{"id":43344,"date":"2021-07-31T08:42:41","date_gmt":"2021-07-31T13:42:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=43344"},"modified":"2021-12-28T20:24:26","modified_gmt":"2021-12-29T02:24:26","slug":"bock-and-loke-on-jesuss-blasphemy-in-mark-14-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/bock-and-loke-on-jesuss-blasphemy-in-mark-14-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Bock and Loke on Jesus’s “blasphemy” in Mark 14 – Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The priest in Mark 14:63-64 thinks that Jesus has committed a sin of blasphemy. Of course, the priest can’t be right about this, but why?<\/strong> What is the priest’s mistake? Dr. Loke, summarizing the work of Dr. Bock:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He [Bock] argues that the claim to come on the clouds is a significant one, alluding to Daniel 7:3 but also using imagery that is associated with Yahweh (Psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1, etc.) (Bock 2000, 201).<\/p>

Concerning the problem of understanding the phrase ‘the Son of Man,’ Bock observes that many scholars think that a formal title, or at least a unified Son of Man concept, did not yet exist in the first century. He argues that it is the idiomatic element in the Aramaic expression and the lack of a fixed concept in Judaism that any ‘Son of Man’ remark to be ambiguous unless it is tied to a specific passage or context. This means the phrase could be an effective vehicle as a cipher for Jesus, such that he could fill it with content and also define it as he used it. One can argue that Jesus initially used the term ambiguously and drew out its force as he continued to use it, eventually associating it with Daniel 7 and using it together with Psalm 110:1 (Bock 2007; 2011).<\/p>

Bock concludes that in the trial scene Jesus is claiming to be seated in a that shares the highest honour with God. Only the figure of Enoch[‘s] Son of Man seems close to this imagery, and even his access to God in this way is controversial among the Jews. Bock argues that, while the portrayal of Enoch’s Son of Man shows that the existence of such a glorious figure was possible within first-century Judaism,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Let’s pause here for a moment. What Dr. Bock is saying by implication is that for at least many the Jews of Jesus’s time, it was <\/em>thinkable that a human being, someone without <\/em>a divine nature, could be invited up to share God’s throne<\/strong> – by God, of course. In other words, it was hardly self-evident then that being as it were seated at God’s right hand requires having a divine nature. Nor is it now. Nor is it a teaching of Scripture that only divine persons can share God’s throne. But given all of that, Bock observes (as summarized by Loke), that<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026what would have caused the offence in Jesus’ case was that his claim to share the highest honour with God was made by himself without invitation from God (Bock 2000, 202\u2014203). Bock argues that Jesus’ remarks would have been read as blasphemous along the lines Philo described in On Dreams<\/em> and Decalogue <\/em>concerning those who claim prerogatives of God, who dare to compare themselves to God and who give creatures the same honours as those of the Creator. This explains the high priest’s response to this remark, viz. ripping off his clothes, which provides a clear sign that a blasphemy has been uttered (Mark 14:63).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is very plausible! The priest was thinking that<\/strong> not only was this guy not <\/em>God’s Messiah, but that he was being outrageously presumptuous in claiming that in the future he’d be seated at the right hand of the Power (i.e. of God) and would be coming with the clouds of heaven. (Mark 14:62) That sort of presumption, plausibly, would be<\/em> blasphemous, an outrage against the honor of God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But again, clearly this whole book portrays Jesus in a most <\/em>positive light, and we can’t think that we’re supposed to agree with the priest here! Yet the author does not jump in here with a narrator’s comment to the effect that while the priest thought <\/em>this was blasphemy, in fact it was not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the author doesn’t need <\/em>to do that. It’s a short book, and was meant to be read aloud, and the reader should remember two relevant things about Jesus and God.<\/strong> First, it’s clear throughout the book not only that Jesus is God’s Messiah, his Christ, but that he is also called “Son of Man.” (In this chapter, vv. 41, 62). Two chapters before, in Mark 12:35-37, Jesus clearly implies that Psalm 110:1 is to be understood as a prophecy about God’s Messiah, wherein God says to him, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.” This is tantamount to claiming that God is going to invite him up<\/strong> to this position of great honor. But then, Jesus would not <\/em>be presumptuously inviting himself up to that high place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about his coming on the clouds? <\/strong>Again, Jesus’s enemies would assume that it’s an outrageous act of chutzpah to say this will happen. But what is the reader of this gospel supposed to think? We need only remember chapter 13, in which Jesus is discoursing on how God is going to wrap up these latter days. In part, “Then they will see \u2018the Son of Man coming in clouds\u2019\u2026” (Mark 13:26) Now, could this Son be, as it were, presumptuously striking out on his own? I suggest that in this apocalytic context the suggestion is ludicrous. This is all God’s will, it’s the fulfilling of God’s plan. And so, God has chosen that Jesus will play this exalted role of, Yahweh-like, coming in clouds, and it goes on to say gathering up his chosen ones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The awake reader knows, then, that the high priest is making a bad <\/em>mistake.<\/strong> They’re aware that a man such as God’s human Messiah can <\/em>do these amazing, God-like things if God wills it. And the high priest’s mistake is <\/strong>thinking that Jesus is just absurdly claiming such privileges for himself; he thinks Jesus is, as it were, inviting himself up to the head of the table. But the reader knows that he’s been invited there by the master of the banquet! (Compare: Luke 14:7-11)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So there’s no material here by which to argue that Jesus is divine. <\/strong>His rights to sit at God’s right hand and to come back in glory have been granted by God<\/em>; there’s no reason to think they require him to have a divine nature. But Loke, and it would seem Bock, are determined to find an implication<\/strong> or assumption of the deity of Christ here. Loke continues,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hurtado objects that the implication that Jesus regarded himself as truly divine is weakened when one considers that in Revelation 3:21 it is stated that the Laodicean Christians are promised by Christ to sit with him on his throne, which he shares with God (Hurtado 2003, 47 n.66).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Right – God-throne-sharing doesn’t require having a divine nature<\/strong>; this confirms what was already plausible. It only requires God’s will and invitation; the reader assumes that Jesus has <\/em>God’s permission to offer them this honor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Bock can argue that the Laodicean Christians did not claim this seating for themselves, rather they were said to have been promised this by Christ, and as noted earlier according to Jewish tradition only God can direct such a seating (Bock 2000, 162).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Sure, but if God can extend such an offer, then it seems he could authorize another, such as his exalted human Son, to extend an offer too. But Loke concludes,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus the implication of Jesus’ true divinity is actually present in Revelation 3:21.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That doesn’t follow at all!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Skipping a few tangents, Loke says that Bock’s point is<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026that Jesus claimed the prerogatives of God, i.e. claimed to share authority with God without invitation from God, which would be read as blasphemous by his Jewish audience, that seem to be of significance for indicating that he regarded himself as truly divine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

But why would Dr. Bock think that Jesus had no invitations from God<\/strong> for these things, especially as in this book<\/em> (Mark) Jesus quotes what he believes is God inviting him up to share his throne? (Psalm 110:1) The high priest, seemingly not with God’s program, knows less than the reader of the gospel according to Mark. The reader knows that his charge of blasphemy is wrong-headed, not because the high priest falsely assumes that Jesus is not divine – this book doesn’t teach that he is<\/a> – but rather because he falsely assumes that Jesus is not <\/em>God’s Messiah, so he thinks it’s not <\/em>part of God’s plan for these future glorious things to happen to Jesus. But he’s not a usurper, the reader knows, but rather a humble servant of God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This all looks wholly unproblematic for a biblical unitarian Christian <\/strong>like me, who holds that God’s unique Son is human but not also divine<\/a>. How can Bock, or anyone, think that there is support in this passage for a claim that in Mark Jesus is taught to be divine?<\/strong> In a later discussion than Loke cites, Bock is discussing the phrase “Son of Man.” He first observes that it was an Aramaic idiom for “human being.” But also, in Daniel 7:13, Bock says,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026Here the expression is not a title, but a description of a figure who rides the clouds and comes to the Ancient of Days to receive dominion from God. What is interesting is that although the everyday idiom points to a human being, the use in Daniel 7 points to a transcendent figure<\/strong>, since in the Hebrew Bible the only beings who ride the clouds are either God or the gods (Exodus 14:20, 34:5; Numbers 10:34; Psalm 104:3; Isaiah 19:1). (Who is Jesus?<\/em> p. 167)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

“Transcendent figure?” Certainly, it’s not just some average Joe who would be brought into God’s presence to be awarded with dominion. And certainly the risen Jesus is hardly your average Joe; having been raised to immortality, he can be called a “transcendent figure.” <\/strong>But there’s no reason to think that the dominion-recipient in Daniel 7 must be a god or a person with a divine nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this later chapter, Bock plausibly defends the historicity of this episode<\/strong> in Mark 14 of Jesus before the high priest. And he adds that in his view, the Sadducee-dominated council would have been hostile to claims of any human whatsoever sitting at God’s right hand. (165-66) So then, “The leadership read [Jesus’s reply] as blasphemy, because in their view God shares his glory with no one and in Jesus’ response was the inherent criticism that the leaders were not God’s chosen representatives<\/strong> for the faith” (173) – which could be, in their context, considered a case of blasphemy <\/strong>(164). In short, Jesus claimed that he was God’s special servant, his Christ, and that God would vindicate him, and Jesus’s Jewish opponents here disagreed. But Jesus was right, thank God!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It seems to me that whatever you think it is that Scripture as a whole teaches about Christ, you should agree that Jesus’s trial as portrayed in Mark 14 gives us no grounds, by itself, for thinking that Jesus is God or that he is divine<\/strong> in the way that the one God is divine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bock is extremely restrained, at least in his later writings, about what he says this episode implies. But Loke seems to think (The Origin<\/em>, pp. 185-86) that there is a hint<\/strong> or indication here of Jesus’s deity \/ divine nature here in Mark 14, at least when read in light of the forgiveness of sins<\/strong> incident earlier (Mark 2:1-12). That’s wrongheaded<\/a> though. And the reader of Mark has no need of hints<\/a>. The whole book of Mark portrays a Messiah who is a very special man<\/a>, called by God to a very special role, and empowered by him to pull it off. This incident is just a key part of that whole portrayal, which comes so very short of the later catholic “godman” speculations<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What the priest was thinking in charging Jesus with “blasphemy.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":43349,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[37,21,16,15,6,43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43344","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-apologetics","category-bible","category-books","category-christology","category-complaints","category-unitarianism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43344","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43344"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43344\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":43581,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43344\/revisions\/43581"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/43349"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}