Smith addressed numerous phrases often
used in an attempt to buttress Jesus as having been an incarnated deity, such
as “the word [logos] became flesh”
and “come into the world” p. 39, 136, 137-9, 168-9.
He also analyzed the Synoptic emphasis
on begetting, “the moment he came
into existence” p. 139. This language is frequently accompanied by the reader’s
presupposition, as if the gospel writers intended only Jesus’ human nature came into existence, thus
communicating Jesus is somehow more
than human. He goes on to say,
“the Synoptics call Jesus an anthrōpos a total of eleven times (three
times in Matthew 3; two times in Mark; six times in Luke). What may be
surprising to some is the increased persistence regarding Jesus’ humanity
within the Fourth Gospel, which calls him an anthrōpos fifteen times – more than Matthew, Mark, and Luke
combined!” p. 139.
Irons
was adamant that the
“historic, orthodox interpretation of the birth narratives…is
superior to Smith’s psilanthropic interpretation because it is consistent with
the New Testament’s preexistence-incarnation teaching.”
Irons made the claim
that
“by focusing on the virgin birth, they teach that Jesus is the divine Son
of God who took true human nature into personal union with himself by being
born of the virgin” p. 154.
Apart from being entirely outside the scope of
Synoptic data and relevance, this is also wholly an eisegetical and
anachronistic perspective. The Gospel writers make no such claim.
While
Irons foundationally objected to
Smith’s “methodology” on the grounds of a perceived
reliance on Jewish literature, Irons exemplified somewhat of a double-standard,
being completely dependent on later views forced upon the Jesus narratives, all
the while claiming his paradigm to be derivative from the biblical text.
Smith covered a great deal of Christological
ground in short order, as to the New Testament’s identity of Jesus. He examined
the title “Son of God” within biblical context and use, rather than a Nicene and
ontological one:
“It should come as no surprise that Jesus frequently spoke
about his identity. Within the Gospels, Jesus refers to himself most often as
the Son of Man, the messianic human agent of judgment from Daniel 7:13…No less
than forty times does Jesus address God as ‘My Father.’ As a good Jewish
monotheist who without hesitation affirmed Judaism’s Shema (Mark 12:28-34), Jesus identified the Father as ‘My God’ ten
times (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 20:17; Rev 3:2, 20). Since the Father was
Jesus’ God, he regularly claimed his unreserved subordination to Him by saying
things like ‘the Father is greater than all,’ ‘the Father is greater than I,’
and so forth (John 10:29; 14:28; 20:17” p. 141-142.
The statements made by the Gospel narratives
concerning Jesus’ identity were not taken as stated by Smith’s interlocutor
Irons, but were coupled with an interpretation of Phil 2 and divine self-emptying
(meaning an ontologically divine self) p.148. This interpretation finds its way
into Irons’s perspective of what the Gospel writers intended, i.e. only the human aspect of the divine Son of God.
There are of course multitudinous details that could continue
to be examined regarding this discussion, but it’s high time to close the cover
(I don’t like to keep too many Irons in the fire). In my opinion, while arguing with class and clarity, both
Irons and Dixon failed to provide any conclusive evidence to substantiate their
views (whether historically Orthodox or not), and I failed to be convinced.
Out
of all three essays and subsequent interaction, Smith stuck to the core of biblical
evidence, and I found his premises to be derived from solid historical and
cultural contexts without imposing anachronistic arguments or extraneous issues.
Throughout
the discourse, while a mutual consensus of Jesus’ identity between the three interlocutors
was not reached, nor were there hailed “victors,” the goal of a gentlemanly,
coherent and scholarly dialogue accessible for non-academics most certainly
was.
I
want to commend Lee Irons, Danny Dixon and Dustin Smith for their contributions
resulting in a valuable work that will no doubt become an asset for people in
years to come, as there are those seeking to educate themselves on basic
arguments from multiple sides of this ancient conversation. Upon completing the
last segment of the dialogue, the reader is left with a framework and
comprehensive bibliography to further examine any of the issues discussed.
It
is my hope – as I am sure is also true of the authors – that many individuals
as a result, will do just that. Don’t be afraid, dig in.
- My people are destroyed
for lack of knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment