Deity of Christ

Note: Last Updated 7/29/2024.

C. S. Lewis:

     Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world, who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that. you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.

     One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.

(C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, [New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984], pp. 54-55.)

C. S. Lewis:

     Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is “humble and meek” and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.

     I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

…Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. 

(C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, [New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984], pp. 55-56, 56.)

C. S. Lewis:

     The fitness or credibility of the Grand Miracle itself cannot, obviously, be judged by the same standard. And let us admit at once that it is very difficult to find a standard by which it can be judged. If the thing happened, it was the central event in the history of the Earth—the very thing that the whole story has been about. Since it happened only once, it is by Hume’s standards infinitely improbable. But then the whole history of the Earth has also happened only once; is it therefore incredible? Hence the difficulty, which weighs upon Christian and atheist alike, of estimating the probability of the Incarnation. It is like asking whether the existence of Nature herself is intrinsically probable. That is why it is easier to argue, on historical grounds, that the Incarnation actually occurred than to show, on philosophical grounds, the probability of its occurrence. The historical difficulty of giving for the life, sayings and influence of Jesus any explanation that is not harder than the Christian explanation, is very great. The discrepancy between the depth and sanity and (let me add) shrewdness of His moral teaching and the rampant megalomania which must lie behind His theological teaching unless He is indeed God, has never been satisfactorily got over.

(C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, [New York: Collier Books, 1978], pp. 108-109.)

John R. W. Stott:

     The claims are there. They do not in themselves constitute evidence of deity. The claims may have been false. But some explanation of them must be found. We cannot any longer regard Jesus as simply a great teacher if he was completely mistaken in one of the chief subjects of his teaching—himself. There is a certain disturbing “megalomania” about Jesus which many scholars have recognized.

     …Was he then a deliberate impostor? Did he attempt to gain the adherence of men to his views by assuming a divine authority he did not possess? This is very difficult to believe. There is something guileless about Jesus. He hated hypocrisy in others and was transparently sincere himself.

     Was he sincerely mistaken then? Had he a fixed delusion about himself? This possibility has its protagonists, but one suspects that their delusion is greater than his. Jesus does not give the impression of that abnormality, which one expects to find in the deluded. His character appears to support his claims, and it is in this sphere that we must now pursue our investigation.

(John Stott, IVP Classics: Basic Christianity, [Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2007], pp. 42, 43.)

John Stuart Mill: (Atheist)

     Above all, the most valuable part of the effect on the character which Christianity has produced by holding up in a Divine Person a standard of excellence and a model for imitation, is available even to the absolute unbeliever and can never more be lost to humanity. For it is Christ, rather than God, whom Christianity has held up to believers as the pattern of perfection for humanity. It is the God incarnate, more than the God of the Jews or of Nature, who being idealized has taken so great and salutary a hold on the modern mind. And whatever else may be taken away from us by rational criticism, Christ is still left; a unique figure, not more unlike all his precursors than all his followers, even those who had the direct benefit of his personal teaching. It is of no use to say that Christ as exhibited in the Gospels is not historical and that we know not how much of what is admirable has been superadded by the tradition of his followers. The tradition of followers suffices to insert any number of marvels, and may have inserted all the miracles which he is reputed to have wrought. But who among his disciples or among their proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus or of imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee; as certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyncrasies were of a totally different sort; still less the early Christian writers in whom nothing is more evident than that the good which was in them was all derived, as they always professed that it was derived, from the higher source.

(John Stuart Mill, “Theism;” In: John Stuart Mill, Nature, The Utility of Religion, and Theism, [London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1874], pp. 253-254.)

John R. W. Stott:

     There have of course been many pretenders to greatness and to divinity Lunatic asylums are full of deluded people who claim to be Julius Caesar, the Prime Minister, the Emperor of Japan or Jesus Christ. But no one believes them. No one is deceived except themselves. They have no disciples, except perhaps their fellow patients. They fail to convince other people simply because they do not seem to be what they claim to be. Their character does not support their claims.

     Now the Christians conviction about Christ is greatly strengthened by the fact that he does appear to be who he said he was. There is no discrepancy between his words and his deeds. Certainly a very remarkable character would be necessary to authenticate his extravagant claims, but we believe that he displayed just such a character. His character does not prove his claims to be true, but it strongly confirms them. His claims were exclusive. His character was unique. 

(John Stott, IVP Classics: Basic Christianity, [Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2007], pp. 44-45.)

William Henry Griffith Thomas:

     Besides, if Jesus Christ was a product of evolution, how is it that no better man has since appeared, after nineteen centuries? Why should not evolution lead to a still higher type? Yet Jesus Christ continues to tower high above humanity. The acutest examination only confirms the truth of John Stuart Mill’s well-known statement that Christ is “A unique Figure, not more unlike all His predecessors than all His followers.”

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, Christianity is Christ, Fifth Impression, [London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1916], Chapter Two: The Character of Christ, p. 14.)

Cf. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church: Vol. I: Apostolic Christianity, A.D. 1-100: Third Revision, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910], §. 44. The Power of Christianity, pp. 435-436. See also: ccel.org. 

John R. W. Stott:

But whether scaling the dizzy heights of success or plunged into the depths of bitter rejection alone, he is the same Jesus. He is consistent. He has no moods. He does not change.

     Again, the portrait is balanced. There is in him no trace of the crank. He believes ardently in what he teaches, but he is not a fanatic. His doctrine is unpopular, but he is not eccentric. There is as much evidence for his humanity as for his divinity. He gets tired. He needs to sleep and eat and drink like other men. He experiences the human emotions of love and anger, joy and sor row. He is fully human. Yet he is no mere man.

     Above all, he was unselfish. Nothing is more striking than this. Although believing himself to be divine, he did not put on airs or stand on his dignity. He was never pompous. There was no touch of self-importance about Jesus. He was humble.

     It is this paradox which is so baffling, this combination of the self-centeredness of his teaching and the unself-centeredness of his behavior. In thought he put himself first; in deed last. He exhibited both the greatest self-esteem and the greatest self sacrifice. He knew himself to be the Lord of all, but he became their servant. He said he was going to judge the world, but he washed his apostles’ feet.

     Never has anyone given up so much. It is claimed (by him as well as by us) that he renounced the joys of heaven for the sorrows of earth, exchanging an eternal immunity to the approach of sin for painful contact with evil in this world. He was born of a lowly Hebrew mother in a dirty stable in the insignificant vil lage of Bethlehem. He became a refugee baby in Egypt. He was brought up in the obscure hamlet of Nazareth, and toiled at a carpenter’s bench to support his mother and the other children in their home. In due time he became an itinerant preacher, with few possessions, small comforts and no home. He made friends with simple fishermen and publicans. He touched lepers and allowed harlots to touch him. He gave himself away in a ministry of healing, helping, teaching and preaching. 

     He was misunderstood and misrepresented, and became the victim of men’s prejudices and vested interests. He was despised and rejected by his own people, and deserted by his own friends. He gave his back to be flogged, his face to be spat upon, his head to be crowned with thorns, his hands and feet to be nailed to a common Roman gallows. And as the cruel spikes were driven home, he kept praying for his tormentors, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

     Such a man is altogether beyond our reach. He succeeded just where we invariably fail. He had complete self-mastery. He never retaliated. He never grew resentful or irritable. He had such control of himself that, whatever men might think or say or do, he would deny himself and abandon himself to the will of God and the welfare of mankind. “I seek not my own will,” he said, and “I do not seek my own glory.” As Paul wrote, “For Christ did not please himself.”

     This utter disregard of self in the service of God and man is what the Bible calls love. There is no self-interest in love. The essence of love is self-sacrifice. The worst of men is adorned by an occasional flash of such nobility, but the life of Jesus irradiated it with a never-fading incandescent glow.

     Jesus was sinless because he was selfless. Such selflessness is love. And God is love.

(John Stott, IVP Classics: Basic Christianity, [Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2007], pp. 54-56.)

John R. W. Stott:

     This is the paradox of Jesus. His claims sound like the ravings of a lunatic, but he shows no sign of being a fanatic, a neurotic or, still less, a psychotic. On the contrary, he comes before us in the pages of the Gospels as the most balanced and integrated of human beings.

     Consider in particular his humility. His claims for himself are very disturbing because they are so self-centered; yet in his behavior he was clothed with humility. His claims sound proud, but he was humble. I see this paradox at its sharpest when he was with his disciples in the upper room before he died. He said he was their Lord, their teacher and their judge, but he took a towel, got on his hands and knees, and washed their feet like a common slave. Is this not unique in the history of the world? There have been lots of arrogant people, but they have all behaved like it. There have also been humble people, but they have not made great claims for themselves. It is the combination of egocentricity and humility that is so startling—the egocentricity of his teaching and the humility of his behavior.

     Why am I a Christian? Intellectually speaking, it is because of the paradox of Jesus Christ. It is because he who claimed to be his disciples’ Lord humbled himself to be their servant.

(John Stott, Why I Am a Christian, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004], pp. 45-46.)

John R. W. Stott:

     Without doubt the most noteworthy feature of the teaching of Jesus was its quite extraordinary self-centeredness. He was, in fact, constantly talking about himself. True, he spoke much about the kingdom of God, but then added that he had come to inaugurate it. He also spoke about the fatherhood of God, but added that he was the Father’s “Son.”

     In the great “I am” statements, which John records in his Gospel, Jesus claimed to be “the bread of life,” “the light of the world,” “the way, the truth and the life” and “the resurrection and the life.” But elsewhere too he put himself forward as the object of people’s faith. “Come to me” and “Follow me,” he kept saying, promising that if they did come, their burdens would be lifted and their thirst quenched (e.g., Matthew 11:28; John 7:37). More dramatic still were his references to love. He knew and quoted the supreme Old Testament commandment to put God first and love him with all our being. But now he asked his followers to give him their first love, adding that if they loved anybody—even their closest relatives—more than they loved him, they were not worthy of him (e.g., Matthew 10:37-39).

     This prominence of the personal pronoun (“I, I, I—me, me, me”) is very disturbing, especially in one who declared humility to be the preeminent virtue. It also sets Jesus apart from all the other religious leaders of the world. They effaced themselves, pointing away from themselves to the truth they taught; he advanced himself, offering himself to his disciples as the object of their faith, love and obedience. There is no doubt, then, that Jesus believed he was unique, and it is this self-consciousness of Jesus that we need to investigate further. There were three main strands of it, three relationships that he claimed—first to the Old Testament Scriptures, second to the one he called his Father and third to the rest of humankind, including ourselves.

(John Stott, Why I Am a Christian, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004], pp. 35-36.)

Philip Schaff:

     This testimony, if not true, must be downright blasphemy or madness. The former hypothesis cannot stand a moment before the moral purity and dignity of Jesus, revealed in His every word and work, and acknowledged by universal consent. Self-deception in a matter so momentous, and with an intellect in all respects so clear and so sound, is equally out of the question. How could He be an enthusiast or a madman who never lost the even balance of His mind, who sailed serenely over all the troubles and persecutions, a the sun above the clouds, who always returned the wisest answer to tempting questions, who calmly and deliberately predicted His death on the cross, His resurrection on the third day, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the founding of His Church, the destruction of Jerusalem—predictions which have been literally fulfilled? A character so original, so complete, so uniformly consistent, so perfect, so human and yet so high above all human greatness, can be neither a fraud nor a fiction. The poet, as has been well said, would in this case be greater than the hero. It would take more than a Jesus to invent a Jesus.

(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church: Vol. I: Apostolic Christianity, A.D. 1-100: Third Revision, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910], §. 15. The Founder of Christianity, p. 109.) See also: ccel.org. 

Philip Schaff: 

How in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could an imposter—that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man—have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? How could he have conceived and carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificed his own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices of his people and age?

(Philip Schaff, The Person of Christ: The Perfection of His Humanity Viewed as a Proof of His Divinity, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1881], p. 103.)

N. T. Wright:

How can you live with the terrifying thought that the hurricane has become human, that fire has become flesh, that life itself came to life and walked in our midst? Christianity either means that, or it means nothing. It is either the most devastating disclosure of the deepest reality in the world, or it’s a sham, a nonsense, a bit of deceitful play-acting. Most of us, unable to cope with saying either of those things, condemn ourselves to live in the shallow world in between.

(N. T. Wright, For All God’s Worth: True Worship and the Calling of the Church, [Grand Rapids William B. Eerdmans, 1997], p. 1.)

Timothy Keller:

He’s right. I believe you’ll see that in the end you can’t simply like anybody who makes claims like those of Jesus. Either he’s a wicked liar or a crazy person and you should have nothing to do with him, or he is who he says he is and your whole life has to revolve around him and you have to throw everything at his feet and say, “Command me.” Or do you live in that misty “world in between” that Wright says no one can live in with integrity? Do you pray to Jesus when you’re in trouble, and otherwise mostly ignore him because you get busy? Either Jesus can’t hear you because he’s not who he says he is—or if he is who he says he is, he must become the still point of your turning world, the center around which your entire life revolves.

(Timothy Keller, King’s Cross: The Story of the World in the Life of Jesus, [New York: Dutton, 2011], p. 45.)

Note: See further: Deity of Christ in the Early Church.

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria