Paul, Jesus' Divinity, and 1st century Jewish monotheism

[lovemuffin]

I've been on a bit of a "Divinity of Jesus" kick lately, and after spending several days writing about the doctrine of the trinity in eastern Christianity, I was going back over N.T. Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God a bit because I think the arguments he cites for an early high Christology are an interesting counterpoint to the orthodox point of view.

So I was perusing some of the writing of Richard Bauckham, whom Wright cites, and I found this article which gives a good reasonably short introduction to some of those arguments: Paul's Christology of Divine Identity. Which I think might be digestible enough for a debate thread.

Here are the most important bits from the article. Note I'm boiling this down a lot.

"The concept of identity is more appropriate, as the principal category for understanding Jewish monotheism, than is that of divine nature. In other words, for Jewish monotheistic belief what was important was who the one God is, rather than what divinity is. We could characterize this early Jewish monotheism as creational monotheism, eschatological monotheism and cultic monotheism.

That God alone - absolutely without advisors or collaborators or assistants or servants - created all other things... That when YHWH fulfils his promises to his people Israel, YHWH will also demonstrate his deity to the nations, establishing his universal kingdom, making his name known universally, becoming known to all as the God Israel has known. This aspect I call eschatological monotheism. Finally, there is also cultic monotheism. Only the sole Creator of all things and the sole Lord over all things should be worshipped, since worship in the Jewish tradition was precisely recognition of this unique identity of the one God.

Early Christology was framed within the familar Jewish framework of creational, eschatological and cultic monotheism. The first Christians developed a christological monotheism with all three of these aspects."
​

The paper goes on to to provide evidence for these claims in the form of exegesis of texts, specifically demonstrations of Paul quoting YHWH passages but using them to refer to Jesus, and specifically such passages as are clearly creational, eschatological, and cultic in terms of their original monotheistic meanings, per the categories he described above.

The general framework Bauckham outlines and his support for it seems to me to be the strongest argument I'm familiar with for an early high Christology of a Jewish rather than Greek character in the early Christian church. What do you think?

​

 

[lovemuffin]

Note: a brief outline of the scriptural texts is on page 5 of that PDF

 

[Kolibri]

Roman 10:13 points not to Jesus but to God separated from Jesus. See verse 9b. "and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead." Vs 11 also quotes Isa 28:16 as "the Sovereign Lord Jehovah" continues as the Lord under discussion.

1 Corinthians 1:31 does indeed quote from Jer 9:24. But again insight of God apart from Jesus is object of our allowable boast. For note 1 Corinthians 1:30, "Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God," Jesus give us "insight and knowledge of me [Jehovah]" It is only proper than that we boast in the wisdom as coming from God, through Jesus.

These were just the first 2 of those listed on page 5 of your link. I find the supposition that Paul is linking Jesus' identity as being God unsubstantiated. There is only one quote from the Hebrew Scriptures where this reasoning *might* work, and that is in the book of Hebrews. The exact chapter and verse escapes me at the moment.

 

[lovemuffin]

In order to address the argument, You're going to probably have to deal with the quotations of the Hebrew scriptural texts and that element of the argument, rather than just asserting what the meaning of a verse is, since the meaning of the verse is what is in question.

 

[Kolibri]

In order to address the argument, You're going to probably have to deal with the quotations of the Hebrew scriptural texts and that element of the argument, rather than just asserting what the meaning of a verse is, since the meaning of the verse is what is in question.

The quotes are valid. And that the quotes are about Jehovah, or whatever variant a particular Bible puts to the divine name, I see no issues in what was found in the Hebrew text. It is the surrounding material in the Greek text that seems to be the point of contention.

 

[lovemuffin]

Let me clarify a bit: It is not in argument that the text doesn't distinguish between the Father and Jesus. Basically all of the Pauline texts, as well as all of the gospel texts, do so. I get the deduction from that fact that if you distinguish between the two, they can't share an "identity", in the sense that it's somewhat non-intuitive. But then there are a lot of biblical texts which suggest in stronger language that it's not that simple in the opinion of the N.T. authors. John's gospel quoting Jesus saying "The father and I are one", "I am in the Father and the Father in me", Paul's assertion that in Jesus all the "fullness of the Deity dwelt bodily" and etc. So, what I said in the thread about the trinity from the orthodox perspective is that there is this apparent tension between these passages and the fact that there is an obvious distinction between the two also.

I don't think it works to just deny the unity and emphasize the distinction. It ignores a lot of texts. But Bauckham's argument isn't that the distinction is unimportant, it's that the distinction and unity can make sense together if you look at Jewish monotheism and see that it treats the "identity" of God in a way such that the distinction doesn't automatically imply separation. The very fact that Paul is using O.T. texts which refer to YHWH but making the referent of those texts Jesus is the argument. Part of it I didn't cite directly is indirect evidence in the wisdom literature of the 2nd temple period, in which the Wisdom of God is personified and spoken about in a way "distinct" from God but clearly understood to be God.

So I think you might be misunderstanding if you're just looking at the greek text, seeing a distinction, and saying that's the end of it.

 

[Kolibri]

Ok. I think I see where you are coming from. I do agree that Jesus is in union with his Father, and that his disciples are invited to be in union with them in the same way they are united. So separation is only an issue when it comes to clarifying a distinction between Father and Son....and us.

As regards Jesus being the referent, I was looking at Romans 14 just now. And wow, that chapter can be a mess without knowing which master/lord is referred to in each line. I do not often read that chapter outside of the NWT that follows the example of Hebrew Bibles over the centuries to put the divine name in vs 4,6,8, and 11.

 

[Unification]

I've been on a bit of a "Divinity of Jesus" kick lately, and after spending several days writing about the doctrine of the trinity in eastern Christianity, I was going back over N.T. Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God a bit because I think the arguments he cites for an early high Christology are an interesting counterpoint to the orthodox point of view.

So I was perusing some of the writing of Richard Bauckham, whom Wright cites, and I found this article which gives a good reasonably short introduction to some of those arguments: Paul's Christology of Divine Identity. Which I think might be digestible enough for a debate thread.

Here are the most important bits from the article. Note I'm boiling this down a lot.

"The concept of identity is more appropriate, as the principal category for understanding Jewish monotheism, than is that of divine nature. In other words, for Jewish monotheistic belief what was important was who the one God is, rather than what divinity is. We could characterize this early Jewish monotheism as creational monotheism, eschatological monotheism and cultic monotheism.

That God alone - absolutely without advisors or collaborators or assistants or servants - created all other things... That when YHWH fulfils his promises to his people Israel, YHWH will also demonstrate his deity to the nations, establishing his universal kingdom, making his name known universally, becoming known to all as the God Israel has known. This aspect I call eschatological monotheism. Finally, there is also cultic monotheism. Only the sole Creator of all things and the sole Lord over all things should be worshipped, since worship in the Jewish tradition was precisely recognition of this unique identity of the one God.

Early Christology was framed within the familar Jewish framework of creational, eschatological and cultic monotheism. The first Christians developed a christological monotheism with all three of these aspects."
​

The paper goes on to to provide evidence for these claims in the form of exegesis of texts, specifically demonstrations of Paul quoting YHWH passages but using them to refer to Jesus, and specifically such passages as are clearly creational, eschatological, and cultic in terms of their original monotheistic meanings, per the categories he described above.

The general framework Bauckham outlines and his support for it seems to me to be the strongest argument I'm familiar with for an early high Christology of a Jewish rather than Greek character in the early Christian church. What do you think?

​

Everyone is looking for an external God when God can only be found and experienced internally.

 

[kepha31]

The Epistles are to be read in the light of the Gospels, not the other way around.

 

[lovemuffin]

Everyone is looking for an external God when God can only be found and experienced internally.

I'm not sure entirely how to respond to you because on the one hand I almost agree with you, but on the other hand it has nothing to do with this thread. So, if I'm understanding you properly, your response is more or less just to deny that value of asking the kind of question implied by this thread, or engaging in this kind of discussion. Which, I can understand if you aren't interested. From a Christian perspective though, I think there is clearly value in trying to understand how the authors of Christian scriptures understood what they wrote, and how it was received by their readers. Not that it's the only thing that matters, or even that it's the most important, but it is valuable to me. Even though in other contexts I would argue against sola scriptura or the inerrancy of the Bible (for example), or in favor of a mystical spiritual path, that path, insofar as it is a Christian path (and not everyone's path is) is still rooted in Christian tradition which very much includes the Bible, even if the Bible isn't everything.

So, I don't feel like there is any real tension between recognizing the value of trying to understand Paul at the same time as recognizing that one should seek union with and an experience of the God that Paul tried to write about.

 

[lovemuffin]

The Epistles are to be read in the light of the Gospels, not the other way around.

I don't think there is any real reason to adopt this as an absolute principle, I would probably say instead that as much as possible they should be read as a whole: the epistles in light of the gospels and the gospels in light of the epistles. But on the other hand, I don't think that, if you do adopt this principle absolutely, it precludes the kind of argument Bauckham makes. I think his argument is perfectly compatible with reading the epistles in light of the gospels.

As far as it is an argument, it's useful to focus more narrowly on Paul for a couple reasons, I think

1) Bauckham is writing partly in a context where there is a longstanding view of Christology that sees the early Jewish Christians with a "low" Christology and that it was the later greek tradition that divinized Jesus. Insofar as Bauckham is challenging that idea, it is helpful to focus on Paul's epistles because they are earlier than something like John's gospel, and even probably the synoptics.

2) By focusing on one author the argument avoids problems with different authors using similar phrases or terms in different ways. It provides some focus

3) Paul is by far the most extensive N.T. author, and besides that his writing addresses the kind of "eschatological monotheism" more directly than the gospels. Which is not to say the gospels don't, but it's clear in books like Romans that Paul was writing in a more specific way about how to understand the relation between the church and the existing Jewish way of understanding who the people of God were. That also helps focus the argument.

Beyond that, the strength of the argument is that it's purely exegetical, which means that it is trying to establish itself on the one thing that almost all Christians do have in common (mostly; barring disagreements about the actual text) which makes it a better starting point for the kind of debate that exists between groups like the JWs and the orthodox or catholic about the divinity of Jesus. Rather than having to first try to establish the principle you cite.

 

[kepha31]

I don't think there is any real reason to adopt this as an absolute principle, I would probably say instead that as much as possible they should be read as a whole: the epistles in light of the gospels and the gospels in light of the epistles. But on the other hand, I don't think that, if you do adopt this principle absolutely, it precludes the kind of argument Bauckham makes. I think his argument is perfectly compatible with reading the epistles in light of the gospels.

As far as it is an argument, it's useful to focus more narrowly on Paul for a couple reasons, I think

1) Bauckham is writing partly in a context where there is a longstanding view of Christology that sees the early Jewish Christians with a "low" Christology and that it was the later greek tradition that divinized Jesus. Insofar as Bauckham is challenging that idea, it is helpful to focus on Paul's epistles because they are earlier than something like John's gospel, and even probably the synoptics.

2) By focusing on one author the argument avoids problems with different authors using similar phrases or terms in different ways. It provides some focus

3) Paul is by far the most extensive N.T. author, and besides that his writing addresses the kind of "eschatological monotheism" more directly than the gospels. Which is not to say the gospels don't, but it's clear in books like Romans that Paul was writing in a more specific way about how to understand the relation between the church and the existing Jewish way of understanding who the people of God were. That also helps focus the argument.

Beyond that, the strength of the argument is that it's purely exegetical, which means that it is trying to establish itself on the one thing that almost all Christians do have in common (mostly; barring disagreements about the actual text) which makes it a better starting point for the kind of debate that exists between groups like the JWs and the orthodox or catholic about the divinity of Jesus. Rather than having to first try to establish the principle you cite.

I'll edit my statement:
The Epistles are better understood in the light of the Gospels, not the other way around.
It's more a rule of thumb, not an absolute principle.

 

[Unification]

I'm not sure entirely how to respond to you because on the one hand I almost agree with you, but on the other hand it has nothing to do with this thread. So, if I'm understanding you properly, your response is more or less just to deny that value of asking the kind of question implied by this thread, or engaging in this kind of discussion. Which, I can understand if you aren't interested. From a Christian perspective though, I think there is clearly value in trying to understand how the authors of Christian scriptures understood what they wrote, and how it was received by their readers. Not that it's the only thing that matters, or even that it's the most important, but it is valuable to me. Even though in other contexts I would argue against sola scriptura or the inerrancy of the Bible (for example), or in favor of a mystical spiritual path, that path, insofar as it is a Christian path (and not everyone's path is) is still rooted in Christian tradition which very much includes the Bible, even if the Bible isn't everything.

So, I don't feel like there is any real tension between recognizing the value of trying to understand Paul at the same time as recognizing that one should seek union with and an experience of the God that Paul tried to write about.

Thank you for the response, friend. "Paul's assertion that "IN" Jesus the fullness of the deity dwelt bodily.

The fullness of the diety does dwell bodily, which is why everyone keeps looking for an external God failing to realize that God dwells bodily inside all humans.'
We are the temple where the Spirit dwells.
Without the body, the Spirit has nothing to manifest in and carry out God's will. Without the Spirit, the body is dead.
The debate which causes endless divide amongst religions is Jesus, and taking the scriptures literally and externally. There is one God. Jesus is always viewed as a single, literal physical male that came "IN" the flesh. God and man at the same time. . . Is just that... Spirit and body. Spirit dwelling bodily. God's life in us and light/word (good knowledge of God, his spoken words/thoughts to one, and will for one. The word becoming flesh and dwelling among us is just that... Spirit dwelling bodily. Jesus is just that... TRUTH and LIFE. .. Not a single fleshly human individual. Jesus Christ=God with us. God "IN" us. Spirit IN body.
1 John 4:2-5King James Version (KJV)
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come IN the flesh is of God:
(Spirit dwelling bodily.. Light revealed)

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come IN the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is HE THAT IS "IN" you than he that is in the world.

5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. (Ones looking for an external God and looking for a physical and literal return of the Christ)


Luke 17:21-23King James Version (KJV)
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is WITHIN you. (The lost change this to "in your midst" to preach their external created God.)

22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.

23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them. (Anyone who teaches about an external God: DO NOT FOLLOW THEM.)

 

[lovemuffin]

I don't believe it's credible to suggest that Paul understood that the "fullness of the Deity dwelt bodily" in all humans in exactly the same way as he believed that this was true of Jesus, even though we are temples of the Holy Spirit. The distinction is perhaps subtle and shouldn't be made so sharp as to exclude the possibility of human union with the Divine, but in Paul's view that very much depends on Jesus. It is always "in Christ", and that Christ can't be reduced to a generally shared "Christ consciousness" or something similar.

Now, there is a hermaneutical argument that "what Paul meant" doesn't exhaust the possibilities of how we might read the same text today, and I don't deny the value of interpretations that go beyond an attempt to understand what the historical authors meant or how their original readers heard them. For example I don't deny the value of allegorical interpretations of various OT texts when those allegories are proposed by authors like Gregory of Nyssa.

But, from my perspective if you dilute the uniqueness of Christ as "Lord" too much, you have departed so much from traditional Christian views that it seems inappropriate to me to cite Christian scriptures as any kind of support for the proposition, because it's arguing against what the Christian authors of the texts believed. "There may be many gods and many lords, but for us there is one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ..."

On the other hand, it is true in my opinion that modern Christians have often forgotten the fact that the goal of Christian life is not just an abstract belief in certain dogmas, but that "it is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives within me", as something real and transformative. But for Christians the distinction between the "I" and "Christ" is still very essential, the mystical experience of unity in which all separation disappears notwithstanding. As in the passage from 1 John that you cited, "confession" of Jesus Christ come in the flesh, and the unique value of that incarnation, is central to Christianity, and is something both external (in that it is historical and in that we are not Christ) but also internal (in that taboric transformation and new creation that is "Christ in me")

 

[Unification]

I don't believe it's credible to suggest that Paul understood that the "fullness of the Deity dwelt bodily" in all humans in exactly the same way as he believed that this was true of Jesus, even though we are temples of the Holy Spirit. The distinction is perhaps subtle and shouldn't be made so sharp as to exclude the possibility of human union with the Divine, but in Paul's view that very much depends on Jesus. It is always "in Christ", and that Christ can't be reduced to a generally shared "Christ consciousness" or something similar.

Now, there is a hermaneutical argument that "what Paul meant" doesn't exhaust the possibilities of how we might read the same text today, and I don't deny the value of interpretations that go beyond an attempt to understand what the historical authors meant or how their original readers heard them. For example I don't deny the value of allegorical interpretations of various OT texts when those allegories are proposed by authors like Gregory of Nyssa.

But, from my perspective if you dilute the uniqueness of Christ as "Lord" too much, you have departed so much from traditional Christian views that it seems inappropriate to me to cite Christian scriptures as any kind of support for the proposition, because it's arguing against what the Christian authors of the texts believed. "There may be many gods and many lords, but for us there is one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ..."

On the other hand, it is true in my opinion that modern Christians have often forgotten the fact that the goal of Christian life is not just an abstract belief in certain dogmas, but that "it is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives within me", as something real and transformative. But for Christians the distinction between the "I" and "Christ" is still very essential, the mystical experience of unity in which all separation disappears notwithstanding. As in the passage from 1 John that you cited, "confession" of Jesus Christ come in the flesh, and the unique value of that incarnation, is central to Christianity, and is something both external (in that it is historical and in that we are not Christ) but also internal (in that taboric transformation and new creation that is "Christ in me")

Viewing it in such, let's say Jesus/ Yeshua/Joshua did walk this earth, which I know that He did. Everything He did, was a reoccurrence before the world came into existence. He is LIFE itself. The WORD of God. Became sin for our sin. Spirit dwelling bodily. The literal life in us. We exist and are forgiven and capable of sinning due to this sacrifice. Blood ... Which is IN us bodily as well as the Spirit. How we are not consumed by the all pure God with one sin. He died, He sacrificed something. He never claimed to be God, only that He and the Father are one. Mainstream Christianity has failed on all cylinders due to dogma and western paradigm of power and money, control, and theological man wisdom doctrine. Many have no clue what it means to truly become one with the Father or how to approach Him genuinely and purely within. He didn't leave anyone comfortless, He came to us IN Spirit IN His name. Through and In Him is the only access to know the Father. Within. Internally. Internal source to know God. How do you think one knows our thoughts and hearts? Because the Spirit resides within us and is in constant battle with ourselves until we learn to truly become one with God. Surrendering ourselves and everything we think we know for knowledge/light revealed within.

 

[lovemuffin]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "we are... capable of sinning due to his sacrifice", or "How are we not consumed by the all pure God with one sin", but I generally agree with what you've written.

 

[gsa]

I'll edit my statement:
The Epistles are better understood in the light of the Gospels, not the other way around.
It's more a rule of thumb, not an absolute principle.

Really? Even though they are later?

 

[Unification]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "we are... capable of sinning due to his sacrifice", or "How are we not consumed by the all pure God with one sin", but I generally agree with what you've written.

We are forgiven by the blood. We have blood in us and are literal members of His literal body. Imagine a world just created and one human placed in it. The pure and perfect love of the Father and just the one human. The human goes against God. He would be completely consumed by the purity of God. The human is able to live and not be completely consumed because he/she is forgiven already. The walking "dead." Alive physically but dead spiritually. This doesn't mean one should keep on sinning... Defying God and performing ones own will.. Another problem with the world and religion, particularly mainstream Christianity. All religions have issues and inequality and divide... Which make them "untrue." If something is 99% true... It is false. They have one foot in the world and one foot in a church building and claim "I'm under grace and forgiven, once saved always saved, I confessed Jesus and I'm good to go." Doesn't work that way, they are led blindly by their blind leaders and it's not the leaders faults, it's the individuals for not letting the Spirit teach within and relying upon their own selves and mankind to teach them. They are all conditioned and doctrined up. Not having a clue, and living in vain. Forgiveness and remission of sins are different. Remission of sins is for the one who truly humbles oneself, completely surrenders oneself, is brought low and has a still, quiet, open mind. The destruction of ones conditioned mind and world and everything they think they know no matter what they have to sacrifice, they will indeed. Truly led and in submission to the Spirit within. Then the past is blotted out, old man left behind, new man taken, reborn. The law(natural commandments/morality wired in a humans' heart and mind) become grace(automatic doing and knowledge of love and God, first and only instinct.) no longer one who lives but Christ(Spirit) who lives in one.

 

[Unification]

We are forgiven by the blood. We have blood in us and are literal members of His literal body. Imagine a world just created and one human placed in it. The pure and perfect love of the Father and just the one human. The human goes against God. He would be completely consumed by the purity of God. The human is able to live and not be completely consumed because he/she is forgiven already. The walking "dead." Alive physically but dead spiritually. This doesn't mean one should keep on sinning... Defying God and performing ones own will.. Another problem with the world and religion, particularly mainstream Christianity. All religions have issues and inequality and divide... Which make them "untrue." If something is 99% true... It is false. They have one foot in the world and one foot in a church building and claim "I'm under grace and forgiven, once saved always saved, I confessed Jesus and I'm good to go." Doesn't work that way, they are led blindly by their blind leaders and it's not the leaders faults, it's the individuals for not letting the Spirit teach within and relying upon their own selves and mankind to teach them. They are all conditioned and doctrined up. Not having a clue, and living in vain. Forgiveness and remission of sins are different. Remission of sins is for the one who truly humbles oneself, completely surrenders oneself, is brought low and has a still, quiet, open mind. The destruction of ones conditioned mind and world and everything they think they know no matter what they have to sacrifice, they will indeed. Truly led and in submission to the Spirit within. Then the past is blotted out, old man left behind, new man taken, reborn. The law(natural commandments/morality wired in a humans' heart and mind) become grace(automatic doing and knowledge of love and God, first and only instinct.) no longer one who lives but Christ(Spirit) who lives in one.

People who are still veiled would view a literal angel of the Lord flying over a bunch of houses that have literal animal blood all over them. (Passover/remission of sins by blood of Lamb after leaving Egypt.)

People in Spirit know that the angel of the Lord is Christ within them, and our bodies are the house(temple) of the Lord(Spirit) in which are cleansed internally by the blood after leaving Egypt(slavery to sin.... The true repentant and brought low.)

 

[kepha31]

Really? Even though they are later?

I don't understand your question. I always thought the Gospels were enscripturated before the Epistles, but I could be mistaken. The Apostles got enlisted, Paul got drafted. No matter how you slice the time pie, the Bible has to be taken as a whole, especially the harmony between the Gospels and the Epistles, as it relates to Paul, Jesus' Divinity, and 1st century Jewish monotheism.