Christians believe that Jesus was a human and God. He was somehow a God-man, God “incarnate.” But does this belief make logical sense? If you’d like to delve into some of the major reasons Christians believe that Jesus was both God and human, you might click here. But even if you conclude that this is what the Bible teaches about Jesus, doesn’t it seem a little illogical? In this article, we’re going to look into a couple reasons why people see the deity of Christ as an illogical belief.
Can miracles happen—logically?
At the very least, a God-man means that a miracle had to have happened, notably the virgin birth. But is it logical to believe in miracles? Some scholars will say that, whereas the ancients believed in the possibility of supernatural intervention, our intellect has evolved beyond such superstitious notions.[1] The reasoning goes like this: The Incarnation is a miracle. But miracles are impossible. Thus, the Incarnation is impossible.
Why are miracles said to be impossible? The response will be something like, “Well, if we’re looking at the world through the lens of science, we’ve got to acknowledge that miracles violate scientific laws and therefore shouldn’t be believed by scientifically literate people.” Or, “Well, the evidence for the regular is always greater than the evidence for the rare. And since miracles are rare, it’s wiser not to believe in them.”
But what exactly is a scientific law? It boils down to a description of how the universe usually works. According to these laws which describe what normally happens, virgins don’t conceive, and dead men don’t rise. [Sarcasm alert]: My goodness! If only someone could have told those uneducated, ancient people that virgin births and resurrections go against how the universe usually works! How surprised they would be . . . right?
“But what exactly is a scientific law? It boils down to a description of how the universe usually works.”
Actually, science hasn’t really disproved anything that the early Christians believed; rather, it’s only reinforced what the first Christians already knew: virgins don’t conceive, and dead men don’t rise. That was why these early Christians preached these events so excitedly. Were they anti-science? No, they simply had an extra component in their worldview that allowed for miracles: the existence of God. Interestingly, it’s not just miracles that fit into a God-centered worldview; the scientific enterprise itself fits best into a world created by God, since science presupposes an intelligible universe in which scientific laws can be discovered by intelligent minds.
Are those who reject miracles more scientific? No, they simply delete the existence of a personal God from their worldview. Belief in miracles stems from belief in God, whereas unbelief in miracles stems from unbelief in God. The assumption behind the idea that the deity of Christ is unreasonable because miracles are impossible is simply the assumption that there is no personal God. Yet there is an abundance of evidence that such a God exists.
Isn’t a divine human a contradiction?
It has also been suggested that the deity of Christ is unintelligible.[2] Unintelligible can mean either contradictory or confusing, so let’s look at both possibilities
First, in what ways might a divine Jesus be contradictory? According to Christianity, we start with three Persons who have the God nature (i.e., the “Trinity”). In order to fix humanity’s sin problem while keeping their freedom intact, one of the three Persons is set apart as the Savior. In the womb of a virgin, his God nature is joined together with the mother’s human nature, resulting in a person with two natures.
Is three Persons with one nature a logical contradiction? As in, is there an internal inconsistency in which one fact cancels out another? I don’t see how three Persons with one divine nature is a logical impossibility. What about one Person (God the Son) with two natures—is that a logical contradiction? On the face of it, it doesn’t seem like a logical impossibility to have a single Person with two natures.
“I don’t see how three Persons with one divine nature is a logical impossibility.”
Perhaps practically this is an impossibility? For example, wouldn’t it be a contradiction for Jesus to have both finite knowledge and infinite knowledge at the same time? Or, how could Jesus mature into adulthood and yet be eternal at the same time?
This might seem like a cheesy analogy, but consider the following statement: I am both a husband and not a husband at the same time. Is this a contradiction? Actually, no, because the two statements hinge on the relationship or the sense in which we mean “husband.” I am a husband in relationship to my wife or in the sense of my marriage. I am not a husband in relationship to my brother or in the sense of my career.
So it goes with Jesus. In relationship to His God nature or in the sense of His divinity, He has infinite knowledge and eternality. But in relationship to His human nature or in the sense of His humanity, He has finite knowledge and maturation.
The husband analogy isn’t perfect, because whereas husband is a role, humanity and divinity are said to be Jesus’ nature. Is it possible for both natures to converge in the thoughts and actions of a single person?
Jesus is God the Son: “Is it possible for both natures to converge in the thoughts and actions of a single person?”
It depends on the nature of humanity. If Christianity is true, then God already made humans with a special likeness to Himself, which includes the ability to be rational, moral, and spiritual. Granted, humans have chosen to sin, and our rationality, morality, and spirituality have been damaged. But what is essentially meant to be human is more God-like than meets the eye. Humanity was not created to sin. We can desire what God desires. We can act in accordance with God’s will. It’s not actually impossible that the desires and actions of God could parallel those of humans as we were created to be. Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “new Adam” (see Romans 5:12–17).
True, there is an infinite chasm between the infinite and the finite, between Creator and creation. So, if the two natures were to unite in one person, one would expect to find glimpses of both natures, an interplay of humanity and divinity.
We would expect to find Jesus acting as God and yet submitted to Him. We might expect to find Jesus teaching out of an infinite reservoir and yet learning. It would not be out of bounds for Him to give life to others and yet die Himself. What we should not expect to see is that which turned humans into a ghost of our intended glory—sin. And yet in a grand plot twist, we see a sinless Jesus extract sin from everybody (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Jesus is God the Son: “If the two natures were to unite in one person, one would expect to find glimpses of both natures, an interplay of humanity and divinity.”
But isn’t a divine human confusing?
I suppose it is. Some questions are tough to figure, such as how could Jesus go all His life without sinning, when it’s hard for regular humans to go a day without sinning? It took the church a few centuries to iron out how what it meant for Jesus to be one Person who is both fully human and fully divine.
But when something is confusing, does that mean a person is foolish to believe it? I certainly hope not, because most of what I believe confuses me at some point in the process of understanding. I believe in the existence of music, love, gravity, and email, but I wouldn’t be able to explain them very thoroughly.
When it comes to God, I actually think it would be foolish to assume that God and His ways shouldn’t be confusing to us. If each step of Jesus’ incarnation were broken down for us in a simple 1-2-3, it might very well seem fabricated. This is the nature of God we are dealing with here, the inner workings of His mind. Shouldn’t it be enough for Him to tell us that the miracle happened; do we really need to know how it happened as well?
“I believe in the existence of music, love, gravity, and email, but I wouldn’t be able to explain them very thoroughly.”
By joining the human and divine in Jesus, no contradiction is committed. And only if God was obligated to make the incarnation simpler than, say, photosynthesis, would we have grounds to complain. He’s not, so we shouldn’t. A better response is to allow the deity of Jesus to move us as it moved His disciples: “Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God’” (Matthew 14:33, NIV).
[1] Maurice Wiles, “Christianity without Incarnation?” in The Myth of God, edited by John Hick, 1-10 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977), 4.
[2] Ibid., 5.
