Evaluate the view that Jesus’ relationship with God was truly unique
[40]
It could be argued that Jesus’ relationship with God was not truly unique due
to him fulfilling the archetype found in other religious figures in different
religions and cultures. Hick suggests that Jesus was a moral man who was in
touch with God, and his teachings and ideas about looking out for others
rather than just for oneself is seen across many religious figures such as
Muhammed (peace be upon him) or Guru Nanak. Hick would interpret the
incarnation as a metaphorical event and assert that it is Jesus’ awareness of
God which allows him to interpret divine authority, but this relationship is not
truly unique since it has been seen across different religions. However, thinkers
such as CS Lewis would argue that the divine nature of Jesus cannot be
separated from his human nature, and that he must have had a literal
incarnation to thus have a truly unique relationship with God. It would make
more sense for the incarnation to be literal – which is the view accepted by
most Christians today, and although Jesus was certainly in touch with God in
Hick’s view, the events of the incarnation must have been literal for Jesus to
have the authority of God vested in Him and the powers which accompanied
him in teaching others, therefore Jesus’ relationship with God can be said to be
truly unique.
It can be argued that Jesus’ relationship with God was truly unique since Jesus
acted with the authority of God despite being human. There are several
accounts of Jesus performing miracles which no ordinary human should be
able to do, e.g. raising Lazarus from the dead or walking on water. Jesus also
reinterpreted the religious law laid out for humans and acted against it as seen
by him healing on the sabbath and proclaiming that the pragmatic aspect is
more important than blindly and strictly following religious law. The followers
of Jesus took these teachings and adhered to them, which grew into a whole
religion. Such authority over people could not have simply been exerted by
one man without the authority of God, thus Jesus’ relationship with God must
have been truly unique in order to assert authority over people. However, it
could be argued that the authority exerted by Jesus was apparent and not
vested by God. For example, Hume cites that we cannot trust that the miracles
took place since we have no empirical evidence of them taking place, with
thinkers such as NT Wright arguing that the miracles could represent an
underlying teaching or Schillbeeckx who argues that the miracles might be a
[40]
It could be argued that Jesus’ relationship with God was not truly unique due
to him fulfilling the archetype found in other religious figures in different
religions and cultures. Hick suggests that Jesus was a moral man who was in
touch with God, and his teachings and ideas about looking out for others
rather than just for oneself is seen across many religious figures such as
Muhammed (peace be upon him) or Guru Nanak. Hick would interpret the
incarnation as a metaphorical event and assert that it is Jesus’ awareness of
God which allows him to interpret divine authority, but this relationship is not
truly unique since it has been seen across different religions. However, thinkers
such as CS Lewis would argue that the divine nature of Jesus cannot be
separated from his human nature, and that he must have had a literal
incarnation to thus have a truly unique relationship with God. It would make
more sense for the incarnation to be literal – which is the view accepted by
most Christians today, and although Jesus was certainly in touch with God in
Hick’s view, the events of the incarnation must have been literal for Jesus to
have the authority of God vested in Him and the powers which accompanied
him in teaching others, therefore Jesus’ relationship with God can be said to be
truly unique.
It can be argued that Jesus’ relationship with God was truly unique since Jesus
acted with the authority of God despite being human. There are several
accounts of Jesus performing miracles which no ordinary human should be
able to do, e.g. raising Lazarus from the dead or walking on water. Jesus also
reinterpreted the religious law laid out for humans and acted against it as seen
by him healing on the sabbath and proclaiming that the pragmatic aspect is
more important than blindly and strictly following religious law. The followers
of Jesus took these teachings and adhered to them, which grew into a whole
religion. Such authority over people could not have simply been exerted by
one man without the authority of God, thus Jesus’ relationship with God must
have been truly unique in order to assert authority over people. However, it
could be argued that the authority exerted by Jesus was apparent and not
vested by God. For example, Hume cites that we cannot trust that the miracles
took place since we have no empirical evidence of them taking place, with
thinkers such as NT Wright arguing that the miracles could represent an
underlying teaching or Schillbeeckx who argues that the miracles might be a
