A Continuing Look at Hebrews

A Bit About the Creator

In this post, I am continuing on from a previous one where I began discussing the prologue of the book of Hebrews. 

In Acts 4, Peter and John were presenting their case. They were speaking about this “Jesus” and what they had “seen and heard.” In 4.24 “they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, ‘O Lord, it is You who made the Heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them.”
The creation of the world was unquestioningly accredited to Israel’s ancestral deity, Yahweh, as their Scriptures attested: Exod 20, Deut 4.32; Psalm 146; 148.1–6; Isa 42.5; 44.24; 45.11–12; Neh 9, Job 38.1–41; Matt 19.4. In this story, they quote “David” (who they call their father) from Psalm 2, who they credit as being the servant of Yahweh (the context of Psalm 2 shows Yahweh and the anointed, messiah): “Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your [the same God, Yahweh they attribute with the creation of the world] servant [someone different, who did not create the world], said, 'why did the gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things? 'The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the LORD [Yahweh, the creator] and against his [Yahweh, creator] Christ [not Yahweh or creator]’” Acts 4.25-26.

They continue praying to God, the Father (Jesus himself taught them to pray in this manner, Matt 6.9) as verse 24 presents and the contexts of Exodus, Nehemiah, and Psalms bear out, “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your [God, Yahweh, the creator] holy servant Jesus [someone different, not God, Yahweh the creator], whom You [Yahweh] anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel” Acts 4.27.

Jesus is clearly portrayed (Matt 27.46; Mark 15.34 from Psalm 22; John 20.17; Rev 3.12;) as having called Yahweh his Father and God. If I am processing this correctly, the disciples pray to God, called the Father (who is Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible– Deut 32.6; Jer 31.9, Isa 63.16, 64.8, Mal 2.10) and to whom they credit the creation of the world. They call David his servant, and then Jesus, as the one anointed by Yahweh.

A similar episode is found in Acts 17 where Paul spoke to the Stoic Philosophers in Athens. Paul declared to them that “the God who made the world [kosmos] and all things in it” (vs. 24) desires all to repent, because this God “has fixed a day in which he [the God] will judge the world in righteousness through a man [someone other than the God] whom he [the God] has appointed” and provided “proof to all men by raising him [someone other than the God] from the dead” (vs. 31). 

Paul did not say that the one raised was the creator of all (as John 1 and Hebrews 1 are often interpreted to say), or that Jesus was this “God.” Quite the opposite, he said that this man has been appointed to judge in righteousness and was raised from the dead by this “God,” as a testimony of that choice.

If Jesus was being communicated as the second member of the Trinity, then why wasn’t he given proper credit for the creation of the world (according to traditional John 1; Col 1; Heb 1 interpretation) in this text? It was the God, called Father who was instead credited with the material creative role. They were not praying to Jesus and certainly not to the spirit as a separate entity. What should a proper Trinitarian response be to these apparently confused disciples?

 Back to Hebrews 1, here is another thought that grabbed my attention. As a member of the human race, I am prone to reflect upon my own mortality. When reaching the phrase regarding those “who are about to inherit salvation” (v. 14), it reminded me of the larger NT theme of God’s restorative eschatology. It drew my attention back to how the writer began the chapter, “in these last days.” In the use of the word eschaton, the writer refers to the time but emphasizes the means by which God is communicating. Perhaps the author believes that these “last days” may continue for any length of time. The point is that God has now spoken through a son, in a way similar to what had been done through the prophets.

The whole point I saw being communicated was that as Christians, we have hope. This chapter seems set to that tune. The old saying goes, “hope is hearing the music of the future, and faith is dancing to it today.” The world is a mess and things are bad, but through this son, God has revealed more of the cosmic plan of remediation and justice than had been revealed before. 

The author of Hebrews continues to develop these themes throughout the book, and as we immerse ourselves in the message, it places our hope on the one for whom we wait. While today and tomorrow may not signify the end, that is not ultimately what matters. What matters is that he has been seated at the right hand of God and at the proper moment, the tide will turn and justice will be the order of the day. I like N. T. Wright’s exclamation in his book Surprised by Scripture, “Jesus is coming – plant a tree.”

A Look at Hebrews

The prologue of Hebrews begins by recalling how God had spoken in times past to Israel’s ancestors. God was still speaking, but now God had spoken through a perfect representative. The idea of God using agency seems to be continued here with the contrast between speaking by the prophets in ancient times to speaking by a son in these days.

There are several themes that grabbed my attention as I read through the chapter. The first is the author’s quotation from the Hebrew Bible (HB) in almost every verse. This says something to me; if the author wanted to draw his reader’s attention to a theme of the HB and intended them to gain insight, perhaps I too can gain insight in these ancient contexts when applied in a new way.

The writer cites the HB authoritatively, as in v. 6; “he says.” The writer quotes the LLX of Deut 32:43 and seems to use the “he” in reference to God. Interestingly, this is part of Moses’ speech and not God directly speaking. This writer takes the words of Moses with divine authority, as though they have come from God. Now, God has spoken through a son, divine speech through agency.

In this citation, the writer makes reference to “firstborn.” In the HB, firstborn is a matter of status, position, rank and eventually power, authority, and inheritance. It is not a term that demands a chronological order of any kind. This is a unique (Heb. yachid) son. Such ideas are reflected in Genesis among the patriarchs. There are the examples of Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Ephraim etc., none of which were chronologically first but yet took the preeminence of “firstborn.”

Another thing I noticed is “aiōnas” (world, age, universe) has often been translated as though it corresponds to material ontology. We live in a post-modern world that takes the enlightenment for granted. Therefore, our epistemology is governed by scientific parameters and our ontology is generally material oriented. This is even the case when reading Genesis. When interacting with a text of origins, it’s natural for us to bring our assumptions regarding material ontology to the text as though it shares the same ideals. We are more prone to read ontological creation into a text rather than a functional one (for more on this see John Walton's "The Lost World of Genesis One"). I am not sure that material ontology makes the best sense of the writer’s point regarding Jesus’ relationship to the “eon.” If this did speak of the creation of material ontology, with Jesus as the creator, it would put the writer in a conundrum.

The Hebrew Bible – which is cited authoritatively – would be blatantly contradicted. The reader would have to assume Jesus was “something else” and not human. I would have to assume that he existed before he was born. Does the writer of Hebrews actually start with these parameters? If I were a Jew living in the first century, the God I would be worshipping is the Israelite ancestral deity, Yahweh, the God of the HB. I would have no inclination toward tritheism, but rather would be aware of exalted and idealized human figures. If the writer is indicating that Jesus is ontologically identical with Yahweh, it creates a host of hermeneutical problems and flat out contradictions. If the writer desires to identify Jesus with Yahweh, Israel’s God, that is another matter. His sonship is closer in proximity than any before, he has been the first who was resurrected, he has been given a “name,” he acts as Yahweh does, he carries out divine prerogatives. If I am to assume that Jesus is ontologically identical with Yahweh, and he, through the incarnation, is paradoxically having a human experience, it seems to minimize the strong rhetorical value of his argument with the comparisons of Jesus to the angels, Moses, etc. 

If Jesus is fully God for the writer of Hebrews, then why is it necessary to say he is better than the angels? Wouldn’t that be stating the obvious? Or, as will be encountered later in 3:3, Jesus is “deserving of more merit,” “worthy of more glory” than Moses. If the writer is trying to convey that Jesus just is the mighty God of Israel rather than the anointed agent, priest, prophet, servant, son and savior, why does he feel the need to say that Jesus is deserving of more merit than Moses? It reminds me of the book of Acts. I’ll get to that in the next post.

Let’s Be On Our Way – John 14:25-31

“For it is not right that a worshipper of God should be injured by another worshipper of God.”

–Lactantius[1]

            Historically, it is no secret that diverse Christianities have had difficulties dwelling together peacefully. Strife among God’s people can be traced almost anywhere, anytime to anything imaginable under heaven.

C. S. Lewis famously remarked that the quickest way to a desired destination – if a wrong turn has been taken – is to get back to the right road. The individual making an about-turn first, though seemingly counter-productive, is the most progressive.[2]

Doctrinal dissension has arguably proven to be divisive and destructive throughout the history of the Church.[3] This text is a prime example of such a battleground. It is a theological lithosphere of christological, pneumatological and ultimately Trinitarian layers which shifted[4] early and shook Christianity to its core for centuries.[5] Not only is there what some see as a proto-Trinitarian formation,[6] there is also an unavoidable subordinationist Christology present.[7]

As it happened, to argue that Jesus was equal in divine majesty to God the Father required “considerable literary ingenuity”[8] to explain these texts. The result was a widened rift between the subordinationists and those in favor of the Nicene Creed. Gregory of Nyssa described, 

“If in this city you ask anyone for change, he will discuss with you whether the Son is begotten or unbegotten. If you ask about the quality of bread, you will receive the answer that, ‘the Father is greater, the Son is less.’ If you suggest that a bath is desirable, you will be told that ‘there was nothing before the Son was created.’”[9]

Having personally been involved in unavoidable, chaotic feuds merely for being open-minded theologically, I am more convinced than ever that relating to our brothers and sisters in Christ with peaceful and humane dialogue is the only way forward. One’s conviction on any given text is never grounds to degrade or deride a perceived theological opponent or, in consideration of Church history, use violence. “Loving one another,”[10] as so frequently and plainly taught within the Johannine corpus, should never be annexed for that which is speculative, and the subject of constant debate.

Regardless of one’s Christology, Jesus – as God’s executive agent and revealer[11] – has given a supreme example of perfect peace.[12]  Though conflict came to him, 

“Christ did not become what men were; he became what they were meant to be, and what they too, through accepting him, actually became.”[13]

Before actually leaving, Jesus prayed: “[that] they may be one, as we are one” (John 17:22 NRS). Believers in Jesus have the hope that he will indeed return, 

“He is the promise, but the Father is the fulfillment. What Jesus says here about his own death applies also to the death of individual Christians.”[14] 

Until that time, we have the responsibility of emulating his example to love each other, even if our theological, doctrinal or political views don’t always mesh. By grasping onto the theme of the Prince of Peace we can bring the shalom[15] of the age to come into our present, one selfless action at a time. Let’s make an about-turn and get-on. “Let us go from here.” Let’s keep conversing, but be of the same mind and in the same love through humility while we do.[16]

---

[1] A Treatise on the Anger of God, 13.99 (ANF 7.271).

[2] C. S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity,” The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York, NY.: Harper One, 1952, 2002) 33.

[3] Swartley seems to imply that some are not as prone toward provocations of this nature: “Even among Mennonites, historically considered sectarian, one finds both high christology adhered to be some and a considerably lower christology adhered to by others.” Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 296 (fn. 48).

[4] Hans Küng, Christianity : Essence, History, and Future (New York, NY.: Continuum Publishing Co, 1996), 170-71.

[5] See Professor of Conflict Resolution Richard Rubenstein’s excellent book, When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over Christ’s Divinity in the Last Days of Rome (Orlando, FL.: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1999), 7-8.

[6] George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary: John, vol. 36 (Dallas, TX.: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 261; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2003), 2:976.

[7] C. K. Barrett, “The Father is Great Than I,” Essays on John (London, SPCK, 1982), 19-36; Karl-Josef Kuschel, Born Before All Time? : The Dispute Over Christ’s Origin, trans. John Bowden (New York, NY.: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992), 388.

[8] Charles Freeman, A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, of the Monotheistic State (New York, NY.: Overlook Press, 2009), 60.

[9] Joseph H. Lynch, Early Christianity: A Brief History (New York, NY.: Oxford University Press, 2010), 166.

[10] John 13:34-35; 15:12, 17; 17:26; 21:15-17. Even the Johannine Epistles carry this theme: cf. 1 Joh 3:10-11, 14, 16, 18, 23; 4:7-8, 11-12, 16-21; 5:2; 2 Jo 1:5.

[11] Barrett 1982, 23.

[12] F. F. Bruce points out, “the world can only wish peace; Jesus gives it.” F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1983), 307 (Fn. 14).

[13] John A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John, ed. J. F. Coakley (Oak Park, IL.: Meyer-Stone Books, 1985), 378.

[14] Ernst  Haenchen, Robert W. Funk, and Ulrich Busse, John 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 7-21 (Philadelphia, PA.: Fortress Press, 1984), 128. See (Keener 2003, 982).

[15]  “Peace was believed to be a feature of righteous royal rule and of the messianic age.” Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary (Louisville, KY.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015), 316

[16] Phil 2:1-3.

Hans Küng on John's Christology and the Shema

In a little reading of Hans Küng's Judaism; Between Yesterday and Tomorrow, I came across these statements:

“In this Gospel [John] ... there cannot yet be any question of a ‘metahistorical drama of Christ’, the objection often put forward by the Jewish side. Precisely in this late, fourth Gospel, we still have statements like: ‘And this is eternal life, that they may know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.’ Or, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Here there is a clear distinction between God and Jesus Christ.

No, this Gospel too does not contain any speculative metaphysical Christology – torn from its Jewish roots – but rather a christology of sending and revelation associated with the world of Jewish Christianity. However, its statement about pre-existence, understood in an unmythological way, takes on heightened significance: ‘John does not investigate the metaphysical nature and being of the pre-existent Christ; he is not concerned about the insight that before the incarnation there were two pre-existent divine persons who were bound together in the one divine nature. This way of conceiving of things is alien to John. So too is the conception of a 'begetting within the Godhead.' 'I and the Father are one.' This statement has nothing to do with any dogmatic-speculative statements about the relationship of the natures within the Godhead.' So what was John's positive concern? What stands in the foreground is the confession that the man Jesus of Nazareth is the Logos of God in person. And he is the Logos as a mortal man; but he is the Logos only for those who are prepared to believe, trusting God's word in his word, God's actions in his praxis, God's history in his career, and God's compassion in his cross’ …

If the Jewish tradition has always held unshakeably to a basic truth of Jewish faith, then it is the ‘Shema Israel’, Hear, O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone! … This confession of the unity and uniqueness of God meant the strict repudiation not only of any dualism but also of any trinitarianism.”

Hans Küng, Judaism; Between Yesterday and Tomorrow (Continuum, 1991), 382-3.

Son of God Apologetics: Deity, Divinity and Blessed Ambiguity.

The New Testament's use of "son of god" has been the source of confusion, confrontation and conflict in times past and present. With the ever narrowing fields of scholarship regarding these subjects, it has become evident that earlier (mostly) dogma driven views that captivated the Church were incorrect.

What is overtly disturbing however, are the Christian apologists and zealous pew occupying Christians who still maintain the false notion that "son of god" is somehow an ontological category. Never-mind the ambiguities of what god, deity or divinity may mean to them, somehow the title - with its root in the Hebraic worldview from which the NT writers hail - still finds a way to "clearly communicate" to some that Jesus, as the Son of God, just is the God of Israel. This is not the story of the Synoptics, nor is it the Jesus they describe. 

The writer of the book of Luke in his genealogy of Jesus stated at the end of chapter 3 that Adam was the "son of god." What does that mean? What is this piece that Christianity has been neglecting? What does it mean to be a "son of god"? Apparently unbeknownst to some Christians is the fact that the title "son of god" is not exclusive to Jesus. Adam was the first human "son of God," so what is special about Jesus' connection to this title?

There has been great progress in recent years on this subject, and scholars continue to investigate as more evidence comes to light. It is a wide, intriguing and important field of study, but suffice it to say, son of god is not tantamount nor synonymous to the later innovative title "God the Son."

Son of god does not point to a metaphysical or numerical identity with God, but rather a relational one. 

Far too many Christians are under the mistaken notion that the title son of god implies some strange metaphysical existence. This has large traces of Gnosticism present. This conclusion is unwarranted when deriving information from the Gospels. It severely distorts the context, reads external, anachronistic events into it and abolishes the meaning of the original authors/hearers by introducing categories alien to their worldview. Son of god was not a title reserved for Jesus alone. One need only read the rest of the Bible to know this is not the case. The real kicker is that this fact is not reliant on views of high or low Christology, liberal, conservative, Trinitarian scholars or not, but rather on its context. It was not firstly a theological title. 

"We must stress that in the first century the regular Jewish meaning of this title [Son of God] had nothing to do with an incipient trinitarianism; it referred to the king as Israel’s representative." N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 485-86.

"The psalms speak of the king as son of God, and say he is begotten, not adopted. This language is mythical and metaphorical rather than philosophical. It does not employ ontological categories. But it should not be dismissed as ‘mere’ metaphor. It was a powerful way of shaping perceptions about the special relationship between the king and his god." Collins, Son of God, 204.

"But when the One who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately thereafter consult with anyone . . . " Gal 1:15-16

"ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, 'to reveal his Son in me.' The language of v 16a raises a number of difficult questions and has caused a great deal of speculation. The Christological title 'Son of God,' 'his [God’s] Son,' or simply 'the Son' appears in Paul’s writings fifteen times ('Son of God': Rom 1:4; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; “his Son” or “the Son”: Rom 1:3, 9; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32; 1 Cor 1:9; 15:28; Gal 1:16; 4:4, 6; 1 Thess 1:10), which warrants Werner Kramer’s comment: 'In comparison with the passages in which the titles Christ Jesus or Lord occur, this is an infinitesimally small figure' (Christ, Lord, Son of God, 183). Furthermore, in that all of these fifteen instances are in Paul’s earlier letters (i.e., the Hauptbriefe and 1 Thessalonians, but none in the Prison or Pastoral Epistles), it can be argued that “Son of God” as a Christological title was derived by Paul from his Jewish Christian heritage (cf. ibid., 185). During the first half of the twentieth century, of course, scholars influenced by G. H. Dalman and W. Bousset tended to separate “Son of God” from its Jewish roots and to see it as a Hellenistic epiphany accretion. Of late, however, the title is being increasingly related to Jewish messianology (cf. 4QFlor on 2 Sam 7:14; 4 Ezra 7:28–29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9) and seen as a feature of early Jewish Christian Christology (cf. my The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, 93–99). In Galatians the title “Son of God” or “his Son” appears elsewhere at 2:20 and 4:4, 6, with each of these occurrences situated in a confessional or quasi-confessional portion. . . . So it may be claimed that “Son of God” is a title carried over from both Paul’s Jewish and his Christian past, and that he uses it here as a central Christological ascription because (1) it was ingrained in his thinking as a Jewish Christian, and (2) it was part of the language of his opponents, who were also Jewish Christians." R. N. Longenecker, vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary : Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary,  (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 30.

"'Son of God' is perhaps the single most familiar christological title. Indeed, it is so familiar that many people think it is the 'real' one, with the others perhaps being metaphorical. Tracing its development illuminate the meaning of the phrase. It has a history in the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish tradition. 'Son of God' could refer to Israel. In the story of the Exodus, Moses is told to say to Pharaoh: 'Thus says the Lord: Israel is my firstborn son. . . . Let my son go that he may worship you.' Hosea says in the name of God, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.' 'Son of God' could also refer to the king of Israel. Speaking in the name of God, Nathan the prophet said about the king, 'I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.' In a psalm probably used in a coronation liturgy in ancient Israel, the divine voice addresses the king and says, 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.' In the book of Job, angels or perhaps members of the divine council are referred to as sons of God: 'One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also was among them.' One further use of the metaphor in the Jewish tradition is also worth noting. Near the time of Jesus, other Jewish Spirit persons were sometimes called 'son of God.' What do Israel, the king, angels, and Jewish religious ecstatics have in common? All have a close relationship with God. That is, “Son of God” is a relational metaphor, pointing to an intimate relationship with God, like that of beloved child to parent.” N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus, pg. 151.

Dr. Colin Brown, who was senior Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological seminary (also lexicographer of NIDNTT) wrote, 

“Indeed, one may well ask whether the term ‘Son of God’ is in and of itself a divine title at all. Certainly there are many instances in biblical language where it is definitely not a designation of deity. Adam is called "the son of God in Luke's genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3: 38). Hosea 11:1 (which is cited in Matt 2: 15) alludes to the nation of Israel as God's son. In Wisdom 2: 18 the righteous man is called God's son. Nathan's prophecy to David contains God's promise to David's successor: ‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son’ (2 Sam 714; cf. Psalm 89: 26-27). This passage also occurs in a collection of testimonies at Qumran (4QFlor IOf.), indicating that the messianic significance of this prophecy was a matter of continuing speculation in first century Judaism. In Psalm 2: 7 the anointed king is addressed at his installation: ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you’ (cited in Acts 13: 33; Heb. 1: 5; 5: 5; cf. 2 Pet 1: 17). This passage is the source of the identification of Jesus with God's Son by the Bat Qol (voice from heaven) after his baptism (Mark 1: 11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3: 22; cf. John 1: 34). The voice also identifies Jesus with the chosen servant in whom God delights (Isa. 42: 1; cf. also Matt 12: 18-21). In the light of these passages in their context, the title ‘Son of God’ is not in itself a designation of personal deity or an expression of metaphysical distinctions within the Godhead. Indeed, to be a ‘Son of God’ one has to be a being who is not God! It is a designation for a creature indicating a special relationship with God. In particular, it denotes God's representative, God's vice-regent. It is a designation of kingship, identifying the king as God's son… it seems to me that a complex structure has been erected upon the systematic misunderstanding of biblical language of sonship. What seems to have happened with a number of issues that we have been considering-various ways of understanding person- and Son-language, ‘eternal generation,’ kenosis, and indeed the social Trinitarian approach-is the evolution of a series interrelated protective lines of defence designed to safeguard central beliefs about God and Christ. In the course time these protective lines have come to be felt to be a necessary part of orthodoxy. Although justification was sought for them in biblical language, they moved progressively away from the testimony of Scripture.” Colin Brown, “Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” Ex Auditu, vol. 7 (1991), 88, 92.

Because I am in a small and conservative community, when discoursing on this issue (son of god), it often ends with accusations toward me as though I inhabit some "marooned islander" position. If the average Christian is convinced by apologists, pastors or other influential Church laity that scholarship is useless and liberal, seeking to subvert true Christianity, how can this topic even be engaged on those terms? Some Christians are convinced that the Bible was designed as a "living document" which has only to be read by them, under the illumination of the spirit and exposition of their pastor, to say everything it ever needs to say or was meant to say. What's the point of a discussion where logic, reason and authentic scholarship are forsaken in favor of tradition and dogma? 

This is the difficulty of Christians who take up the mantle of an apologist with little knowledge on a subject that has been studied by countless dedicated, qualified scholars who (have) document(ed) and discuss(ed) to gain a more complete understanding of what the intended phrase or passage meant/means. What's even worse is that many of these well-intending apologists have little desire to find out. These amateur apologists seek-out those - like ancient heresy hunters - who take a position different than what they identify as "orthodox" (although that almost always works itself out idiosyncratically) and attempt to bash them over the head with the hammer of orthodox hegemony.

Unfortunately, so many have been conditioned to think that the tradition they inhabit is the “right” and “true” perspective, the set of transcendent interpretations that can prove all others wrong, therefore there is no reason to ask questions or take other options into consideration.

Harnack on the Human Jesus of the Synoptics and the Apocalypse

"That book [Revelation] . . . with its glowing symbolism, and strong colouring of images and descriptions, expressly ascribes the divine attributes to the glorified Jesus. He is, like God, the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega. He bears upon his forehead a new name, which is none other than the ineffable name of Jehovah. He is called the Word of God. 

But here let us not deceive ourselves. The author of the Apocalypse only means by this that Jesus, victorious over the world and sin, has gained all these titles. They have been conferred upon him from without, as a reward of his victory. He is not therefore the less a created being. 

It is from a certain moment, it is after his death upon the cross, that the divine perfections have been adjudged to him. The name of God, inscribed upon his forehead, will one day be written upon the foreheads of the elect.- His name, 'Word of God,' signifies that he is the revealer of the truth, the announcer of the divine judgments; and it is very far from bearing the metaphysical signification of the 'Logos,' or the 'Word' in the sense of Philo. . . . 

If we return to the three first Gospels, not asking as before what witness Jesus gave to himself, but in order to learn what his historians thought of him, we shall find there the feeling still very strong that Jesus positively belongs to humanity; and if of evangelical documents we only possessed the Gospel of Mark and the discourses of the Apostles in the Acts, the whole Christology of the New Testament would be reduced to this: that Jesus of Nazareth was' a prophet mighty in deeds and in words, made by God Christ and Lord.' 

There would even be no reason to question the favourite dogma of the old Ebionites, the orthodox of the primitive times of whom we shall have to speak again, according to whose opinion Jesus had himself no consciousness of his vocation until the period of his baptism in the Jordan, when the heavens were opened and the Holy Spirit descended upon him.

'A holy man, fully inspired by the divine spirit,' would therefore have been the prescribed Christological formula. With regard to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the two genealogies which these books respectively set forth plainly and expressly prove the strength of the primitive belief that Jesus was really man by his nature and birth."

Adolf Harnack, History of the Dogma of the Deity of Jesus Christ, (London: 1878), 31-33.

A New Old Orthodoxy

"When the Jew said something was ‘predestined,’ he thought of it as already ‘existing’ in a higher sphere of life. The world’s history is thus predestined because it is already, in a sense, preexisting and consequently fixed. This typically Jewish conception of predestination may be distinguished from the Greek idea of preexistence by the predominance of the thought of ‘preexistence’ in the Divine purpose."

E.C. Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology, The Hulsean Prize Essay for 1908 (Cambridge University Press, 1912), 253f.

God is not a Hebrew, but has chosen to communicate to the world via the Jewish people (e.g. prophets and his son). Merely because something or other is Jewish does not mean it is inherently better or closer in proximity to God's heart. They were the conduit through whom God chose to tell his saving story. But to understand the story as it was originally intended, simply reading the Jewish message that was placed into their world and cultural context with any paradigm has often severely distorted that message. When the writers used words and definition, it cannot be supposed that what they meant means the same thing in a twenty-first century context. Language changes, cultures shift and what Paul really meant can get glossed by later explanations that would not have been indigenous to his historical context and theological edifice. With the rise of historical analysis, the new perspectives on Paul were inevitable and much needed. 

Being or thinking like a Greek (westerner) is not wrong. But to take the Greek worldview, definition or ways of thinking and impose it on what radically different Jewish writers were communicating is to do violence to the original message. For example, we cannot read Paul and assume that he was a Trinitarian. To go into the text with that anachronistic presumption and interpret his words through a fourth and fifth century filter is to miss what he actually was saying. We don't have to assume that Paul's idea of kenosis matches that of many modern interpreter's opinions regarding the Carmen Christi.

The Second Temple Jewish view of preexistence is virtually absent in our world of Christian congregants. When a post-modern interpreter thinks of preexistence, it is generally not with the opinion that God's foreknown purpose was thought to have preexisted the reality. Greeks (westerners) tend toward thinking in terms of abstract metaphysics and ontological categories. If Jesus preexisted (whatever that actually means), he must therefore of necessity have existed in some other form (i.e. logos theology) before entering the womb of Mary. 

When biblical titles like Son of God are redefined by using later definition, it is not difficult to see how the shift in this thinking occurred. With neo-Platonism governing the overall approach to biblical hermeneutics, and the spark of creativity in the air, the Patristics - and eventually the councils - replaced the NT (based on OT use) Son of God with a philosophically contrived God the Son. Thus, a new "orthodoxy" was born. It threatened - under the pain of excommunication and eternal damnation - that its definitions and dogmas must be unquestioningly accepted for salvation (Athanasian Creed). Jesus was subsequently torn out of his Hebraic world and placed into another. Geza Vermes put it well in The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, 

“Compared to the dynamic religion of Jesus, fully evolved Christianity seems to belong to another world.”

The use of Jewish foreknowledge and pre-ordination was ripped from its own context and sculpted around a twisted philosophical template of John's Gospel. 

"This man [Jesus], delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God" Acts 2:23 (c.f. 1 Peter 1:2).

 God already had it predetermined; the plan was there, but did not make its appearance upon the stage of humanity until it literally came into existence. It did, or was said to exist in a different way before its revelation.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, “Revelation” says it well,

"God avails Himself of human thought and speech to make Himself known and His speech intelligible." 

He does not reveal himself in illogical or intangible ways. However, it must be qualified that just because traditional Christianity has based much of its belief on tradition and has muddied the waters, does not mean it was difficult and challenging to the original hearers. The NT and OT are thoroughly Jewish collections of writing. Its writers were Jewish, and most of its audience was Jewish (obviously there are intended Gentile recipients within the Pauline corpus). Post-modern readership has approached their interpretive reading with a Greek (western) perspective, this cannot be helped. It has been handed down from the church and early post-biblical creeds which neglected the context and cultural significance of utmost importance, that Jesus was a Jew who thought and taught in Rabbinical Jewish ways with Jewish interpretations, hermeneutics and categories. It is a person of ignorance who claims that they can close their eyes and ears to this reality. Our savior was a Jew and came into existence by birth, not, as Irenaeus has it: 

"This Christ passed through Mary just as water flows through a tube." 

This is something radically different from Matthew and Luke’s description that Jesus was brought into existence inside Mary, by the power of God. Greg Deuble in his book, They Never Told Me This in Church noted that 

"Protestants who deplore tradition-bound Roman Catholics because they revere Church tradition above the Scriptures fail to see that in some areas they are just as bound to tradition, i.e. to long held interpretations of Scriptures."

J. R. D. Kirk I believe summarized it well, 

“We sometimes see divinity where the text doesn’t require it because that is the theology we bring with us to the text.”

Book Review: The One: In Defense of God

I am honored to say that I am a friend of J. Dan Gill. In the past few months, my family and I enjoyed the fantastic southern hospitality of Dan and his wonderful wife Sharron. Together, with their wide spectrum of combined talents, they run the 21st Century Reformation web site. 

Dan magnanimously provided me with a copy of his new book "The One: In Defense of God," and so I offer this short review.

This apologetic work is a skillfully woven case not only for theism, but something he refers to as monotarianism (p. 98), the existence of one God as one person. He begins his defense in the introduction as though his audience has little to no understanding of who God is or even possesses doubt regarding his existence. Quite naturally then, he begins with atheism and agnosticism, systematically working his way into examining the ways various people groups throughout the ages have thought about the divine and worshipped the “gods.” He investigates and calls into question the traditional ways Christendom has been conditioned to think about God throughout the past two millennia. Not surprisingly, the testimonies of such voices are often found confusing, contradictory and unnecessarily complicated.

The foundation of Hebrew Scriptures and the witness of the New Testament take precedent for Dan over the years of bishop and emperor governed councils and subsequent theological tradition: 

“Multi-personal orthodoxy ultimately triumphed not because it was a good idea or because it was biblical – it was neither. Rather, it prevailed because of persecution. With the coming of Emperor Constantine the Great and his embracing of Christianity, Christians were allowed to exist freely in the Roman world. However, that freedom applied only to people who adhered to the version of Christianity approved by Constantine and his successors” p. 255.

Dan constructs his arguments layer by layer in a clear, direct and understandable way that any layman would be able to fully appreciate. He calls relevant scholarship to the figurative witness stand for the sake of providing testimony, often revealing dubious characters, sinister plots and heinous acts.

Dan writes with a warm, friendly and gentle tone. Great heart and genuineness bleed through the pages as he discusses a plethora of issues that have captivated some Christians and addled others. He provides sufficient detail without becoming too technical or academic for the average reader. Technical details on topics that require greater explanation are put in chapter end-notes.

As I worked my way through the book, I found a number of short, quotable gems: 

“If it were not for the abuses of some religious people, there would be far fewer agnostics and atheists” p. 14. 

At the conclusion of this case, I resoundingly concurred with the verdict. The statements made in his closing remarks offer an appropriate challenge on which Christians should ruminate:  

“Will we forever allow ourselves to be mesmerized by proof-texting, faulty syllogisms and non-scriptural examples . . . will we cling to the notion that we are invincible? We need to quit believing our own Christian propaganda that Christianity could never be wrong in the matter of defining God” p. 263.

One Great Tri-Personal Book - Part XI - Conclusion

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. (Hos 4:6; Isa 5:13)

One Great Tri-Personal Book - Part X

Much of Smith’s argument focused on addressing literal versus notional preexistence. Using Old and New Testaments as well as a wide range of ancient Jewish literature, Smith demonstrably produced convincing evidence for notional preexistence.

In his response, Irons objects to “Smith’s methodology,” stating that he could not 

“follow Smith in elevating this early Jewish literature to such heights that it is capable of defining the qualifications for the Messiah” p. 149. 

I believe this to be an inaccurate assessment of Smith’s presentation, there was no indication that Smith derived his Christology or claimed to do so from anywhere but the Scriptures. His citation of Jewish literature was patently for the purpose of illuminating perspectives of the Second Temple era, examining the various methods, metaphors and allegorical ways of speaking concerning the religious dynamics of utmost value in the worship and service to their covenant God, Yahweh.

Smith points out that the subjects of (but not limited to) the patriarchs, the Torah and (name of) Messiah etc. were among the most important elements in their worldview. 

“Things which are fixed within God’s plans are regularly spoken of as having already taken place, despite the fact that they clearly have not done so in the literal sense (see Gen 15:18; 28:4; 35:12; 2 Kgs 19:25; Matt 6:1; Rom 8:30; 1 Cor 2:7; 2 Cor 5:1)” p. 102-105.

Despite the hyperbolic presence of “heavenly messenger” (e.g. 1 Enoch, p. 149) language, the notion that these texts must necessarily spell out messianic expectation to have been a human being is absurd. The foundation and bedrock of messianic hope was first detailed in Deut 18, where God had promised he would raise-up a prophet like Moses from among the community of Israel, not that he would send an existing angelic messenger or incarnate himself. This individual was not expected to be anything other than human; it didn’t need to be re-defined. In these other texts however, embellishment not redefinition, is often exhibited. Smith never suggested biblical definition should be abandoned for or surveyed as equal to extra-biblical texts.

In the final reply to his challengers, Smith expressed his astonishment concerning the disregard of various Jewish texts: 

“I am disappointed that my employment of Jewish texts in an attempt to recreate plausible historical contexts was so effortlessly dismissed. Any text, biblical or extra-biblical, needs to be placed into its proper context…I find it rather amazing that Irons waves the sola scriptura flag in defense of his position, seeing how the consensus of Church historians is that the Trinity was a slowly developing doctrine of the course of the first five centuries. Scholars who have attempted to acutely define the specifics regarding how ‘a preexisting being can become human’ are regularly puzzled, forcing them to retort to unpersuasive lingo concerning a ‘mystery [which] can only be described in terms of a paradox’” p. 176.

A Shema Conspiracy?

970 times the adjective echad (one) occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. This word is the simple, numerical word for one, as in “two are better than one [echad]” Ecc 4:9 or “if one [echad] can overpower him who is alone, two [shenayim] can resist him. A cord of three [shalash] strands is not quickly torn apart” 4:12. The words echad, shenayim, shalash are equivalent to one, two, three in English.

The adjective yachad (unity or denoting togetherness) occurs 45 times. Among many examples are “the kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together [yachad] against Yahweh and against his anointed” Psa 2:2 and “behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity [yachad]!” Psa 133:1.

The adjective yachid (special, unique, solidarity) occurs a heaping 12 times in such ways as “Take now your son, your only [yachid] son, whom you love” Gen 22:2 and “God makes a home for the lonely [yachid]” Psa 68:6.

This may strike some as useless or trivial information, but be assured that battles have been fought over less. As useful and helpful a tool as the internet can be, it can also be a destructive mechanism for endlessly disseminating falsehoods. One must do proper research and check the validity of claims before accepting them as authentic. The argument over the word echad and its implications for supporting the doctrine of the Trinity is no exception.

There have been some – especially among the Messianic movement - who claim that in Hebrew the word echad denotes “a compound plural/unity.” The shema, which is the closest match to a declarative credal statement in Judaism is found in Deut 6:4, “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!”

Needless debate and endless quarrels have arisen in recent (and not so recent) times regarding this subject, but the point of the matter (pun intended) is that facts tell the story. The word echad is never a “compound plural/unity.” Though the accusation has been made, the truth of the matter is that ancient (or modern) Rabbis did not replace echad with yachid (meaning unique, special or solitary) or contrariwise for the sake of covering a supposedly Trinitarian aphorism in the shema.

It is a verifiable fact that there are no existing Hebrew texts (at least in my searching) of Deut 6:4 which contain, or as some seem to suggest, “retain” yachid rather than echad. If such a conspiracy of the rabbis existed, where an attempt was made to hide the “later truth” of a “Triune Godhead” uncovered by third-century AD Christian Bishops that was Israel’s hidden, covenant-God all long, shouldn’t at least one manuscript bear witness of this atrocity? Every extant manuscript of the Torah at verse 4 reads as echad. These manuscripts were meticulously hand-copied utilizing numerous scribes and witnesses to validate their accuracy. Even when entering into the age of the printing-press, bringing with it new bibles and commentaries, throughout the transition, the reading remained consistent.

In the NT, the proof stands for itself, never is the shema redefined as proof of Jesus’ divinity or for a Triune Godhead. Scholars such as Wright and Hurtado have made attempts and continue to opine that 1 Cor 8:6 is an instance where Paul split the shema, redefining it to include Jesus within the identity of Yahweh. The view has multiple issues, having many scholars in disagreement, but it is not the subject of this post. Either way, it may aid views of binitarianism, but does nothing to propose a tri-personal God.

Mark 12:29 is an instance where Jesus, after being interrogated as to the greatest command, cited the shema, “Hear O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord.” The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the HS is quoted where the Greek word heis, is the translator’s choice for the word echad. While it is true that heis can be used in a collective sense such as Paul’s words to the Galatians, “you are all one in Christ” (3:28) it does not work in the designation of God due to the singular pronouns that accompany it.

Ultimately it comes down to the theological traditions to which people are conformed and the lenses through which they have chosen to see. Though it comes with a cost as high as textual veracity, when the apotheosized traditional dogma is threatened, it readily becomes apparent that anything goes. This is a hopeless argument.

One Great Tri-Personal Book - Part IX

In the third section of The Son of God:Three Views of the Identity of Jesus, Dustin Smith takes the podium and gives a solid apology for his position. He provides the reader with a brief sketch of his story which was instrumental in shaping his current perspective. He also began by summarizing the conclusions he has drawn as being 

“the result of pursuing the question concerning the identity of Jesus” 

and a 

“personal quest,” 

to which I can intimately relate. p.128

   

Smith’s argument consisted of examining 

“the expectations of the Messiah from the Hebrew Bible” and “how those texts were interpreted in the Second Temple period…the birth of the Messiah…key data from relevant texts…the life and teaching of Jesus, particularly how both Jesus viewed himself and how other viewed him…the importance of the suffering and death of the Messiah…Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation” and “texts which describe the return of Jesus to consummate the kingdom of God upon the earth” p. 128.

At the outset of Irons’s response to Smith’s essay, he began by attempting to place a determinative label on what was presented, “a view called psilanthropism.” Irons defined this for the reader in the footnotes: 

“from the Greek words psilis (mere) + anthrõpos (man)” p. 146. 

My reasoning for citing this is due to its nature as an archetypal remark often encountered when a “high Christology” is being defended against lower Christological inquiries or persuasions. As I briefly sketched earlier in this series, Irons’s definition of “divine” had to do with ontology; he was tenacious on that point. What becomes a great muddle when describing the “humanity” of Jesus is, regardless whether from the orthodox perspective and the doctrine of two-natures or from a “psilanthropic” one, the questions naturally needing to be answered are, “what does it mean to be human,” and “was Jesus properly in this classification?” Perhaps then, the archaic notion of what is meant by “mere man” can begin to be addressed.

Is this supposed to be a declaration of ontology, that Jesus was more than flesh and blood unlike the rest of humanity, and his cellular composition was on another level or in alternative class? Or, does this mean that Jesus was flesh and blood in his humanity just like all other members of the human race (as orthodoxy itself describes) but was not a mere man in his nature, essential character as well as his relationship to and with God?

If the latter is correct, then in my reading of his discourse, Smith’s opinion regarding Jesus’ identity falls well into this category; Jesus was no “mere” or ordinary man in this way. The discussion is too often textually extraneous, where anything short of divine and full equality with God - in an ontological sense – provides one side of a false dichotomy opposed to a degrading sense of Jesus presented as a “mere man” on the other. Was Moses a “mere” man? Were Adam, David, Abraham, Joshua, Elijah, John B. “mere” men? Smith follows up this dialogue with the following: 

“Irons seems to have misunderstood my position by his repeated claim that I supposedly paint Jesus as being ‘a mere man.’ I wish to respond by stating that this designation is an unfair representation of both my Christology and of my initial essay.”

Smith went on to list many characteristics and descriptions which set Jesus in a position of exalted status. p 167-8 This argument often contains a combination of conflicting terminology, therefore when discussing the historical Jesus one must be cognizant that it is not an ontological discussion. Jesus’ role as the ideal human who is greater than any other to ever exist, having become the second Adam, restoring the image, the one who reveals the Father, the king of Israel through whom God is bringing about recreation, having attained first-born status and subsequent inheritance by right, among many others places him wholly outside of mere man. These are all biblical themes woven into the fabric of the Jesus story.