Thomas Jefferson was a great admirer of Christ, His life, ideals, and teachings but would not accept that He was the Son of God. He wrote a summary of the four gospels, from which he deleted every miracle, and in fact, every reference to the supernatural. He called it, "The Life and Morals of Jesus Christ." His "gospel" is a curious hodgepodge, consisting principally of the teachings of Christ.

As a result, Jefferson's "gospel" ends with Christ in the tomb. It reads, "Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new sepulcher, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus. And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher and departed."

If one strips Christ of His deity, what is left? Very little. But more than that, the life of Christ, His example, teachings, and everything about Him, if divorced from His deity, presents a constellation of difficult problems. Let’s think about some of these problems in this chapter.

We have in our hands four records describing events in the life of Christ. They portray Him as the Son of God, who invaded humanity as the eternally pre-existent One, and who after His crucifixion arose from the grave, ascended into heaven, and is now seated at the right hand of God's throne. This record is clear and consistent throughout. If we deny the deity of Christ, what do we do with these records?

We could reject the gospels by calling them myths, or at least say that much in them is myth. Some say that Christ never lived. He is a legendary figure, invented by His zealous, fanatical followers with fertile minds and foisted upon a gullible human race.

But the myth theory is neither logical nor defensible, for at least two reasons: (1) A group of men like the disciples could not possibly have invented such an account, complete in all details, with no essential facts lacking. If they could have, they would have been some of the most brilliant geniuses who ever lived. It has been said, it would take a Jesus to forge a Jesus. (2) There is no indication that these were the type of men who would want to invent such a tale. As far as we can see, every motive for dishonesty or fraud is missing.

Rousseau, a pronounced unbeliever, said of the gospel story some 200 years ago: "Shall we say that the gospel story is a work of the imagination? Friend, that is not how one invents. The facts about Socrates, which no one doubts, are not so well attested as those about Jesus Christ. At best, you are only putting the difficulty away from you, without getting rid of it . . . No Jew could have hit upon its tone of morality. The gospel has notes of reality which are so great, so striking, so absolutely inimitable, that their inventor would be a more astonishing person than their Hero."

A second way to reject the gospels would be by mutilating the record, meaning to eliminate whatever we did not want to accept, like Thomas Jefferson did. The problem is that the gospels don’t stand alone; they are intertwined with much of the rest of the Bible. Thus, in order to do this, a person would have to rewrite the entire Bible! You can’t have the gospels ending with Christ in the grave if the apostles in Acts, I Corinthians and many other books speak of His resurrection. Since the Bible comes as a complete package, it needs to be accepted or rejected in its totality.

The four evangelists as well as the rest of the New Testament are crystal clear that Christ was not born of natural generation but contrary to such laws. He was conceived and born of the Holy Spirit.

If we take the crown of deity from Christ's head and reduce Him to the status of a mere man, we must conclude that He was born according to natural generation, just as you and I. Therefore, we must face the conclusion that He was the illegitimate son of an impure woman, fathered by an unknown man, for Joseph obviously was not His father. Either He is the virgin-born son of Mary, conceived by the Holy Spirit and, therefore the Son of God, or He was conceived out of wedlock. The latter is a rather revolting thought and yet one that the objector must face, if he declares Christ to have been merely a man.

The truth of the matter is that the virgin birth is an inseparable part of Christ's humanity. It was predicted by Isaiah 7:14, "The virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name, Immanuel." Matthew 1:23 notes the fulfillment of this prophecy. John states that Christ, the Word, eternally with God, was made flesh, or He embodied Himself for the purpose of dwelling among men (John 1:1, 14). Paul declares in Galatians 4:4 that in the fullness of time, God sent forth His Son, "made of a woman." In Hebrews 10:5, we have the Son speaking to the Father and saying, "A body hast Thou prepared Me." The purpose of this body was to enable the Son to do the Father's will, through the offering up of that body "once for all" (Hebrews 10:10).

To deny the virgin birth of Christ is to not only insult Him but to insult Mary, also. She is portrayed as a pure and virtuous woman, an example of godliness. Further, it is to insult Joseph, who is described as righteous and godly, a man of faith. He took Mary unto himself after discovering her pregnant condition, completely satisfied that conception had taken place by the Holy Spirit.

If Christ was mere man, I must honestly face the numerous claims He made of being the Son of God, claims which He made from the very start of His ministry. Over and over again He asserted that He was the Son of God. The Jews tried to stone Him several times because of these claims. They clearly understood them as being claims to deity.

Then again Christ accepted worship from individuals, worship that belonged to God. When Nathaniel acknowledged Him as "the Son of God," and as "the King of Israel," Christ received it as true (John 1:49-51). He did not object by saying that Nathaniel was assuming too much about Him. When the woman at the well said that "Messiah cometh, Who is called Christ," He replied, "I that speak unto thee am He" (John 4:26). He received worship from the blind man after He had healed him (John 9:36-38), from Mary (John 11:32), from one of the ten lepers He cleansed (Luke 17:11-19).

Efforts to worship angels or godly men were always repulsed. Peter refused to accept worship from Cornelius (Acts 10:25-26). John attempted to worship an angel (Revelation 22:8-9), but the latter refused with the comment, "Worship God." He is the only one deserving of our worship.

Not only did Christ claim to be God but others acclaimed Him to be God. The witness of John the Baptist recorded in John one is that Christ was the "only begotten Son," and the "Lamb of God Who taketh away the sin of the world" as "a man preferred before me, for He was before me." Peter acclaimed Him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Christ commended him for this confession.

How do we deal with these claims? They are so numerous and so clear that we cannot ignore them. What do we say?

But isn't this unreasonable and completely inconsistent with the facts? No logical motive could possibly be assigned for such alleged dishonesty. His claims to deity led to a cross. Also, one must ask, how could such pure morality, such perfect teachings, and such exalted standards and ideals come from such a massively dishonest source? Even an unbeliever who regards Christ as man only would not dare charge Him with dishonesty or deceit.

This is a horrible and revolting conclusion. Here is One Whose emotional stability and mental integrity are beyond question. Not one instance can be cited where He acted irrationally. He was always in control of Himself and of every situation, calm, serene, and stable to the very last moment on the cross.

Nothing adds up if Christ is viewed as mere man. His claims are outlandish. If you reject His claims, then how can you say that He was a good man, a great teacher, a wonderful prophet? He had to be out of touch with reality; He needed to be institutionalized. If that’s the case, where did He get such marvelous truth? How was He such a great benefit to humanity?

The four gospels record thirty-six separate miracles which encompassed every realm — physical, natural, and spiritual. They were distinct, observable miracles. The lame walked. The blind saw. The dead were raised. Lepers were cleansed.

Christ's healings were instantaneous, complete, and final on the spot. Such miracles were sensational; they attracted the people. For that reason Christ was frequently surrounded by great multitudes. His popularity was due in large part to His miracles. In addition to individual miracles, there were a number of instances where multitudes were healed, or we might say mass healings.

What do we do with these miracles? If Christ was a mere man, where did He get this power? If He didn’t really do the miracles, what do we do with the data in the gospels?

Explanations are given in several ways: First, one can simply ignore them or reject them as never having occurred at all, as did Thomas Jefferson. He simply eliminated every reference to the supernatural from his "bible." By this method one accepts what he wants to accept, such as Christ's teachings, His example, His ideals, etc., and rejects everything that does not agree with one’s views.

The problem is that truth is truth whether one rejects it or accepts it. It is strange how some people have the idea that when they reject truth, they have automatically eliminated or nullified it. They say, with an air of superiority, "I reject miracles" and presto, miracles never occurred. Ignoring a problem or mutilating the record are not the best approaches for someone who wants to be honest. To be an impartial investigator, one must face up to the evidence which supports miracles. Otherwise, he is mentally dishonest.

One way to explain miracles away is to ignore the description in the text. We cite two examples of this method: Matt. 9 and Mark 5 record the miracle of raising Jairus' twelve year old daughter from the dead. The record clearly states that she was dead. Upon arrival at Jairus' house, Jesus said to the weeping crowd, "Why make ye this ado and weep? The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth." They laughed Him to scorn, knowing that she was in fact dead. Christ used the softer term, "sleep," instead of "dead" which is associated with the finality of the grave. He used the same language of Lazarus in John 11 even though the latter had been dead for four days.

In his book, Psychology, Religion, and Healing, Dr. Leslie Weatherhead, an English theologian for over twenty-five years, has this explanation (p. 55):

"This case is commonly regarded as a miracle of resurrection . . . It is strange that this should be so, since, although some held the view that the girl was dead, Jesus clearly did not. He does, however, seem to have depended on the phychic atmosphere produced by the faith of others. He turns all doubters and wailers out of the room. He calls to the bedside His three most intimate friends, on whose faith He could count . . . He assures them that the girl is not dead, but asleep. He then energetically calls to her, using a pet name by which she may have been called by her mother - literally, "Get up, my little gazelle"! He then hands her to her mother with the simple words, "Give her something to eat," thus bringing matters down to humdrum, simple doing, so valuable to the nerves of both mother and patient, and keeping the latter from the curious eyes of the crowd outside."

What an amazing explanation! Jairus and his wife, as well as any doctors who had examined the girl, mistakenly pronounced her as dead. The girl had actually only lapsed into a form of unconsciousness, psychic sleep, or a deep coma, from which she could be awakened only by creating a "psychic atmosphere" by the presence of Christ and His three disciples.

We say that this is not an honest or reasonable explanation. It deliberately sidesteps the true meaning of the word "sleep" which Christ clearly used to denote death and which Paul so frequently used in describing the believer's death. This is hardly an explanation which commends itself to a rational, honest mind.

One of the best known miracles is Christ’s feeding of five thousand people with five loaves and two fish. It is the only miracle recorded by all four evangelists. The record is careful to point out that there were 5,000 men, besides women and children for a probable total of 15,000 to 20,000. The unbeliever's explanation is simple. Everyone obviously brought a little lunch along, some more and some less. When they put all of their food together, they were quite surprised at the large quantity they had brought, actually more than enough to satisfy everybody's appetite. And in reality, isn't that what usually happens? One goes to a church picnic and always takes a little extra along. Or one may have an unexpected guest come for dinner, and invariably there is more than enough.

But does this explanation fit the data? The multitude with Christ was hungry. It was evening and the disciples wanted to send the crowd away to buy food in the villages. The record clearly says that they had "nothing" to eat (Mark 6:36). But then, before they left, all the people were "filled" and there were still 12 baskets filled with the left overs.

Some years ago Atlantic City, New Jersey held its centennial dinner in Convention Hall with 6,000 men and women breaking bread in honor of themselves and their city. It required fifteen two-ton trucks to haul in the dinner to the Hall. The 6,000 present consumed 18,000 pounds of chicken, 2,400 quarts of snapper soup, 3,000 grapefruit, 120 pounds of nuts, 120 pounds of mints, and 180 pounds of coffee, a grand total of 22,770 pounds, or an average of three and a half pounds per person.

If we relate the same figures to the crowd which Jesus fed, i.e., if each person ate an average of three pounds of food, it adds up to twenty to thirty tons of food, an enormous quantity. Remember, they were all filled. They could eat no more.

Thus it is hard to explain these miracles away by "overlooking" parts of the text. The story is told of a Sunday School teacher who explained to her little ones, "now children, we know of course that Christ didn't feed them with actual bread and fish. That would have been impossible. What this means is that the people were so filled with the teachings of Christ that they went away completely satisfied." One little tot raised her hand and asked, "Teacher, what then were the twelve baskets full of fragments that the disciples picked up after everybody got filled up"? The embarrassed teacher had not given that any thought.

So what do we do with these miracles? It is clear that Christ performed them. We accept them as true and recognize that they fit Christ’s claims to deity. The large number of miracles He performed and the comprehensive variety are in line with His deity. They satisfy the rational mind that He was indeed God. The absence of miracles would raise the valid question whether He was the Son of God.

An argument often expressed against miracles is that they violate natural laws. We ask, who created or established natural laws? Who put into operation the law of gravity? Who created air so that it consists of twenty percent oxygen and eighty percent nitrogen – as well as a host of other natural laws?

The believer says that in the beginning God created heaven and earth, together with all of these natural laws. If He is the almighty God, the Creator of the universe, is He a prisoner of His own laws? Can't He suspend them, if He wishes, or operate independently of them, or above them? Surely He can, if He is God.

Even as humans, we accomplish tasks which seem to conflict with natural laws. For example, a 375 ton jet plane sits at the airport, anchored as it were, to the ground by its tremendous weight. How can this behemoth be lifted six or seven miles into the skies, above the clouds, in obvious conflict with the law of gravity? The unbelievable power of its enormous engines lift it into the atmosphere and hurl it along at the speed of ten miles a minute. Has the law of gravity been abolished? Of course not. Let the engines fail, and the plane would rapidly succumb to gravity.

If I believe in God, I believe in natural laws, order, and principles, and I also believe that the omnipotent God is supremely above any natural laws. He can suspend them or operate independently of them as He pleases. God and miracles are inseparable. Christ and miracles must go hand in hand.

If I deny the deity of Christ, then the only possible position I can take is that His death was a tragedy, a real disaster of major proportions. "How sad to see the life at this young reformer, this crusader for righteousness so rudely snuffed out at the age of only 33. Think of what He might have been able to accomplish if He had lived out His span of life. But alas, wicked men, whom He so actively resisted, snuffed out His life by nailing Him to the cross. Thus, He died as a martyr, for a great cause. Let us, therefore, go forth in His name, resisting evil and wickedness, correcting wrongs, standing up and dying, if necessary, for the principles of right, justice, and truth."

This would have to be my position if I reject all the supernatural aspects of the death of Christ, the prophecies of the Old Testament, the predictions of Christ regarding His death and resurrection, as well as the testimony of all supernatural events at the cross. But how illogical and inconsistent is such a view with the record of the gospels.

Christ's death was not exemplary. It was substitutionary. The sinner does not need an example. He needs a Savior. Christ died as his Savior. Rejection of the deity of Christ makes His death a conundrum.

If Christ was mere man, then I must assume that He is still in the grave as are other dead men, including prophets, founders of religions, and other great men, for that is the fate of all human beings. I must content myself with saying that Christ's spirit, His influence, His ideals, and His teachings only live on today. Fosdick is quoted as saying, "We yet expect to find the body of Jesus Christ in some Palestinian grave."

The only other view is that Christ really did not die. He swooned and later was brought back into consciousness either by His friends or by reviving in the cool of the tomb. If I take either of the foregoing positions, I can only conclude that the resurrection is a fraud, fabricated and manufactured by Him and by His eleven disciples, who were dishonest men and who, without any perceivable motive, foisted this lie on an alleged gullible world. Both of these views fly into the face of the record and of all common sense. Neither view is defensible.

Acts describes the apostles fearlessly proclaiming Christ as the one Man who died for sin and rose again. Peter standing before the Jewish counsel said, "We cannot but speak of the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20). They preached that the basis for remission of sins was the death and resurrection of Christ. Paul and others went to the ends of the earth to establish churches based on this doctrine of Christ.

In Romans, I find the basic truths of the gospel which center in the person and work of Christ. My conduct as a Christian is set forth in I Corinthians. It is grounded on the fact that Christ died for my sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. In Ephesians, I see Him as the One Who quickens me and raises me from a death of sin. I see Him in Galatians as the all-sufficient One, whose blood completely atones for sin, without the addition of works of any kind on my part. I see Him in Colossians as the preeminent One, the Creator of the universe, the sustainer, the head of the Church. My life is hid in Him. I see Him in Hebrews as the supreme one, superior to angels, Moses, Aaron, my perfect High Priest, Who made one sacrifice for sin forever and is seated at the right hand of God. I find Him in Revelation as the glorified Son of God, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, Who is coming in triumph, banishing the Devil, and setting up His eternal kingdom in which He will reign in power and glory.

Every book pictures Him as the Son of God. If I take the crown of deity from Christ's head, what shall I do with these New Testament epistles? Who is this Christ, Who is so prominent and preeminent in each one, if He is still reposing in some Palestinian grave?

If Christ was mere man, then there can be no born-again experience, for that is based squarely upon His death and resurrection. God has made us alive "together with Christ . . , and hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:5-6). Thus we can say, "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col. 2:27) and "Christ liveth in me" (Galatians 2:20). These statements mean nothing if He is not the risen Son of God.

How could we pray, if our prayers are to be packaged in the authority of His name? We come to the Father through our mediator, Christ. We ask in His name. If Christ is not the Son of God, then all prayer in His name is meaningless and of no effect.

He is our hope of life beyond the grave, of heaven itself. He said, "Because I live, ye shall live also" (John 14:19). Paul said, "If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also who sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him" (I Thessalonians 4:14). But if Christ is not the Son of God and did not rise again, then gospel preaching is vain, faith is vain, and we are still in our sins. We might as well concur with Paul, "What does it profit me if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (I Cor. 15:33). What else would there be to life but to enjoy ourselves to the fullest, for death would end it all.

When we realize that Christ is actually God Himself, all of the other things suddenly "jell." What the apostles taught in all the New Testament epistles fits what Christ claimed in the gospels. What Moses wrote in the Old Testament fits what Christ taught. What the prophets wrote about Messiah was fulfilled in Christ. There is no conflict. The Bible makes sense as it is fulfilled in Christ.

And the bottom line is that what Christ says to us today is also true: "most assuredly I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." Christ promises eternal life to every person who will listen to what He has to say and believe in Him. He can say this, and He can actually supply eternal life to every humble believer because He is GOD!