorded for us in the four Gospels.

These miracles are referred to as “signs.” But of what are they signs? Christ himself pointed out their significance: “But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you” (Luke 11:20). The miracles, including the Virgin Birth, are signs to man that God’s kingdom has come to earth, that God has intervened in the world, that an other-worldly power is present, that the supernatural is real. The miracles proclaim that the world of the known, the understandable, the scientifically measurable, has been invaded from beyond by the sovereign finger of God. This divine, supernatural power is not bound by our known principles and laws. The Virgin Birth and the other miracles do not submit themselves for attestation to research and experiment, to test tubes and slide rules.

The Presence Of Mystery

The laws of conception and birth, as we know them, state emphatically that there must be a father. In Mary’s case no father is involved; instead, we are shown the sovereign hand of God working through the Holy Spirit in supernatural power. Here is mystery, and it continues throughout the whole ministry of Jesus. As someone has said, “The presence of mystery is the footprint of the divine.”

Our world naturally finds all this difficult and impossible. “There are no miracles,” man cries, “only problems.” “Dismiss it if it cannot be proved!” demands our scientific society. In this space age, we are in danger of becoming so earth-bound that we evade the possibility of miracles, forgetting the power of God and ignoring the reality of the supernatural. The Virgin Birth forcibly proclaims that the supernatural came to this world with Christ. As we are challenged by the other-worldly life of Christ, so are we challenged initially by his other-worldly birth.

Furthermore, the Virgin Birth is a unique attestation of the person of the Saviour. The redemptive work of Christ depends upon his supernatural birth to the Virgin Mary. When we are asked, “Is the Virgin Birth historically necessary for salvation?,” we must reply affirmatively. This miracle tells us not what we have to do to gain our salvation but what Christ had to become in order to gain our redemption. It tells us that God has intervened on our behalf by a Man, bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh. The Man dying on Calvary for our sins was no angel sent from heaven but a person born as every other child is born, to a woman. Thus in the providence and power of God the one who died as our substitute on the Cross is one who can pay man’s penalty, for he is Man. The writer to the Hebrews expresses the truth in these words, “Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people” (2:17).

The Virgin Birth guarantees for us that this Man, born to a woman but not by the will of man, is the God-Man. Conceived by the Holy Ghost, this Child of Mary’s womb does not stand in the fallen sequence of Adam, sharing mankind’s guilt and sin. He is Man without man’s sin. That this is so is demonstrated by the life he lived in relation to his Father during his sojourn in the flesh upon earth. His sinless life, born from Mary, is revealed in his perfect obedience to his Father’s will. This obedience had a passive aspect. “I can of myself do nothing,” he stated; “as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” (John 5:30). The rebellious willfulness of fallen man was absent from this Man among men. He was in his Father’s hands, and he was content.

There is also a positive aspect of his obedience that again demonstrates his sinless nature. “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (John 4:34). This positive acceptance of his Father’s will led him through the temptation of the desert and the agony of the garden to the consummation of the Cross. “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.… It is finished!” (John 17:4, 19:30). Here is not only an acceptance of God’s will but a perfect obedience to it that reveals the perfect Man. He is born to a woman, as all other men indeed are, but not in the line of sinful man. He stands as a Man in the world but without the rebellion, the arrogance, the pride of Adam’s fallen race.

Accordingly, in this final act of obedience upon the Cross, the sinless Lamb of God, born of a woman, Mary, can offer himself to God and so perfectly pay the price of man’s sin. He is a “lamb without spot or blemish.” Again Hebrews offers a clear statement: “For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself” (7:26, 27).

Finally, the Virgin Birth is the sovereign God’s perfect answer to the problem of how to find a suitable sacrifice for man’s sin. The sacrifice must be man, yet must be free from man’s foul taint. Only in the sinless Son of God, born as a Man in this world by the sovereign act of the Spirit in Mary’s womb, could such a sacrifice be found. As B. B. Warfield has well written, “It is only in relation to the New Testament doctrine of redemption that the necessity of the virgin birth of Jesus comes to its complete manifestation.” The redemptive and saving work of the Saviour depends upon his birth of a virgin by the Spirit of God.

T. Leo Brannon is pastor of the First Methodist Church of Samson, Alabama. He received the B.S. degree from Troy State College and the B.D. from Emory University.

A question frequently heard by astronomers near Christmas is, “What was the Star of Bethlehem?” Everyone who asks this question must believe that there is at least a possibility that the Star can be explained by some known astronomical phenomenon; otherwise the question would not be asked. To answer this question might seem easy: it should be only a matter of looking through ancient records to see if anything unusual appeared in the heavens at the time of the birth of Christ, or of calculating the motions of the celestial bodies for that time to see if any unusual events were taking place in the heavens.

Actually it is not possible to say definitely what was taking place in the skies of the first Christmas simply because we do not know when the birth of Christ took place. This may seem strange since we call this year A.D. 1964, that is, Anno Domini, or the year of our Lord, 1964. But Christ was not born 1964 years ago, and at present we have no way of telling exactly what the year was. At the time of the birth of Christ the Roman calendar was in use in Palestine. This calendar counted the years from the legendary date of the founding of the city of Rome: “ab urbe condita” or A.U.C., that is, “from the founding of the city.” The idea of counting the years from the birth of Christ was not introduced until several centuries later.

Two thousand years ago the Roman calendar used months that kept step with the phases of the moon and were alternately twenty-nine and thirty days in length, while the year was supposed to keep step with the seasons, or the time required for the earth to go once around the sun. In the year 47 B.C. a new calendar was designed by Julius Caesar, and ours was derived from this calendar with a few changes. The Roman calendar had no week; the months were divided roughly into thirds by three days called the Kalends, the Nones, and the Ides, and the other days were numbered backward from these three. The week was not introduced into our calendar until the time of the Emperor Constantine, in A.D. 325. Other important changes in the calendar were made by Augustus a few years after the death of Julius Caesar, by Dionysius Exiguus in A.D. 533, and by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582.

The change most important to us is the one proposed by Dionysius in 533, when he suggested that the years should no longer be counted A.U.C. but should be reckoned from the birth of Christ. Dionysius looked through the records to see which year should be called the year 1, and since we have more records available to us we know now that he made a mistake. Dionysius found a statement by Clement of Alexandria that the birth of Christ took place in the twenty-eighth year of the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus. It was in 726 A.U.C. that Augustus was proclaimed emperor, so Dionysius added twenty-eight years to this date to obtain 754 A.U.C. as the year of the birth of Christ and the year A.D. 1. But Dionysius did not seem to be aware of the fact that Augustus had ruled for some time using his own name of Octavian. After the death of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March in 44 B.C. (according to our calendar), Octavian, his grandnephew, became his heir and in 42 B.C. defeated Brutus and Cassius at Philippi. Octavian also defeated Anthony and Cleopatra in the naval battle at Actium and became the ruler of Rome in 31 B.C. Four years later the senate conferred upon him the title of Augustus. Dionysius should have taken these four years into account but did not, and hence was in error by four years for this reason alone.

What other evidence concerning the date of the birth is available? In the accounts of the life of Christ in the Gospels we find some evidence. In Matthew we find the statement that the birth occurred “in the days of Herod the King.” The historian Josephus states that Herod died a few days after an eclipse of the moon visible from Jericho, and a few days before the feast of the Passover. Since the dates of eclipses and of Passover depend on the motion of the moon, it is possible to determine these dates accurately by calculation. The only lunar eclipse that satisfies the necessary conditions took place on March 13, 4 B.C. The Passover was celebrated on April 12 of that year, so Herod must have died at some time near April 1, 4 B.C., and Christ must have been born before this date, possibly a few years before.

Another clue is found in Luke, where we read of the reason Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem and why Bethlehem was so crowded that “there was no room for them in the inn.” This was because taxes were being collected, and everyone had been ordered to return to his native town or city for this purpose: “all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city.” If we knew just when this tax collection was made we would know the date of the birth of Christ, but unfortunately there is no exact record. No one had any accurate idea until about twenty years ago, when some archaeologists working in Ankara, Turkey, uncovered an inscription giving a list of the years in which orders were issued for tax collections. Three of these are 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14. Others are listed, but none falls between 28 B.C. and A.D. 14 except 8 B.C. Clearly, 28 B.C. is too early and A.D. 14 is too late, so that the tax collection of 8 B.C. appears to be the one with which we are concerned. This seems to indicate that the birth of Christ may have taken place as early as 8 B.C. But we must remember that this was the year in which the orders were issued, and it is easy to see how with the slow travel and poor communications of those days the actual collection of taxes might have been delayed for a year or two in countries like Palestine, near the edge of the Roman empire. Thus the year of the birth may well have been 7 B.C. or even 6 B.C. Most students of the question agree upon these two years as the most likely ones.

A Clue To The Season

We cannot be sure of the exact year of the birth of Christ, and we have but one slender clue as to the season of the year. This is the statement in Luke that there were “shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.” Shepherds do not ordinarily watch their flocks at night except during the spring, the season when the lambs are born; and so it would seem that the birth of Christ may have taken place in the spring. The early Christians celebrated the Nativity on January 6, together with Epiphany and the Baptism. This was very close to the Roman feast of the Saturnalia, which marked the first day of winter, then December 25. Later Christmas or the Nativity was separated from Epiphany and moved back to coincide with and take the place of the pagan festival of the Saturnalia. Although the Saturnalia is often thought of as a period of riotous celebration, it was originally a more sober time of good feeling.

Now that we know the approximate time, let us look for the answer to our question: “What was the Star of Bethlehem?” Many suggestions have been made. One is that the Star was nothing more than an exceptionally bright shooting star or meteor, what is called a fireball or bolide. Sometimes these are bright enough to be seen in full daylight, and when seen in the night sky they are very spectacular objects. The ordinary meteor is a very small object, usually no larger than the head of a pin, that strikes the earth’s atmosphere at such a high speed that the friction with the air heats it up until it shines. In the brief interval of a second or two the particle is entirely consumed, but while this is happening we see the object as a bright star-like point streaking across the sky.

Larger meteors, weighing perhaps hundreds of pounds or several tons, put on a more exciting show, sometimes giving more light than the full moon. While these are rather rare, anyone who lives far from cities and who spends a considerable amount of time out of doors after dark is likely to see several of them in a lifetime. Such an object would not be considered extremely unusual, and it would seem also that the Star of Bethlehem must have been something less ephemeral. So let us search further for some explanation that seems more likely.

Was The Star A Comet?

Comets immediately come to mind, since even today they have a great effect upon the emotions of the superstitious and the ignorant. Comets move in regular orbits around the sun, but these orbits are usually not nearly so circular as those of the planets. The orbits of most comets are long narrow ellipses, with the sun near one end of the ellipse. When a comet is far from the sun, it cannot be seen even with large telescopes; but as it approaches the sun it becomes brighter and may grow a long tail composed of very thin gases and very fine dust. If when the comet comes close to the sun it also comes close to the earth, it will be a very spectacular object in the night sky. Faint comets are not unusual, as many as fourteen having been observed in a single year; but really bright ones are unusual, appearing only a few times each century. No bright comet has been seen in the night sky since the last appearance of Halley’s Comet in 1910. Two other really bright comets have been seen in the night sky during this century, but these were not visible to observers in the northern hemisphere.

Although bright comets are sometimes visible for months or even a few years in great telescopes, they are visible to the unaided eye for a few weeks at most. At these times they can be seen rising and setting like the sun, moon, and stars, slowly changing their positions among the stars from night to night. A spectacular comet attracts so much attention that its appearance was likely to be recorded in many places in ancient times. As an example we may take Halley’s Comet, which appears once every seventy-seven years since it goes around the sun once in that period. Records of every appearance of this comet back to 240 B.C. have been found in Europe, China, or Japan. When we search these same records to see if a bright comet was seen at the time of the birth of Christ, we find that one (Halley’s) was seen in 11 B.C. and another in 4 B.C., with none between these dates. We have already seen that 4 B.C. is too late while 11 B.C. is too early, and may thus dismiss comets as a possible explanation of the Star. We need not consider the possibility that a comet did appear at the right time but was not recorded, because such an apparition was almost universally held to be an evil omen, heralding the coming of war, pestilence, or famine, and never a sign of something good.

Every few years at irregular intervals, a bright nova or “new star” appears suddenly in the sky, and it has often been suggested that such an object might have been the Star of Bethlehem. A nova is really not a new star but a faint star that very suddenly, in a few hours, becomes much brighter. Some sort of explosion takes place; the star blows off its outer layers and may increase its brightness many thousands of times in a day or two. Sometimes these objects become bright enough to be seen in full daylight, only to fade away in a few weeks or months so that telescopes are required to see them. About a dozen novae are discovered somewhere in the universe each year, but few of these are near enough to be seen without telescopes even when at their brightest. There are two classes of novae, ordinary ones that at maximum give off about 25,000 times as much light as the sun, and supernovae, which are 100,000,000 times as luminous as the sun.

If a star at a distance of 100 light years were to become a supernova, it would be brighter than the full moon. Two of these that were close enough to be very conspicuous are recorded: one appeared in 1572 and was bright enough to be seen in full daylight; the other, seen in 1604, was brighter than any object in the night sky except Venus and the moon, and remained visible to the unaided eye for seventeen months. The nova of 1604 was observed by Kepler, one of the greatest of all astronomers, and he was the first to suggest that the Star of Bethlehem might have been such an object. We cannot find any record of the appearance of a nova at any time near the birth of Christ, and we should expect such an event to have been recorded. This does not mean, however, that we must discard this explanation of the Star.

Before we consider another possibility, let us see just what we know about the Star itself. It is mentioned in only one chapter in the Gospels, Matthew 2, where we read:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him; and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

Nowhere else in the Bible is the Star mentioned, and even here the word is used but four times. Few people seem to realize this, and we find many inaccuracies and embellishments in the story as it is told and pictured today. How often do we see in advertisements and on Christmas cards pictures of the shepherds with the Star of Bethlehem in the sky, even though the shepherds never saw the Star. We see pictures of the shepherds and the Wise Men visiting the Christ-child together, although they never did so. Other pictures show the Wise Men worshiping the Child as he lay in the manger, but Matthew distinctly states that they entered a house to visit him. Although the Scriptures do not say how many Wise Men there were, we all are taught that there were three; and somewhere during the centuries names have been supplied for them!

Only The Wise Men Saw

Brief as the mention of the Star is, and despite the fact that no description whatever is given of it, we find an extremely important clue in the lines quoted above: no one but the Wise Men saw the Star. When they told Herod of it he had obviously not seen it or even heard of it, for he “inquired diligently what time the star appeared.” Obviously no spectacular object had been seen in the heavens, for if it had, no one, especially Herod, would have been ignorant of it. The shepherds saw the angel of the Lord but not the Star. Only the Wise Men saw it. We must remember that the word “star” was often used in those days in a somewhat different way and with a broader meaning than the one with which we are familiar today. Then the word was used for almost any object in the sky, whatever its nature, and sometimes even for events in the heavens. Since no one else saw the Star, we must search, not for some spectacular object in the sky visible to everyone, but rather for something that must have been visible to anyone who looked at the sky, but that was thought to be of especial significance only by the Wise Men.

Before doing this we must know more about these men—who they were, where they came from, what they thought and believed. “Wise men from the east” probably means from the part of the world we call Persia. We have another name for these men: the Magi. From this come our words magic and magician, and the Magi were magicians and necromancers. They were priests of Zoroaster and believers in astrology. Today in the scientific world astrology is thoroughly discredited and condemned, and no scientist has any faith in its teachings. Astrology seems to have originated among the ancient Babylonians as an important part of their religion, although few of those who practice astrology today realize that they are practicing an ancient pagan religion. But we must think of things as they were 2,000 years ago to understand the Wise Men.

They believed that the heavenly bodies actually influenced the lives of human beings and had worked out a very complex scheme by which it was supposed that this influence could be determined beforehand. The sky was divided into imaginary regions (the stars themselves have nothing to do with astrology even today) that were supposed to control the various parts of the earth, various races, different parts of the body, and so on. The influence of the regions was supposed to be determined partly by the arrangement within them of the seven ancient planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the sun and the moon. These seven objects move about among the apparently fixed stars, and any unusual arrangement of them was supposed to portend some unusual event. The Wise Men were familiar with the ancient prophecies concerning the coming of a King, whose birth was to be preceded by a sign in the sky. Indeed, this was part of the religion of Zoroaster, and so we would expect the Magi to be watching the heavens for such a sign.

Signs In The Heavens

What events in the heavens of astrological significance were taking place in the years we have chosen as those in which the birth of Christ probably occurred? When Kepler first saw the great nova of 1604, he was watching something else unusual, a close grouping of the planets Mars and Jupiter and Saturn. Jupiter and Saturn are the slowest moving of the planets, Jupiter requiring almost twelve and Saturn nearly thirty years to go once around the sky as they move eastward among the stars. As they follow these motions, ordinarily Jupiter passes Saturn once each twenty years. When one planet passes another they are said to be in conjunction, even though one may be at a considerable distance north or south of the other when they pass. Near the end of 1603 there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, and during the following months Jupiter slowly moved ahead of Saturn. Before the two planets were very far apart Mars passed them both, near the beginning of October, 1604. While the three planets thus stood close together on October 10, 1604, the bright nova mentioned earlier appeared almost in their midst. It must have been a most striking sight, and it set Kepler to thinking about the Star of Bethlehem.

He calculated back to see when this close grouping of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn had taken place before and found that it happens once each 805 years, and that it must have been seen in 6 B.C.! In 6 B.C. the three planets were close together in Pisces, the Fishes, which the ancient astrologers called the House of the Hebrews, since celestial events taking place there were supposed to be of particular importance to the Jews. Also they believed that Saturn ruled over the destinies of the Jews, so that they had two good reasons for believing that this extremely rare grouping of the planets portended some event of extreme importance about to take place among the Jews. Since the Wise Men were watching for a sign of the coming of the King, it is easy to think that they might have accepted this as the sign, and it may well have been this that started them on their journey to Jerusalem. This celestial event was of great significance to the Magi but would have attracted little attention from the casual observer of the heavens.

Other important events had been taking place in the same part of the sky a little earlier. Jupiter and Saturn (and the other planets as well) do not move steadily eastward among the stars but sometimes appear to reverse their motions and go westward for a few months. If this happens at just the right time after Jupiter has passed Saturn, Jupiter will pass Saturn a second time as it reverses its motion, and a third time when it starts forward again, giving three conjunctions in a few months instead of the usual one each twenty years. This happened in Pisces, on May 29, September 29, and December 4 of 7 B.C. Also, in the spring of 6 B.C., after Mars had moved away from Jupiter and Saturn but while they were still fairly close together, Venus passed the two planets, forming another close and unusual grouping visible in the morning sky.

Thus the Wise Men saw several rare and, to them, very significant events taking place in the House of the Hebrews. First, during 7 B.C. the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn that occurs only once each 125 years. Next, the close grouping of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn early in 6 B.C., which occurs only once in 805 years and which must have been an unheard-of event to them. As has been suggested above, this was probably the sign that started them on their long journey which ended in Bethlehem. If so, while they were traveling, the third close grouping of Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn took place. Kepler always believed that another nova had appeared at about the time of the end of the journey; but as we have seen, we have no evidence of this.

Thus we see some possible explanations of the Star that astronomers have to offer: a brilliant meteor or fireball, a comet, a nova or new star, and some unusual groupings of the planets. Of these the last appears to be the most likely. But there is another possibility, or perhaps it would be better to say another point of view. Many of us believe the Star to have been a miracle, and thus utterly incapable of explanation. The important thing is not the explanation of the Star but the Christmas story itself, and the simple truths which it presents. Especially during this period of international tension and apprehension, with its possibility of far more devastating war than ever before, we find the world badly in need of the principles of good will and brotherly love so that peace may be preserved.