Why did Jesus have to be fully God? - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

This is largely a case made from logic based on premises, not the Bible. Logic certainly has its uses, but if the premises are faulty the logical case will be faulty. As such, the author is not really teaching the Bible, he's writing about his faulty logical deductions.

When he does finally refer to the Bible and matters of faith he gets a lot wrong. So his clever deductions do not edify, they do not open up the Scripture to us, and they do not explain any tenet that one might incorporate into one's life for the pursuit of holiness, service, worship, generosity, or obedience.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

-------------------------

Yesterday, I said this about the Incarnation:

At the incarnation we see God become man. Jesus Christ, the second person of the trinity, took upon himself human flesh. In doing so, he didn’t cease to be fully God nor did he become something more than man (either a demi-God or a super-human). Jesus became the God-Man; fully human and yet fully God with two separate natures united in one person.

I didn’t spend any time showing where such beliefs come from in the scriptures. (Yes, this is quite true, because the author rarely does this. We've reviewed many of the author's writings in our blog, and there is not a single instance in those writings where he quoted Scripture or even provided a Scripture reference. Not once.

However, in today's article he does quote a few verses. This is the first time we have seen the author do this. However, none of his central claims are documented by those Scriptures.)

I am simply assuming here that you know the scriptures teach these things. What I am more interested in doing here is thinking about why it matters. Yesterday, we considered why Jesus had to be fully human so, today, we will think about why it was necessary for him to be fully God.

To bear the weight of sin

If Jesus was merely human, even if he somehow managed to live a perfect human life as a second Adam, though he might be classed a sinless, spotless representative, he would not be able to bear the full weight of sin. (If Jesus was nothing more than a mere man, then as a sinless man His death might have had some effect on sin. We know the death of an unblemished sacrificial animal in the OT had some effect on sin. How would the unblemished man Jesus be any different? 

Well, it's simply speculation. This something did not happen, that is, Jesus was not a mere man. Therefore, we cannot evaluate the theoretical that He would have been inadequate as a savior.)

As a mere man, Jesus would only be able to pay for sin in the same way as any other human being; namely, finitely. (Jesus did not pay for sin. The Bible nowhere tells us this. Jesus paid for us: 

1Co. 6:20 you were bought at a price. 

 

1Co. 7:23 You were bought at a price... 

 

Ac. 20:28 ...Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

The author makes a fundamental error, upon which he will build his subsequent unbiblical narrative.)

That represents something of a problem when we are faced with the infinite offence of sin (Where does the Bible tell us that sin is an infinite offense? It might, perhaps, but this idea forms an important part of the author's chain of logic. We simply do not accept his characterization absent biblical proof.)

against an infinitely holy God.

For sin to be paid for in full, it had to be paid for in a person with an infinite nature. (Again, where does the Bible say this?)

That is to say, only God himself could take upon himself the full weight of sin and have any hope of being able to say, ‘it is finished!’ For full satisfaction, for the penalty of sin to be paid in full, required an infinite nature. (This is terrible theology. We need to go back to the OT to see the author's error.

First, the "penalty of sin" was paid by the sinner by bringing a sacrificial animal:

Le. 5:5-6 When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned 6 and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Second, as we see, the priest made atonement for the sin. Only the priest could do this.

Third, the priest did this by spilling the blood of the animal on the altar.

Thus we see that the sinner paid for the sin, not the lamb. The sinner provided the lamb but did not make atonement. The priest made atonement but did not pay for sin. And the spilled blood is the agent of forgiveness. 

Because the OT provides a typology of the sacrificial lamb, it is clear that Jesus did not pay for our sin. He is both the Lamb of God and the high priest. His spilled blood washed away our sin. 

He did not pay for our sin.)

If God himself did not take the punishment of sin upon himself, the price could not be paid and our sin would remain unatoned for. (He was not punished for our sin. There is no Bible verse that says this. Check it yourself, dear reader. 

The Bible teaches that Jesus bore our sin: 

He. 9:28 ...so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

1Pe. 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

Both "bear" and "bore" are the Greek word anapheró, which means, (a) I carry up, lead up, (b) I offer up (on a high altar) as a sacrifice, offer up to God on high.

It important that we understand that when Jesus bore our sin it had nothing to do with the Father punishing Him. Jesus bore our sin by carrying this burden, like a bag of garbage taken out, to the altar in heaven where His blood took away our guilt.

The blood is enough, there is no need for the further act of punishment. The Father never punished the Son.)

To be a suitable mediator

1 Tim 2:5 tells us ‘there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.’ Yesterday, we saw how Hebrews demanded a human mediator who is just like us so they could adequately represent us. But that cuts both ways! Whilst we need a mediator acceptable to us, God needs a mediator acceptable to him. Someone who is just like him. The problem is, God says himself in Isaiah 45:5, ‘I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God but me.’ So, the only person who can represent God must, of necessity, be God. It similarly needs someone who can stand before God, acceptable to him, in order to advocate on our behalf (cf. 1 John 2:1). (Ah, our first Scriptures, finally.

While we certainly accept the deity of Jesus, we are not so sure of the author's logic. The Scripture never says that the deity of Jesus is a requirement for Him to be the mediator, or that it is a requirement in order for forgiveness to be effected. 

"Mediator" is mesítēs (a "mediator") intervenes to restore peace between two parties, especially as it fulfills a compact or ratifies a covenant. A mediator, then is simply a go-between who facilitates and agreement, or acts to restore whatever is broken in a relationship. Qualifications or stature are separate matters.

Crucially, the Father did nothing to break the relationship. This means there is only one party who needs mediation, i.e., us sinners. We need the services of the Mediator to restore us to the always-righteous Father.

Jesus does not need to prove His worth to us [or even the Father] in order for Him to be an acceptable mediator. We don't make that evaluation. The Father already did that: 

Mt. 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

The Father's approval, which happened even before the cross and probably comes out eternity, was all that was needed.)

Unless Jesus is God, he can neither advocate for us to God nor can he mediate for God to us.

To reveal God

Jesus says, ‘anyone who has seen me has seen the Father’ (John 14:9). Jesus is the one who makes God known. But just as Paul elsewhere insists that only a person themselves can make themselves known to another (cf. 1 Cor 2:11) (Let's quote it:

1Co. 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no-one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Obviously this Scripture does not tell us about someone's ability to make himself known to others.)

– though in this case he is arguing the Spirit has revealed God to the Apostles (It is true that Paul was describing his ministry to the Corinthian church, but he does not mention the apostles. He refers to "we:"

1Co. 2:6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

That is, Paul and his company came to this church with a Holy Spirit message. He continues in this vein for several verses, then we come to this:

1Co. 2:12-14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: 16 “For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” [Isaiah 40:13] But we have the mind of Christ.

So the truths revealed to Paul are spiritually discerned, i.e., the same Spirit who provided the message is needed to understand the message. Thus there is no special category for spiritual knowledge.)

– Jesus has to be fully God in order to reveal the Father. Paul’s essential point is that we cannot know God without God making himself known to us. If Jesus is not fully God, he cannot fully or meaningfully reveal God to us. If it takes one to know one, then it takes God to reveal God. If Jesus is not fully God, he is unable to fully reveal God to us. But that is precisely what he claims to do.

To not diminish God’s glory

In Isaiah 42:8, the Lord declares: ‘I am the LORD. That is my name, and I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.’ In Psalm 3:8, and repeated in Revelation 7:10, we’re told, ‘Salvation belongs to the Lord’. God will not share his glory with anyone else and salvation is entirely his and belongs to no other. God simply will not let anyone else be involved in the work of salvation lest his glory be diminished and it go to some creature or other. (We don't think the author is characterizing this correctly. We share in His glory because we are co-heirs with Christ: 

Ro. 8:17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs — heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

This of course means that God does indeed allow others to have His glory. The verses cited by the author do not mean God keeps all glory to Himself, but rather, His glory as God and Savior is His alone.)

Of course, Jesus is pretty clearly involved – indeed, central – to the work of salvation. If he is a mere man, there’s quite a lot of glory in the work of salvation that rightly belongs somewhere other than with God alone. (Jesus' status as one of the Trinity is a separate issue from whether or not glory is given in the act of salvation. We actually don't know that salvation requires glory. They are separate, but related ideas.)

Yet, scripture is clear throughout, God will save his people himself. God will work salvation and he will get all the glory for it. If Jesus is only a man, we have a created being stealing the glory that rightly and properly belongs only to God. But if Jesus is fully God, and the Bible says he is, then God is the one who works salvation and all glory remains firmly with him. (This is true, of course. We don't see it as a concept that proves deity, however. 

Moses was used by God to deliver Israel from the Egyptians. Did that mean Moses possessed [or perhaps, appropriated] God's glory? No, God used Moses as a means of saving Israel from slavery. Glory is a matter apart from this.)

This doctrine is so important. It should come as no surprise that every group that has denied the deity of Christ has ended up creating a religion that requires us to play our part in salvation and offers no meaningful hope of salvation. (The matter under discussion is not proving the deity of Christ, it is why salvation needed God the Son and nothing less.)

If Jesus is less than fully God he has necessarily less than paid for all sin and if he has failed to pay for sin there is either no hope for us or everything rests on our making up his deficit (which is just another way of saying there is no hope). if he is not fully God, we have no mediator with God who can advocate for us when we sin. The Christian faith is destroyed if Jesus is not fully God and it is little wonder those who insist it is so soon end up denying all manner of biblical teaching as result. (It seems odd that the author starts with Jesus' credentials as an adequate savior when he more easily could have started with the scriptural case for Jesus' deity, then moved on to the marvelous thing that the God of heaven and earth would send His Son, a part of the Trinity, to die for us. In our opinion, salvation is not a proof deity, the truth of Him being deity is proof of salvation.)