The Unique Evangelical Narrative: God, Redemption, and Context

Welcome to the Apologetics Guy Show! It's the podcast that helps you find clear answers to tough questions about God, Jesus, and the Bible, and then helps you to better explain your faith with both courage and compassion. I'm Dr. Mikhail Del Rosario, I'm your apologetics guy, and I'm the host of this podcast. I'm also an associate professor of Bible and theology at the Moody Bible Institute right here in downtown Chicago.

Well, today our topic on the show is what makes Jesus different from other gods in the ancient world. What you're about to hear is a way that you can engage with people who might be interested in talking about the facts of history, but maybe aren't too sure about if Jesus is any different from these pagan gods. So, go ahead and put on your historian hats and let's get into today's featured conversation.

My guest on the show today is Michael Bird, and he is coming all the way from Down Under. He's the academic Dean at Ridley College in Australia, and he's the author of this book, a scholarly book called *Jesus Among the Gods*. Welcome to the show, Michael!

Hey Michael, it's great to be with you and all of your audience. I'm so excited to talk with you about this idea, this topic of what makes Jesus different from other gods in the ancient world. I remember, uh, first of all, years ago before the pandemic, we had you on the Table Podcast at Dallas Seminary, and we did a whole apologetics event together. So, I was so excited I got to hang out with you on your birthday if you remember that pre-pandemic, uh, hanging out in Dallas. So, I'm excited to have you on my new independent show here.

Well, before we get started, tell us a story about how you saw the need for this kind of book right now.

Yeah, I mean when people talk about, um, Jesus and God, they usually act as if they know what the word "God" means and they just have to figure out who Jesus is. Uh, I'm gonna go, I think we need to approach that the other way around. We kind of need to say, okay, let's assume we know who Jesus is, you know, as a historical figure, as a subject of, um, Christian thought and faith and devotion. But then do we are we sure we know what the word "God" means? Because the word "God" does mean different things in different religions. You know, the very nature and being of a god differs if you're talking to a Muslim, and even Muslims used a diverse amongst themselves, or to a Hindu or to a Buddhist.

Um, and then if you go into antiquity, it gets even more complex because some would argue in the ancient world divinity was not like, uh, divine stuff. It's not like, you know, cosmic Play-Doh or plasticine. Some would say it's kind of like a spectrum of honor and power, and even humans in their own way can participate in that spectrum of honor and power. Others would say divine is about certain functions. You know, if you can do certain things like create, judge, save people, so it's a functional divinity. Others say, well, divinity's notes, it's about the type of worship you give. So, you can, if someone is worshiped in a certain way, then they can be considered divine.

There was a particular moment for me where I had something of an epiphany. I was in a bookstore in the Pacific Northwest, and I had come across a work by Plutarch. In this book, he was saying that there were two types of worship of the god Apollo: one where he is an immortal God and another one where he's been made a God or deified. He said there were two different worships based on two different ideas of what type of a god Apollo is. I recognized the language he said as explicitly Christian technical language from the 4th Century. I thought this was stuff that we invented, but no, it was part of the landscape of antiquity. I found a few different articles where people were talking about Christology of Hebrews or the Gospel of John using this way. I thought, "Well, which one is Jesus according to the earlier sources according to Paul the Evangelist in the second century?" That's how I kind of got into the topic.

When I found out the question, "What is a God in light of the different ways of thinking about what a God is in antiquity?" I realized it was something that had been very neglected, and it's very important for anything where you talk about a divine Christology. You've got the topic of, "Well, what actually is divine?"

Last year you reminded me of a study that was released by Ligonier Ministries and LifeWay research, the state of Theology. One thing that struck me about that was their study indicated that 43% of American evangelicals agreed with the statement that Jesus was a great teacher but he was not God. That just blows me away. Even though I think we can make a very good case that Jesus was believed to be divine, some scholars will say that he receives worship on what we call cultic worship, that's the mark of being a deity. But then you've got the complicating factor of when sometimes humans get worshiped in certain ways or what about the veneration of angels, and is there a difference between veneration, prostration, and cultic worship? So there's all these different ways of talking about what is a God.

The question of how the early church viewed Jesus as divine is an important one. Many years ago, Bart Ehrman raised the right question: in what sense was Jesus divine? It is clear that Jesus was divine from the beginning, not evolving from a prophet to a Gentile God. The Nicene Creed of 325-381 is the mature statement of Christology, but many Christians don't know the story of how we got there and why we came up with the affirmations and denials. There is a lack of biblical and historical knowledge, and a failure in certain parts of the church to articulate what is at stake when we talk about Jesus as divine.

When Paul preached about Jesus to Gentiles, they may have thought of him as a human being who had been deified. In the Jewish tradition, Elijah was taken up into heaven, and in some literature, they then take on an angelic form, which is a type of deification. Deification can take different forms, such as a Hercules or a Roman Emperor who is declared deified by the Senate. Becoming divine in the same sense as God Almighty is not the same, but one can become a luminous heavenly being with angelic-like qualities.

Jesus was closely identified with God, but not as a post-mortem heavenly authority. Instead, his activity in the world, even on the cross, was to be identified with the very actions of God. Jesus was thought to be still active in the world through the spirit acting upon his followers, and he would still be the agent through whom God the Father put the world to right or executed his final plans and purposes in the consummation of all things.

In polytheistic pagan systems, deities had power over certain parts of nature, but not to the same extent as Adonai, the maker of heaven and Earth. There were some versions of pagan monotheism, such as in ancient Egypt, but even then there were different types of monotheism. For example, some believed that all other deities were just an expression of one supreme divine being.

In the majority of cases, the pagan gods were not removed from the world. Instead, they were the most powerful forces within the world, given a divine quality and often a divine mythology behind them. Zeus could be regarded as the Creator and father of the whole world and humanity, but he himself was created.

The book argues that if one looks at all the different pagan deities and intermediary figures, one can always find some similarities with Jesus. However, there is no smoking gun, no magical kind of connection between the two. Christianity is a religion that has its roots in the Jewish tradition. It has interacted with some aspects of paganism, such as the concept of Logos. This was a well-known religious idea which John applied to Jesus. However, there was no magical intermediary figure or deity that was the progenitor or template for early Christology. This idea can be traced back to the pre-Socratics, who were thinking about what the one cause of the universe was and what the Logos was. John even used NRK and Halagos in his writings, saying "In the beginning was the Word." This was using the same Greco-Roman ideas that people had been contemplating for a long time and connecting Jesus to their culture.

When Paul was preaching in Athens, people wanted to know more about this strange teaching. They may have heard Jesus' claims in different ways. On one hand, there was a tradition of treating royal or messianic figures with heavenly or supernatural qualities, which can be seen in the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, some thought the Messiah was purely a human figure. When the Christians articulated their own messianism, they began to identify Jesus not simply as an agent of God, but with God's own prerogatives, equating him with the divine person.

God the Father and God the Son are brought very closely together in the Bible. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul takes the Shema of Israel, "The Lord our God, the Lord is one," and introduces a Christological twist. He states that they have the Lord, which is Jesus, and the one God, who is God the Father. In the same book, 1 Corinthians, Paul also has a lot more to say about the Holy Spirit. This is an implicit trinitarianism. In Philippians 2, there is an amazing statement that Jesus is in the form of God, equal with God, yet he becomes human and is then exalted to a place that matches the monotheistic rhetoric of Isaiah 45. This is astounding, yet confusing. Jesus has divine form, but is he just like an angel? An angel has a kind of divine luminosity, but is he equal to God?

Jesus takes on a life of humility and servitude, even to the point of crucifixion, and is then exalted and worshiped by all of creation with the same language normally used to worship Yahweh in Isaiah. This is a lot of mental furniture to process. The Christians are drawing this language together in light of their experience of the risen Christ, their exegesis, and the impact of the historical Jesus on his first followers. It is amazing to see the connection between Philippians 2 and Isaiah 45, where the name of Jesus is confessed as Lord, matching up with Yahweh's statement that there is no other God besides Him. Christians are making this connection, and it is not a collapse of persons, but rather the honor, glory, authority, and worship due to Yahweh is now given to Jesus.

It is interesting that some Jews may have believed that there were figures that were divine, not God, but figures like the angel of the Lord, for example, who could forgive sins. In Exodus 23, for example, it says about the angel of the Lord that he will not forgive your sins. This distinction between the angel of the Lord and God can sometimes be somewhat unclear in places in the Hebrew scriptures. Some people think that this might be a reference to Jesus. In Christian tradition, these are often regarded as a Christophany, as an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ.

Now, in order to balance God's transcendence, some Jews wanted to say that God is different than the world; he is not one of the mightiest powers within the world. God is the creator of the world, and to worship anything created is idolatry. They also wanted to say that if God is different from the world, how does God interact and become involved in the world, reveal himself in the world without collapsing himself into it? To do this, they needed something like the angel of the Lord, or for Philo, he had the Logos, which is kind of like a super angel. The Logos is neither uncreated like God, nor is it begotten like a mere creature, so it is an in-between entity. It is neither uncreated nor created; it is in the middle of them. This is why you need some kind of entity like that to mediate between God and the world. In other places, wisdom has that kind of function.

Jesus' answer to the question of whether he was the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One, was a profound Christological statement. He alludes to Daniel 7 and Psalm 110, saying that the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of power, coming on the clouds of heaven. This statement implies that Jesus is the Son of Man who will have an unstoppable Kingdom and will be worshipped by all. This is an important Christological statement because it shows that Jesus is both divine and part of created humanity. The Church Fathers later referred to Jesus as the eternally begotten Son, meaning that he is begotten as a human being but also shares in the unbegottenness of the Father. This is how the two categories of Jesus being both divine and part of created humanity were brought together.

Jesus effectively combines Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:13 to make a staggering claim. In Psalm 110, the Lord said to the Jewish King, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." In Daniel 7:13, there is a figure like the Son of Man who comes to the Ancient of Days and receives glory, dominion, honor, power, and authority. This phenomenon is called being co-enthroned with Yahweh. In the early second century, Rabbi Akovah was asked about Daniel 7:9, which mentions multiple thrones in heaven. Akovah said there was one throne for Yahweh and one throne for the Messiah. This was seen as blasphemous, and Akovah recanted his view. When Jesus said he would be co-enthroned with Yahweh, it was seen as even more blasphemous. This is why Caiaphas tore his clothes and declared it blasphemy.

The early church saw Jesus as part of the interpretive tradition of the Psalms. They saw him as the ultimate eschatological King, the suffering righteous one, the anointed son, and the co-enthroned one in his exaltation. They used Psalm 110:1 as the John 3:16 before John 3:16 existed. They could also go to Psalm 27 or 118 to back it up. Psalm 118:22-23 says, "The stone the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes." This is how they talked about Jesus in light of the Psalms. If we want to understand the preaching and teaching of the early church, we have to get into their Messianic exegesis on the Psalms.

The early church saw Jesus as similar to other cultural ideas of different deities, but also as different. They saw Jesus as the ultimate eschatological King, the suffering righteous one, the anointed son, and the co-enthroned one in his exaltation. They used Psalm 110:1 as the John 3:16 before John 3:16 existed. They could also go to Psalm 27 or 118 to back it up. This is how they talked about Jesus in light of the Psalms. It is important to recognize the connections between Jesus and these cultural ideas, but also to recognize the differences.

In the religious culture of antiquity, Christians were participating in the language of ruler cults by using Psalm 110 to talk about Jesus. In the Jewish world, the Israelite King, the son of David, was an object of cultic concern but not cultic devotion. The way Jesus is worshiped is not the same as the way a Roman Emperor could be worshiped. Apologetics people need to be careful when looking at similarities and differences between Jesus and gods of antiquity. They should focus on both the similarities and differences in order to get a full understanding of the phenomena.

Christian accounts of Jesus are shaped primarily by the Jewish scriptures. For example, the book of Hebrews is written in very good quality Greek, but the main way the early church thought of Jesus as divine was in light of the Jewish scriptures. The number one factor affecting the Christology of Hebrews is the Old Testament, or at least in the Greek translation thereof. We can talk about Greco-Roman rhetoric and Platonic philosophy, but the Evangelical narrative is unique. This narrative tells the story of Israel's deliverer coming from heaven in human form to die on a cross to be exalted and participate in the very goodness of Godness. This narrative is unlike anything, and the Romans recognized this. It was not a religion they thought was either a good idea or wise or interesting, and yet it was the growing religion amongst women, slaves, and children.

This is why it is important to not ignore the cultural components and context in which God acted in history and prepared people for Jesus with these cultural conceptions that connected to the Messiah. We should also not paint all these divine figures with a broad brush and say Jesus is just like Caesar Augustus or Jesus is just like Alexander the Great. We need to take both different categories seriously. All things are similar if you ignore the differences, and this is why it is important to have a good balance.

Otherose got a good little book on comparative religion. Stephen Prothro points out that it is wrong to say all religions are equally the same. This is because it is usually coming up with a liberal Protestant type of bland vaguely monotheistic religion and saying every religion has value if you measure it according to the criteria of this religion. This is incredibly arrogant, colonialist, and Western-centric.

Muhammad was not cool with polytheism and went and destroyed all these idols because he didn't want people worshiping all these different gods. To change all the world religions into one's own conception of religion and spirituality is not as respectful as one may think.

One thing that makes Jesus stand out as unique amongst all these figures is the sum totality of the authority that Jesus claims to have. Unlike prophets or deities who have authority over some areas but not other areas, Jesus has authority in all these different areas like over nature, miracles, demons, sickness, and the sacred calendar. He even got into trouble with the Jewish authorities because of this.

You can directly answer the question in what sense did the earliest Christians believe Jesus was divine by saying they believed Jesus was divine in the sense that Yahweh's revelation of himself in the Messiah entailed that the Messiah was now to be identified with Yahweh's own divine nature. Jesus spoke with a sense of unmediated divine authority, claiming authority in all areas, and claiming himself as a figure greater than David. He also claimed that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to him, and when people met him, they worshipped him. This sense of Jesus commanding divine authority and divine worship was very much present in the gospels before Paul. Ultimately, their view was that Jesus was true God and true man, and it took about 300 years to develop the language to say what they wanted to say and to rule out what needed to be ruled out.

The language of the world that we live in, so if you're talking to someone who's more historically minded, then you need to be able to explain the language of scripture and how it's different from the language of the ancient gods and how it's different from the language of the ancient philosophers and how it's different from the language of the ancient religions and how it's different from the language of the ancient cultures and how it's different from the language of the ancient world.

God speaks to people in the language they can understand. Paul was modifying the Shema to include Jesus in the God of Israel in his identity. This caused some debate, as other groups could also quote scripture to support their views. For example, in the Arian controversy, they could go to Proverbs 8:22, which states that Jesus is like the wisdom and wisdom was created, or they could go to Colossians 1:15, which states that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. To affirm what scripture said, but in a way that could not be twisted by an Arian, the church adopted the language of homoousios, which means of same substance. This language also affirmed the idea that Jesus is equal with God, as found in Philippians 2 and John 5, and that his existence is affirmed in Hebrews 1. The church had to find a way to describe the language of scripture in a way that could not be misinterpreted, so they developed a philosophical language, which included words like homoousios and eternally begotten. This language was derived from scripture and was used to affirm what scripture said.

When talking to someone who is more historically minded, it is important to be able to explain the language of scripture and how it is different from the language of the ancient gods, philosophers, religions, cultures, and world. This will help to ensure that the conversation is not misinterpreted.

The limitations that we have, what is distinctive is that I mean, I mean the Evangelical narrative, you know, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. I mean that that's the importance. So Jesus comes not as an angel to deliver a message, he comes not as an anointed king to win a great battle, he comes not as a wise man, a great man, or a powerful man who's then assumed into heaven as a reward for his virtue, achievements, or piety. He comes to us as human and God; he is truly one of us and truly God, and therefore he can be that mediator. He can be the one who brings Israel's hopes and story to its climax, and in that story, God himself would return to Zion and bring the nations to himself. And then at the end of that, there would be a new creation. I mean, I think that's the big thing. The coming of the God-man is not just the answer to philosophy; it's not just trying to bridge the creation and the Creator divide; it's the climax of Israel's story that God was in the Messiah reconciling the nations to himself, and at the end of that story, at the end of this great renewal will be the new creation. That's what I would take away.

That's awesome. Well, is there anything else you'd like to add to our conversation before we land the plan on this today?

No, I think it's been terrific, and Mikhail, always a pleasure to talk to you and your friends wherever they are from Chicago to Dallas and anywhere in between.

And we thank you for joining us here on the Apologetics Guy Show for our hashtag first Friday. Such a profound thing, isn't it, to see how Jesus is different from these other deities in the ancient world? He isn't just a human agent sent by God; he's more than a man. Christians saw Jesus as divine in the sense that the God of Israel revealed himself in Jesus, and that's why he was included in the very identity of God.

If you like the show, please do help us get the word out by leaving a review on Apple Podcasts, and if you'd like to support the show, please consider leaving a super thanks on YouTube. Thanks again so much for joining us here on the Apologetics Guy Show. It means a lot to me that you'd spend some time with us thinking about these important topics. I'm your apologetics guy, Mikhail, and until next time, keep the faith. Thank you.