In the closing chapter of JESUS AND THE VICTORY OF GOD, N.T. Wright acknowledges that locating Jesus within his second-temple Jewish world includes the risk of making him irrelevant.
My question for all interested is this. Since Jesus mission was the ushering in of the reign of God, and since for the last 2000 years it is apparent that the lion is not laying down with the lamb, that plowshares are beaten into swords, the nations are not streaming to the mountain of the Lord, and no little child is leading them, doesn’t it make more sense to conclude that the reign of Israel’s God has not begun, and that Jesus in consequence must be regarded as a failure at best, or a false messiah and false prophet at worst? Stuart
In private emails between Peter and myself, the subject of the divinity of Jesus came up. I suggested that it would be a good idea to publish a post summarising our exchange and inviting further discussion. Firstly I have written up the points I originally made, in a slightly expanded form. Next I have printed the issues/objections raised by Peter in response to this, with my replies. I welcome anyone who wants to ‘have a go’ and join in the fun.
The divinity of the Son.
It seems to me that when Jesus referred to himself as possessing ‘divinity’ it was invariably in terms of the indwelling Father, not the incarnate ‘God the Son’. He never speaks of ‘the Son that dwells in me’. Instead, Jesus was indwelt by his God in the same way the ark of the covenant was. In John 17:3, Jesus clearly sets himself in contrast to ‘the only one who is truly God’, the Father (see also John 5:44).
Furthermore, where the title ‘god’ is applied to Jesus by others, it harmonises far better with the Hebrew Bible to read it in terms of a functional equality, as opposed to an identity of substance. Moses was made a god to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1) because he acted as Yahweh’s stand-in for his dealings with Egypt. In the same way, Paul describer the Satan as ‘the god of this age’ in that he occupies the dominion, usurped from Adam, that the Son will enjoy in the age to come.
Of course, the distinction between ‘small-g’ and ‘big-G’ in our English translations is artificial, since there was none in the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts.
Jesus functions as God towards humanity in that he did and spoke of himself as doing things which up to that point only God was thought of as doing (the general resurrection and judgment, the forgiveness of sin etc.)
Yet for all this, I would insist that there is no evidence that the apostles ever deviated form the strict unitary monotheism of the Jewish fathers. There is still only one Creator God, the Father, in spite of the addition of a vice-regent, Jesus, God’s agent through whom he interacts with man. Surely it is significant that the only clearly articulated ‘incarnation’ theology in the New Testament is found in the mouths of mistaken pagans (Acts 14:10). According to 1Tim 2:5, God is one and his Son is a man (wouldn’t this have been the perfect place to introduce the ‘god-man’?).
To hold a concept of Jesus as being ‘god’ in a ‘homoussian’ sense (being of the same substance as God the Father- a Greek term not found anywhere in the Bible) has a double effect:
Firstly it divides the godhead, violating what according to Jesus was the first and greatest commandment (Mark 12:29-30). This is borne out in the contradictory Athanasian creed that ‘the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods, but one’.
Secondly, it eclipses Jesus’ humanity- an aspect upon which the most heavy scriptural emphasis is laid. Evidence of this is found in the Chalcedonian declaration that the Son possessed an ‘impersonal’ human nature. That he is ‘man’, but not ‘a man’. Read in the light of 1 John 4:3 this should cause alarm bells to ring.
What about the holy spirit?In the development of patristic thought, the spirit didn’t become a person in the godhead until long after the Son. Strictly speaking, the spirit of God would appear to be his operational presence, as opposed to another person in the godhead. It is God’s dynamic, reaching into the world to create, inspire, work miracles etc.
Furthermore, it would seem to connote the ‘inner life’ of God, often being used synonymously with his thought and by extension, his expressed word. Of course, the same could be said of our human spirits. They too can be vexed, grieved etc. without being another person ‘subsisting’ within our ‘essence’.
It may even be that ‘spirit’ is not an ontological category at all but instead, a metaphor. The literal meaning of the words ruach in Hebrew and pneuma in Greek are in both cases ‘wind/breath’. This has been obscured by their transliteration into English from the Latin ‘spiritus’ as opposed to straight translation. So ‘spirit’ may not be anything in and of itself, but rather a term, acting as a stand in for various functions.
Some confusion has arisen due to Jesus’ personification of the spirit in the later chapters of John, as the ‘paraclete’ who would take over his role subsequent to his ascension. But this is standard Hebraism. One of the best examples would be Solomon’s personification of ‘lady wisdom’ in Proverbs chapter 8. James Dunn’s excellent ‘Christology in the making’ offers many examples from the Judaism of Jesus’ day of the widespread use of this device in relation to God’s attributes.
Even today we would say of a ship, “God bless her and all who sail in her”. But, though we often personalise inanimate objects, we would never refer to a person as an ‘it’ unless we wanted to insult them. Yet throughout both Testaments, God’s spirit is referred to in almost exclusively impersonal terms.
What follows are Peter’s comments and my responses:
The highest expression of God’s love for us is the giving of his Son (John 3:16). The Son’s love for the Father is shown in his obedient offering of himself (John 14:31). None of this is obscured by attributing full humanity to Jesus and full divinity to the Father. Jesus’ blood is still the ransom demanded and provided by God for our sins.
Yet the scriptures lay great emphasis upon the fact that this does not exempt him from the weaknesses and temptations experienced by the rest of us. In this way he is both a credible role model and merciful high priest in that he can fully relate to our sufferings and limitations. By contrast, God cannot be tempted with sin (James 1:13 and Hebrews 4:15). To make the Son into God seriously undermines both God’s holiness and the genuine human experience of Christ.
Your observation that many of the figures of the Bible could also claim to have God’s spirit operating through them is absolutely true. This is consistent with the fact that the Son of God is revealed to us in comparison to them. Another Moses, but with greater authority. Another David, with a permanent throne. Another Adam, succeeding where he failed and winning back what he lost.
Why would the supremacy of the Son need to be revealed to us by means such as these, if he was God Almighty? It would be enough simply to state it clearly, and leave the issue alone.
God, who loves perfectly, had to endure watching the agonies of his Son, the most worthy object of his love. Surely there is no question of the degree to which God suffered. The fact that the Son suffered too, as someone other than God, does nothing to detract from this.
Where does the Bible teach us that God would die for our sins? God is immortal and cannot die (1 Timothy 1:17, Luke 20:36). In contrast, Jesus was only made immortal subsequent to his resurrection.
God atoned for our sins by providing a sacrifice, not by being one. In the Old Testament he provided blood for temporary atonement. In the New Testament he provides his Son for a permanent sin offering once and for all.
As he gave his life, Jesus cried out from the cross “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me’. Therefore, whoever was left on the cross from that point on cannot have been God. If Jesus’ personal centre was indeed ‘divine’, then this abandonment would have left nothing but an empty shell to die. Incarnation theology is forever crossing the line into docetism.
Anyone who has struggled with sin knows only too well how great a problem it is. This experience is universal, irrespective of Christology.
Yet, to the extent that our view of sanctification is a product of our Christology, it could reasonably be said that a message that sin could only be overcome by God in the form of a man is remote and irrelevant. None of us has the advantage of a personal existence in eternity prior to our birth.
Instead, Jesus’ achievement and sacrifice are all the more remarkable by virtue of his human limitations. He is the uniquely normal man, the living example of a spiritually mature humanity which will be the standard of the age to come.
So, far from minimising the problem of sin, his example is more inspiring, given his success in spite of the absence of any hidden advantage.
This is your observation. But does the Bible encourage us to evaluate truth in these terms? Wouldn’t a faith based on ‘personal, experiential knowledge of the divine’ be more akin to gnosticism than New Testament Christianity? Where in the Bible does anyone ‘invite Jesus into their heart’ etc.? Powerful experiences are a feature of all mystical religions, yet we would not establish their veracity on that basis alone.
The faith-experience of the apostles seems rather to be the result of their persuasion concerning God’s promise. It gave them hope, and hope gave rise to joy.
For now, Paul tells us, we see through a glass darkly. Only ‘then’, in the age to come can we look forward to seeing God face to face, as so far only Adam, Moses and Jesus have. To seek more than this, if it entails going beyond the confines of scripture, is to tread a dangerous path towards the occult. www.Godfellas.orgWith this post I would like to invite people to engage in the question of the meaning of the death of Jesus. I have been growing up with a very calvinistic (Jesus died as a ransom for our sins) tradition of Jesus’ death on the cross. In recent years I have questioned more and more this prerequisite I grew up with: The purpose of Jesus’ coming was to die for us. Before I want to make my point I want to say that I myslef see different approaches in the NT about this question. The position I am going to present is not a perfect one. However, and otherwise I wouldn’t post this topic, I believe it is a better one (meaning more biblical one) than the calvinistic (or should I say evangelical) position. It goes as follows:
Not to be misunderstood: Yes: Jesus came down on the earth; He lived a just life; the people (both Romans and Jews) cruxified him; He rose from the death; He ascended into heavens. This is the story of Jesus. This is what happened to him. The above two statements I questioned are assumptions, or interpretations of the story of Jesus that I do not find strongly supported in the Bible.
The reason I believe many christians support the idea that God sent his son to die for us is twofold: a. this is what they are told from sunday school on and is portrayed as one of the fundamentals of christianity; and b. is based on the assumption that since God foreknows everything and therefore also Jesus’ death he must somehow also have ordained it.
I would like to start of with a very interesting parable that Jesus himself is telling. If you have a moment, please read the parable at the beginning of Mk.12, the so called ‘parable of the tenants’. Very interesting here is verse 6. Accoring to this verse God did not send his son to death; but was hoping the people would respect him; since he is his son. According to this parable it was not the landlord’s intention that his son wiould be killed, even though this was the risk he took.
This is how I feel most of the NT is in harmony with. God sent his son to reconcile the world to himself. It indeed was a risky enterprise but the intention of his mission was not to die (a dead Messiah also in jewish tradition was not something that was expected), but to live and bring the people of Israel back to their God. I think we misread many passages in the NT. Many verses talk about God ‘giving’ his son. I don’t know exactly why, but we always sweem to read ‘death’ in it. If Jesus gives his life then he gives his life! He might give his death also, but only in so far as his death is part of his life. In John 3.16 for example I can’t see a reference of Jesus death. It talks about his life; not his death. For example. no one really thinks of the death of christians (even though death might be a consequence) when reading Romans 12,1. ‘give life’ or ‘sacrifice’ does not necessarily imply death. (even though it can).
I do not see ‘a law from the Old Testament’ that Jesus had to die for. According to Hebrews is Jesus explicitely NOT a priest in the tradition or accordance with Levi which tribe performed the killing sacraments, but according to Melchisedek, who was before the law was given, and therefore the tradition of sacrifices was started. So all those sacrifices do not really apply to Jesus (in my opinion), neither is he the fullfillment of those.
According to Paul in Romans 5:18 it is the righteousness, and not his death that brought about justification before God.
Also, from the times of Abraham by the latest, it was forbidden to offer human sacrifices to be killed. God could not possibly violate this law by purposely sending his own son to death.
If God is God then he really does not need a human sacrifice (or if you are trinitarian: a sacrifice of himself) to forgive sins. How on on the basis of what other than his souvereignity and mercy in the parable of the lost son in Luke 15 then did the father forgive his son when he asked to come back? Jesus was telling this parable BEFORE his death. How can Paul say that Abraham was justified by his faith? No sacrifice has been offered.
The evangelical view of these things in my opinion dismisses the scandal that took place. They killed Jesus! Hey, they killed Jesus! Evangelicals wake up; they killed Jesus!!!!!!!!!! They killed the only one that was righteous! No, God did not kill him; they did! He came and healed and loved and helped. And they killed him!!!! That is a scandal! They killed a member of God’s family!!! This is unbelievable!! Don’t just accept this as ‘an OT law’ or ‘because they had to’, or because’God sent his son to die’. As if God and the mean Romans / Jews would have collaborated in the murder of Jesus! No!!!! it is a murder and nothing less. And if there was a law that Jesus had to die for it is the law that humans can’t stand rightous people and people that do not compromise and are not corrupt.
And here is the amazing story: Even though we humans killed the son of God; killed a beloved member of God’s family: God’s one and only son; God is not at the end with us. He did not give us up. He uses what has happened against him and his son as a sign of love. as a sign of love that the world has never seen before: The cross is an invite to come and become a son and a daughter of God like the one they killed. To also come to God’s family. And as an eternal sign that God is souvereign and this is really true: he rose Jesus from the death and started the biggest track of humankind: we can all follow Christ towards God. No, this isn’t theology or a new theory besides Calvin. this is just telling of what happened with Jesus and with God. Or you might call it narrative theology; I don’t know.