BR: From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God

From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God

Author: Maurice Casey

Publisher: Louisville, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991

Pages: 197

This book had been for a long time on my wish list and I finally bought it. In some ways the things he wrote came at the right time though in other ways I wish I read it earlier.

Short summary:

After a short introduction Casey starts with the methodological assumptions and ways he intends to proceed his analysis. He explains that his method is very similar to that of modern historians of Judaism, which base their analysis on identity. The reason he uses this is because he wants to examine to what extent the authors behind the texts were Jewish/Gentile and what their relationship to the development in Christology was.

He identifies 8 points that made up/approximate the identity of Jewishness and uses this in looking at the texts, starting with John’s Gospel and proceeding with the Synoptics. He tries to remove what he calls the secondary christology and look for what these layers tell us about the communites behind the texts. In chapter 5 he then looks at Jesus, his mission, conflict, concept of the kingdom of God, death and vindication, the movement following him, etc.

Chapter 6 moves on to Messianic and Intermediary figures in 2nd Temple Judaism which is all quite useful before discussing the applications found in the NT, which he does in the three chapters following. He makes some very good observations, especially that the intermediaries often reflected the need of the community.

In chapter 7-9 he discusses, 7. From Jesus to Paul, 8. The Christology of St. Paul and 9. From Paul to John. The discussion is very thorough and his conclusion that developments about intermediaries often reflected the need of the community, arises with strength in his treating of the NT documents.

In chapter 7 he also discusses the vindication of Jesus and places it in its proper context. In his view the claims of the disciples about the resurrection of Jesus sprang forth from resurrection appearances and scripture. He writes: “Their belief did not require an empty tomb for its verification, partly because the normative modes of verification were dreams or visions and scripture… thus we find in our earliest sources that it is precisely resurrection appearances and the witness of scripture that are put forward as proofs… it must be inferred that the story of the empty tomb is secondary. (103)

This concept of secondary legitimation is one that Casey often alludes to. In his discussion of the development of Christology he explains that for the disciples Jesus embodied Jewish identity and Judaism. Instead of the Torah, Jesus was the focal point of the community, and the pillar that sustained the increasingly mixed community. The Torah usually had (and to this day has) this function, it provided the focal point of the community and where there was a decrease in observance, often one found an erosion of the community as well. In the Christian communities, especially those formed or sustained by Paul, the emphasis on observance of the Torah was relatively weak (to put it lightly) and thus  a greater devotion to Jesus was necessary to keep them together. This Casey describes as one of the main factors in the development of Christology: “the development of Jesus was highly functional, because he might hold the community together” (136).

To the community behind the Gospel of John he ascribes the full incarnation: “here Jesus is raised up to deity” (156). His discussion of John’s Gospel is in this chapter more focused on the relationship with “the Jews” and the community and not really necessary to elaborate upon. His closing remarks on the chapter: “Jesus was now a figure so elevated that observant Jews such as Jesus of Nazareth and the first apostles could not believe in him” (159).

The last chapter is titled ‘History, Culture and Truth’. In this chapter he discusses some of the implications of certain christologies, and especially how Jews have consequently been viewed and outright persecuted for not accepting Jesus. His discussion is quite frank containing strong remarks, but nothing without justification. He makes one point that particularly struck with me: “the development of New Testament christology cannot be an example of the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth. The Holy Spirit could hardly lead the church into an evaluation of the Jesus of history which Jesus in his revelatory ministry could not hold, and which leads directly to the condemnation of the chosen people because they have cherished the revelation of God’s oneness to them” (176). (emphasis mine)

My thoughts:

I enjoyed Casey’s book a lot and must say that I am surprised by how it has been (mis)characterized in other works as its primary case being that the inputs for the Incarnation were wholly gentile in nature. This is really a very flawed conclusion, its true that he sees an inverse relationship between the increase of non-Jews in the early Christian movement and the restraining factor of monotheism but his description of the development towards the Incarnation, or from prophet to God is by and through Jewish sources and theres nearly no exploration of how non-Jewish sources have played a role in this. Having said that, it is a good reminder once again to take reviews, mine included, with a grain of salt, and not as a replacement to read the book.

While at first I was a bit skeptical of his methodology it was in my opinion quite helpful. His examination was very thorough and there is no doubt that he has a great grasp on the primary sources. Having read quite a few works on the Historical Jesus both those written before his was published as well as more recent one’s, I must say that the passing of time has in no way made his book redundant but presented me with new perspectives and challenges. I think his soon to be released book will be a interesting way of comparing how his understanding has developed in the last 20 years.

Grade:

9 out of 10

BR: How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?

How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus

Author: Larry W. Hurtado

Publisher: Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2005

Pages: 234

I had set out to review every chapter of this book but it took me too long and my interest faded (as I predicted) so here is my full and final review.

Short summary:

The book is divided into two parts. The first dealing with finding the proper approach to characterize the worship on the part of the followers of Jesus and the implications of it. The second part is mostly a further development of Hurtado’s approach and his defense. In short Hurtado proposes that the devotion on the part of the early Christians signifies that they treated Jesus alongside God as a rightful recipient of worship, and that in light of Second Temple Judaism this could be called a binitarian shaped monotheism. In his opinion this is innovative and unparalleled (at least not to that degree). He argues against the idea that overtime, with the influx of non-Jews, Jesus came to be considered God and spends one chapter exegeting the Christological Hymn in Phil. 2:6-11 to show that this devotion was present with the early Christians. He looks at first century Jewish monotheism and considers the relevant ideas that were present and how they relate to the devotion of early Christians. He also fills some pages about the Jewish opposition and wraps up with an interesting chapter where he proposes that the catalyst to the early devotion were certain revelatory experiences the followers had with the glorified Jesus.

My thoughts:

I must say that I was positively surprised with the book, both in terms of content as well as its presentation. I found his case to be very strong and wish I had read his work earlier. I had some points I disagreed with, such as his claim that the devotion to Jesus was innovative and unparalleled. In my opinion the Kings of Israel are a good parallel and also certain Principal Agents. It may not be identical but it shows a strong precedent that may have been expanded by early Christians but might entail the same implications as those precedents. I think the absence of sacrifice is important for the evaluation of what the devotion entailed and was dissappointed I couldnt find any discussion about this in the book. But these reservations aside, I must say that Hurtado’s case impressed me and made me reconsider some things.

Grade:

9 out of 10

Must-read for anyone interested in Christology

BR: How on Earth did Jesus become a God? (2)

How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus

Author: Larry W. Hurtado

Publisher: Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2005

Pages: 234

As promised here is my review of the second chapter:

In the meantime for those interested I had a short discussion overhere on my review of the first chapter.

Short summary:

This chapter is concerned with the context of the devotion to Jesus; Second-Temple Jewish Monotheistic Piety. He basically continues in this chapter with the argument that there has not been an evolutionary development with a role for pagan influences.

Chronology matters

He writes about the significance of Paul’s letters that in his view exhibit treating Jesus as divine and the fact that this was merely a decade after Jesus’ death. He focuses on Paul’s persecuting of the church and his conversion and concludes that this persecution was mainly because of the significance the early Christians attached to Jesus. This of course further strenghtens his argument that their view was out of proportions and not the endproduct of a long development.

Demographics

He notes that the early Christian movement was mainly comprised of Jews that are pictured to be devout and in no wise as open to comprising their devotion to God alone.

Monotheism in the New Testament

In this section he argues that the NT actually shows a firm resistance to idolatry and indicates no readiness to accept syncretism at all.

Jesus and God

He briefly discusses the Principal Agents and why he thinks they dont provide a full analogy and argues that instead the NT exhibits Binitarian Monotheism; “it appears that earliest extant Christian writings reflect the religious stance of people who expressed a stridently monotheistic position in the Roman-era religious scene, and yet who also incorporated a second, distinguishable figure (Jesus) into their belief and devotional practice in a novel and unparalleled way.”(48)

He shows how Jesus is included in the Shema though the distinction between him and the Father remains. That while he is described in the highest terms, at the same time he is clearly portrayed as clearly subordinated to the Father.

Subsequent Doctrinal Development

He closes the chapter by pointing out that if the early Christians had regarded Jesus simply as a prophet or as an entirely heavenly being there wouldnt have been so much discussions on Christology afterwards.

My thoughts:

I agree that Jesus was portrayed in exalted terms as early as the letters of Paul but would see this more in the sense of a royal viceroy as E.P. Sanders says on multiple occasions than the Divine Lord. And I guess we come to the same point as in my previous review, if you would read the letters in that way and place the highest terms of exaltation at the Gospel of John and afterwards, a clear development appears.

Regarding the reason why Paul persecuted the early Christians; I agree with Hurtado that “consorting with Gentiles socially or even being less observant of the Torah than Pharisees would have preferred is not likely to have generated this sort of action” (36). Sabbatai Zvi’s antagonists Sasportas and Emden came to mind but I dont think their Jewish world, which surely was diverse as well, would be comparable to the world of early Christianity.

As for the demographics I have nothing to add, indeed the early movement consisted of devout Jews.

The monotheism in the NT section too is good and I agree there is no readiness anywhere in the NT to accept pagan ideas, at least not more than we see in other Second-Temple Jewish traditions.

But the last two sections I have some problems with:

-The Principal Agents: “each of these figures appears to function as God’s vizier, distinguished from all other beings and second only to God” (47)

This is in my opinion directly applicable to how Jesus is viewed in the NT. Its true that the devotion that Jesus receives is where the analogy fails but the Messiah is supposed to be the ultimate king of Israel, the principal of principal agents and as such an increase in devotion, second to God, is only natural. He refers to at least 50 pages in his One God, One Lord, so perhaps there is more discussion on this.

-In my opinion the clear subordination that Hurtado writes about is the answer to the inclusion of Jesus into the Shema while distinguishing him from God, the Father. Hurtado emphasizes that this is only functional subordination and not ontological subordination, but I have my doubts about this. It would be much more simple to see Jesus, the royal viceroy/King-Messiah be included into the unique relationship the people have with the God of Israel, but clearly not to be confused with God Himself and therefore subordinated, not only in function but also in essence. In fact it would almost seem the other way around(!); Jesus being functionally on par with the God of Israel, by the authority that has been invested in him, but not in essence.

But besides these points I must say Im enjoying it, he presents great thoughts and you can really see that this is a giant when it comes to NT Christology.

Christological Midrash on Isa. 45:22-25?

I just came across a very interesting argument in Hurtado’s book by a scholar named Takeshi Nagata.

In discussing vv.9-11 of the hymn in Phil. 2:6-11 the argument is put forth that this may be a Christological midrash on the Greek version of Isa. 45:22-25. Here is the LXX version:

Turn to me and be saved, those from the farthest parth of the earth. I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; righteousness shall go forth from my mouth; my words shall not be turned aside. To me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to God, saying righteousness and glory shall be brought to him, and all who separate themselves shall be ashamed; from the Lord shall be vindicated, and in God shall be glorified, all the seed of the sons of Israel.

Nagata points to the change in v.23 from the first-person pronoun “to me” to the third-person referent “God” and in v.25 a similar distinction between “the Lord” and “God”, which “may have provided a textual opening for some early Christian to discover in the passage two figures who are to be given reverence.” (92)

If this is the case, it would be quite amazing as it would provide a possible key behind whether or not lord in the NT when applied directly to Jesus (as in for example God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ) represents the Divine Name or simply ‘master’. Since if the community from which this hymn originates felt comfortable with reading Jesus into the the Lord (i.e. Y/H/V/H)  it would be possible to envision Paul doing so in his salutations. This is in my opinion a step further than ‘being given’ the Divine Name, as we see for example with the angel Yahoel (Apocalypse of Abraham).

But actually I think – Nagata’s argument notwithstanding – the latter is as far as the NT documents go. I think its too much to suggest that they could equate Jesus with Hashem at least not this early. Instead I would read Lord Jesus Christ as being similar to Rabbi Jesus Christ, I think its more a reverential way of speaking of Jesus.

Also what I think should be taken into account is that the Divine Name by that time was probably only used in the Temple during worship and on Yom Kippur. This then would make it seem a bit weird for it to be used casually in a greeting at the end of a letter, even more so in daily use when referring to Jesus.

But I have to admit that the argument of Nagata is strong. His suggestion that they used the Septuagint I cant object to and his exegetical conclusions are quite impressive as well. Its just the theological conclusions that I cant agree with:)

BR: How on Earth did Jesus become a God? (1)

How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus

Author: Larry W. Hurtado

Publisher: Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2005

Pages: 234

Ive recently picked up Larry Hurtado’s book How on Earth did Jesus become a God? and plan to blog slowly through it. The reason Im not writing a short review is because this book deserves more of my attention. Usually with multiple blogposts somehow I fail to complete them and theres a possibility that after the third chapter I will, but we’ll see about that.

So today the first chapter. This chapter is about the various approaches to the worship of Jesus and is a nice recap on some of the work that has been done.

Short summary:

Worship of Jesus as an Evolutionary Development

Seeing the worship of Jesus essentially as an evolutionary development, with as its main catalysator the increasing numbers of non-Jews flocking into early Christian communities. (Bousset, Casey and Dunn (Dunn is the exception wrt the pagan influences on Christology, he sees it as originating from – though breaking through – Second-Temple Jewish traditions))

Hurtado objects to this mainly on the basis of his view that the chronological data do not support this. He reads Paul’s letters as containing the Incarnation and as these letters are the earliest documents of the NT, there is no possibility for an evolutionary development.

Worship of Jesus as Jewish “Cult” of Messiah and Martyrs

Seeing the worship of Jesus “as an adaptation of the veneration of royal and messianic figures and martyrs in ancient Jewish tradition” (20). (Horbury)

Hurtado objects to this and sees the veneration of Jesus as different from the other agents in Second-Temple Jewish traditions, who he claims were not venerated in corporate and public settings.

Worship of Jesus as a Theological Inference

Placing the worship of Jesus as the result of the theological conviction that Jesus was part of the identity of God. (Eskola and Bauckham)

Hurtado objects to this as they do not provide any historical basis for this theological conviction taking root that fast (that is, before among other things the Philippians hymn). Also he points to the fact that there is no example of analogous developments in Second-Temple Jewish traditions. God’s Wisdom and Word are portrayed in highly exalted terms but we find no worship directed to them. (good point!)

Worship of Jesus: A More Adequate Approach

Hurtado’s own approach, which mainly focuses on the devotional practices and religious beliefs of the early Christian community, but more on this follows in the remainder of the book.

My thoughts:

So far I am enjoying the book. I think Hurtado is quite reasonable and Im happy he does not come across as apologetic. To be sure there are some points where I differ on (more on that below) but on the whole I think his presentation, up till now, is very balanced and nuanced.

Of the various approaches listed I personally found Dunn’s presentation most appealing though I think there is something to say for the idea of pagan influences as well. In some sense the great numbers of non-Jews flocking in must have had an impact on the movement. By converting they may have rejected their former gods but some of their conceptual backgrounds and paradigms they would inevitably have retained, though probably transformed. But I still have to read Casey so cant say much more on this.

The approach that compares devotion to Jesus to the veneration of Messiah and martyrs in ancient Jewish tradition also appeals to me. And I think this is compatible with Dunn’s approach as well. I was kind of suprised when Hurtado dismissed the praise that is bestowed on the Judean kings as a genuine analogy. I could not find a reason for this but perhaps he has written about this in his larger volumes.

As for the chronological data not lining up for an evolutionary development; I’d disagree. To be sure there is a high level of devotion to Jesus in the letters but most of these can be read as not implying Incarnation but veneration of the kind that is posited by Horbury. And if you would for a moment leave out the letters and focus on the Gospels, I think an evolutionary development is very clear.

But besides these remarks if the first chapter is representative of the rest of the book, this will be a great read.

Interesting post on Christology

Over at Storied Theology there is an interesting blogpost entitled “Is Jesus Being Treated Like God?“

In it Daniel Kirk points out that the way the Davidic kings were treated was in many ways similar to how the NT potrays Jesus as having been treated and that this is often neglected in studies of Christology that read in some passages or encounters of Jesus the idea that he was ontologically (in his very being) God whereas the same concluion is not beng applied to those kings.

He also mentions James Dunn in this connection which I would of course second but go check it out yourself and also the comments ensuing.

From the blogpost:

So what does the “identity” between Jesus and God tell us?

The first thing it tells us is that Jesus is the singular embodiment of Adam, Israel, and Davidic King. He is the human through whom the name and glory of God is known. Because this is so, our response to Jesus is our response to God, even as the ancients’ response to Israel and the Davidic kings was their response to Y/H/W/H.

[...]

The point? To say, “Identified with God” is not yet to say, “Divine in his very being.” It is, first and foremost, to say, “God’s human representative on earth.”

HT: James McGrath

Divine Intermediaries I

I a short series of posts, I think three or maximum four, I would like to take a look at intermediaries and will do so mainly on basis of Dunn’s Christology in the Making, chapter 5 and maybe 6 as well.

The reason I would like to do this is because sometimes I read statements on blogs that seem to convey the idea that 2nd Temple Judaism, diverse as it was, held to the idea of distinct divine beings/intermediaries and some even go as far as to assert that it entertained a divine messiah.

These statements are often made without any references to primary sources or even some form of scholary support, hence I think it would be profitable to blog about it and perhaps through interaction we could see whether this talk is warranted. Needless to say a blog is a limited form of learning, and should not be substituted for actually taking time to read books about it and the relevant sources itself.

Subordination?

As I indicated before Ive slowly started to read more about the formation of Christian doctrines with the help of among other sources, J.N.D Kelly. His book is quite densely written and as such I only read two pages a day, to get a good grip on what he’s relating.

Ive now come to the section that deals with the Apologists and their understanding of the relationship of the Logos to the Godhead. And what strikes me is the distinction that seems to be made between the Father as the Supreme God and the Logos as a “second God”, who is worshipped “in secondary rank” (1 Apol. 13 as quoted on p. 101).

According to Kelly it would be a mistake to read subordination into this, but I dont really get what else you could read into this?

Indeed a statement like “we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all” (ibid.) seems to indicate some form of subordination?

In another book Im reading by Hans Küng about the Catholic Church its related that with the insertion of homo-ousios into the creed by Constantine, “any opinion was rejected that held the Son in any regard lower than the Father (‘the’ God), like it generally had been taught by Origen and other early theologians” (p. 57).

Is Hans Küng off-mark in drawing this conclusion or is perhaps Kelly trying to harmonize the Apologists with the conclusions of the council of Nicea. Or is perhaps something else going on?

Anyone an idea?

Shemot: Justin Martyr vs Trypho & Ibn Ezra

In this weeks portion there is an interesting passage that has caused over time quite some argument and debate.

Im referring to the burning bush, Exodus 3:2-6

“And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.” 4 When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” 5 Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” 6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.”

Besides the oddity of a burning bush what makes this passage interesting is that the first verse says the angel of the Lord but later (vv.4-6) it seems to be referring to God Himself.

Among the early apologists this didnt go unnoticed, Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho argued that this Angel of the Lord was in fact

“another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things—above whom there is no other God—wishes to announce to them.” (Dialogue with Trypho, 56:2)

This is pretty radical I would say but I think to fully appreciate what Justin expresses here one needs to be more familiar with his thoughts (see e.g. pp.96-98 of Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly for this or simply browse Justin’s works on CCEL).

His literary opponent, Trypho, a Jew, did not agree with this, he responded by saying:

“We do not perceive this from the passage quoted by you, but [only this], that it was an angel who appeared in the flame of fire, but God who conversed with Moses; so that there were really two persons in company with each other, an angel and God, that appeared in that vision.” (Ibid. 60:1)

Trypho’s reply isnt the only one Jewish commentators have come up with to resolve this passage (see especially the Ramban ad loc.). But for this post I’d like to quote Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, who wrote several things about this passage but most noteworthy was this comment:

ז. ויאמר [ה'] – השליח ידבר בלשון שולחו

7. And Hashem said – the sent one speaks in the tongue of his sender

The full force of this brief comment is amazing, for it seems to resolve the matter and prove to be a principle that explains many similar verses as well (e.g. Gen. 18, Judges 23, etc.).

The Angel of the Lord is indeed an angel and not God, but as he is sent by God, he speaks on behalf of God and is able to use the first person, making it seem as if this is God Himself who is talking.

Rashi in parshas Bo (Ex. 12:6) expresses this thought as well:

שלוחו של אדם כמותו

[...] the agent of a person is like the person himself

While Rashi refers to another matter, this is analogous to what Ibn Ezra hints at: the Angel is sent on behalf of God, and as such it is an agent of God, an ambassador if you will, consequently it is as if God Himself is there and as such the Angel can say: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, etc.”

Thus when looking at this passage from the perspective of Ibn Ezra there is no contradiction between these verses or even a need like Trypho does to explain it as God and the Angel being there. It is simply the Angel of the Lord who has been sent to deliver these words to Moses but should not be confused with the One Who sent him.

And this perspective, when compared with that which Justin Martyr expressed, seems, at least on basis of simplicity, to be more plausible. And could, in my opinion, even be extended to how we view Yeshua in the NT, as Hashem’s principal agent.

The sent one but not to be confused by Him Who sent.

Generalized Claims

In discussions its quite common for people to use phrases like “common consensus”, “majority of scholars” and other such generalizations. These phrases can be quite impressive, especially for people that have themselves actually not looked into this ‘consensus’ and are not really familiar with the sources under review.

I remember once listening to a debate about the deity of Yeshua when one of the debaters argued that it was compatible with ancient Judaism and amply attested for. He alluded to the Targumim and explained (without specific reference) that these show that the belief in the deity and literal pre-existence of the Messiah was not foreign to Judaism at all.

As a Christian for Moses such an argument was difficult to get around. The Incarnation may have felt a bit akward but if the ancient Targumim vouched for it, who was I to disagree?

Fortunately as time passed, I did some study of my own and over time got to a point that I was able to check up on some of those claims. One of which was the above-mentioned about the targumim. Its not like I had doubts about the claim but still I was interested in verifying it and perhaps even finding more evidence for the Incarnation. But the Rambam soon dispelled me of this in his Guide¹ and made me realize the strong appeals werent as well grounded as they seemed to be at first.

Another example would be Kabbalistic writings², these – even more so than the targumim – often ‘fall prey’ to Messianics seeking Jewish support for the Incarnation. But again, in my [heretical] opinion, when considering several of these passages in context I did not find them teaching the deity of the Messiah either.

And the list could go on, over time I managed to read quite some arguments (at first to find support for the Incarnation myself) and come to what seemed to be the inevitable conclusion that most verses/passages when read properly in their context were actually not lending support to the Incarnation… but a mistake of course, especially in light of this post(!), would be to take my word for it

What verse/passage stemming from the 2nd Temple period or later Rabbinic literature do you consider as a valid source of support for the Incarnation (apart from your favourite NT passages)? (plz quote it with link to the overall passage)

————————————

¹See The Guide I:27, partly quoted in this post but see also the entry ‘Targum’ in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

²Earlier I looked at a passage from a Hasidic source that can be easily misread to imply the Incarnation but probably meant something very different. The only thing that I know of in Kabbalistic literature that would approach the Incarnation would be ideas flowing around in the movement that sprung forth from Sabbatai Zvi but then, a great part of those followers were Marrano’s that returned to Judaism.

Gal. 4:4-5 Born of Woman?

Im quite an organized person if I say so myself, I like to approach things systematically and usually employ patterns when trying to achieve something. In my daily studies, that is, my religious studies, I also try to work systematically through topics/themes and as such have a fixed time schedule that includes readings from different sources. One of which is the NT. I try everyday to read at least two chapters. Not really with commentaries (though I probably should be) but more just reading the text, to stay connected:)

Im now reading through the letters of Paul and came across chapter four of Galatians a couple of days ago. This chapter contains a Christological reference, or so it would seem to many. The verses Im referring to are the following:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

While I do not intend to discuss the full meaning of these verses in this post, I do would like to single out a couple of words, namely:

[...] born of woman

This is an interesting phrase right? I mean, if Yeshua is just a man, how much sense would it make to use this phrasing? Arent all men born of woman? In fact David Stern in his NT commentary writes:

That is, he took human form. This is as close as Sha’ul comes to saying anything about the virgin birth of Yeshua¹

And if I recall correctly another well-known Messianic teacher also used this as his reasoning to argue for the Incarnation.

Well as you may have expected I come here to offer you another reading, or well not me but Job:

Job 15:14 What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?

And again:

Job 25:4b How can he who is born of woman be pure?

Needless to say in the preceding verses, born of woman just indicates ‘man’ and has little to do with birth or taking on human form. And perhaps for Paul being a Jew, raised at the feet of the great Rabban Gamliel z”l, this Hebrew idiom (יולד אשה) also meant nothing more than just ‘man’.

It may not take away the full argument for the Incarnation that is built on this verse but if this post can at least make you consider that things are less clear and plain than they seem, Im satisfied:)

For further reading on this passage and similar ones check out Dunn’s Christology in the Making, several pages of it are available on Google books, see especially p.xvii-xix and 40 for these verses.

1. David Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville: JNTP, 1992), p.556

One Way of Understanding the Incarnation

Once while sitting in a Sbarro restaurant in Israel I was talking to some guys when one of them asked me what my motivation was for volunteering in Israel and to explain why I as a Christian had love for the Jewish people.

I tried to think of a nice way to answer but before I could respond, one of them remarked:

“but of course, your God is a Jew!”

This comment of course misses the point of what classical Christianity teaches about the Incarnation and the Trinity but it illustrates how this doctrine that is so dear to the Christian can be very confusing to others.

Argument in Favour of the Incarnation

Unlike regular readers of this blog will expect, this post is concerned with an argument in favour of the Incarnation (the idea that Jesus was God).

I personally have more or less (ok probably completely) given up on the idea but nevertheless am able to see why people believe in it and while disagreeing with them on most counts, here is an argument I think is quite sustainable:

Church tradition

This I think is the strongest and surest appeal. The belief of the early mainstream church – which I admit is a strong description for what was probably less well defined back then – in the Incarnation is well attested and shows consensus among writers. Naturally I am not talking about the particulars here as we all know it took some centuries for these to be decided on. But the idea that Jesus was God was from quite early on part of the mainstream church and has in fact remained so until today.

Arguments can be brought forth against the idea of there having been a mainstream church but when surveying the spectrum of groups in existence, the most legitimate heirs of the [diverse] NT faith seem to be those led by the Church Fathers. Now admittedly I am not well read in Patristics and have only recently picked up a book about Church history but when contrasting these figures with say Gnostics or Ebionites they stand their ground way better.

Now I do think that the very negative attitude by Church Fathers against Judaism, the Torah and the ongoing validity of the Jewish people is highly problematic and in no wise [should] represent NT faith. But other than that they seem to have been the legitimate torch bearers. Hence it might be proper to trust them for the Incarnation in like manner as one trusts them for the NT canon and other issues.

What is the main argument that makes you believe in the Incarnation?

Question(s on)(-ing) the divinity of Jesus

Last week I was asked in a short comment exchange on Or Gadol about books helpful in investigating the divinity of Jesus and I did not answer yet. The reason for that is that my answer is a bit complicated. But by means of this post I do would like to give a sort of answer:

There are plenty of books that could be helpful, but in what way do you want them to be helpful? Concerned as I may sound I think you should think carefully about where you would like to end up.

There are various alternatives of where you could end up, but as you are asking me I will only discuss the one in which I ended up: mine is one where I cant talk to people in my community about what I believe, one that is officially denounced by the church councils as heretical and is seen by mainstream Christians as one that endangers salvation, if not renders it impossible.

It is one that has caused me much anguish, alienation and distress. This is of course by and large the result of being theologically shut out of the community but also internally as this is a pillar as fundamental to our faith as it gets hence problems around this impact other areas of faith as well.

And this stresses me and makes me hesitant to suggest books to you as Ive seen the impact they had on me and dont really wish all that for you. That does not mean I regret it and wish for belief in it, its just that I think the social consequences of my position (if I were to speak up) are very hard to be handled and can result easily in negligence in other areas which I dont think is right.

Now lest I sound too depressive: I do feel that hard as it may be at the moment (not that Im persecuted or anything:P) my studies have been very rewarding and have enabled me to appreciate the NT and Jesus in new ways. I still have a lot to study but think its a very exciting area worth of investigation, whatever conclusions you make.

Well… perhaps this is not my best post until now:P but what I just want to say is the following:

As you may see in my title to this post I wrote “questioning”, as I think the reason you asked me is because you question it. And while on the one hand I think its good you are critical about it, my other half is less happy with this and wants you to realize the path you are finding yourself on and the consequences that might follow, hence I give you two options of authors:

1. Safe: Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, these are very prominent scholars in Christology and do, in my opinion, to a great extent justice to the text of the NT and keep you safe from any theologically problematic views.

2. Not so safe: James Dunn, Raymond Brown, James McGrath, these three are favourites of mine. They have a somewhat similar approach which I personally found enlightening but if you are not granting alot of authority to church tradition you may have difficulties retaining the doctrine of the Incarnation.

I realize that it may feel kind of backwards when I suggest you determine first where you [dont] want to end up and then start investigating, and needless to say I dont advocate such an approach (in general). But were you to do this, I would understand that, indeed I do/did it myself as well, I actually think theres hardly anyone free of confirmation bias.

Now obviously there are many other books and approaches to Christology, but I personally favour the more historical-critical approach that is used by these two groups of authors. For more information you could check out this blog that reviews many books about the Trinity and Christology and whose author is very passionate about it.

Hope that helps and do feel free to post your own thoughts, I’d be interested to hear them:)

Paul’s Christology

I was planning a post on this for a long time but held back as I expected a big discussion to follow which I didnt (and still dont) have time for.

This post is mainly in response to several posts on Michael Whitenton’s blog, who upon reviewing James McGrath’s The Only True God came to some interesting conclusions.

Interestingly enough he has talked about two passages that have influenced me in the past a lot as well.

The first one being:

1 Cor 3:21-23 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

and the second:

1 Cor 8:5-6 “For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Let me start with the second passage:

As you can see I highlighted what I think is important, there is one God = the Father and one Lord = Jesus Christ, in this phrasing it seems implausible that Lord stands for the Divine Name of God, Y/H/V/H, that would just not fit, rather it seems that by distinguishing between the Father and Jesus Christ, the term Lord refers to the hebrew אדון which can be translated by for example “master”.

This too would fit much more within Judaism where it is blasphemous to equate a human being with the God of Israel. I know many dont care much about what Judaism considers blasphemous as its only informative but in no wise authorative. In some sense theres traces of this attitude already within the NT but not to the extent of today or even the 2nd century where Ignatius writes in his epistle to the Romans: “according to the love of Jesus Christ our God”

Although exclusive devotion to one rabbi over against other rabbi’s may be looked upon suspiciously by some branches in Judaism, in Hasidic Judaism it is very common to elevate a particular rabbi and elevate him above other rabbi’s. The Lubavitcher Rebbe is an example but there have been many others as well.

In that sense I think Chabadniks could say there is only one God, our Father, and one Rebbe, Schneerson without compromising their strict monotheism. The idea however of saying there is only one God, the Father, and one Y/H/V/H, Schneerson or whatever rabbi would never occur in a Torah observant Jew’s mind. Which I believe Paul was to some extent too.

I know some will, based on a superficial reading of Hasidic texts, argue that Chabadniks believe the Rebbe to be God, but mainstream understanding within Chabad-Lubavitch and certainly within larger Judaism repeals this notion.

The ending of the verse is also open to more than one interpretation:

“…through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

One explanation would be to see this in the way that Jesus has divine prerogatives and this then is seen as an indication of his divinity. I would rather argue that this should be read in a sense of: “on account of”.

Which is similar to the statement in Berachot 17b:

“The whole world is sustained by Chanina my son…”

Which in some way leads noone to believe that Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was divine. As it is simply an expression of Gods appreciation for his merits, a biblical example of this are the 10 righteous persons in Sodom that lead God to turn away from pouring out his wrath. In a sense the people in Sodom were alive on account of their merit.

For some this may be too much creativity and go against the plain sense but I think its important to consider alternative readings.

Feel free to offer alternatives of problems you see with my reading…