Tags
The first Christians were not separated from their fellow Jews. They continued to worship in the Synagogues, and it is likely that many of the Gentile converts to Christianity were those ‘God-fearers’ who were to be found in the Court of the Gentiles. But, even before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, there was tension, and the way in which both St John and St Matthew write about ‘the Jews’, makes it clear that there had been a breach, which had seen the ‘Christians’ ejected from the Synagogues. There were two main reasons for this: the first, which will be considred here, was the claim that Jesus was God; the second, which will form the subject of the next few posts, was the claim that the Christians were, in fact, polytheists.
Scholars have sometimes claimed that a ‘high Christology’, that is the claim that Jesus is God, was a late development, and tended to date any writings making it accordingly, but Larry Hurtado and others, have made more convincing claims for the idea that from the beginning, Christians thought Jesus was ‘Lord’.
Indeed, one of the most important of the early titles accorded Jesus was ‘Lord’ (Romans 1:4; 1 Cor. 1:3). The Aramaic, still in use today by the Syriac Orthodox Church, was Mar, which we see in I Corinthians 16:22 where Paul uses the phrase “Maran atha’ – which means ‘Lord come’. The Greek text uses the word ‘kurios’ (from whence ‘Kyrie’), which could be simply a title of respect. However the Septuagint translates YHWH as ‘kurios’, which is why it is applied to Jesus. It is used of Him all the time in Acts, and in Luke. Before the Resurrection it is used only by those inspired (Lk 1:43, 76), afterwards, it is always used. Doubting Thomas calls Him ‘My Lord and My God’ – ‘kurios … kai theos’ (Jn 20:28). This usage, in the early Gospels, is confirmed by our reading of Paul.
Paul’s letters are some of the earliest Christian documents we have, indeed, some would say the earliest. The idea that Jesus is the Son of God (huios tou theou) is found in Romans (8:29) and Galatians (1:16; 4:4 and following). But he uses the exact phrase only thrice: Romans 8:11-16; 2 Cor. 1:19 and Gal. 4:4-7) Here, as elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels and Pauline epistles, Jesus is Son of God by virtue of His resurrection and exaltation. Mark establishes it through the baptism of Jesus (1:11) and through the words of the demons (3:11), but again, it is the experience of the Cross (15:39) which confirms it at the end. Matthew and Luke both see the Sonship confirmed at the time of the conception of Jesus (Matt. 1:23; 2:15; Lk 1.32, 35). But is in John that we get the fullest sense of what this is, and it is John who mentions it most often (1:18, 34; 3:18, 36; 11:27; 19:7; 20:31), famously calling Him the ‘logos’ who was in the beginning with God (1:1-3).John’s opening passage echoes the opening of Genesis 1:1.
Now, whilst the idea of being a ‘son of God’ was not uncommon in an ancient world where the Emperor was a living god, the notion that Jesus was with God in the beginning presented an obvious problem. This distinguished Him from other, pagan, ‘sons of god’, but it also offered a potential affront to the monotheism of the Jews. If the claim that Jesus was the Christ was offensive, then the assertion that God had a ‘son’ was even more so; it was a direct affront to Jewish montheism. It is to that we now turn our attention.
Chalcedon, could you explain clearly for me so I can properly understand, in the Synoptic gospels what 1st century Jews would have understood when hearing “Son of God”
Do the Synoptic Gospels, in fact, make every claim of Jesus as God as John’s Gospel through such things as phrases like the “Son of God, Jesus controlling wind and the sea, etc.
Also, eschatologically speaking, what would be understood by the Gospels the each time Christs brings one back to life the time they have been dead was longer?
LikeLiked by 3 people
In the OT, the sons of God were the highest of the divine beings, the chief members of God’s council, the co-rulers of the cosmos. Angels were their staff, their messengers, their bureaucracy. Think of sons of God like the President’s Cabinet, or his NSA advisors, and the angels as staffers. Jesus as THE Son of God is different from them, which is why John refers to Him as monogenes, “unique”, wrongly translated as “only-begotten”. The definite article distinguishes Him from the others, and marks Him out as the ruler of the Council, the Father’s vice-regent. I won’t go into the Jesus as YHWH stuff as that would pre-empt C’s post tomorrow. Biblical passages you could read: Deuteronomy 32 (need to check you have the right MS tradition, though, as there are variant readings), Psalm 82, 1 Kings 22, and Job 1. The NT picks up this motif in various places, but Revelation 4 is a locus classicus.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Nicholas is there any relationship directly with Jesus and the Son of God that saves the three from the fire in Daniel?
LikeLike
I’m not sure the text (Dan. 3) is clear enough to settle the matter, but the identification of the being as Jesus is possible and is popular among Iraqi Catholics and evangelicals. What the text actually says is that the onlookers perceive the fourth figure as a divine being, so they use the son of God language. Of course, Jesus does appear in Daniel 7 as the “Son of Man” figure, and the Messiah is referenced in Daniel 9, and John’s repurposing of Daniel in Revelation suggests John understood some of the other “angels” elsewhere (e.g. Dan.11-12) as Jesus. The fact that the Son of Man is riding on a cloud indicates that He is YHWH as this is how YHWH is identified in the Psalms, Prophets, and Torah.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, I’ve heard that Daniel 7 and 9 directly prophecies Christ’s coming and his Death. It’s even more of a direct reference than Isaiah 53, which is why I wonder how direct is the relationship with the being in the fire as the Son of God.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Also, with your comment, the Son of Man riding in a cloud is language found in Matthew 25. I wonder why folks attempt to assert why the Synoptic Gospels do not declare Christ as Lord.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think there are a few reasons for that:
A) Sin – if you accept that Jesus is Lord (albeit intellectually), then you’re acknowledging that God has authority over you, which means repenting.
B) Sensitivity to Jews or Muslims – in our modern political climate, Christianity is offensive, just as it was at its birth. The Gospel gets softened by compromise.
C) A number of people don’t know how to read the NT properly because they divorce it from its Semitic context. They pick up on Greco-Roman stuff (e.g. the imperial cult), but they don’t know that the Gospel writers make use of OT stuff in on-obvious ways.
D) Research into inter-testamental literature is still seen as liberal or dangerous in many church settings (mostly hyper-Protestant), which means that useful stuff from that field has a hard time filtering down to the pews.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I see Nicholas has beaten me to it – and with a better explanation 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
My apologies, C. I will leave plenty of stuff for you tomorrow. Will you be paying a visit to the Christology of Revelation?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, you answered much better than I did – and no, I’m not doing Revelation – so if there is anything in what I write which sparks a post in you, feel free 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks 🙂 I’m currently working my way through Beale’s commentary on Revelation, which has some interesting stuff, though I also find it very frustrating. He’s a historicist, which is not necessarily a problem, but he doesn’t provide actual historical examples.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sounds interesting 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, it’s a condensed version of his 2-volume scholarly work, and I think it’s good for me to expose myself now and again to different interpretations. It keeps me humble and helps me pick up details I might overlook when I’m reading for a different purpose. The other thing about scholarly commentaries is that they think about primarily through a literary lens. If we think to much about what it would have looked like to John, we lose sight of his power as an author to draw on OT and NT texts – then Revelation just becomes another B movie.
LikeLiked by 2 people
On a sidebar note: I find myself rejecting my once historical foundation in being able to discover ‘Truth.’ As I come to a deeper faith in Christ, it has provided me with an epiphany of thought. I fully reject the notion of post-modern relativism, I believe there is truth; however, as society is infected with every sort of -ism and every writer. I am not so sure we have any methods of knowing the truth–at least 100%. We can, of course, compile many historical examples, through primary sources etc. In the end, it ultimately lies in a judgment call of faith. And as a Christian, It’s something I’m okay with in the historical field.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Historicist” in my comment refers to a hermeneutic for interpreting the Book of Revelation. Futurists see most of the content as yet future to us and tend to read the seals, trumpets, and bowls as literally as possible. Preterists relate most of the “bad stuff” to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Idealists don’t tie the content to particular events but see it as generic representation of the war between good and evil. Historicists see most of the book as pertaining to the Church age with only a few bits tied to the Parousia. They also tend to interpret the seals, trumpets, bowls, etc symbolically. So when it says “a third of the sun was darkened” they don’t believe this is a physical event, but refers to the spiritual darkness experienced by unbelievers.
LikeLike
Of course, I just had the thought that I may not understand the meaning of the way Nicholas is using the word “historicist.” I’ve always defined it as a means of keeping folks in the period of their understanding, but as I look more into the definition, it appears that it is only one understanding of the term and historical persons such as Strauss and Marx were not in agreement. Furthermore, it looks as though there is Christian genre of the word that was never discussed in my history classes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aye, say, how do you like religions now?
LikeLike
Is there a point to that question, Bosco, or is it purely rhetorical?
LikeLike
The CC used to be the biggest terrorist organization on earth. Now, there is a new player in town.
LikeLike
Really, Bosco, so, do describe to us these terrorist acts? I am assuming you don’t agree with the Muslims that the Crusades were a terrorist act? On a day when young girls in England have been killed, to make such a comment is further proof of a lack of Christian spirit. If you really believe that Bosco, I suggest you go away. If not, a sincere apology for a really crass comment is in order.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You think I am without feelings? I have a young daughter.
LikeLike
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.
LikeLike
Matthew 4:22 – and your point? I hope you are not going to argue that Jesus was saying only he was saved?
LikeLike
Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
O Lord, come quickly
LikeLike
Be careful what you wish for, Bosco. Remember, in the eyes of the Lord a thousand years is like a day.
LikeLike
Im sick. I cant take this much longer.
LikeLike
I don’t cry very often my brother. Today is one of those exceptions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can see why my normal equable sense of humour failed to find the comment amusing – I am with you, brother – so distressed. I have a niece who, but for a last minute illness, would have been there in Manchester last nihght – Lord have mercy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree. Not a day for humor, even unintended. A most tragic event, those kids will be mourned and remembered here, as well. I am, however, glad for a most providential illness, for you and yours, at least.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, Neo – the mind-set that perpetrates such horrors is unfathomable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed it is. I can understand going into almost certain death, as our people have always done, for others, and to save our comrades. I cannot understand this mindset, which is likely good for our mental health.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is truly diabolical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I only caught a comment on the incident on tv in the background. Aparently the event ran a little over time and the area where the explosion took place would have been much more crowded if it finished on time. Another matter to be thankful for. Did anyone else hear that?
I am currently in UK working with a number of young men their reaction is one of extreme anger with threats of what they would do in retaliation if it involved their children harmed – very worrying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know, but I think most devices of this type are manually triggered, if not always by the one wearing it.
For the rest, yes, I am hearing much anger, and it sounds deep and lasting, and the sad part is that it is directed not only at the perpetrator(s) but at the way the government responded.
While I decry some of what they want to do, I agree with their feelings towards HMG and the local government. They come off as far more willing to suppress righteous indignation than terrorism.
They have a point, Teddy bears and candles on the street are not going to fix anything for anyone, I too find the passivity that always accompanies such reactions appalling. We hire our governments to protect us, not offer us sympathy when the government fails.
Mind, in main HMG does a good job in this area, but they could stand to talk a better game. In all my years, I’ve seen a lot of terrorism, in UK and US, never yet have I seen this fabled ‘backlash’ except in the imagination of bureaucrats. If it ever happens, it will be the result of ineffectual responses, coupled with blaming the victim.
Your guys this week. Well, I agree with them. If the government won’t do their job, you get vigilantes. Sad but true.
LikeLike
The idea of a ‘high Christology’ being a relatively late development has never made sense to me. It seems more difficult for me to believe the idea of a gradual deification of Christ in the eyes of the early Christian community, than it is to assume that Jesus was revered as the Son of God from the outset of Christianity.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed, and as so often, latest ‘research’ tends to confirm what the Scriptures say
LikeLiked by 3 people