I have just received through the post (thank you Amazon!) a book I’ve been trying to get my hands on for ages: Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and his Earliest Followers by Christopher Tuckett. In case you didn’t know, Tuckett is Professor of New Testament Studies in the University of Oxford and author of several books including Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation, Luke and Q and the History of Early Christianity.
I went straight to the final chapter entitled ‘Jesus’ Self-Understanding’ (pp 202-226). I was eager to find out how he assessed the evidence. Here are some of his conclusions (italics in the original):
Son of God
Did Jesus think of himself as in any sense Son of God? For many this is perhaps the most important question of all to ask about Jesus’ self-understanding, showing some clear continuity between Jesus and later Christian claims. We should be alert to the possibility – even probability – that, even if Jesus did think of himself as in some sense a/the son/Son of God, this may not have meant anything remotely similar to what later Christians meant in using that phrase of Jesus.
Sonship seems here to imply a relationship of trust and confidence, reflected too in some of the Q sayings about God as the ‘father’ of the disciples. It probably does not indicate any idea of ontological being, at least at the level of Jesus. Language of divine sonship, as we have seen was thoroughly at home in a Jewish context, indicating perhaps a special relationship to God characterised by obedience and trust on the side of the human being, and by special choice or favour on the side of God. Jesus’ God-talk seems to fit perfectly well into this mould. But it does not suggest that the one referred to as the ‘son’ of God is in any sense a ‘divine’ being.
Jesus very probably saw himself as a son of God. As such he claimed a special personal relationship with God and a closeness to God. As such too he claimed the right to enable others to share in that relationship. But the latter should warn us against seeing Jesus’ sonship as ‘unique’ in the sense that later Christians claimed Jesus’ divine sonship as unique and qualitatively different from that of other human beings. If anything Jesus’ own ideas of his divine sonship work in precisely the opposite direction: to unite others to enable them to share in the relationship to God which he claimed to enjoy himself.
We have looked at a number of facets of the Jesus tradition to try to recover something of Jesus’ own self-understanding. One must say that, at the end of the discussion, the conclusions may be more than a little imprecise. So much of Jesus’ ministry is not directly concerned with his own person: it is focused on God and on the needs of other people. We thus have to deduce possible facets of Jesus’ self understanding from what is implied quite as much as from what is said explicitly. That there is an ‘implicit Christology’, in the sense of a ‘special position/role’ occupied by Jesus and implied in his actions, seems undeniable. Trying to gain greater precision is much harder. In some sense Jesus seems to have regarded himself as a prophet with a mission that would arouse hostility and violence against himself. He was willing to accept that violence, convinced that he would be ultimately vindicated by God, and may have used the imagery of the vision of Daniel 7 to express this (albeit perhaps a little cryptically). He may have had some idea of ‘messiahship’ as not totally against his own beliefs about his role, though it would seem that many aspects often associated with messiahship were probably not part of a programme which he would accept as his own. In all this he claimed a close personal relationship with God, expressed through an idea of sonship, but which others would share with him.
All this probably distances Jesus’ own self-understanding by some way from later claims about Jesus to be the unique Son of God, meaning by that a fully divine member of an eternal Trinity. There may be also something of a gap between Jesus’ self-understanding and the views of his earlier followers (who may not quite have reached the stage of Chalcedonian orthodoxy immediately!). Does such a gap matter? It is that question which we address very briefly in the Postscript.
Comments on: "Mind the Gap! Some recent reflections on Christology" (10)
What is your take on Jesus’ attacking the Scribes and Pharisees. I understand, from a Syrian scholar, that their is a tradition that exists yet today in Syria, that views John the Baptist as their prophet. Theirs is an oral tradition and they shun written scripture because, they say, it looses the divine essence.
Could this be why John apologizes for having to write and not being able to provide the message in person? Or Jesus never having instructed anyone to write. (I do know the party line answer for that but don’t accept it)
Pelagian7
‘Could this be why John apologizes for having to write and not being able to provide the message in person?’
Could you explain what you mean by this and your source?
I’m new to this and learning quickly that I must be more thorough. John’s second and third epistles are where he explains he has more to say. In the lit. of the Jews, some who were suspicious of letters, wrote the following saying at the end of letters as an apology.
John2: 12 “Having many things to write unto you, I would not with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.”
John3: 13 “I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee.”
My conclusions are based on these evidences.
*Jesus is portrayed consistently as attacking the sect Pharisee and their Scribes.
My understanding of the Pharisees is, they were literal and rigid;
at least in comparison to the Sadducees. They were also accused
of adding or subtract that which seemed good to them,
and was profitable. Although in Jewish lit. the Pharisees are well respected.
[Sources: "Robert Eisenman, (James the Brother of Jesus), Maccoby,
(Myth-Maker) and, Emil Schurer,
(The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus,
1972), King James Bible.]
*Although Jesus quotes scripture he does not make it his focal point.
*Jesus instructs nobody to write his story and nobody does for decades.
*John the Baptist was important enough that scripture writers marginilized him,
making sure we knew Jesus supplant him. And, although we know John was popular,
we have nothing written by him that exist. (As far as I know)
*Jesus said that the law was made for man, not man made for the law.
In another book he quotes David about the Sabbath.
Since the 613 laws were scripture again, I added this to other statements
made by Jesus and conclude, that he, like the Baptist and the John of scripture,
trusted face to face teachings more than the scripture of scribes.
(the qoutes about Jesus may not be word for word, but since they are so
popular, I’m assuming you’ll be familiar with them.)
*Jesus’ own Disciples argue with each other, having different views of his teachings.
Again this ought to re-enforce the idea that his teachings couldn’t be learned
by following an instruction book. It is also a Jewish custom.
*John Toland, wrote about a latent Gospel he found in an ancient Bible,
written in Irish characters. The Gospel was from Barnabas and has since been
found in other places. However, the Gospels Toland found varied from those
of today. Matthew, of that old Bible, is how he arrived at his opinion.
My book is authentic and restored, his research, of course, is called heresy.
*I read Tolands book and he believed that Jesus
and his brothers James and Jude were the group called Ebionites and
they preferred to evangelize face to face. (John Toland, Nazerenus; or . . ., 1700′s)
In the end mine is opinion, but, my viewpoint needs little explanation. Whereas, those who believe scripture is God’s word, have explanation books that are more voluminous than the book they explain.
Hello Pelagian:’
I have not read here for a long time.I read previous comments of yours,where you said the Trinity was from paganism.You are curious.He is the proof that the OT says the MESSIAH would be YAHWEH(literally God)in the flesh:
IN THE OT MEN ARE CALLED GOD
In Hebrew in the old days ( maybe still today, I would have to ask an Israeli ), it was the custom, an expression to call men ” god/ gods “, like we today say a beautiful woman ” is a godess “, they said it to mean someone important, powerful: Exod 4:16,7:1 ( God calls Moses ” God ” )/ Psalm 82:6 ( God sarcastically calls evil men ” gods ” ).
CONCLUSION: in the OT when a man is called God it is not to be taken literally,it is an expression.
3 PASSAGES IN THE OT WHERE WE HAVE HAVE 2 YAHWEHS AT THE SAME TIME:
Whenever in the OT translation we see the words LORD or Lord, but not in the case of ” lord “, it means that in the original HEBREW it is written as YAHWEH, which is one of God’s names. Here are the cases. A Muslim has told me these are just Semitisms,that is it is just a custom to repeat the same name twice as though they were different people,for emphasis. But certainly those who make the case have heard of that argument and I have found no reference to it:
1) ZECHARIAH 2:10-11: the words ” daughter of Zion ” mean ” people of Jerusalem ” since Zion is a hill there on which was the Temple of Jerusalem.
” Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I ( note: I, YAHWEH ) am coming, and I will LIVE ( also translated as DWELL ) among you, ” declares YAHWEH. ” Many nations will be joined with YAHWEH in that day and will become my people.
I ( I, YAHWEH ) will LIVE among YOU ( my words: the people of Jerusalem ) and YOU ( my words: people of Jerusalem ) will know that YAHWEH Almighty has sent ME ( me, Yahweh ) to YOU( my words: those of Jerusalem ). ”
Here we have Yahweh sending Yahweh to live among the people of Jerusalem. Or we can say God the Father sending God the Son to Jerusalem,on the week when he was killed.
2) GENESIS 19:23-26:23: ” By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then YAHWEH rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah FROM YAHWEH in heaven. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. ”
3) ZECHARIAH 3:1-2: ” Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of YAHWEH, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And YAHWEH said to Satan, “YAHWEH rebuke you, O Satan! YAHWEH who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire? ”
ABOUT HOW THE JEWS HAVE USED THE NAME YAHWEH
Before the 3rd century BC, according to scholars, it was:
a) The custom of the Jews to actually PRONOUNCE the name Yahweh, and:
b) It was also the custom to name a PLACE with the name Yahweh ( Yahweh this and Yahweh that ).
SO WHAT IS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT THAT?
That was BEFORE, but TODAY,the Jewish people, or at least those who are religious:
a) They do NOT pronounce the name Yahweh, and:
b) NO Jew,whether religious or secular,ever names a PLACE Yahweh this or Yahweh that.
In other words: LINGUISTIC USAGE CHANGES.
BUT ONE LINGUISTIC CUSTOM AMONG THE JEWS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME:
Never, and I repeat NEVER at all has it been the custom for a Jew to name a PERSON, like his daughter or son Yahweh this or Yahweh that. In fact,religious Jews, when reading the OT in Hebrew to others and when they come across the word Yahweh they immediately substitute by the word ADONAI ( Lord ).
EXAMPLE FROM THE OT OF SAYING THE WORD YAHWEH: I had said Yahweh was pronounced before ( but not today ):
NUMBERS 6:22-27: Yahweh said to Moses: ” Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them: This is how you shall bless the Israelites. SAY to them:” YAHWEH bless you and keep you! YAHWEH let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you!
YAHWEH look upon you kindly and give you peace!” So shall they INVOKE (say) my name ( my words:my name Yahweh ) to the Israelites, and I will bless them.”
THE 5 CASES WHERE A PLACE IS CALLED YAHWEH IN THE OT:
Notice that in each case the COMPLETE NAME of Yahweh is used in the original Hebrew):
1.Genesis 22:14: Abraham erects an altar and calls it YAHWEH YIREH (Yahweh provides).
2.Exodus 17:15: Moses builds an altar and calls it YAHWEH NISI ( Yahweh is our banner ).
3.Judges 6:24: Gideon builds an altar and calls it YAHWEH SHALOM ( Yahweh is peace ).
4.God calls Jerusalem, a city YAHWEH TSIDKENU ( Yahweh is our righteousness ) in Jeremiah 33:16.
5. God calls Jerusalem YAHWEH SAMA ( Yahweh is there )in Ezekiel 48:35: ” The city shall be 18,000 cubits round about; and the NAME of the city from that day shall be, ‘Yahweh is there.’”.
THE MESSIAH IS CALLED YAHWEH:
Remember it has NEVER been the custom among Jews to name a person Yahweh this or that’ and here God himself calls the Messiah Yahweh ( again another case of 2 Yahwehs at the same time ).
JEREMIAH 23:5-6:” Behold, the days are coming, ” says the LORD,“ That I will raise to David a NETZER of righteousness; A KING shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; Now this is the SHEM ( name ) by which He will be called: YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. ” ( Yahweh Tsidkenu )
COUNTER-ARGUMENT: THAT DOESN’T PROVE ANYTHING, OTHERS WERE ALSO CALLED YAHWEH
Yes, it is true. We have the names of Zechariah, Hezekiah, Zedekiah, Isaiah, Joshua (Yeshua), Nehemiah, Elijah, etc. Jewish men have always had such names, BEFORE and AFTER 300 BC.
RESPONSE: BUT IT NEVER INCLUDES THE ” COMPLETE NAME ” YAHWEH BUT ONLY A PORTION OF IT ( out of respect ):
For example: Elijah is a CONTRACTION of the Hebrew phrase ” Eli Yahweh ” or ” My God is Yahweh “, and Zedekiah is a CONTRACTION of the Hebrew phrase that means ” Righteous is Yahweh “. Joshua is a CONTRACTION of Hebrew for ” Yahweh is salvation “.
As I have said before,no Jew has ever named his son or daughter Yahweh this or Yahweh that,using the COMPLETE NAME of Yahweh. That was UNACCEPTABLE then and it is TODAY among the Jews. But it was accepted to use of PORTION of the name in forming one’s name, as long as the complete name of God was avoided.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE
Even the expression HALLELUJAH is a CONTRACTION.It is translated as “Praise the Lord”.It is really “Praise Jah”, (to avoid saying “Praise Yahweh”).
BUT WHAT ABOUT NAMING PLACES YAHWEH?
The argument is this: language customs change. BEFORE the Jews would not think twice about naming a place Yahweh, TODAY it is not accepted.BEFORE it was accepted to say the name Yahweh, TODAY it is rejected. But why was it accepted to name a place Yahweh before? It probably was because since a place it an OBJECT and not a person, then it can not commit a sin and therefore bring dishonor on God. How can an altar made of stone or metal sin? A person can make it unholy by doing something bad there, but the object itself can not sin.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE : THAT OF MOSES
Remember that Moses named an altar Yahweh? Well he also gave a man a new name, and here he AVOIDED naming him Yahweh but instead gave him a CONTRACTION of the Hebrew phrase ” Yahweh is salvation ” or Joshua. In NUMBERS 13:16:
” These are the names of the men whom Moses sent out to reconnoiter the land. But HOSHEA, son of Nun, Moses called JOSHUA. ”
I AM STILL NOT CONVINCED:
Calling the Messiah ( a mere man )Yahweh this or Yahweh that goes against all Jewish custom.And in Jeremiah it is YAHWEH HIMSELF who calls the Messiah Yahweh. The CORRECT way to have said it is this:
1) Jeremiah 23:5-6:” Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD,“ That I will raise to David a NETZER of righteousness; A KING shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; Now this is the SHEM (name) by which He will be called :ZEDEKIAH ( contraction for Righteous is Yahweh ) .”
In fact,that was the name of the last king of the Kingdom of Judah, capital Jerusalem, who ruled till 586 BC, when Zedekiah was defeated by Nebuchadnezar, the king of Babylon.Jeremiah had told Zedekiah not to fight Nebuchadnezar, but he ignored him and the Temple of Jerusalem and the city were destroyed.
OR ANOTHER WAY TO SAY IT:
In the OT it was the custom to call men ELOH or ” god ” as as expression. In Exodus Moses is called ” god ” by God.
EXAMPLE 1:
Exodus 4:13-16: ” Yet he insisted, ” If you please, Lord, send someone else! ”
Then the LORD became angry with Moses and said, ” Have you not your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know that he is an eloquent speaker. Besides, he is now on his way to meet you.
When he sees you, his heart will be glad. You are to speak to him, then, and put the words in his mouth. I will assist both you and him in speaking and will teach the two of you what you are to do.He shall speak to the people for you: he shall be your spokesman, and you shall be God to him. ”
EXAMPLE 2:
Exodus 7:1-2:” The LORD answered him, “See! I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall act as your prophet. You shall tell him all that I command you. In turn, your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave his land. ”
SO ANOTHER CORRECT WAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN:
Jeremiah 23:5-6:” Behold, the days are coming, ” says the LORD,“ That I will raise to David a NETZER of righteousness; A KING shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved,and Israel will dwell safely; Now this is the SHEM (name) by which He will be called: ELOH TSIDKENU ( God is our righteousness).”
BUT IN ARABIC WE HAVE NAMES LIKE ABDULLAH OR SLAVE OF ALLAH
Yes,that is true.But,and I could be 100% wrong here,and you will correct me,in Arabic it is not the custom to call a man or woman Allah this and Allah that,is it? Would it be acceptable for a man to call his son or daughter ALLAHU AKBAR (God is great)? Or to name a child ALLAHU RAHMAN (God is merciful).
In the same way,it was never the custom of the Jews,then or now to call a person using the complete name of Yahweh.In Jeremiah I can say:”We have 2 Yahwehs at the same time.” One can say” No,it is a Semitism”. But at the very least we have Yahweh saying that the Messiah would be none other than HE HIMSELF,Yahweh.
A VIRGIN BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH IS IMPLIED
Now if,as seems to be the case,the passages are telling us the Messiah would be Yahweh in person,given the language usage of the Jews,then that IMPLIES a virgin birth,for if the Messiah had been born the normal way,then he would not be God.
Minoria
It’s disapointing that you have chosen to attack pelagian7 with a long rambling email rather than think seriously and respond to my post. This blog is not a forum for you to rant about subjects that are not under discussion. On this occasion I’ll let your comment stand, but in furture I’ll be deleting such rants without warning!
Paul
Hello Paul:
I agree it is long but I was not attacking Pelagian.But in essence,the thing did have to do with the post in the sense that the question was “Did Jesus think of himself as God?”
“Or was invented later?”I should have said from the beginning he did think of himself as God,since the OT tells us the Messiah would be Yahweh.The idea of the post was that the Trinity,which includes Jesus as God,was foreign to him.But the OT does say Messiah=Yahweh.Sorry Pelagian if you thought I was wrong,and it won’t happen again.
Paul I don’t think Jesus thought of himself as God. The references to Yahweh were in spirit only. My opinions are based on readings of Jewish texts, talking to Jewish scholars and the single minded idea of one God, that could not be named or even identified in many jewish texts. The idea of God walking the earth, (would have been attacked by the Jews, like they did the Pagan man- God Myths); and would have been called docetism.
I personally feel that Jesus’s own understanding of himself was nothing more than a prophet, a messiah and the gap does matter greatly as both concepts differ. His duty was undeniably to preach the word of God and to also display his nature. Christianity seems to place Jesus (P.B.U.H) as ‘divine’, and claims Jesus greater than a messiah, more than a human. We all know that even in the Bible, there are numerous ‘I am’ sayings (eigo eimi) which is meant to be a theophany, a way of God communicating to his believers. And Jesus has said many things in the Gospels…..e.i ‘ I am the true vine..’ but one he has not said is ‘I am the son of God’. I feel Christians today look at Jesus’s words and actions and would place them in the category of anthropormorphism, which is something Aquinas expressed greatly under religious language (univocal and equivocal). Furthermore, Christians today define Jesus as the Logos, a notion that Jesus was God incarnate. Now even if we put all of these theories and understandings together the behaviour of Jesus in the Gospels leading towards his crucifixion would make this claim incompatible. If Jesus was truly the son of God or ‘divine’ then he would attain the characteristics of God. Now philosophers in the past have agreed on God’s ontology. This is that God is: omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. These attributes are agreed upon from many philosophers even atheists, because these are the characteristics that make a God. Moreover, Jesus did not have these abilities, except the power of miracles, which were soley from God’s power that God gave Jesus. If Jesus was omnipotent then there would have been no reason for him to be the Logos, to drive out the darkness of sin and also pray. Why did Jesus pray (garden of Gethsemane)? This is something even Christians cannot explain, because if he was God then there would be no need of praying and asking for things, as they would have the power to do it in the first place. Which shows that Jesus was human and only human, no way could his ‘God likeness and human nature’ come in the way of things. Secondly, the concept of the crucifixion towards Christians is meant to be a form of salvation, however Jesus was not omniscient. There is a time when Jesus supossedly cries ‘My Lord, my Lord why thou have forsaken me’, this to me is a cry of help. Now if Jesus was omniscient he would be able to save himself and would therefore not cry for anyone’s help, especially God, if he is God. It just doesn’t make any sense and therefore the understanding of Jesus by christians is not theologically or philosophically compatible. I hope this makes sense and it is a understandable. Forgive me for the long comment. And I hope I did not offend anyone, that was not my intention, this is just my opinion. Thank you for posting the article.
thanks for your comment peacetrain09, I think you make some excellent points
Paul
[...] The genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 states: ‘…the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.’ (On the significance of ‘the son of God’ title see my article Mind the Gap! Some recent reflections on Christology) [...]