One of the most misunderstood teachings believed in by the Iglesia Ni Cristo is about the true state of being of Christ. To us, the Lord Jesus Christ is a man (Acts 2:36, 22). People who are not familiar with what we believe about him would react negatively and would easily, without hesitation, classify us as antichrists, even without giving us the chance and opportunity to explain why we believe so. Some have even gone to the point of accusing us that we belittle or denigrate the Lord Jesus Christ because of what we believe about Him.
However, those who gave themselves the chance to ask the reason why the Iglesia Ni Cristo believes such doctrine eventually became members and were strong advocates of the scriptural teaching that Christ is not God. Upon learning the biblical answers to their questions, it became apparent to them that the Iglesia Ni Cristo is correct in believing that Christ is not God.
I made a survey of converts who were formerly Catholics and Protestants when I was assigned in the local congregation of San Francisco, California in 1988. Nine out of ten respondents told me that one of the major doctrines which convinced them to change their religion is the teaching about the true nature of Christ. Although they found it hard to believe that Christ is not God, however, through the biblical evidence that were presented to them by the ministers of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, they were ultimately convinced that their prior belief in Christ was clearly mistaken.
The frequently asked questions are: “why don’t you believe in the Trinity? Why do you believe that Christ is a man?”
The answers to these questions is from Christ himself, as it is written in the book of John wherein it is stated:
40 I am a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God, but you are trying to kill me. Abraham did nothing like that ((John 8:40, NCV).
After we read from the Bible the testimony of Christ about himself that he is a man, many were surprised with this revelation. It was a shocking surprise to some when they learned what Christ taught about himself. They were unaware that Christ introduced himself as a man!
It comes as a surprise since they were told from their early childhood that Christ is God. In fact, Catholics learned about this during their catechism classes and Protestants learned it during their Sunday schools. They did not know that the Bible does not say anything about the so-called divinity of Christ. They were simply told that he is God. It was during the time that they came to the bible study that they learned about Ignatius, a Catholic bishop of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.), was the first one to introduce this unbiblical teaching. Later on, the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. made it as an article of faith – that Jesus is truly God (Apostle’s Creed, p. 206).
However, the apostles who succeeded the Lord Jesus Christ continued to teach the doctrine that Christ is a man. We quote below the genuine apostolic teachings about Christ’s true nature:
“People of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus from Nazareth was a very special man. God clearly showed this to you by the miracles, wonders, and signs he did through Jesus. You all know this because it happened right here among you” (Acts 2:22 NCV).
“For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus” (1st Timothy 2:5 NLT).
Apostle Peter says that Jesus is a very special man. Apostle Paul teaches that Christ is a man. They both learned this truth from Christ who said that he is a man.
The statements of the two apostles run contrary to what the Council of Nicea had formulated about Christ. The creed which was ratified in the fourth century states that Christ is true God from true God. You could notice the direct contrast between the apostolic teaching and the Nicene Creed. The apostles said that Christ is a man, not an ordinary man, but a very special man. Apostle Paul taught that Christ is the one Mediator between God and man, and He is truly human. On the other hand, the creed says that Christ is God from God, true God from true God.
It should be clear to everyone interested in this subject that Christ never said that he is God. If he were God, he could have said so when he was still here on earth. However, not only that he did not issue such statement, but he emphatically proclaimed that he is a man telling the truth which he heard from God. So there is a God from whom he heard the truth. Why would he say that he heard it from God if he were that same God?
So, why is Christ not God? It is because the Bible says that God is not a man and man is not God. God’s nature is different from that of man. God is a spirit, a being without flesh and bones. Christ, being a man, has flesh and bones. Take note of his pronouncements about God and about himself in his own words:
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24 KJV).
“Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39).
Christ testified that God is a Spirit while he has flesh and bones. Therefore, since Christ is not a spirit, he is not God.
As presented in the Bible, God, is enormously different from Christ. The pronouncement in Numbers 23:19 is a stark contrast to the pronouncement of Christ in John 9:35-37.
“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind” (Numbers 23:19 ESV).
35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36 He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” 37 Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you” (John 9:35-37 ESV).
God is not man nor a son of man. Jesus said that he is a son of man, therefore, Jesus is not God.
To counter this argument, Catholic and Protestant apologists would cite the so-called Incarnation of God. Incarnation is a concept that is supposed to mean that God took a human form in the person of Jesus and is intimately connected with the Trinity doctrine. While the doctrine of the Trinity postulates that in one God there are three distinct, divine persons in one godhead – or three beings sharing one nature, on the other hand, the doctrine of incarnation reverses the order by saying that that there are two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ, a doctrine technically called as THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. It is important to understand the formulation of this doctrine since it became the foundation of the Trinity doctrine.
Formulation of the concept
Two of the earliest leading proponents of the so-called incarnation of God were Tertullian (c. 169-230) and Origen (c. 185-254), considered as Church Fathers by the Catholic Church. Their ideas were highly considered when the doctrine of the hypostatic union was formulated into a creed in Chalcedon in 451.
Tertullian, in his work On the Flesh of Christ, says, “Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God ... this property of the two states – the divine and the human – is distinctly asserted with equal truth of both natures alike ... The powers of the Spirit proved Him to be God, His sufferings attested the flesh of man” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 525).
Origen, in his De Principiis, writes, “Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things – ‘For by Him were all things made’ - He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 240).
Both Tertullian and Origen claimed that Christ had dual nature - He is both man and God. This position had made a significant contribution to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. It can be recalled that it was the Council of Nicea that declared that Jesus Christ is “true God and true man, true God from true God, begotten, not made.” Although unbiblical and incomprehensible, the belief that a true God would come from another God was favored by the more than 250 bishops, was formulated into a creed, and is now believed to be divinely inspired!
In the absence of clear and explicit biblical evidence, such a confounding and absurd doctrine had to rely on faulty inferences. Biblical verses were stretched in the attempt to prove that Jesus is both God and man. In spite of hundreds of years trying to refine it, the incongruity and incoherence still persist, with no lucid and explicit biblical pronouncements to back up the claim.
A complete absurdity
In the light of the Scriptures, one can clearly see the implausibility and the palpable absurdity of the position. The doctrine of Incarnation could not be proven as biblical because it contradicts the teachings of the Bible concerning the attributes of the true God. The Bible teaches that God is immutable, meaning He does not change. Take note of two biblical pronouncements which support this doctrine.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God (Psalms 90:2).
I am the Lord, and I do not change; and you, children of Jacob, have not perished (Malachi 3:6 CEB).
Even in the New Testament, the apostles continued to uphold the doctrine that God is unchanging or He remains the same in the letter of James. He testified that:
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning (James 1:17).
So, if Jesus is not God, who is the only one true God? Jesus didactically and emphatically taught about this while uttering his prayer:
“ ... 'Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your Son, so that the Son may give glory to you ... And eternal life means to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent’” (Jn. 17:1, 3, TEV) (emphasis mine).
Jesus taught through his prayer that the Father is the “only” true God. If there is only one true God and He is the Father, then the Trinity doctrine is nullified by this teaching of Christ. Jesus is not a Trinitarian. He never taught that there are three persons in one God.
The Bible records several instances of Jesus praying to the Father, showing to his disciples that like them, he is a man who needs help from God. The Apostle Paul testified, thus:
“In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety” (Hebrews 5:7 NASB).
If it were true that Jesus is both God and man, then his prayer would be nothing less than superficial. It would appear that he was praying to himself, which is truly an inconsistency. And why would Jesus, if he were the same God as the One to whom he was praying, pray to himself? The truth is, Jesus’ prayer is an expression of His dependence on the one God who can save him from death.
The doctrine of the hypostatic union is a matter of prejudice and manifestly absurd because it creates a distorted view about Jesus. Like a jigsaw puzzle whose missing parts could not be found, the arbitrary and convoluted ideas presented to defend it are nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. Its assumptions are inconsistent with the true knowledge about Jesus as presented in the Bible. Take for instance the case when at one point, Jesus acknowledged that:
“But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Mk. 13:32, Ibid.).
Clearly, Christ is telling us he is not omniscient. Unlike God, Christ does not know the exact day and the hour of his Second Coming. And since Christ is not omniscient, then it appears that if he were God, he could only be so in an inferior and subordinate sense, a clear and gross inconsistency with the alleged equality between the Father and the Son. The verse clearly points to the supremacy of the Father as the Omniscient and the only true God since He alone knows the day and the hour of His Son’s coming.
If it were true that Jesus was God while he was still here on earth and an omnipotent one, how could we reconcile such claim to Christ’s admission in John 14:28 that “... My Father is greater than I”?
Such teaching is consistent with Paul's teaching that “. . . Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ” (1st Corinthians 11:3, TEV). Why would Paul issue such a statement if it were true that [the] God who is supreme over Christ is Jesus himself in a form of a man on earth? Such an inconsistency has left us with no option at all but to treat the doctrine of hypostatic union as a riddle devoid of a solution.
Pushed to the limits, hypostatic union defenders argue that the statement issued by Jesus while he was still on earth should not be construed as utterances by God since they contend that whatever Jesus said or did on earth, he did it as a man. However, after his resurrection, he allegedly came back to his former nature as God. This is short of saying that as a man, Jesus’ words should not be regarded as true but a statement of someone who had perjured himself.
Should we not give credence to his words because they were uttered by a man who has physically existed on earth? Christ himself confirmed that His words are true. Here's what he said:
But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God” (John 8:40, NASB).
Granting, without conceding, that Christ was speaking as a man, does it make his statements false? Who could dispute his statement that he is a man telling the truth? Everything that Jesus taught his disciples and was documented in the New Testament is the truth which he heard from God. Will God tell him things that are untrue? Jesus never lied. As Peter testified, “He committed no sin, and no one ever heard a lie come from his lips” (1st Peter 2:22, TEV).
After Christ's resurrection, He was mistakenly thought of as a spirit (Lk. 24:36-37). That event would have been an opportunity and a perfect timing for him to expose his true nature. He could have told his disciples the magic words that hypostatic union believers would love to hear; what really what they think he was; that, although he was covered with flesh, he is the same unseen God whom they serve and worship.
However, quite the contrary, what Jesus exposed at that time was the glaring truth that he is different from God. In an unequivocal statement, Christ declared that He is a human being with flesh and bones; not a spirit, therefore, not God (John 4:24). Jesus also told them after His resurrection that “I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God” (John 20:17).
Wouldn’t it be incomprehensible then to accept the position that Christ did not reveal himself yet as God before his resurrection but identified himself as such after he arose from the dead? The statements: “My Father,” “My God,” which were constantly and repeatedly uttered by Jesus while he was still on earth even before his resurrection, reverberated once more after his resurrection.
And once more, at this time that he was talking to Mary, he told her to relay the same message to his brothers: that he was ascending to his God, their God. There was no hint whatsoever that the disciples thought differently, or that Jesus would be ascending to himself!
Incarnation is grossly unbiblical
If we would believe in Jesus the way his early disciples did, we would not be committing serious mistakes fatally committed by those who formulated the doctrine of the hypostatic union in Chalcedon. The “hypostatic union” which was developed without a clear definition of how God could have become man, has so many serious flaws that made it illogical and unacceptable.
Is it true that Christ took another form after His resurrection? No. After His resurrection, Jesus did not change His nature. He was – and is – a man. Apostle Peter, during the day of Pentecost declared:
“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22, NASB).
Apostle Paul, who was called by Jesus when He was already in heaven, testified that, “. . . there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5, King James Version).
Obviously, if Christ had indeed converted to his alleged former state or condition, that is, of being God in heaven, then Paul would have said otherwise that “the Mediator is Christ, who is now God.” Paul, in his letter to the Romans, delineates Christ’s role in heaven:
“... Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.” (Romans 8:34, NASB).
If Jesus Christ were the very God of the universe, then we would not need a Mediator. Christ’s function as a Mediator for his people which he fulfills even now that he is in heaven negates the allegation that Christ exists as God in heaven.
As we move fast forward to the Day of Judgment, when “all things” shall be placed under Christ’s rule, what will the Son do which proves that he is not the Almighty God? The Bible says:
“For the scripture says, 'God put all things under his feet'. It is clear, of course, that the words ‘all things’ do not include God himself, who puts all things under Christ. But when all things have been placed under Christ's rule, then he himself, the Son, will place himself under God, who placed all things under him; and God will rule completely over all” (1st Corinthians 15:27-28, TEV).
Christ’s position before, until, and even after Judgment Day, is that of being subordinate to the Father. And the reason is clear: “The Son will place Himself under God so that God [the Father] will rule completely over all.”
The Bible never alludes to the so-called incarnation of God. After a careful examination and consultation with Scripture, the doctrine of God’s incarnation remains contrary to reason and unbiblical.
Concerning the Son, the Bible portrays Him in no uncertain terms. Instead of teaching that Christ is both God and man while He was still on earth, Apostle Paul testified that he [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature (Heb. 1:3), therefore, a visible image of an unseen God.
To put in a clearer perspective, an image such as a picture, is not the very self or the nature of what it represents. The image and the form or model from where it was derived, are two different entities. Since God is invisible and powerful (John 4:24; Genesis 17:1), His Son [Jesus] represented Him on earth as a tangible proof of His holiness and power (Hebrews 1:3), clearly demonstrated through the miracles, signs and wonders which God [the Father] performed through him (Acts 2:22, TEV). The Son likewise served as man’s way to God, then and now (John 14:6; Hebrews 13:8). Being at the right hand of God in heaven, Christ always lives to make intercession for his servants (Hebrews 10:12; 7:25, NASB).
There is no defense that could be produced to support the inconceivable doctrine that Jesus is both God and man. Without a clear and explicit biblical basis, believers of such teaching have to adopt the philosophies of Tertullian and Origen. Tertullian, the one who started this mess, was a pagan philosopher who embraced Christianity but later on became a heretic. Although he departed from the Catholic Church, his writings are still being used to explain the unbiblical doctrine of Christ’s having two natures which had led Catholics and Protestants to embrace another illogical doctrine which Tertullian termed as Trinity.
To describe it in simple terms, it is in vain to call the Chalcedonian formula and its related doctrine of the Trinity as a mystery; it is an absurdity and a fallacy, therefore, grossly unbiblical and is contrary to the truth.
All scriptural quotations were taken from the New King James Version unless otherwise indicated. (2023)
