|
Listen to this post:
|
The late Dr. Larry Hurtado started a fascinating post by commenting on whether Philippians 2 and Colossians 1 contain material from pre-existing hymns. I’ve always been skeptical about this, despite the enthusiasm of some scholars. So are the authors of a recent article, which Dr. Hurtado discusses.
He ventures to make a small comment on their piece, but it is one which evangelical apologists should take note of:
…in considering the applicability of the category of “rhetorical prose hymn” to these passages, they make a curious statement (299-300) that this is “entirely dependent on one’s reading of Paul’s Christology, since apart from worshiping Christ as God, these passages could equally be construed as praising Jesus as Lord (but not necessarily as God or even divine).” I am bound to say that this seems to me to reflect a strangely confused set of notions. As should be clear to any serious reader, in the New Testament Jesus is not worshiped “as God” (whatever that may mean) but, instead, with reference to God, as the Son of God, as the Lord appointed by God, as the “image” of God, etc. To be sure, Jesus is referenced as sharing the divine name and glory, and Old Testament texts originally referring to “God” (Yahweh) are interpreted with reference to Jesus, and, most importantly, in earliest Christian circles Jesus is accorded the sorts of reverence that are otherwise reserved for deities in the Roman era. So, there can be no question whether the exalted Jesus is treated in the New Testament as “divine.” But, at the same time, the New Testament (and early Christian writers generally) also distinguish God and Jesus, while also relating them uniquely to each other. (For further discussion, see my book, God in New Testament Theology, Abingdon Press, 2010.)
So, actually, it isn’t an argument against Philippians 2:6-11 or Colossians 1:15-20 possibly being (or deriving from) a “rhetorical prose hymn” to hold that neither text presents Jesus being worshiped “as God.” There may be other reasons, but that one simply reflects confused thinking. (emphases and link added)
Confused thinking indeed. Evangelical apologists commonly confuse Jesus and God, strongly asserting that this is the whole point of Christianity, “the deity of Christ,” which they understand (sometimes) to mean that Jesus is God himself, that the two are numerically identical. We know this by the form of their arguments. e.g.
- Only Yahweh is called/does X.
- Jesus is called/does X.
- Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
1 contains a numerical identity claim, and 3 is a numerical identity claim. For the argument to be valid, this must be so. (For more, see this and this or this.) But any Christian should reject 3, thus understood. It is self-evident that a thing can’t at one time differ from itself. But Jesus and God have, do, and will differ. e.g. God has a Son. Jesus doesn’t. God has always been immortal. Jesus died. Thus, as Dr. Hurtado observes, the NT writers all distinguish the two, treating them as non-identical.
But like any New Testament reader, at other times these evangelical apologists think of them as distinct selves, and so as distinct beings, ones who love and cooperate with one another, and stand in a Master-Servant, Father-Son relationship. Thus, e.g. the Son can at some times fail to know what the Father knows. They can differ, as they are two.
So sometimes P, and other times not-P. Confusion, straight up. Gesturing at the Trinity doesn’t solve the problem, as it’s not clear whether or not it allows Jesus and God (i.e. the Triune God) to be identical. Many learned trinitarians will urge that the Trinity rules out the numerical identity of Jesus and God. (Jesus isn’t tripersonal, but the Trinity is.) Of course, in the NT, ho theos (“God”) is the Father himself, though a very few times at most Jesus too is addressed by that title.
I agree with Dr. Hurtado that Jesus was religiously worshiped early on. And I also agree that this doesn’t imply or presuppose that Jesus is God. In the minds of the NT authors, it shows that Jesus is the exalted Son of God.
Check out the whole post. I think he’s right in not being a “Jesus is God” apologist. Do you agree?
If the incarnate Logos cannot be a “real” man, as Unitarians often claim, can any pre-existent unitarian Jesus be a “real” human being?
I think this is one reason why Dale appears to reject this view.
Why should we pay any attention to the church father’s speculations concerning the Logos?
The bible, in the prologue to the gospel of John, is definitive as far as the Logos is concerned.
I don’t see why anyone should go to John 17 to find out what Jesus means in John 10.
After all he didn’t tell the Jews to wait for the Gospel of John to be written did he?
Also the Jews would have been trying to kill someone over a misunderstanding. And it doesn’t say much for Jesus power of persuasion if the Jews were so wide of the mark.
And according to Dale context is king.
Also the “unity of purpose” argument is pretty weak in my view.
Dale said,
“1)Only Yahweh is called/does X.
2)Jesus is called/does X.
3)Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
1 contains a numerical identity claim, and 3 is a numerical identity claim. For the argument to be valid, this must be so. But any Christian should reject 3, thus understood. It is self-evident that a thing can’t at one time differ from itself. But Jesus and God have, do, and will differ.”
I’ve said it before, but divine simplicity resolves the identity problem. There is no logical contradiction of any kind in trinitarian theology.
Grace and peace
Hi Andrew – it’s unclear how divine simplicity helps with the problem I’m pointing out, which is that according to the NT, some things are true of Jesus that are not true of God, and vice-versa. So by the indiscernibility of identicals, they can’t be numerically the same. If divine simplicity conflicts something as obviously true as the indiscernibility of identicals, so much the worse for it! Anyway, feel free to explain what you think the doctrine of divine simplicity means and how it “resolves the identity problem.”
Thanks for pointing this out. Most readers of Hurtado seem to think he equates Jesus was equated with YHWH.
I appreciate that Hurtado questions even the intelligibility of the claim “Jesus is God” in Biblical context. No ancient Jew would understand what such a claim meant. How could Jesus be YHWH, the father of Israel? For Jews God is and always has been a person, a father, not a substance.
Hi Dale,
I agree with everything Larry Hurtado said as you quoted in the OP.
Larry Hurtado himself also said the following:
“All the talk of “persons”, “being” etc. is anachronistic for the NT texts.”
“I have repeatedly referred to a “binitarian” (or now a “dyadic”) devotional pattern, itemizing specifically the practices that comprise it, and showing that they are a unique development, Jesus incorporated into earliest Christian devotional practices in ways otherwise reserved for God.”
“There is a real “duality” in the ways that Jesus is referred to in the NT writings: a real, historical human, who was also the Logos, “in the beginning with God”, etc.”
“NT texts clearly ascribe to Jesus a status and role that goes beyond that of a human: e.g., as the agent of creation (e.g., 1 Cor 8:4-6), and as bearing “the form of God” (Philip 2:6).”
“Much of earliest Christian Christological rhetoric reflects “agency” language (e.g., Son/Word/Image of God, etc.) But the place of the risen Jesus in earliest Christian worship and devotional practice comprises what I have termed a novel/unique “mutation”.”
I recommend you read Larry Hurtado’s ‘Lord Jesus Christ’ and his ‘One God, One Lord’ sholarly work on Early High Christology
For what it is worth, I think the whole “hymn” thing is a horrible distraction. I have never used it – never needed it – and doing just fine… (sort of like the prayer tongue…:-) ).
@Dale,
The Father and the Son aren’t identical in terms of “person-hood.” The reason is that the Son isn’t the person of the Father and vise versa.
Self-identity no. 1 = The Father
Self-identity no. 2 = The Son
These two persons do have an identical “nature” by virtue of their relation (paternal and filial).
Jesus said: “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).
Rose,
When you claim that the Father and the son are different “persons” but have an “identical nature”, it doesn’t logically follow that they are one and the same “being”. Any human father and son (or any two human beings, for that matter) would be considered different “persons” and have “identical” human nature. The fact that the Father and son are different “persons simply indicates that they are not the same being.
Jesus not only said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), but he also prayed that his disciples “may be one, even as we [I and my Father] are one” (John 17:22). The context shows that this “oneness” was about being “perfect in unity” (John 17:23) and not about nature or being.
And in John 10:30, Jesus’ claim to be “perfect in unity” was contextually a claim that God endorsed his messianic status. It was as though Jesus said “Yes, I am the Messiah, and in making this claim I have God’s own stamp of approval!” That’s what they couldn’t and wouldn’t accept (see Mark 14:60-62), and we’re not left grappling in the dark for the reason:
“If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then
the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.” (Jn 11:48)
“We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God [=Messiah].” (Jn 19:7)
It was always untimely about their own power and prestige. Further, if J.C. O’Neill is correct about what is implied by Jn 19:7 (etc), then it wasn’t merely the idea that Jesus was or could be the Messiah that was used as an excuse for them to take or feign offense, it was that he claimed this status _for himself_, rather than waiting on God to declare his Messiah the “proper” way (whatever that may have been conceived to be; probably going through the “proper channels”, which would have meant seeking the endorsement of God’s authorities on earth, i.e. Christ’s opponents).
There was no law against “being” the Messiah, so O’Neill contends that there must have been a law against making unauthorized claims for this status for one’s self, and I think he makes a compelling case for this (see “Who Did Jesus Think He Was?”, I don’t have the pages handy). What Jesus’ opponents missed was that his miraculous works and truthful words *were* God’s means of declaring Jesus to be who he claimed to be.
Sean,
I like what you’ve pointed out from O’Neill’s perspective. The Jews did challenge Jesus Christ about the validity of his own testimony and he appealed to the witness of John the baptizer (John 5:30-31), as well as the miraculous works that God the Father enabled him to do (John 5:36). It’s interesting that Nicodemus was one who understood the implication of the works that Jesus could do (John 3:2).
Ah, yes, I knew I was forgetting something! My last sentence should have referenced John 3:2. Thanks for the reminder:-)
Rose
How about letting Jesus exegete Jn10:30 instead of humanistic tradition as you have done? You and I both know that you are just regurgitating what someone told you is true – perhaps in your Discipleship 101 class?
Greg Logan
Comments are closed.