Christmas: Mystery or Myth?

Peter, as an eyewitness, flatly denies he followed any myth. "We did not follow cleverly invented stories [muvqoi = myths] when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16). Paul forewarned Timothy that some would follow myths rather than the truth. "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine . . . they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths [muvqou]" (2 Tim. 4:3-5). Moreover, Paul insisted that any notion of a fable that was not fact, even if the religious context were Judaism, was to be rejected (cf., Tit. 1:13-14; 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7).

Instead of claiming that Jesus is the "myth" of God incarnate, he claims that Jesus is God's mystery (Col. 2:2). Though Christ is identified with the mystery rather than with God in Colossians 2:2, verse 3 says that Christ is God's mystery because "in him [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Since Paul just affirmed the supremacy of Christ in his creative activity (1:15-20), and he goes on to affirm Christ as the complete embodiment of the divine essence (2:9), the wisdom and knowledge here are most likely divine wisdom and knowledge. In other words, all that is deepest in God is mysteriously summed up in Christ. There were false teachers who were trying to deceive the Colossian believers by claiming they were a better source of esoteric wisdom and knowledge (cf., 2:4, 8, 16, 18). Paul counters, in effect, by saying that Christ is the 'once-hidden-but-now-revealed-God' - the divine secret made known by his bodily presence. True spiritual knowledge lies nowhere else but in Christ who is God's wisdom (cf., 1 Cor. 1:24, 30; Col. 2:8

A mystery is something hidden in the past, but revealed at a latter point (see, e.g., Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Cor. 15:51; Eph. 1:9; 3:3-4, 6, 9; Col. 1:26). Markus Barth says that, "all Ephesian and Colossian verses that contain the noun musthvrion convey the information that it is now 'revealed,' 'known,' 'understood,' and frankly 'spoken out.' In all cases a noetic or cognitive event is mentioned." And, Barth goes on to say that Jesus Christ is "the essence and contents [sic] of the revealed secret (Col. 2:2)."

Nevertheless, what Paul said about Christ in Colossians 2:2 is spelled out more fully in 1 Timothy 3:16. He writes: "beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory" (1 Tim. 3:16). Though Paul's primary concerns for Timothy are pastoral and ecclesiastical, this text does contain explicit incarnational language. Paul just finished saying that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), then he gives Timothy a foundational truth for the church. The context of 1 Tim. 3:16, in conjunction with a series of "trustworthy sayings" Paul gives to Timothy (cf., 1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11), makes it highly probable that 1 Tim. 3:16 is another brick in the church's foundation and should be regarded as another 'trustworthy saying.'

Murray Harris canvasses all the grammatical problems with reading 1 Tim. 3:16 as "God was manifest in the flesh" (so, KJV, NKJV) and concludes "1 Timothy 3:16 is not an instance of the christological use of qeo;"." Instead, it should read "He appeared in a body" (so NIV, NASB, NRSV, NEB). The problem is that there is no explicit antecedent of who or what is being referred to. Harris says "all the ancient versions presuppose the relative pronoun, whether o" or o [masculine or neuter], and the earliest uncial [all capital letters] in the original hand that reads qeo;" . . . dates from the eighth or ninth century." Therefore, the better reading is with the relative masculine pronoun, "he."

However, reading 1 Tim. 3:16 this way is not without its grammatical problems. If the antecedent to the relative pronoun is musthvrion, then there is the problem with concord. The gender of o" is masculine, whereas the gender of musthvrion is neuter. That would make the reading "he appeared in a body" the more difficult reading. Hence, the propensity for scribal correction is greater. However, Harris points out that it is not uncommon for O" to begin a christological hymn or affirmation (e.g., Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3) and, therefore, "the transition from to; th'" eujsebeiva" musthvrion [the mystery of godliness is great] to o" [he] becomes explicable." Hence, textual critics are virtually unanimous in reading o" as original.

Though space will not allow an entire exposition of every line in this text, the first line pertains particularly to the subject of the incarnation. Paul implies the pre-existence of Jesus in 1 Tim. 1:15, and his human descent from David in 2 Tim. 2:8. This hymn (1 Tim. 3:16) is the combination of the heavenly and earthly origins of Jesus of Nazareth. Moreover, humankind is not commonly spoken of as "appearing" or "manifesting in the flesh" (ejfanerwvqh ejn sarkiv), yet the New Testament says repeatedly that Jesus' incarnate life was "revealed" (cf., Jn. 1:14, 31; Col. 2:9; Heb. 9:26; 1 Pt. 1:20; 1 Jn. 1:2; 3:5). Paul is here referring to something or someone that was revealed in the flesh. I. Howard Marshall concludes that, although no subject is expressed (the AV 'God was manifest' follows a late text), the language is based on that used elsewhere to describe how the Son of God was incarnate. The thought is of an epiphany in human form, and the implication is that a divine or heavenly subject is intended. The reference is certainly to the earthly life of Jesus and not to his resurrection appearances.

So, the mystery of God was made manifest in the flesh.

One final note regarding the early attestation of Jesus as God Incarnate. Murray Harris finds seven instances where qeo;" is explicitly used of Jesus of Nazareth as a christological title (Jn. 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pt. 1:1). Hick alleges that this notion of believing Jesus was literally God incarnate is a late rendition. Again, Hick's own words bear clear witness:

We know of him [Jesus] only because others responded to him, with yet others responding to their responses, so that a movement developed which almost inevitably came to regard him as divine in the highly elastic sense in which outstanding religious and political figures were often so regarded in the ancient world. This 'soft' divinity, expressed in the 'son of God' metaphor, eventually developed into the 'hard' metaphysical claim that Jesus was God the Son, second person of a divine Trinity, incarnate.

Of course, this assumes that a certain amount of time must pass before the thinking of Jesus' disciples could mature enough to make such bold claims as 'Jesus is God Incarnate.' But, Harris points out that "it is not the passage of time in itself but dramatic events that effect any deepening or broadening of human thought." As to the historical credibility of Jn. 20:28, a key passage affirming Jesus as God Incarnate, Harris demonstrates that there are references of time and place surrounding the pericope in which Thomas makes the claim, putting the Fourth Gospel in an historically verifiable setting (e.g., Jn. 20:19). Harris says of this incident that, "as it stands, the pericope has so many signs of verisimilitude that its historicity may be confidently assumed, and since the confession in verse 28 is pivotal and climactic in the story it may be reckoned ipsissima verba Thomae."

So, in dating these seven texts in which qeo;" is explicitly used of Jesus of Nazareth, Harris suggests the following chronological order: Jn. 20:28 (30 or 33 a.d.); Rom. 9:5 (ca. 57); Tit. 2:13 (ca. 63); 2 Pt. 1:1 (ca. 65); Heb. 1:8 (60s); Jn. 1:1; 18 (90s). If these dates are accurate, "the Christian use of qeo;" as a title for Jesus began immediately after the resurrection."53 Though mystery may be involved, the reality of Jesus as God Incarnate was well established in earliest Christian thought.

Hick's charges, then, that the deity of Jesus was a late development in the Christian Church can be dropped with good historical and grammatical reasons. There may have been some development in conceptualizing and formulating what originally came to pass in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. After all, interpretation does occur after the interpreted. The amount of time, though, between Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection, and the recording of those events, could not be sufficient to fabricate a myth or a legend. Even Hick's dating of the New Testament demonstrates this.

Though there were various human interpretations of Jesus' person and works, what is recorded in the New Testament coincides with the substantive events and sayings of Jesus. If Jesus' actual words were not preserved, one can be reasonably sure that the 'gist' of Jesus' teachings was preserved and responsibly written down under divine inspiration. The result is that what the New Testament authors say when citing Jesus, Jesus himself says, and what Jesus himself says, God says.

HT: Teaching Minds, Changing Hearts