podcast 139 – Two Perspectives on the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church

Rose,

You said: “A Virgin bore Jesus. How could divine begetting be less possible?”

I replied: “You’re asking the wrong questions.”

I offered the above response yesterday without elaboration because I wanted to give you time to contemplate what sorts of questions I have in mind. Here are a few that might help clear some of fog that apparently stands between your view and mine:

1. What is it about literal parentage that results in shared ontology with offspring?

2. Why should we not treat metaphorical language as thought were literal language?

3. What did “Son of God” mean within the Jewish cultural milieu within which Jesus’ claims would have been understood?

For help in answering that question, see:

https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/does-son-of-god-mean-possesses-the-ontological-nature-of-god/

4. What would we expect to see, from a historical perspective, if your understanding were true?

Here the issue I refer to as “The Problem of Expectation” comes into the picture, and if you wish to get a glimpse of what I’m referring to, see:

https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/on-the-problem-of-expectation/

5. How did Jesus’ audience in the context of the biblical narratives understand his claim to be “Son of God”?

As I’ve explained already, they clearly understood “Son of God” to be synonymous with “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; 26:63; Mark 14:61; Luke 22:66-71), and “Messiah” is a functional title.

~Sean

“However, the point of John 10:30 is indispensable. It raised Jesus into the ontological status of God.”

That reading is impossible, as I explain here:

https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/the-charge-against-jesus-at-john-1031/

Note also:

“…in response to the accusations of the Jews that Jesus had made himself ‘equal to God’ (Jn. 5:18; 10:30,33), the evangelists does not simply give the other side of the argument to ‘prove’ them wrong. Rather, the Johannine Jesus emphasizes that he never claimed to be equal to God, but that his word should be equated with God’s, because he has been sent by the Father, and he speaks only what the Father tells him to say (5:19-47; 10:36-38).” (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6, by Paul N. Anderson), p. 218

“One translates the Greek neuter hen. This verse was much quoted in the
Aryan controversy by the orthodox in support of the doctrine that Christ
was of one substance with the Father. The expression seems however
mainly to imply that the Father and the Son are united in will and purpose. Jesus prays in xvii. II that His followers may all be one (hen), i.e. united in purpose, as He and His Father are united.” (John, by R.V.G. Tasker, part of the Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series), p. 136

“Jesus’ reply is so typical a piece of Jewish argumentation that it rings with authenticity. He directs them to Ps. 82:6, and his argument is: If Scripture (which you will not question) calls men commissioned by God to act for him `gods’, one whom the Father has made his consecrated ambassador to the world can hardly be accused of blasphemy for calling himself `God’s son’. If human leaders have been called gods, how much more may one greater than they make a lesser claim to be not God but God’s son.” (`The Gospel According to John, by A.M. Hunter, from the series, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible), pp. 107,108

“The quotation is from Ps. 82:6, where God says to the judges of Israel, `I have said, Ye are gods: and all of you are children of the most High.’ The people’s rulers were regarded as the representatives of God Himself; so of the King (Ps. 45:6 and cf. Exod. 4:16). The argument may be paraphrased thus: If those who were consecrated to their office by the saying of God which I have quoted (or perhaps more generally, If those who in the past have been the organs of the divine word) where actually called ‘gods’ and they must have been so called, for Scripture says so, surely the consecrated ambassador of the Father may without blasphemy call himself `God’s Son.’ (`The Gospel of John’, by G.H.C. Macgregor, part of the series, The Moffatt New Testament Commentary), pp. 241-243

“When Jesus said: ‘I and the Father are one,’ he was not moving in the world of philosophy and metaphysics and abstractions; he was moving in the world of personal relationships. No one can really understand what a phrase like ‘a unity of essence’ means; but any one can understand what a unity of heart
means. Jesus’ unity with God came from the twin facts of perfect love
and perfect obedience. He was one with God because he loved and obeyed
him perfectly; and he came to this world to make us what he is…

…Jesus claimed two things for himself. (a) He was consecrated by God to a
special task. (b) He said that God had dispatched him into the world.
The word used is the one which would be used for sending a messenger or
an ambassador or an army. So Jesus said: ‘In the old days it was
possible for scripture to speak of judges as gods, because they were
commissioned by God to bring his truth and justice into the world. Now I
have been set apart for a special task; I have been dispatched into the
world by God; how can you then object if I call myself the Son of God? I
am only doing what scripture does.’” (Daily Study Bible, by William
Barclay, found on The Bible Library CD-ROM, ad. loc. cit.)

~Sean

“I generally agree with your points. However, from a biblical
perspective, I think you are still not taking into account that Jesus
consistently distinguished himself from other “slaves” and “hired hands”
who were also “sent” by God (Matthew 21:36-37; John 10:12).”

As I said previously, I’ll put something up on my blog about agency and how that paradigm applies to Christ in the judgement of scholars who have studied the matter, and virtually everyone else since. It’s not important to me that you disagree in favor of your “heir” view, which has a certain appeal conceptually, and which, in any case, is itself best explained in light of the agency paradigm in my judgment.

I don’t think we’re all that far apart vis a vis John 10, either. Whether one opts for “making himself God” (your view) or “making himself a god” (my view), the bottom line is that “God-a-god” is being used functionally at John 10, not ontologically. An ontological reading renders Jesus’ response to be a non sequitur, which makes it impossible, since we know that he did indeed respond directly to their charge.

~Sean

“I’m quite familiar with what other scholars think about “agency” and I
could easily dialogue with any one of them and expose its
insufficiency.”

As Clint Eastwood would say: “Yeah, you’re a legend in your own mind.”

“If you don’t have any insightful thoughts of your own to offer, don’t waste your time parroting what other people have already said.”

You’re back to your usual tactics, I see. Yawn.

“Maybe we are not that far apart on John 10:30-36, but I don’t understand why you would think it necessary to take “one” in an ontological sense. Jesus seems to be appealing to the evidence of his “works” as the indication that his claim to be “one” (equal) with the Father is valid (John 10:33, 37, 38).”

That’s a remarkable question. How can we trust your ability to interpret an ancient text such as the Bible when you can’t even understand explicit statements made by people who live in your own time?

~Sean

“Works which are by themselves testify to the divinity of Christ. “Thou being a man, makest THYSELF God (John 10:30).”

I’ve already demonstrated that such reasoning is fallacious, and understood to be so even by orthodox expositors. See:

https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/the-charge-against-jesus-at-john-1031/

Simply repeating yourself over and over and over again does nothing to further the dialogue. It only demonstrates what you believe, but we already know that.

~Sean

“Only Jesus claimed to be God himself while being human (John 10:33).”

I thought that you were a fan of Larry Hurtado’s work? Do you disavow it now? He would deny that Jesus ever claimed to be God himself, and explicitly denies it in reference to John 10:33 and Ps. 82.

Your reading your theology into the texts rather than gleaning theology from the texts.

~Sean

E.A.,

What language in John 10:28-30 has any “ontological” implication? Jesus was talking about God the Father being “greater than all” and thus having he authority to give the “sheep” to Jesus along with the power to protect them.

There’s nothing in the context of John 10 that changes the distinct invisible “spirit” being of God the Father (John 1:18; John 4:24) from the human being, Jesus Christ (John 1:14, 30, 45). Neither the terms “one” nor “father” nor “son” are titles that require an ontological unity when used in scripture.

The “oneness” in John 10:30-36 can simply be understood as the relationship between a father and his son. This manner of “equality” was already explained in John 5:18. A father and a son do not have to be the same “being” in order to be “equal” owners of the family estate (cf. Galatians 4:1-2; Luke 15:22).

Sean,

Good question.

I would point out that “equality with God” wouldn’t be an issue before the saints were to be glorified at the Parousia. As you noted, that is when they were to become “co-heirs” (Romans 8:14-19) and to receive “the inheritance of the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50-53).

There is also the indication of equality for all the saints in Revelation where God will call each of them “my son” (Revelation 21:7) and they will share God’s throne along with Jesus (Revelation 3:21). Being qualified as a “son of God” requires redemption and adoption at the final resurrection (Galatians 4:5; Romans 8:23; Ephesians 1:5).

One could also argue the “equality” based upon the language in John 10:30 and John 17:22 where the disciples are to receive the same “glory” inherited by Jesus.

The language of Deut 32:39 applied to John 10:28-29 is a powerful testimony to the ontological oneness of the Father and the Son in John 10:30.

FYI, in his most recent blog post, Larry Hurtado shows that he agrees with my position that GJohn is not developing the Son’s relationship with the Father in ontological categories:

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/chronology-and-ontology/#comments

I’m glad that he’s offered this much needed corrective.

I also want to correct something I said in a previous exchange, i.e. that Hurtado’s thesis has been refuted. I should have nuanced that more carefully, because I actually agree with a good part of his thesis, even the primary part, i.e. that the inclusion of Jesus as a central figure in the context of cultic religious practices taken in conjunction with his super-exaltation at God’s side represents a novel mutation in early monotheistic practices for which there was no real or satisfactory precedent. That is at the very heart of his thesis and I think he’s almost certainly correct on that score. The areas in which we part company are more nuanced.

~Sean

John 10:28-29 is an allusion to an OT passage (Deut 32:39). The reason why the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy in verse 33 is that He claims to do what God alone can do (cf. John 5:17-19). Thus, the one-ness (unity) of the Father and the Son in verse 30 is , not only a unity of heart, but a unity of substance (nature). Nature simply means “the inherent characteristic that belongs to you.” There is no need for philosophical touch to convey this idea. Scripture speaks for itself. Let the context always be king.

Sean,

Where do you think the opponents of Jesus would have derived “doing what only God can do” as a basis for “blasphemy”? How do you define “blasphemy”?

Do you think the Jews would have considered it “blasphemy” when ALHYM / QEON was used to speak of the authority of Moses (Exodus 7:1) and when God enabled Moses to perform “signs” before the people (Exodus 4:28-30)?

Sean,

Why would we take the grammar in John 5:18 to be referring to “charges against Jesus” when it is true that Jesus was “calling God his own Father …”? The “making himself equal with God” follows directly from that.

Have you considered the dozens of times that Jesus refers to God as his own Father (i.e. “my Father”) throughout the 4th Gospel (along with the couple dozen times his “equality” with the Father is expressed in various ways)? I think you’re dismissive approach to John 5:18 misses one of the most prevalent themes in the high Christology of the book.

Sean,

We agree that a “preposterous self-claim” would constitute blasphemy. This can be reasonably argued on the basis of Numbers 15:30-31 without the unnecessary fallacious appeal to “Jewish culture.”

I seems more likely that Jesus was affirming the fact that he was “breaking the sabbath” by “working” (John 5:17). Jesus admitted to the same charge in Matthew 12:1-8 when he and his disciples were doing what Jesus knew was “unlawful” (Matthew 12:4). Neither context suggests that these were taken as false accusations.

The reason Jesus had the authority to break the Sabbath was on account of being “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8) and the son of God (John 5:19).

“This can be reasonably argued on the basis of Numbers 15:30-31 without the unnecessary fallacious appeal to ‘Jewish culture.'”

An appreciation of the fact that the culture of the time forms an indispensable part of the context within which these historical and exegetical issues and questions must be contemplated and understood is accepted by all recognized authorities. It is a central component of the apparatus of investigation that professionals use in their historical and exegetical reconstructions. All one needs to do to recognize the reason for this is to consider the New Perspective on Paul, which emerged because a better understanding of the culture of the time completely re-shaped how Paul is understood.

As I said recently, I can understand why the peer reviewed journals rejected the articles you submitted. Your approach is obsolete, and academic journals generally require that accepted standards of investigation be adhered to by authors who want their work published.

Your approach is rejected in the academy, for good reason, and I am not
really interested in spending precious time having my own views vetted by someone who rejects scholarly method for his own undefined, haphazard method, if you can even call your approach a ‘method’ at all.

The fact that you would call a reference to culture “fallacious” tells
me that there’s really nothing to be gained by continued dialogue
between us, and so I’m going to bid you farewell now.

Take care,
~Sean

“Jesus does what God alone can do. That is not merely equality in
function but also of ontology since how could Jesus *do* those things
which God himself does if he is of different nature from the Father?
Neither a cat nor a dog can do what humans can do (For instance,
imparting knowledge from one generation to the next). We are speaking of
inherent characteristics here. That’s what ontology simply means.”

You’re repeating yourself again, Rose. Let me repeat myself:

Firstly, *doing* what God can *do* is functional, not ontological.

Secondly, if they felt that he did what *only* God can do, then they were
mistaken, as God *gave* Jesus the authority and power to do the things
he did (Matt 9:8), and the Disciples would go on to do even greater
things (John 14:12).

Thirdly, the glory and oneness that Jesus had would also belong to the Disciples (John 17:22), which clearly shows that it could not be a oneness of “substance”.

“I highly recommend you Larry Hurtado’s work.”

So do I, though his thesis is historically problematic, as I pointed out here:

https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/on-the-problem-of-expectation/

Are you aware that Hurtado agrees with me about John 10:33? He endorses the “a god” rendering in footnote 45 on page 52 of “How On Earth Did Jesus Become A God?” Based on private email correspondence he had with an interlocutor of mine, he believes that the Jews felt that Jesus was making himself a second God, and that this was a misunderstanding on their part.

~Sean

“Jesus *can* only do what the Father *can* do. Ability is about one’s
power (energy) to do something. If Jesus and God do not possess the same kind of life ,then, how could they be co-equal in function? (John 5:17-19 cf. 5:26).”

You’re repeating yourself again, and so since I’ve already answered that point, and you have offered nothing to counter what I said, I’ll assume that you have no effective counter to offer.

“You’re cherry picking Larry Hurtado’s work….”John 10:33 probably reflects accusations of ditheism from the Jewish community.” (Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, 2005, Larry Hurtado)”

You missed the points, Rose. Hurtado rejects ditheism, and he would argue that Jesus did not mean to claim to be a second god in any sort of ditheistic sense. This means that, according to Hurtado, the Jews *misunderstood* what Jesus was saying. Your argument is that they understood him correctly but didn’t believe him. Hurtado’s argument is that they misunderstood him.

Unlike you, Hurtado doesn’t think that Jesus’ adversaries thought that he “made himself God” (=YHWH) ontologically, but that he “made himself a god” or “a second god”.

“His scholarly research is superb. His focus is on the early high christology in the first-century church. Trinitarian terminologies of the 4th century were all anarchronistic to that.”

You missed the point, again. We all know that trinitarian terminologies of the 4th century were anachronistic. That’s not in dispute. The oliphaunt in Hurtado’s room is something that is actually HUGELY conspicuous for its absence: The sorts of historical data that one would expect to see if his reconstruction and certain inferences he derives from that reconstruction accurately represented what really occurred.

While many, like you, eagerly embrace Hurtado’s views because you infer that they’re friendly to what you already believe, there nevertheless are serious problems with his thesis, and a number of respected scholars have discussed some of them.

For example, Adela Yarbro-Collins offers critical analysis Hurtado’s thesis, here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=4QIwvdHdrUkC&pg=PA55&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

She also touches on problems with both Hurtado’s and Bauckham’s theses in the book she co-authored with her husband, John J. Collins, “King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature”. Highly recommended.

William Horbury offers critical analysis, here:

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/2/531.extract

Crispin Fletcher-Louis offers critical analysis, here:

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Bulletin/60=2009/1%20Fletcher-Louis.pdf

Paula Fredricksen offers critical analysis, here:

http://www.bu.edu/religion/files/pdf/Lord-Jesus-Christ-devotion-to-Jesus-in-Early-Christiantiy.pdf

Paul Rainbow offers critical analysis, here:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561199?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

James D.G. Dunn offers critical analysis here:

http://www.amazon.com/Parting-Ways-Christianity-Significance-Character/dp/0334029996/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465047439&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Parting+of+the+Ways%2C+dunn

I pointed out that there’s a Mûmakil in Hurtado’s room, here:

https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/on-the-problem-of-expectation/

~Sean

“You have emphasized functional equality….*Doing* what God can *do* is functional…I have emphasized ontological equality…Doing what God *can* do is ontological…Both co-exist in John 5:15-19”

Right, and while I have responded directly to your points and shown how they are incorrect, you just keep repeating yourself with assertions that I’ve already shown to be flawed. This isn’t getting us anywhere, Rose.

~Sean

“You are slow to admit the obvious, Sean…Can you do this or that without having the nature that makes you able to do it? Simple question.”

Yes, the apostles were able to do even greater things than Jesus did (John 14:12), and they weren’t gods, much less God himself.

You’re slow to admit the obvious, Rose. Did the apostles go on to do even greater things than Jesus did, as Jesus himself anticipated, or was Jesus mistaken?

~Sean

“You, again, took a biblical passage out of context. Jesus preached God’s
kingdom from beginning to end of his earthly ministry. The greater
things that believers will do is the evangelical mission — in and
through them God works to bring the gospel to “every nation” (Romans
1:16 cf. Matthew 28:19). The power by which they could do this things
comes from the “power of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:8 cf. Romans 15:13).
Sean, do you think that Christians have inherent power? Jesus is God
himself in bodily form (Colossians 2:9). His power is divine power and
it is intrinsic to himself.”

The apostles were able to heal the sick and raise the dead (Matt. 10; Acts 9; Acts 20). These are actions that only God can do, yet the Apostles did them.

Could they do this or that without having the nature to do it?

Regarding Col. 2:9, if God can dwell on a mountain or in a temple, yet the mountain and temple are not God, then why can’t God dwell in a man yet the man not be God?

~Sean

“Christians can do what God can do since they are empowered by God’s
Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are as plain as the nose on your face, Sean.”

Exactly, and like his followers, Jesus was able to do powerful works because God empowered him to do so. The Scriptures are as plain as the nose on your face, Rose;-)

“Colossians 2:9 tells us that God himself is at home in the physical body of Jesus Christ. That’s the Incarnation. The divinity of God (theotetos) lives spiritually in God [Jn 4:24] while it lives bodily in Jesus [Col 2:9].”

God is at home in a physical body just as He is at home on a mountain or in a temple. Since the mountain and the temple are not God by virtue of His dwelling there, so likewise Jesus is not God by virtue of God’s dwelling in him.

~Sean

“The critiques of Larry Hurtado more or less view his works as “incomplete” (not full) and not wrong. Deal with it.”

You must not have read all of them carefully.

~Sean

Prof. Larry Hurtado On Early High Christology

i. Jesus-devotion (High Christology)

ii. God requires all creation to submit to the Lorship of Jesus.

iii. High Christology present in Jewish circles in the young Jesus-movement (Roman Judea; Post-Easter period)

iv. The remarkable pattern of Jesus-devotion reflected in Paul’s letters goes back to/among the earliest circles.

v. “Ancient Jewish monotheism” didn’t involve necessarily denying the existence of other “gods,”

vi. There’s no indication that gentile converts “conflated” Jesus with the other deities.

vii. Early believers justified their extraordinary devotional practices involving Jesus on the basis of God’s exaltation of him and requirement that Jesus be so reverenced. They, thus, believed that they were being faithful/obedient to the one God, not deviating from the traditional exclusivity of worship. Their “mutation” or expansion in that “dyadic” direction, they believed, was in response to God’s action and imperative.

“The early “post-Easter” Jesus-movement quickly became progressively trans-ethnic in makeup, but there remained a continuing body of Jewish circles at least well into the second century (as witnessed to by, e.g., Justin Martyr in his Dialogue).” ~ Larry Hurtado

” “they shall worship him” in Revelation 22:3 refers to God. The author, however, approves and urges inclusion of “the Lamb” also as rightful co-recipient of worship in Rev 5. So I think that the author (with some other early Christians) regarded a worship pattern that included Jesus with God as the rightful way to worship God. That is, rightly understood (in the minds of this author and, e.g., Paul), the reverence that was given to Jesus was understood as now required by God, and so as worship of God, the way in which God is now to be worshipped–this “dyadic” pattern” (Larry Hurtado).

“Devotion to Jesus as resurrected/exalted Lord erupted early, and most likely in circles of Jewish believers in Roman Judaea, and that I find it unlikely that ruler-cult prompted it” (Larry Hurtado).

It would only be “fatal problems” for his thesis if it were the *only data* on early high christology that fits the evidence. In general, you’ll notice that what were exposed by Crispin Fletcher-Lous and others were merely the inadequacies of Larry Hurtado’s scholarly work. Larry Hurtado does not claim absolute ‘T’ruth. You got hold of the wrong end of the stick, Sean.

Sean,

No one can be one with God the same way Jesus can (John 10:30).

However, every believer can be ‘completely one’ the same way Jesus and God are (John 17:23).

Jesus and God are one in John 10:30. The oneness of Jesus and God are unity of “nature.”

Believers are one together like Jesus and God are in John 17:23. The oneness of believers are to be ”perfect.”

Context is key, Sean.

The unity in John 10:30 could also be a unity of nature since the context incorporated Deut 32:39 to the Lord Jesus.

I agree with you regarding inheritance. However, the full scope of the texts do include ontology.

John 6:62 says that Jesus had a previous existence and that in that state he will go back. John 1:18 says that Jesus is God’s only begotten (coming) into the bosom of the Father. Thus, Christ previously existed (pre-existed) as God’s only begotten since he was and he will be and is now in bosom of the Father.

The SoM of Daniel is a royalty title. We dont need to take it literally.

EA,

John 10:30 is not referring to consubstantiality at all. In the context, Jesus is an human being who was talking about being the “owner” of God’s sheep (John 10:12, 15) who “received authority” from God to lay down his own life to protect them (John 10:18).

When Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) it follows from John 10:28-29 where he just stated that his “sheep” belonged to God the Father and had been “given” to him. This is an equality that is a matter of inheritance (cf. John 17:2) and not “substance.”

“John 5:26 tells us that the Father himself gave something to his Son. To
give something to someone means that it was not previously owned by the
recipient. However, in this case, what the Father gave to the Son cannot
be something the Son never had because the Father gave the Son the very
same kind of life he himself had.”

One can’t grant someone to have life in himself if he already has it because he’s ontologically eternal.

You may as well argue that Jesus is God because ipskidilee ooten dooten, bo bope skadeeton dotten, howchow rowchow, as that would be equally meaningful.

~Sean