Apr 17 2008
Jesus Christ!!!
There has been a lot of talk about whether or not Jesus viewed Himself as divine, and whether or not the early church viewed Him as divine. In response to these questions, I had asked for permission from Dr. Dan Doriani to post his lecture notes specifically on the implicit divinity claims throughout scripture. As I said, these are in note form and as such dont read that fluidly. If you are interested in reading a scholarly article by him that has been published on this topic, you may go here. If anyone simply wants a point on the notes clarified, please ask a question and I will do my best to answer. The PDF of his lecture notes is in our resource page as well. Enjoy:)
Long comment a coming…
“Jesus judges mankind. He knows thoughts, hypocrisies (Matt 9:4, 12:25, 22:18). So he
will judge mankind on the last day (Matt 7:22; 23; 25:34, 41). To know enough to
judge is a claim of omniscience.” (Dan)
This guy knows very little about the rabbinical history and even the period of judges (and I would dare include prophets in this case). Judgment is not synonymous with divinity – nor is a claim to ‘know someone’s thoughts’ omniscience (that’s quite the stretch).
Jesus knew the thoughts of some – but could not predict his 2nd coming – only the ‘Father’ knew that. This person is clearly not ‘omniscient’.
As for judgment, even the term ‘son of God’ is about this exact idea. Rabbinical sources admit that certain rabbi’s were also called this due to their ‘authority’ on the written texts and ability to ‘judge’. Judgment on the last day is reserved for God – but we have a case where Jesus is authoritative in the law/prophets and is given the ‘right hand of God’ – acclaimed to such a position by God on the ‘last day’. Does Jesus take this spot on his own?
“”I have forgiven him, I do claim to be God, and I will prove both by healing him now.” He declares the terms of forgiveness.” (Dan)
Again, this is selective reasoning. Unbeknownst to the reasoning of all of us – the claim to forgiveness is only from God? Can we not forgive or is this something Jesus does not teach us? As for the healing aspect of this – healing is tied to a scripture from Isaiah (about the Anointed one) – that Jesus was that Anointed one/Christ – not that he was claiming to be God.
“Jesus bestowed eternal life. Jesus offered eternal life to the rich young ruler if he sold
all and followed him” (Dan)
What does eternal life mean first off? Fullness of life or living forever? The definition is the first problem here to be sorted out. Secondly, again, Jesus is appointed to Christ – and is given authority by God…why can’t he offer something he knows God is giving – as an authority on the Law/Prophets?
“Jesus’ presence is God’s presence. Jesus said of himself, “One greater than the temple is here (Matt 12:6).” The temple is God’s dwelling place; only God’s presence in the person of Jesus could be greater…In his person, the Kingdom of God has arrived (Luke 11:14-22, cf. 4:16-21). Jesus is not a representation of God, but He is God. Emanuel (Mat 1:21) Omniprescence (Matt 18) with us always (Matt 28)” (Dan)
The temple is a place of dwelling true – but in the context from Matthew – that’s not actually the point of the convo (what Dan says here) – the point is the temple bread could be eaten (interpreting the Law) and about his messiahship – again not his God-hood. Dan reads things into Luke 4 (as can only refer to Jesus the person and not his message) and the point of even Luke’s message in chapter 11 “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” (vs. 28).
“Eternal destinies depend on response to Jesus (Matt 7:21-27, 10:32-33).” (Dan)
I love the passages this guy uses – his interpretations are very narrow. Matthew 7 is very clearly about following Jesus’ teachings and not practicing ‘lawlessness’ or ‘immorality’…there is no questions at all about those points. Jesus nowhere in there states ‘I am the foundation – build on it your beliefs about me’. Even the judgment in the last day comes down to ‘what actions people commit’ and not their belief in Jesus per se.
The confession thing – oddly enough – proves Jesus is ‘below’ the Father in some hierarchy. People that confess Jesus – Jesus will tell God and vice versa. What does confession mean here – that live like Jesus or that just can verbally say Jesus’ name? Cause if it is just verbal – then anyone can do that. By vs. 42 of this passage we see Jesus stating even accepting the disciples is worthy of a reward – uh – me thinks this is about persecution factors and making a stand for your faith in tough places.
“Matthew says “He who receives you receives me and he who receives me receives the one who sent me” (Dan)
The reception of Jesus is the reception of the ‘One’ who sent him…being sent is tantamount to ‘messenger’ of the ‘One’…which Jesus fits fairly well through-out Matthew.
“Jesus taught the truth on his own authority.” (Dan)
This is not true – we know he was trained in Torah and Prophets (God’s word) – he is actually speaking from those texts and teachings when he breaks down his own teachings…but he speaks authoritatively only means he is seen as an authority on the teachings he is speaking from. If Jesus did this all separate from any teaching in Torah and Prophets – then we have a case – but this is not a claim made by Jesus himself.
this dude is pre-modern in his mindset not realizing he’s reading his 21st century values BACK onto a 1st century document.
plus societyvs has put all my objects up there. great job!
the divinity of Christ is something we must wrestle with. plus this begs the question are we worshipping the message or the messenger? i think jesus would frown on this conversation and just say “are you keeping my commandments? are you loving God, neighbor and self?” that’s divine. whether or not the person was is an unimportant question. esp when one has the paraclete who will abide with us and be in us (John 14:17b).
rawk.
You have both commented on the narrow interpretation by Dr. Doriani regarding these passages. Is it not also narrow to say that the phrase “It is raining cats and dogs” refers to a torrential downpour and not canines and felines falling from the sky? If you believe a passage to be narrowly interpreted, you must justify why the original audience would have interpreted it wider. Saying that you dont like it doesnt really count. So in the end, Dr. Doriani’s interpretation is much more concerned with the 1st century interpretation than the 21st. For more on his work regarding these texts, I would again refer you to his published article. If you take issue with his exegetical method, I would refer you to this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Message-Interpreting-Applying-Bible/dp/0875522386/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208825416&sr=1-2
ugh… which 1st cenutry interpretation? we really don’t know what a 1st century Christian would look like or believe… do you mean the gnostic, marconist, jewish-christian, what? there’s a plethora. we’ve both explained that the foundation of his exegesis is flawed historically. the original audience would have interpreted it wider as the original audience WAS wider than the narrow “one early christianity” view that he sets up.
http://toothface.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-testament-class.html
First, let me commend you guys for your devotion to the truth. I really enjoy delving into these topics, and it is clear that you are kindred spirits in that this depth of study doesnt appeal to too many people.
As far as 1st Century Christian audience, Gnosticism wasnt in full swing until Valentinus in 150, and Marcion was born 85, but his movement didnt take full swing until the 2nd century and lasted until mid 4th century when they got absorbed by the Manicheans. There may have been proto-forms of these movements (of which the gospel of John is a polemic against), but there is reason to believe that even very early on there was an understanding of what was orthodox and what was not.
I appreciate the link to your blog on your class (which I will check out momentarily), but I am curious if you and Societyvs had any books that you would recommend for me to read that would best encapsulate your views (extending me a little grace because I already have a ton to read).
Again, I do really enjoy these conversations and am glad that we are able to have them.
well john is polemic against thomas christians pretty harshly.. even though they’re written around the same time… say sometime after 90 C.E. (Goss 448, Ehrman 158).
John’s formulations have virtually defined orthodox Christian doctrine for nearly two thousand years, but they were not universally accepted in their own time.
a few books to check (just on the Gospel of John) Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. The Propetic Gospel, A Study of John and the Old Testament. T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1991; 2,7,176-180.
Malina, Bruce J. and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1998; 228-233.
O’Day, Gail R. “John” The New Interpreter’s Bible, Abingdon Press, Nashiville TN, 1995, 735-750.
Pagels, Elaine. Beyond Belief, the Secret Gospel of Thomas. Random House, New York; 2003.
on the whole Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press, 2000. … it’s decent but Ehrman is working out his fundamentalist and literallist past in between the lines here… he’s now an agnostic which i mourn… but it’s a good layout to the socio-historical context.
i really enjoy these conversations too.. i learn a lot and hope that this is just as enriching to you as it is to me.
Yours in Christ.
From one seminary student to another, it is good to learn the breadth of scholarship on this material.
And Societyvs, if there are any works you would recommend that have been influential in your understanding please list them also. Again, while it would be an enormous stretch for me to commit to read them now, I have high hopes for this summer.
“And Societyvs, if there are any works you would recommend that have been influential in your understanding please list them also” (Mike)
Thanks Mike for your kindness in this endeavor - much appreciated - civility in convo - we could use a lot more of this on the Net.
The book I just read was ‘The Misunderstood Jew’ by Amy Jill Levine - an examination of Jesus’ life as a Jewish person within his teachings and actions. Also a comparison of Judaism and Christianity - and how we can work towards reform and bridging barriers between the faiths. The best book I have ever read concerning the gospels. http://www.amazon.com/Misunderstood-Jew-Church-Scandal-Jewish/dp/0061137782/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208963310&sr=1-2
Next I shall be readiing some rabbinical works of Joshua Heschel - I haven’t read him yet - but he seems like someone worth a read. Maybe ‘Prophets’ or ‘Between God and man’.
I am about to read ‘Whose Bible is it’ again - by Jaroslav Pelikan. http://www.amazon.com/Whose-Bible-History-Scriptures-Through/dp/B000BOB2U2/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208963239&sr=1-11
I might delve in Crossan and Borg later on - I have ‘Jesus’ by Borg but I am lazy to read it. I also am thinking of buying Crossan’s ‘God and Empire’ book.
But to be honest - I get most of my actual theology from study of the passage and then via a living reality of what those scriptures mean in the 21st century. Blogging helps.
Luke, I am likely gonna start with Ehrman. He seems to be pretty much in vogue now, so I figure it would be best to start there. I was unaware of his personal shift in theology. Does he discuss what his reasoning is behind the shift at all?
Societyvs, you just named a couple that sound near and dear to my heart. The book by Levine sounds like I need to read it right away. I have a similar passion, but mine was stoked by a book called “Our Father Abraham” by Marvin Wilson. I know Heschel to be very helpful, as Luke quoted him earlier in our discussion and that resolved some of the miscommunication we were having. If you are gonna read Crossan, I would recommend comparing that to something like the first 150 pages of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God. I dont agree with him on everything, but his analysis of Crossan’s arguments is top notch.
I don’t read much NT Wright - maybe I should take a gander though - I’ll check into him because he seems to be mentioned quite a bit on blogs.
Ehrman talks about his de-conversion in his new book, which i haven’t read, God’s Problem. he is currently having a discussion with NT Wright on this subject that i think you’ll find really interesting, http://markdroberts.com/?p=453
enjoy!
Luke,
That is a great resource! Thanks for the link, and I look forward to reading their discussion.