[The Age 'Faith' column earlier this month - December 2001]

Title: “More than Just an Angry Revolutionary.”

At this time of the year, many of us will find ourselves singing Christmas carols whose words are so familiar that we may have become either blase or oblivious to their meaning and significance.

For instance, we may sing “He came down to earth from heaven, who is God and Lord of all”, without apprehending the the full significance of these words.

We may sing “Hail the incarnate Deity”, “love incarnate, love divine”, or (in Silent Night) “Son of God, love’s pure light”, without consciously registering that we’re endorsing the doctrine of the unique divinity of Christ as God incarnate (ie, God taking human form and dwelling in our midst).

The term “Son of God” also appeared recently as the title of a three-part BBC documentary on the life of Jesus, screened last month on ABC television, and selling briskly in video form in the lead-up to Christmas.

Curiously, “Son of God” has very little to say on the question of whether Jesus was actually the Son of God. In fact, it consistently omits or avoids any reference to any material in the Gospels that would tend to identify Jesus as God’s Son, or God as Jesus’ Father.

For instance, it deals with Jesus’ baptism without mentioning the voice of God from heaven identifying Jesus as His beloved Son. Perhaps not surprisingly, it doesn’t allude to the proundly significant Transfiguration at all — despite the importance given to this illuminating event in all three synoptic Gospels. And in dealing with Christ’s travail in the Garden of Gethsemane, it misses the whole point of the drama by omitting any reference to the Son’s prayer, in which He pleads with His Father to spare Him, before ultimately surrendering to His Father’s will.

In this and many other respects, the Jesus depicted in “Son of God” bears scant resemblance to the Jesus of the Gospels. For example, during his trial, the Jesus of the Gospels declared to Pontius Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my followers would have been fighting to prevent my capture.” (John 18:36).

But “Son of God” paints Jesus as an angry “revolutionary” who set out to “right the wrongs he saw in his society” and to “change the world he lived in”, and who launched an “unarmed campaign” from his “power base” in Capernaum against the powerful priests who controlled the Jewish religion from the Temple in Jerusalem.

Although Christ’s message of justice, mercy, compassion and forgiveness undoubtedly has profound implications for how we live our lives here and now on earth, the above scenario provides a very incomplete, if not totally inaccurate, picture of Jesus’ mission and the nature of His kingdom. At best, it tells only half the story. At worst, it distorts the story almost beyond recognition.

The Jesus of the Gospels came to earth, not to overthrow the Roman occupiers or the Jewish Temple rulers, but to do the will of the Father who sent Him, and to complete the redemptive work the Father had given Him to do (John 4:34). And this work, this mission, was primarily to secure eternal life for those who believed in Him (John 6:38-40, John 3:14-17).

At the same time, He was by no means indifferent to the earthly needs and the physical condition of the people He encountered. Two of His better known miracles related to drink and food, while many others involved healing the body. The Jesus of the Gospels healed the sick, delivered the possessed, and raised the dead. But the narrator of “Son of God” says: “There is no evidence that Jesus had the healing touch, but the important thing is that people BELIEVED he could heal them.” One can only wonder on what basis they formed this belief, other than having witnessed Jesus healing people.

And on the resurrection, the narrator says: “There’s no hard evidence that the resurrection happened. But what everybody agrees is that Jesus’ followers must have BELIEVED he had risen. It’s the only way to explain the rise and rise of Christianity.”

This is tantamount to saying, “it was all in their minds”, and this theory just won’t wash. If Jesus hadn’t risen, His followers would certainly have known it, and they would never have been dramatically transformed from defeated cowards into courageous evangelists and fearless martyrs.

In His post-resurrection appearances, Jesus took pains to ensure His disciples clearly understood He was not a ghost, apparition or hallucination (see Luke 24:36-49 and John 20:19-29). It is stretching credulity past breaking point to suggest that a faith which has spread throughout the world and lasted for 20 centuries, often in the face of intense persecution, was based on a falsehood, a hoax, a misunderstanding or a mistake.

The resurrection is important, not only because without it the Christian faith would be futile (I Corinthians 15:14-19), but also because it is a key proof of Christ’s divinity (Romans 1:4). In fact, the entire historical and theological edifice of the Christian faith stands or falls on this foundational issue of Christ’s identity as the unique “Son of God” (see John 1:1-18, Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 2:9, I Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 1:1-3).

This is the message contained in many of the carols we’ll be singing or hearing this season, including the one that says: “Christ by highest heaven adored, Christ the everlasting Lord… Veiled in flesh the Godhead see, Hail the incarnate deity… Hark the herald angels sing, Glory to the newborn King.” (Words by Charles Wesley).

Rowan Forster is a Melbourne journalist and broadcaster.

Related Articles:

• Michael Hardin, The Jesus-Driven Life: Reconnecting Humanity with Jesus
• The Jesus Driven Life
• Paul: ‘inspired’? What does that mean?
• 25 LISTS OF EVERYTHING INTERESTING/IMPORTANT
• Miracles and the Virgin Birth etc.

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.