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 Firstly I have written up the points I originally made, in a slightly expanded form.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:
- How does the death of Jesus find meaning within this framework?
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.
- What distinguishes Jesus from other people, if he is just one in whom the spirit of the Father is operating? Most of the figures in the bible could claim that.
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.
- What about the impact of this on the depth of the atonement, in that it isn’t God on the cross taking the suffering on himself;
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.
- That someone other than God is able to atone for sin or find release from its consequences.
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.
- That in this framework, sin is not seen as such a great problem to be overcome (That all that is required is a bit more effort and trying harder at the rules!)
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.
- That very often folk who do not subscribe to Jesus’ divinity lack personal experience of God in their own lives.
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.org
cause for celebration
Theocrat, I have no philosophical or theological comments to make. I would just like to say that I found the clarity and precision of your argument inspiring. In your thoughts I find a new hope of personal peace of mind and reconciliation of years of doubt and dissillusionment, thank you.
I was reading about laser eye treatment earlier but that miracle of modern medicine, which I cannot afford, has much less to offer me than your thoughts do, bringing so much of my own thinking into focus.
This follows hearing a sermon recently by a well seasoned methodist local preacher, where I was able to feel God’s presence while in a church for the first time in years. I do not think the preacher in question would share your interpretations but I do as, I believe, did much of the very early church.
Having read your words I think I can now put more easily into words what I mean when I refer to what I call the modern ‘Cult of Jesus’. Christianity, as practised in so many of today’s churches seems to have taken a step too far sideways from the position you describe, to its detriment.
Jesus is God Almighty (but that's a phrase I have never used)
As I’ve been referred to in the foregoing post, I felt some kind of response was called for. The questions I was asking, around which Theocrat has constructed his response, were sketched out in a rough way without having seen how Theocrat would describe his position, but I’m happy for them to be a springboard.
My preliminary response would be something along these lines:
Although Theocrat doesn’t say so, he sees Jesus as being human in the same way as Moses, David etc were human. It’s just that Jesus was a more perfect human. There is so much evidence weighted against this conclusion that it’s hard to know where to begin.
I’ve already commented on this site at some length about Jesus’s own identification with symbols such as temple - which in its suggestion of Jesus as the locus of the presence of God goes infinitely further than placing him in a line with other O.T. figures who experienced the spirit of God coming upon them. So every time Jesus healed someone or performed any of the other miracles, there was a rewriting of the holiness laws taking place, or echoes of what had previously been done by God and God alone. Looked at from that angle, the gospels are alive with the phenomenon of Jesus being himself YHWH, Adonai, God.
This is only the synoptic view. To read John’s gospel and not see Jesus making God-claims for himself is to keep one eye closed and the other very committed indeed to some alternative explanation. I’m still waiting to hear from someone why the Pharisees picked up stones to stone Jesus if it wasn’t for this kind of blasphemous self-identification in John 8:59.
The view of Jesus as God continues throughout the epistles: to see how trinitarian language is used from very earliest times, read ‘What St Paul Really Said’/N.T.Wright. When the early church saw Jesus, they saw God, and worshipped him as such. This was not in the light of any later Greek inspired Christological formulations.
Theocrat also raises questions which have been part of previous discussions on this site. If anyone has read any of these, it will surprise no-one that I believe the core narrative of the bible to be the mystery of how a covenant-keeping God remains true to the covenant - faithful to his people - yet would deal with the sin that was at the heart of their faithlessness to him, and thereby provide the same solution for the whole world.
In this divine project, a merely human Jesus fails to plumb the depths of the seriousness of the problem. Here, the reformers had it right: all who were born of Adam were bound by Adam’s sin. This is the depth of the problem. Man could not be redeemed by the actions of any other mere man - however much he might be the summit and apex of human perfection. I have noticed consistently with religious systems which have a merely human Jesus that the problem of sin is not so central nor profound, the cross not so central, in short, their true focus is elsewhere, and the prescription for living now is: “Try harder!” When the inevitable failures come under this system for living, their response is: “You didn’t try hard enough!” In short, there is no solution offered or found for sin.
The other sense in which the death of Jesus shows the seriousness of the problem is that a merely human figure (however much the paragon of humanity) dying on the cross is one thing, but God identifying himself with the sin which brought separation from himself (2 Corinthians 5:21) shows the nature of sin in its effects, and the depths of sin in its consequences. And I have to admit that in my own view, which would not be the view of everyone on this site, other perspectives which sidestep this issue are simply playing games.
Theocrat’s final paragraph concedes as much as I had suggested - that without these realities in which to believe and find ‘the Spirit of life (that) set me free from the law of sin and death’, we do not have the personal experience of God which God had planned for us to know. It is more than persuasion - it is, as Paul puts it, the love of God poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit whom he has given to us.
To summarise baldly, the narrative line that I would pick out here is the narrative of the presence of God; presence experienced, presence withdrawn, presence given occasionally to individuals, presence marking out a people, presence withdrawn from a people, presence restored, presence completed. (Very bald!) The apostles had more than a message of persuasion; the persuasion had an end in view: the present experience of the eschatolological Spirit - through the eschatological Jesus.
I regret that Albannach finds cause for celebration in seeing here ammunition against what he calls the Jesus cult. If his experience was of something that could be called a cult, with all that is suggested in his use of that phrase, it is regrettable that he did not encounter something more worthy of the name, which might have shaped his views in a different way.
It will also be very apparent in this post that I hold to an evangelical view of the gospel. I believe that the times call for a repackaging of the elements which accompany that view. The narrative/historical explanation seems to me to hold out distinct possibilities, and has opened up startling new insights. I am at variance with interpretations which seem to me to be losing the distinctiveness of the explanations which are not just part of the biblical story, but make it something to be proclaimed and believed - something which people would want to give their lives for, and be worth giving their lives for.
I also realise that this comment goes against the ethos of the site. I did encourage Theocrat to publish his views - so let it be said that I am doing no more than giving my own personal response and perspective. I’m sure, that like Albannach’s, there are others, and the ethos of the site is to give place to each other, which I now do.
That's the point
You make the point: To read John’s gospel and not see Jesus making God-claims for himself
But he did not, and John’s gospel comes to the Jesus story from its own developed perspective: he may not even have claimed to be the messiah. His language was of Son of Man, with its ambiguous meanings, and a son of God then would be anyone faithful. Jesus would not have made a blasphemy, and had no need as a last days prophet. The Bible is not trinitarian; nowhere is it God the son and divinity is problematic. Sinning, of course, goes on, so we are to try harder, as you put it. I’d like a bit of trying harder.
One path that does not work is trying to make Jesus the most moral person or the most significant individual, and try to “God” him from below. It never works as a kind of football league of results. God is what anyone or group finds to be of most significance, what they hope to have returned when they make their exchanges of faith. It is about how the story, if you like, shapes.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
The gospel according to Pluralist
‘John’s gospel comes to the Jesus story from its own developed perspective’ - so do the other gospels. All you are saying is that you have access to some other information (which you do not disclose) which disproves this perspective.
‘God is what anyone or any group finds to be of most significance’ - this is a contradiction in terms: if God is no more than people’s projections of him, by definition, he ceases to be. The statement also contradicts your immediately preceding statement: if that is your definition of God, then it is precisely trying ‘to God him from below’. Find some other word or concept: ‘God’ won’t do.
‘The Bible is not trinitarian’ - more to the point, the bible is not monotheistic - in the sense of presenting a unitary God who lives in solitary isolation. It would be much simpler if he were, but that is not how he is presented. That is more a product of Greek philosophical thinking. There is plenty of evidence that this is not how Jews saw him, and neither Old nor New Testament present him in this way. It certainly was not how Paul saw him - but I have a feeling that Paul, like the four gospels, is excluded from your personal biblical canon.
Response to Peter
The fact that you would even question whether Jesus was human in the same way as other humans raises serious concerns. As I stated before, orthodox incarnation Christology borders on Docetism. It seems to say “He’s a man like us… except he’s the eternal God and we’re not”. It raises questions as to whether the church councils really won out over Gnosticism, or simply repackaged and assimilated it. If Jesus is human in a different way to the rest of us, where would the validity of the comparisons between him and Adam outlined below be? Where in the Bible is his humanity expressed in qualified terms?
I don't get your drift,
I don’t get your drift, Theocrat. Can you explain? What do you hold to be true about Jesus’s humanity? Is he no different from the rest of us?
Sorry, Peter
Sorry Peter. I’m still getting the hang of this posting process. I feel like a proper dundus now. Here’s the full article.
You wrote:Although Theocrat doesn’t say so, he sees Jesus as being human in the same way as Moses, David etc were human.
Indeed I do. The fact that you would even question whether Jesus was human in the same way as other humans raises serious concerns. As I stated before, orthodox incarnation Christology borders on Docetism. It seems to say “He’s a man like us… except he’s the eternal God and we’re not”. It raises questions as to whether the church councils really won out over Gnosticism, or simply repackaged and assimilated it. If Jesus is human in a different way to the rest of us, where would the validity of the comparisons between him and Adam outlined below be? Where in the Bible is his humanity expressed in qualified terms?
As you point out, Jesus did identify himself with symbols such as the temple. This was also touched on in my original post. Though God dwelt in the temple, it didn’t become God, so why should the Father’s indwelling of Jesus do so?
I’ve also covered the fact that, though Jesus functioned as God towards us, he did so as God’s ambassador, not God himself.
He performed his mighty works, not to prove that he was God, but like Moses in the opening verses of Exodus 4, to prove to Israel that their God had sent him. In John 11:42 he prays, like Elijah for the power to perform an attesting sign “that they [Israel] may believe that you have sent me.”
In Matthew 9 he forgave the sins of the paralytic man and was duly accused of blasphemy, not for claiming to be God, but for doing something which was though of as being God’s exclusive preserve. Jesus makes this explicit. In verse 6 he explains that he performs the miracle, not to prove that he is God Almighty, but in order to show that God had conferred upon a human being the authority to forgive sins.
This is certainly how the crowds understood this in verse 8: “But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power to men.”
Jesus’ own self-understanding of the sense in which he was an elohim (god) is revealed in John 10:34 to be functional as opposed to ontological. He chose to define himself in terms of the judges of Psalm 82 who were also called elohim by virtue of their office, not because they were divine persons.
This is how the apostles preached Jesus. A man distinct from God who nonetheless operates in the name, or authority of God:
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you.
God approved of and worked through Jesus. The power was not his own. This is consistent with John who quotes him in 5:19 as saying that, although he was in a status of functional equality with the Father, he could do nothing by himself. This would be a very strange and misleading thing for a person in the Godhead to say.
Or John 14:10: “The words that I speak to you I speak not of myself, but the Father dwelling in me does the works”.
Peter again:
How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. Not- for he was God, but that God was with- as a being distinct from- him.
You wrote:I’m still waiting to hear from someone why the Pharisees picked up stones to stone Jesus if it wasn’t for this kind of blasphemous self-identification in John 8:59. An accusation of blasphemy does not appear in this context. See above, where the charge is made in connection with a claim of derived authority, not inherent divinity. I’ll prepare a separate post on this text since it can’t be adequately covered briefly. You wrote:When the early church saw Jesus, they saw God, and worshipped him as such. Where in the Bible is Jesus worshipped as God? The only word translated ‘worship’ as applied to Jesus is, in the original Greek proskuneo, the equivalent of the Hebrew shachah, meaning to bow down. Jews would often bow before their seniors, for example Jacob before Esau. Yet this is not the worship given to God alone. For that, the word lautreo is reserved. This is never used of Jesus. See also Revelation 3:9 where the baddies will proskunesosin before the saints. I can’t find a single example where people even pray to Jesus. In Acts, the apostles pray to God, referring to Jesus in the 3rd person, as someone, therefore, other than God. You wrote:A merely human Jesus fails to plumb the depths of the seriousness of the problem. The expression ‘merely human’ exposes a failure to understand the Biblical doctrine of man. Humanity should not be judged by the depths it has fallen to in Adam, but in the height and greatness of God’s design, as revealed through Christ. This comparison does much to expose the debilitating effects of sin and is what I meant by Jesus’ unique normality. Our humanity is broken and stifled. In Jesus, humanity finds its full expression. Sin could not be taken more seriously than in John 3:16, yet it says that God gave his beloved Son, not himself. Many are the loving parents who would testify that this is the harder and more costly of the two sacrifices to make. You wrote:In short, there is no solution offered or found for sin.
The demand that God had to come and die for our sins comes from man, not God. From philosophy, not revelation. Otherwise it would be stated in the Bible. What the Bible does tell us is that God has dealt with sin by sending his Son to be the propitiatory sin-offering. That he takes sin so seriously that he was prepared to sacrifice his own beloved Son in order to provide a solution to the problem.
According to Romans 5:12-21, it was by a man that sin entered into the world, therefore justification would have to come by man, another Adam. This text shows that it is Jesus’ humanity, righteousness and obedience that qualify him to be the redeemer. What’s emphasised over and again is that the Messiah be a kinsman, closely related to those whom he must redeem. Nowhere does ‘divinity’ get a mention.
Likewise, 1Corinthians 15:21 “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection from the dead”. What follows is another comparison between Jesus and Adam. Not really a fair one if Adam is a mere man and Jesus is the Godhead incarnate.
You wrote:Without these realities in which to believe and find ‘the Spirit of life (that) set me free from the law of sin and death’, we do not have the personal experience of God which God had planned for us to know. I was not denying a ‘personal experience’ of God for believers. I was just challenging your assertion that it can be used as a litmus test for truth. Mystics such as Hindus, Shamans and Sufists claim very intense ‘experiences of god’ during their rituals, but their beliefs, or indeed their gods, should not to be validated on that basis. Of course we experience a unique dynamic of God’s spirit through faith in the gospel message. Of course this transforming power goes far beyond what could be achieved by mere persuasion alone, independent of the divine empowerment that comes through the gospel alone. I was simply pointing out that it is through understanding and accepting God’s message to us that this spiritual revolution takes place. Personal experiences are not quantifiable, even by our own selves. Hence they are a poor plumb-line for truth. We could argue about which of us has the most joy and peace, who loves Jesus more or who takes sin the most seriously, but compared to what? Even if I glowed in the dark, you’d still need to go back to the Bible in order to see if what I believe lined up with it. You wrote:Read ‘What St Paul Really Said’/N.T.Wright.
I don’t have access to this at the moment. What I do have is an ‘Ex Auditu’ article by him entitled ‘One Lord, One People’ in which he sets out his beliefs about Jesus’ standing in relation to Israel’s Sh’ma. I’ll do a short critique on this and post it in the next couple of days.
In conclusion…
In this and another couple of other posts I’ll be making I have tried to address the points you raised. I wonder if you could respond to a couple of mine. They are as follows:
In John 14:28 Jesus said that the Father was greater than him. Can God be greater than God? If so wouldn’t the supreme God, the Most High God, the God of the other gods (all designations for the Father) also be the only one who is truly God? If Jesus is someone other than that God, wouldn’t that exclude him from membership of the godhead, or at least relegate him to a subordinate position, even if it is found to consist of more than one person? What do you make of Jesus’ statement in John 17:3 that the Father is the monon alethinon theon?
Like you, I believe the cross is central to Christology, but I also think that standard Trinitarian orthodoxy is missing something important here:
When God forsook his Son, what was left on the cross? A complete man? A human body, minus the divine personal centre?
Was it a matter of ‘God the Son’ merely surrendering his human body and returning to the existence he enjoyed prior to being ‘incarnated’ into it?
Or did Jesus as a man and no more, really pour out all that he was, without remainder, trusting that he would not be left in Sheol, but that God would raise him again?
This would seem to be the faith of the Son of God which Paul refers to in Galatians 2:20. It would hardly take trust for an eternal person to go back to being what he had been for far longer than he had been a man, indeed, for eternity.
At the moment he cried out ‘my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Jesus called on his God. Is the Father therefore the God of the Son, or not? Both Peter and Paul unashamedly call him not only the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but also his God (2 Cor 11:31; Eph 1:3; 1Pet 1:3).
From all this it would appear that Jesus is not just someone other than the Father. He is someone other than God.
Startling claims
Fascinating discussion!
[b]Theocrat wrote: In John 17:3, Jesus clearly sets himself in contrast to ‘the only one who is truly God’, the Father.[/b]
I agree that grammatically Jesus differentiates himself here from ‘the only one who is truly God’. But looking at the overall implications of Jesus’ statement, I see it as a startling claim that no created being could properly make. I can’t imagine the archangel Gabriel saying: “Eternal life consists of knowing me and knowing God.”
Jesus expected his followers to love him so intensely that their love for self and others would seem like hatred in comparison (Luke 14:26). Would the one true God tolerate being eclipsed in honour by his [i]created[/i] Son?
Jesus did not merely show people how to live (which is what a prophet would do) but he called people to devote themselves to him and to give him their ultimate allegiance (Matthew 10:39).
Jesus claimed to be the only means whereby a man can find God. A mere prophet may claim to be a signpost to God but never to be the only way (John 14:6).
Jesus claimed to be the only thing which will truly satisfy a man’s soul (John 6:35). No true prophet would make such blasphemous claims.
Jesus invited people to depend on him for peace, rest, joy, strength, and everything else needed to cope with life (Matthew 11:28, John 14:1). Could a mere creature fulfil that role?
The message of the prophets such as Moses, Elijah, and Isaiah was: “Come to God. Follow God. Obey God.” But Jesus’ message was thoroughly egocentric: “Come to [i]me[/i]. Follow [i]me[/i]. Obey [i]me[/i].”
Jesus spoke of himself and God together as “we” and “our” (John 14:23). Which creature would ever dare to that?
[b]Theocrat wrote: The only word translated ‘worship’ as applied to Jesus is, in the original Greek, proskuneo … Yet this is not the worship given to God alone. For that, the word lautreo is reserved. This is never used of Jesus.[/b]
What about Revelation 22:3?
[b]Theocrat wrote: Strictly speaking, the spirit of God would appear to be his operational presence, as opposed to another person in the godhead … 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.[/b]
I don’t see how this view is compatible with the fact that the Holy Spirit listens to God the Father (John 16:13) and talks to God the Father (Romans 8:27).
Thou saist
You assert that the love and allegiance Jesus demands, the exclusivity of his claims and the promises of life to those who put their trust in him could only be made by him if he was God.
These are limitations which you place on the role of Jesus. I’m not so sure that the Bible does. Instead, as the ‘shaliach’ of the Father he has plenipotentiary power. To deal with God’s agent is to deal with God.
Surely this functional way of interpreting Jesus’ role is far more consistent with the sum of scripture than the ontological one, since it violates neither the oneness of God nor the complete humanity of Jesus.
What do you reckon to Revelation 22:3?
Good question. The verse mentions both God and the lamb. Yet only one is worshipped (latreusousin auto). I would suggest that, in harmony with its consistent use in every other place, it applies to God in this case as well.
I don’t see how this view is compatible with the fact that the Holy Spirit listens to God the Father (John 16:13) and talks to God the Father (Romans 8:27). Spirit, word and wisdom were all subject to personification in Jewish literature. In Proverbs 8 ‘Lady Wisdom’ stands, cries out, has a mouth and lips, etc. She even seems to share a flat with someone called Prudence (Proverbs 8:12).
Jesus has left behind the paraclete to continue his work while he is ‘away’, so it makes sense to employ personal language in describing the spirit by which he continues the work he did whilst personally present.
If not, how would you account for the vast majority of cases in which the spirit is referred to impersonally?
Non-divine man left hanging
I’m following and enjoying the debate, but feel unqualified to comment on the grammatical nitty-gritty. I’d like to say that I’d agree that Jesus’ humanity needs to be just that. Just humanity. That doesn’t rule out divinity though.
The point of the cross, I think, demands further thought. Although I presuppose substitutionary atonement here, I think the atoning death and resurrection must be of the God-man Jesus, not just a man.
(I appreciate language is difficult to depict, but I hope you understand my point.)
Theocrat et al, could you comment further on what you believe is the point of a non-divine man dying on a cross?
Hanging
The only point is service and sacrifice taken to an extreme length in pursuit of a goal.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
In pursuit of a goal
Yes - the question then being, what was the goal, and was it accomplished. We then rejoin the loop of previous posts concerning arguments and counter arguments etc.
Gulp!
Theocrat - you’ve certainly done some thinking through of your position. Thanks for your concern about whether I’m the victim of a centuries old deception! Having read your post, I’m not sure I’m feeling any more enlightened. My darkness must be deep indeed.
It’s all (or mostly) well argued. I think I’ll leave the detailed responses to others better qualified than myself. One could go on interminably selecting evidence for Jesus as a divine being, and you would come back and say no - that merely shows Jesus was a divine agent.
The heart of the matter for me is the divine project - how a covenant-keeping God remains true to his people, but deals with their unfaithfulness to him, and thereby deals with the unfaithfulness of the world (which was always Israel’s vocation).
The biblical testimony for me is overwhelming - all born of Adam participate in Adam’s sin. It would therefore require a different order of humanity to become the sin-bearer on behalf of Adam’s race. The biblical Jesus is presented as of a different order from Abraham, Moses, David etc, all of whom were flawed individuals - a characteristic they share with the rest of the human race, before and since. But this is where a trinitarian understanding illuminates the love of God, over and above a non-trinitarian explanation. (It’s also where certain versions of the ‘penal substitution’ view of the atonement come unstuck). God did not require in a retributive way a human sacrifice to atone for sin (which would have made him seem a monster - cosmic child-abuser). The love revealed on the cross was self-sacrifice: God taking on Himself through the Son the sins of the world.
In addition, it is indicative of the depths of sin’s power that only God could provide in Himself, through the Son, a solution to sin’s power. Jesus as purely (not merely) of human stock did not have this ability, unless he had himself been redeemed by some prior act of atonement. All the other questions which you raise concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father on the cross can be answered fairly simply.
You try to sidestep some of these issues by suggesting that there is, actually, a difference between Jesus and the rest of mankind - in that Jesus was the highest expression of human nature (which nobody else, before or since, has achieved). So this leads you to the contradictory phrase ‘unique normality’ to describe Jesus.
When the early church saw Jesus, they saw God. This was in the light of Jesus’s death/reurrection, ascension/outpouring of the Spirit. The most attractive way of approaching the divinity of Jesus, for me, at the moment, is the historical route: the attempt to reconstruct how 1st century Jews (and gentiles) became believers in the light of their own mindsets and world-views, based on the historical context of the 1st century.
Tom Wright in ‘What Saint Paul really said’ shows how Paul came to this position in a thoroughly Jewish way, and gives three illustrations.
The first is 1 Corinthians 8:1-6. Having asserted that God is indeed one, Paul takes the Shema, the great Jewish assertion of God’s ‘oneness’, and proceeds to portray the Father and One Lord - Jesus Christ as right at the heart of the ‘oneness’ which the Shema asserts. And the context sets this against the pagan idolatry of worshipping many gods. A Jesus, and a Father, were central to a conception of God which shared the Jewish polemic of opposing pagan polytheism with creational monotheism.
The second is Philippians 2:5-11. Verses 10-11 apply to Jesus the text from Isaiah 45:23, which in context is monotheistic. The rest of the text from Philippians shows how Paul squares the circle of saying that a God who would share his glory with no other is now apparently sharing it with Jesus. A Jesus who was fully equal with God became human, dying on a cross, was exalted and given the name LORD (ie YHWH). How did this happen? Because Jesus did what only God could do, in fulfilling the purpose of the covenant - dealing with the sins of Israel, and thereby providing deliverance for the whole world - fulfilling the vocation of Israel.
The third is Colossians 1:15-20. Wright points out the parallelism of 1-18a and 18b-20; the poem picks up the traditional scriptural theme of Israel’s God - creator of the cosmos and redeemer of Israel, but the central character of Paul’s poem is not YHWH but Jesus, or as Wright says, ‘YHWH now recognised in the face of Jesus’.
Wright also points out ‘dozens of other pieces of data’. There is Paul’s use of the phrase Son of God both in its traditional Jewish meaning and as a technical term when combined with ‘father’ implying divinity. There is the use of the word Kyrios, with its echoes of the substitute use for YHWH in the OT.
Wright goes on to do something similar for the Spirit in the next section which he does for Jesus in this section. It’s all worth repeating, but time and space forbid.
So there you are; have a go at your own interpretations of these passages! (I’m sure you will produce something!).
By the way, I’m still sticking to my interpretation of Jesus as temple as implying his divine nature. I’ve rehashed all the arguments for this in a response to Andrew, who raised similar objections. Jesus was doing far more than simply offering a human body as the receptacle for the presence of God.
More data to consider
Thank you, Theocrat, for your thought-provoking points. But I still have some hurdles to get over before I can accept that Jesus is ontologically in a lower class than God the Father.
You say Jesus is the [i]shaliach[/i] of God the Father, and that to deal with God’s agent is to deal with God. But wouldn’t that result in Scripture speaking about [b]either[/b] God performing a function through Jesus [b]or[/b] Jesus performing a function on behalf of God, but not [b]both[/b] performing the same function as equal subjects? For example, see John 14:1; John 17:3; Eph. 1:2; Eph. 5:5; 1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:16-17; Rev. 5:13; Rev. 6:16; et al.
Ephesians 1:2 says: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
If your view of Jesus is correct, I would expect Paul to have said:
“Grace to you and peace from God our Father.” [i]or[/i] “Grace to you and peace from God our Father through the Lord Jesus Christ.” [i]or[/i] “Grace to you and peace from the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the channel of God’s grace & peace to the world.”
Regarding Revelation 22:3, you state that only one is worshipped and you quote the Greek [i]latreusousin auto[/i]. I don’t know Greek but I assume [i]auto[/i] means ‘him’ (singular). Since the Lamb was the last named person, isn’t it grammatically more likely that either [i]auto[/i] refers to the Lamb, or alternatively that God and the Lamb are ontologically one?
I accept your point that spirit, word and wisdom were all subject to personification in Jewish literature, which may explain references to the Holy Spirit being grieved or making a decision. But I don’t think that explanation holds water in the case of John 16:13 or Romans 8:27 where the Holy Spirit is distinguished from God the Father. I can understand the concept of a lady called Wisdom standing on a street corner preaching to passers-by, but I can’t understand the concept of a personification of God’s power/energy speaking to God himself as in Romans 8:27, or vice versa as in John 16:13.
There are also several Scriptures in which the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the power of God. But if the Holy Spirit is only a name of God’s influences and energies upon the souls of men, then it would be substantially correct to use the general word ‘power’ to represent the idea of the Holy Spirit. But this would lead to the following farcical conclusions:
And Jesus returned in the power of the power to Galilee. Luke 4:14
God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the power and with power. Acts 10:38
May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the power you may abound in hope. Romans 15:13
… by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the power of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ. Romans 15:18-19
My speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the power and of power. 1 Corinthians 2:4
I am sorry I was not able to consider your final question about how I would account for the vast majority of cases in which the spirit is referred to impersonally. I am not sure which places you are referring to. Could you give some examples please? Thanks.
Soon come
Peter, Phil and Mars Hill (Can I just call you Mars?)
I’ll respond to your most recent messages shortly. In the meantime, I have finished and posted the comments I referred to above, on the Christology set out by NT Wright in his article ‘One Lord, One People.
This should interest you all since it has direct bearing on many of the points already discussed in our exchanges.
martian landscapes
Thanks theocrat,
Most people call me “hey you” or “teacher”, so any recognisable abbreviation is fine.
Hey, you!
Teacher
I’m sure both Peter and I also presuppose substitutionary atonement. The point to it all for me would be God demonstrating his love and grace and ransoming man from sin. The ways in which he does this through the cross are many. What follows below is by no means an exhaustive list:
Abraham demonstrated his love by the sacrifice, not of himself but his son. This is a prefigure of the love of God demonstrated in the giving of his own Son. It is impossible to avoid the parallel between John 3:16 and the binding of Isaac. It is surely significant that in these and other places, God is presented in the role of Abraham, not Isaac.
God shows how seriously he takes sin by the price he is prepared to pay to ransom us from it. He also shows how much he loves us by his willingness to go to such extreme ends in order to achieve our salvation.
The point of Calvary is also to set forth Jesus as the ultimate role-model. The highest example of faith and sacrificial self-denial. He faced all the challenges we face, and more, was subject to all our limitations, yet overcame.
The cross is also prelude to the resurrection. Jesus is a first-fruit of the general resurrection. Death was the result of sin and the emblem of mankind’s exile from God. By raising his Son from the dead and giving him immortality, God vindicated Jesus’ message, Sonship and claim to be the source of the life of the age to come.
It is also a message to the world. Crucifixion was Rome’s way of showing the terrible consequences of going against her system. The resurrection is God’s way of showing that after the princes of this age have done their worst, there is a hope beyond the grave for those who remain faithful to him which no power in heaven or earth can deny us.
Old chestnut
Peter
One could go on interminably selecting evidence for Jesus as a divine being, and you would come back and say no - that merely shows Jesus was a divine agent.
In stating this you seem to acknowledge that there is Biblical support for my interpretation of Jesus’ role.
You choose one way based on the fact that, according to you, only God could die for our sins. You have yet to show me where the Bible says this.
I base mine on the conviction that three is not one, that a being is either mortal or immortal, able to be tempted or not, all powerful and all knowing or limited, and that Jesus and God are separated by these two categories.
The biblical testimony for me is overwhelming - all born of Adam participate in Adam’s sin.
Could you please give me some examples of texts which clearly substantiate this. Isn’t it sinning that makes us sinners? Surely all that Jesus would need in order to be sinless is not to sin. That being the case he would have no need for atonement.
In addition, it is indicative of the depths of sin’s power that only God could provide in Himself, through the Son, a solution to sin’s power.
I wonder- Is it a prerequisite of the gospel that we make sin out to be as powerful as we possibly can? Surely the problem with sin presented by the scriptures is that it’s an outrage to God and has had such devastating effects on the entire created order. Isn’t that enough? Does it also have to bring the wrath of God down on someone who hasn’t done anything wrong yet?
All the other questions which you raise concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father on the cross can be answered fairly simply.
I wonder, could I press you further to actually do this? How could God forsake God, yet still be one God? How can the immortal God die? Would he not then cease to be immortal?
…this leads you to the contradictory phrase ‘unique normality’ to describe Jesus.
I was actually quoting from JAT Robinson in ‘the human face of God’, where he makes some points very similar to those I have set out in this discussion. The word normal is not used in the sense of common or everyday, but rather normative with God’s standard for mankind and prefigurative of the humanity of the age to come. It is by virtue of the rest of us sinning and coming short of it that Jesus is unique by comparison.
Link between Philippians 2:5-11. and Isaiah 45:23.
In honouring and submitting to God’s man, God is honoured and served. When the people heard and followed Moses they heard and followed Yahweh. So too David and other godly leaders. Consider the following striking example:
“And David said to all the congregation, Now bless Yahweh your God. And all the congregation blessed Yahweh God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Yahweh, and the king” (I Chronicles 29:20).
See also my post to Phil, below, on this point.
Colossians 1:15-20.
The ‘all things’ created through Jesus are specified in the immediate context. Not the heavens and earth of the Genesis creation, but thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers that are in the present heavens and earth. These all describe positions of governmental authority. This text says much the same thing as Ephesians 1:20-23.
Yahweh had no intermediary in the Genesis creation, for he says “I am Yahweh that makes all things; that stretches out the heavens alone; that spreads abroad the earth by myself” (Isaiah 44:24)
There is the use of the word Kyrios, with its echoes of the substitute use for YHWH in the OT.
I refer to my comments on this in my critique of NT Wright’s ‘One Lord, One People’.
There is Paul’s use of the phrase Son of God both in its traditional Jewish meaning and as a technical term when combined with ‘father’ implying divinity.
The Bible presents us with God the Father and Jesus the Son of God. The title Father describes God. The title Son describes a man’s relationship to God.
Though the creeds employ the title ‘God the Son’, this is found nowhere in the Bible. Neither is the equivalent ‘The Father of God’, though the Roman church is rigorous enough in its incarnation theology to describe Mary as the ‘Mother of God’. These phrases would indeed attribute divinity to the Son.
To quote Colin Brown as I did at the end of my ‘Before Abraham was…’ article:
“Indeed, to be a ‘Son of God’ one has to be a being who is not God!”
More on this as well in my message to Phil below.
Impersonal spirit
Phil
But wouldn’t that result in Scripture speaking about either God performing a function through Jesus or Jesus performing a function on behalf of God, but not both performing the same function as equal subjects?
Again, as I stated above, the reason why Jesus is able to do so much of what he does is because God has empowered him with that level of authority. Before that empowerment, he would not have been able to do any miraculous work. This is why he performed no miracles prior to his baptism, where the spirit came on him. Jesus’ power is not by virtue of anything intrinsic to him. If that were the case, he would have no need of the Father to confer anything upon him.
This would seem to be what John 5:17-31 is all about. Jesus is unpacking his declaration in verse 19 about his own inability and the effect of the Father’s empowerment.
"In Hebrew thought a patriarch’s personality extended throughout his entire household to his wives, his sons and their wives, his daughters, servants in his household and even in some sense his property. The "one" personality was present in the "many" who were with him. In a specialized sense when the patriarch as lord of his household deputized his trusted servant as his malak (i.e. his messenger or angel) the man was endowed with the authority and resources of his lord to represent him fully and transact business in his name. In Semitic thought this messenger-representative was conceived of as being personally - and in his very words - the presence of the sender."A.R. Johnson- "The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God"
Evidence of this way of thinking and speaking during new testament times is found in a couple of places:
Firstly Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10:In Luke’s account, a centurion sends some Jewish elders to Jesus to ask him to come and heal his servant. Matthew describes the conversation as taking place directly between the Centurion and Jesus. In Jewish thought, for the purpose of the mission, they are the Centurion, and in dealing with them, Jesus is dealing with him.
Also Matt 20:20ff, Mark 10:35ff:Matthew’s account of James and John approaching Jesus with a request for preferential treatment in the kingdom makes no mention of any intermediary. Yet according to Mark’s account they got their mother to do their dirty work for them!
The Hebrew Bible is replete with examples. Look at how Moses beings speaking of Yahweh in the 3rd person, but ends up speaking as Yahweh. I can only imagine the mileage that Trinitarianism would rinse from this idiom of speech, if Jesus had ever used it:
"And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that Yahweh did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharoah, and to all his servants, and to all this land; the great trials which your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders: but Yahweh has not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, to this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxed old upon you, and your shoe is not waxed old upon your foot. You have not eaten bread, neither have you drunk wine or strong drink; that you may know that I am Yahweh your God. (Deut 29:2-6)As for the phrase “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”, this is self-explanatory. Perhaps the problem is that we are so accustomed to seeing the title ’Christ’ following Jesus’ name that we unconsciously read it as though it was his surname! Joseph and Mary Christ had a baby called Jesus…
In this formula the Father is God. Jesus by contrast is not God but the ‘anointed one’ instead. This describes his role. Since anointing implies both empowerment (Which God does not need, since he is already all powerful) and commission, (Which God would not need because he is already sovereign), this title would not be fitting for him, where he God Almighty.
Regarding Revelation 22:3, you state that only one is worshipped and you quote the Greek latreusousin auto. I don’t know Greek but I assume auto means ‘him’ (singular). Since the Lamb was the last named person, isn’t it grammatically more likely that either auto refers to the Lamb, or alternatively that God and the Lamb are ontologically one?
This would seem to be a good example of the extent to which of our reading of a text is informed by the pre-understanding we bring to it. If they are not ontologically one, and we are forced to choose, I would have to say God, since making the object of ‘lautreo’ the lamb, would exclude God from getting the worship/service. The grammar allows for this, in spite of God not being the last named person.
Wouldn’t it be fair to say that there is not enough in this verse to draw a firm conclusion either way?
… it would be substantially correct to use the general word ‘power’ to represent the idea of the Holy Spirit. But this would lead to the following farcical conclusions…
This is a bit of a straw man. Obviously the word power is too limited to convey the range of meanings carried by the word ‘spirit’. Do you have the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology? It’s very good source and describes the word as possessing a ‘spectrum of meaning’. My contention is simply that this spectrum does not include a third member of a triune godhead.
What you have done would be rather like replacing ‘Spirit’ with ‘God’ (Since the spirit is God). Then, every time the Bible mentions the Spirit of God, we could insist that it means ‘the God of God’.
The ‘operational presence of God’ would provide a somewhat better substitute. It would be possible to substitute this for the spirit in all the texts you cite.
The holy spirit is also synonymous with God himself. For example 1Cor 2:11 which describes the relationship between God and his spirit in terms of that between a man and his spirit. Clearly not another person.
I am sorry I was not able to consider your final question about how I wouldaccount for the vast majority of cases in which the spirit is referred to impersonally. I am not sure which places you are referring to. Could you give some examples please? Thanks.
Examples are numerous. Far too many to cover in this limited space. The words holy spirit, spirit, the spirit of truth occur over a hundred times in scripture, always in the neuter and with corresponding neuter- hence impersonal- articles, adjectives, participles and pronouns. In other words, the spirit is always an ‘it’. Maybe it could just be something that you keep your eye out for in the future.
Perhaps the best example is John 14:17 because it occurs in the immediate context of one of the two examples of personification you mentioned. Though it is not always reflected in English translations, the pronouns for spirit in this passage are impersonal. The Greek reads more like this:
“Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees it not, neither knows it: but ye know it; for it dwells with you, and shall be in you.”
Moreover, apart from ‘comforter’, the figures used to describe the spirit are predominantly impersonal, fire, oil, water etc. As I wrote above, the word itself means wind. I hope you find some of this helpful.
Not yet persuaded ... but please keep trying!
Hi Theocrat
Many thanks for stimulating parts of my mind that other interlocutors do not normally reach! I cannot fault most of what you say but I still feel your estimation of Jesus is less than he deserves. I shall continue mulling over your latest comments and will respond to them later if anything occurs to me, but meanwhile I would like to throw a few more counter-arguments at you to see if I can find a chink somewhere in your armour!
(1) Colin Brown wrote: “Indeed, to be a ‘Son of God’ one has to be a being who is not God!” But I would say that by the same argument the title “Son of Man” implies Jesus is not man. So why don’t you draw that conclusion?
(2) You stated in your opening post that Jesus “… 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.”
However, Jesus himself spoke of his pre-incarnational existence in heaven, sharing glory with his Father. Therefore, even though you regard Jesus as less than God, surely even you would have to admit that he was not a normal human being in the same category as the rest of us but was rather a spiritual/heavenly/angelic being who was incarnated as a man.
(3) John 14:1 says “You believe in God. Believe also in me” (or “Believe in God. Believe also in me”). If Jesus were merely God’s vice-regent (or his [i]malak[/i] who represented God fully and transacted business in his name), then wouldn’t Jesus have said:
“Believe in me, because by so doing you will effectively be believing in God.”
or
“Believe in God, which you can accomplish in practice by believing in me.”
However, Jesus’ words in John 14:1 tend to suggest two distinct objects of faith.
(4) Romans 8:27 speaks of the Spirit interceding to God on behalf of people. Does that not imply at least two centres of consciousness within the godhead? I would never think of my own spirit interceding to me.
(5) You wrote: “Apart from ‘comforter’, the figures used to describe the spirit are predominantly impersonal, fire, oil, water etc. As I wrote above, the word itself means wind.”
I would reply: Many of the figures used to describe Jesus are also impersonal (bread, light, door, bronze statue of a serpent, etc.) but I do not therefore doubt Jesus’ personality.
(6) Whether the Spirit of God is personal or impersonal, would a creaturely vice-regent of God have the audacity to [b]send[/b] the Spirit of God? John 16:7
(7) And would a creaturely vice-regent of God [b]choose[/b] who acquires a relationship with God? The context of Matthew 11:27 implies it is Jesus’ choice [i]distinct[/i] from (albeit in harmony with) that of the Father.
(8) Does our different theology about Jesus actually make any difference in practice? We view him differently but do we really treat him any differently? Have you given Jesus your ultimate allegiance? Do you depend on Jesus for peace, rest, joy, strength, and everything else you need to cope with life? Do you esteem Jesus as highly as you esteem God? Do you submit to Jesus’ lordship unquestioningly (even though in your opinion he is not incapable of error)? If it came to the crunch, would you die for Jesus’ sake (he who is only a creature in your opinion)? Matthew 10:39; Luke 9:23-24; Matthew 11:28; John 14:1; John 5:23; John 15:4-5
Regards … Phil
Hot chestnuts
“One could go on interminably …”
No, this does not imply I acknowledge biblical support for your position. It just implies one could go on interminably, as this conversation seems to be doing!
“The biblical testimony is overwhelming …”
Actually, I find your comment in response to mine quite naive. If it is purely ‘sinning’ that makes us ‘sinners’, and all Jesus needed to do was to stop ‘sinning’, then our redemption can be simply by-passed: just don’t sin! (Unless there is a hidden significance attached to your presentation of Jesus: he was the only one who could stop ‘sinning’). I take Romans 3:9-18 and Romans 5:12-18 as paradigmatic: sin is universal, and death, its consequence, is universal. This is paradigmatic for the bible - which relentlessly exposes sin in all its heroes. I take it from this that sin is both a choice and a condition. Paul’s exposition of the remedy is that the solution lies in a death (and a rebirth). Jesus died on the cross as the representative of the last Adam. He rose from the dead as the representative of the new humanity. Our participation in this new humanity depends on a death, not a choice.
“I wonder- Is it a prerequisite of the gospel that we make sin out to be as powerful as we possibly can?”
No - it’s a reasonable inference from our experience and from the observation that God provided the sacrifice through himself in the form of His Son that sin is indeed something profoundly rooted in our human Adamic identity.
“All the other questions which you raise concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father on the cross can be answered fairly simply.
I wonder, could I press you further to actually do this? How could God forsake God, yet still be one God? How can the immortal God die? Would he not then cease to be immortal?”
Yes, but not on this thread, as it entails more space and time than is available to me.
“Unique normality”
Apart from JAT Robinson, where in the bible are any of the concepts you propose in this paragraph substantiated?
” ‘And David said to all the congregation, Now bless Yahweh your God. And all the congregation blessed Yahweh God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Yahweh, and the king’ (I Chronicles 29:20).”
Very interesting - and I need to do further study on this - but it comes nowhere near the divine identification of Jesus in Philippians 2:10-11.
In the verse you quote, the obeisance and prostration are made before God and king, but it’s one form of obeisance to God, and another to the king - I don’t think anyone is suggesting this is worship of the king as divine! In Philippians 2:10-11, there is no room for such a separation: especially in the light of the rest of the passage.
“The ‘all things’ created through Jesus are specified in the immediate context. Not the heavens and earth of the Genesis creation, but thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers that are in the present heavens and earth”
Really? Where did you get the authority to make this distinction? Were there two acts of creation in which the heavens and earth of Genesis preceded an act of creation of heavens and earth by Jesus?
“Yahweh had no intermediary in the Genesis creation, for he says ‘I am Yahweh that makes all things; that stretches out the heavens alone; that spreads abroad the earth by myself’ (Isaiah 44:24)”
Exactly - Jesus was YHWH - as part of his being. There was no intermediary.
“Kyrios”
Claiming a privileged definition of the word based on earlier texts over and above the way the word is actually used in the NT is special pleading.
“The Bible presents us with God the Father and Jesus the Son of God. The title Father describes God. The title Son describes a man’s relationship to God.”
This needs a separate thread - in which the augmented significance of phrases like ‘Son of God’ in the NT can be brought out. In the meantime, ponder on John 19:7. To claim to be ‘Son of God’ is not a capital offence, in the traditional use of the term.
You also need to answer the criticisms I made of your interpretation of John 8 in the ‘I am …’ post.
In the meantime, take a look at Hebrews 1:6, 8, 10. Any comments?
a slightly different approach offered
I have been reading your comments and explanations with great interest. Actually, the questioin of the Trinity has been occupying my mind for several years. First of all I would like to ask Theokrat and Peter the following question: Is the question about Jesus being God or not a question of salvation like it used to be in the historical church; or are you open to accept each others as part of the same mystical body of Christ? Secondly I would like to challenge both your view, Theokrat and yours, Peter. In your discussions you seem to try to show if Jesus is God himself or ‘purely’ (even though as you well noted this should not imply ‘only’) a man. One of these two.
What I want to suggest,though, is not to ask questions that didn’t seem to be asked in hebrew and 1 st century times. In the OT, and correct me if I am wrong, there was never a discussion going on or a statement being made if the messiah, or the Christ, or the ‘son of man’ in Daniel would be of the same essence than God or not. Apparently it was enough that he would be the ‘Christ’. Consequently in the NT in my opinion there was never the ‘ontological’ question raised. Obviousely the greek mind in the 3 rd and 4 th century felt the need to raise and answer this question - which brought about persecution and killing of Christ believing people.
But obviousely in the NT this question was not brought up. Why is it not enough for us to say that Jesus is the son of God; that he is the Christ, that he is the saviour?… Why do we so badly have to decide which exact nature he is of?
Another observation I want to make. If you read the Bible and while you do that try not to be too much concerned with philisophical constructs like the Trinity etc; it comes so naturally to understand most references (of course there are some few exceptions) of God as referring to the Father. As an example take most of Paul’s introductions to his letters. Just as one example out of many: Paul an apostle sent not from men nor by man - but by Jesus Christ and God the Father…. (Galatians 1.1); ‘Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God’ (Ephesians 1,1)…. Here and in so many other verses it would just be artificial (i am not suggesting it is impossible) to assume the doctrine of the Trinity. Always and always again there is Jesus and there is also God (meaning the Father)and in Ephesians 1,1 with ‘by the will of God’ no one really should think of Jesus being ment here. Another observation I have made is that today many Christians take the doctrine of the Trinity (and not the stories of the Bible!) as a foundation of their expressions of faith. In theological seminary, for example, one teacher said: since we believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, why should we not pray to the spirit? Let’s pray to him… I am not saying God has a problem when we pray to the Spirit; but what I am suggesting is that a greek model of ‘how God works’ should not be the center of our faith.
Going back to the nature of Christ. I suggest to call his nature ’ son of God’ or ‘Christ’. Why, on earth, (or in heaven) should there only be two natures plus angels available? In my understanding both of your views; Theokrat and Peter; are disproved with Hebrews chapter 1 through 3. I mean if Jesus was God himself - why spending 3 chapters discussions about why is Jesus greater than Moses and Angels etc. I mean if Jesus is God himself it would be enouugh to say Jeus is God fullstop. Everybody knows that God is greater than the angels - you don’t have to explain that one. In the same time, if Jesus was merely man - it is enough to say that, too. But since Jesus is Christ and the son of God - the writer of Hebrews is actually taking its time to properly place Jesus in the heavenly realm. This is very much noteworthy.
The most interesting verse in those texts I find: Hebrews Chapter 1, 9: …therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy’. This is one example that Jesus is of its own kind. Saying Jesus was the Almighty God just doesn’t work here (and elsewhere). How can the Almighty God have a God above?
At the same time, Theokrat, it should become clear through Hebrews that Jesus is of a different kind than ‘purely’ man. Also Ephesians 1,1 as quoted above should confirm that.
Something else I want to comment on, Theokrat. In one of your posts you have stated that you do not know of any verses in the NT where humans prayed to Jesus. Well here are some:
‘While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit’. (Acts 7,59)
‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved’ (Romans 10.13) that Jesus is ment here should become clear in verse 14 and 15. And last but not least; the second - to - last verse in the Bible: ‘come, Lord Jesus’.
To the question raised whether a mere human being can bring about salvation, or whether it should be God himself. You suggest, Theokrat, that God himslef is not needed for this job. And you, Peter, doubt that the job can be done just by some human that happens to not sin. what about a savior that belongs to neither of those categories fully or exclusively; but belongs to the kind: ‘the son of God’?
looking forward to your reply!
A different approach considered
Tnank you paulchen for your thoughtful and eirenic comments. They probably need more attention than I have been able to give them so far.
I agree that when we look back from at least a 3rd or 4th century onwards point of view, we begin to apply frameworks for discussion about the nature of Jesus which were not the ones used in the 1st century. Nevertheless, that does not invalidate them.
From a 1st century point of view, which I take to be largely the developed Jewish point of view as seen in people like Paul, there is, to my mind, overwhelming evidence for a Jesus who was part of the godhead. It’s just that the nature of the discussion is different from post-1st century definitions.
In the 1st century, the issue seemed to be not so much definition of God’s nature, but how God fulfilled his purposes, and how this made an impact on the world. It was the direction of the argument which was all important. Within that direction, Jesus was being described through the symbols of the language of Judaism, which were the same symbols and language that had previously been used of YHWH. I would point again to the passages which have already been used on this thread - such as John 8; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-20, and also to evidence within the gospels themselves - other than John 8.
I would also point out that Theocrat has already conceded a great deal about Jesus which to my mind puts him on the road to divinity: he was pre-existent; he created, if not heavens and earth, things in heaven and earth; he was sinless; he was worshipped.
The references in Hebrews 1 simply set out the position for a divine Jesus; the subsequent chapters are pursuing in detail the ministry of Jesus.
Even in the NT there is an incipient trinitarianism in some of the formulations - eg Matthew 28:19, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2.
But there are greater reasons for holding to a divine role of Jesus, whether we adopt the earlier Jewish approach or the later Greek trinitarian formulations.
Without a divine Jesus, there can be no outpouring of the divine Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and no people of God experiencing what is basic to the new covenant: the universal and continuous indwelling life of the Spirit. A mere man elevated to the heavens has no authority to dispense this divine gift.
And back-tracking from this: without a divine Jesus, the significance of the crucifixion is lost. We are left with an angry God seeking retribution, and taking it out on an innocent person. (Except, as Paul makes clear in Romans, there are no innocent people born of Adam).
Much as your intervention is attractive, it won’t work without undercutting issues basic to the Christian faith.
This does not mean that Theocrat and I cannot respect each other, and listen to each other’s viewpoint. I have to say that Theocrat comes across as a highly gracious and courteous person, and his scholarship is in a league beyond mine. There is a refreshing humility in his approach. It has already been a pleasure to spend time in his company - more of a pleasure than with some people who hold the same views as myself. I sometimes wonder if the difference between us more one of the use of words than reality, but I haven’t got to that point yet.
Setting the record straight
Paulchen and Peter
Haven’t got time just now, but I would like to set something straight. Although I believe in the pre-existence of Jesus, I do so in a very qualified way. Likewise, as I set out earlier, the worship (prostration) given to him.
I would contend that he existed before his conception not as a personal spirit or god-being, but as an idea in the mind of God.
With a view to Colossians 1:16, creating a position of authority (Which Jesus will do for the saints in the kingdom of God) can be a monarchical prerogative. It does not necessiate divinity.
I will clarify this in my next set of posts, though it may be a little while before I send them off since I’ll be out of the country later this week.
I would also like to say, Peter, that I very much appreciate your words about our exchanges. It goes without saying that the feeling, as indeed the brotherly respect, is mutual.
Confused
If “by him (Jesus) all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities” - Colossians 1:16, when and how could this have happened if Jesus did not pre-exist his earthly life? How could this have happened if Jesus was only an idea in the mind of God before his birth? (I also don’t understand how Jesus can be any less than a creator in the light of this statement - but I’ve already made that observation).
I’ll look forward to the explanation in future posts - though I am wondering where this conversation is going!
different approach qualified
Dear Peter, thank you very much for your reply and for your thoughtful notes. I am glad to hear from you and Theokrat how you affirm each other in personal terms. I hope it is ok for you both that I have come into your correspondence. Also, since I am not a native english speaker excuse my imperfect english at times.
I am not sure whether I have made myslef very well understood and I would like to respond to your reply passage by passage.
‘I agree that when we look back from at least a 3rd or 4th century onwards point of view, we begin to apply frameworks for discussion about the nature of Jesus which were not the ones used in the 1st century. Nevertheless, that does not invalidate them.’
I do agree with you here that every culture must answer the questions raised in teir own culture. so we today in the 21 st century (and that is what emerging church is all about, isn’t it?)have to do that, and therefore also the christians in the 3 rd and 4 th century. Maybe this is based on my rather protestant tradition as opposed to catholic and especially the conciliearen orthodox church which I by the way still highly value. Anyway, I do not consider church councils as of the same importance as the biblical texts. I do not suggest of what you have written that you are holding such a view ( I don’t know), but just that you know where I am coming from.
‘From a 1st century point of view, which I take to be largely the developed Jewish point of view as seen in people like Paul, there is, to my mind, overwhelming evidence for a Jesus who was part of the godhead. It’s just that the nature of the discussion is different from post-1st century definitions.’
In principle I do not disagree that Jesus is part of the Godhead. Going back to the term that Jesus repeatedly attributes to himself, son of God, implies that Jesus is from the ‘same essence’ if you want so, as his father. This is what this title intrinsically implies. It also implies, and this is where we might differ, that Jesus is not God himself, but his son. But therefore still divine. In my eyes this is very, very biblical.
‘Within that direction, Jesus was being described through the symbols of the language of Judaism, which were the same symbols and language that had previously been used of YHWH’
I agree with you here that Jesus in the new testament sometimes takes the