This is the first in what will be a series of “debates” about the Christology of the Synoptic Gospels. In short, the question is: do Matthew, Mark, and Luke depict Jesus as in some sense divine or pre-existent?
The common ground between the debaters is this: We both affirm that Jesus is the pre-existent son of God; moreover, we both agree that working out the theology of Jesus’ human action in the Gospels is a rich and under-explored enterprise.
Where we disagree is this: to what extent to the Synoptic Gospels depict, or anticipate, the theology that is more clearly articulated later to the effect that Jesus is the pre-existent son of God?
I turn it over now to my good friend, Rodrigo Morales (hereafter RJM) to kick things off.
RJM: Our blog host has had a longstanding reading of the Gospels according to which the Synoptics emphasize Jesus’ humanity with nary an intimation of Jesus having any kind of divine identity. 
Let me preface my disagreement with Daniel by reiterating that I find much of his reading of Jesus’ humanity insightful and theologically compelling. I have no problem highlighting the theological significance of Jesus’ humanity – indeed, I think Christological orthodoxy compels us to do so. Nevertheless, as I’ve mentioned to Daniel on multiple occasions, what I have a bone to pick with is his absolute “Nein!” to any hints of Jesus’ divinity in the Synoptic Gospels. This disturbs me not just because of my allegiance to traditional orthodox Christology. As I provocatively put it in a comment on one of his posts, I also believe this “Nein” is unfaithful to the texts themselves. Daniel has graciously offered me the opportunity these next couple of weeks to dialogue/debate the topic with him on the blog, and so today we offer the first of what will be a series of exchanges on the topic.
JRDK: The format will be as follows: I will give Rodrigo the first and last word in each discussion. He will offer an exegetical observation that he sees as pushing us toward affirming a divine Christology and I’ll give my response. He will then have an opportunity to reply. Either of us might jump into the comments, but I’ll try to behave by not engaging in
unseemly surrejoinders too early in the game.
Topic 1: The Way of the Lord (Isa 40:3 in Mark 1:3)
RJM: The Gospel of Mark, thought by the majority of scholars to be the earliest of the Gospels, also is the one most often interpreted as having a “low” or human Christology. There is no doubt that Jesus’ humanity plays an important role in Mark’s Gospel. Nonetheless, occasionally the evangelist subtly hints at another dimension of Jesus’ identify. It is fitting to begin with the prologue.
Mark begins with a mixed citation of Scripture drawn from Malachi, Exodus, and Isaiah. Much could be said about each of these verses, but for now let’s focus on the way Mark uses the quotation from Isaiah, “Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” In context Isaiah 40:3, one of the few verses cited by all four evangelists, speaks of preparing a highway for Israel’s God. The way the Synoptic evangelists appropriate the verse, John the Baptist is the one who prepares the way. But whose way does John prepare?
Perhaps more clearly in Mark than in the other Gospels, it is Jesus’ way that John prepares.
It is significant that shortly following the opening Scripture citation, the Spirit drives Jesus “into the wilderness,” the place where the prophet is to prepare the way of the Lord. Moreover, the central section of Mark (8:22-10:45) is punctuated by references to “the way” (8:27; 9:33, 34; 10:17, 32, 46, 52). The way of the Lord is the way of Jesus to Jerusalem and ultimately to the cross.
Mark does not come out and crassly equate Jesus with the God of Israel, but for those with ears to hear, he implies that there is more to Jesus than meets the eye (to mix metaphors).
JRDK: NT writers have a lot of freedom in their use of OT citations. In the end, it is the use to which the writer of the NT puts the OT passage that determines what the OT passage signifies in its new, Christian context. Rodrigo has described well the story of Mark—and in a way that speaks against the identification of Jesus with YHWH.
The “way of the Lord” is the way of a suffering Messiah on his way to death. This doesn’t indicate that Jesus is YHWH, but rather YHWH’s servant. YHWH is establishing his reign on the earth through a peculiar human king—a suffering and dying king. Indeed, that the way of the Lord is the way of death would seem to tell strongly against an identification with YHWH. If there is an identification between YHWH and the earthly king it is one in which the Lord represents the LORD, and possibly bears his name. Because of the freedom NT writers have in using the OT, this narrative context is more important than the original reference to YHWH in making sense of Isa 40 in Mark 1:3.
I would also say that citing OT context in this case is a double-edged sword. Mark 1:2-3 is not just from Isa 40, it’s also from Mal 3:1. Malachi 3:1 in both Hebrew and Greek uses the first person pronoun: “I am sending my messenger and he will prepare the way (or have regard) before me.” And YHWH is speaking. If Mark had intended to indicate that Jesus is YHWH, it seems that he should have left the first person pronoun in place.
Alternatively, if you see Exo 23:20 as the source for the citation, then “you” does not refer to God but to God’s people Israel upon whom YHWH has set his name. The use of these other verses would seem to indicate that YHWH and Jesus are separate, and perhaps are being intentionally distinguished.
RJM: Though it’s neither here nor there, I can’t help but note the irony that the proponent of a passible God is using Jesus’ suffering as an argument against his identification with YHWH in Mark. But now to the actual points. At some points Mark very well may present Jesus as the LORD’s representative; however, I think there is more to it than that. To take but one example, at the end of the story of the healing of the demoniac, Jesus instructs the man to go tell his household “how much the Lord has done for you” (Mark 5:19). I suppose this could be a Bob Dole moment on Jesus’ part, but a more likely reading is that the Lord = the LORD. What does the man do? “And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis all that Jesus had done for him” (Mark 5:20). Again, Mark is subtly identifying Jesus with the LORD. In the next exchange I’ll point to a story in which the point is made somewhat more clearly, though still only for those with ears to hear.
As for the Malachi and Exodus citations, again, I have no problem with Jesus functioning as Israel’s representative. Because the language of the quotation is closer to that of Exodus than that of Malachi, I suspect this is part of what Mark has in mind. Nevertheless, my argument is not that Mark’s Jesus is not human, but that he is both human and divine. I don’t think the change in pronouns is sufficient to negate the identification of Jesus with the LORD, particularly in light of the other subtle ways Mark makes this identification.
JRDK: We now invite you, the avid reader, to jump in. I will say no more except to voice my tremendous pleasure at Rodrigo poking fun of me about the whole passiblity thing.
I’ll bite:
Rodrigo has described well the story of Mark—and in a way that speaks against the identification of Jesus with YHWH.
Doesn’t much depend on the meaning of “identification with”? No Gospel, including John, thinks that Jesus = YHWH; and orthodox christology doesn’t quite do that either, does it? So what do we mean by “identify as” (R. Bauckham has also taken some flak on his use of the term “identity”).
I knew until you asked me!
Doesn’t the appeal to “the name of the LORD” as an indication of pre-existence / divine identity mean that in some sense someone is claiming that Jesus is YHWH? Or, at least, YHWH is personally present in Jesus?
And I take that to mean something different from YHWH is personally present by means of Israel or David?
I’m not sure how exactly you want to articulate that. How, exactly, do you want to articulate that identity in John and the tradition? And do you see the same thing going on in Mark?
Yes, much depends on how one interprets the phrase “identification with.” None of the Gospel writers equates Jesus with YHWH without remainder, nor would I. Nevertheless, I think Bauckham is absolutely right to say that (many of?) the NT writers understood Jesus to be bound up with the identity of the God of Israel, and yes, in a way different from YHWH’s presence in Israel or David. Retrospectively, I would want to reinterpret the OT from the perspective that YHWH is the trinitarian God revealed in Jesus, rather than, say, equating YHWH with the Father alone. I found Kavin Rowe’s Pro Ecclesia article on biblical pressure of several years ago very helpful in thinking through these issues.
So if I hear you correctly, Rodrigo, the question in front of us is, “In what way is Jesus identified with YHWH”?
Can you tease out a bit more how you’d articulate that identification without saying Jesus is YHWH? Every time I try to formulate it, I come up with something that we would both affirm as being communicated by Mark but by which we would mean two different things.
I didn’t say that I wouldn’t say Jesus is YHWH, or at least I didn’t mean to. What I intended to say is that to say Jesus is YHWH is not to deny that the Father is YHWH (or that the Spirit is YHWH). It seems to me the best way to do articulate this is to use categories that Mark didn’t have, the later trinitarian categories. I would argue that those categories articulate what is implicit in the text. Theologians often say, “The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God; the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, etc.” Substitute “YHWH” for “God,” and that’s pretty much what I think is implicit in Mark’s Gospel (and the NT more generally).
Isn’t it the recognition of a call to praise Jesus as Lord WITHOUT identifying him as Yahweh that compels the early church to develop its trinitarian language?
(full disclosure…I’m Dr. Morales current TA, although I don’t think that is currently effecting my point of view).
I guess, reading through the comments of earlier post on the topic, Daniel, it seems you are concerned that the humanity of Christ is short changed causing an impoverished Christology (implicitly Docetic) and therefore an impoverished theological anthropology. But why does that mean that one must read out the divinity from the synoptics rather than just emphasize the humanity?
I guess, as more of a systematic theological, when I here a biblical scholar say things like “there is no divinity in Mark”, I say “So? What’s the implications?” It seem that in his humanity he was the faithful servant king and suffering Messiah, while in his divinity he is the YHWH faithful to redeem his people. Yes, I’ve smuggled in 2-natures speak, but if Mark (synoptics?) vacillate, why not let the mystery of the divine be implicit in the texts?
It seems that Barth’s approach (Lord as Servant, and Servant as Lord) balances these dual aspects (at least attempts to).
Geoff, the short of it is that I’m not convinced that there’s anything to suppress in the Synoptics! Reading Mark without reference to Jesus’ divinity, I’m arguing, is not “reading out” the divinity, but recognizing that for Mark and his early readers there was no divine nature there to begin with.
As I see it, the identification that Mark makes between Jesus and God is that Jesus is the human representative anointed to speak and act in the name of Israel’s God–i.e., he was the Messiah.
Barth’s way forward is a fine theological reinterpretation of the text, perhaps even deepening of it. But is that what Mark is striving to communicate? And does that even matter? Well, to me it does.
Invoking Barth is a double-edged sword. I do appreciate and enjoy his theology. But I also saw what he wrote when he claimed to be doing an exegetical (not theologically driven) commentary. I’d have to say that either his tongue was firmly planted in his cheek or else, well…he missed his mark…
Looking forward to more posts to come. I would take issue with the way this series is prefaced, though, and it is a point I take issue with much current debate on this theme. By referring to the synoptics as the earliest witnesses to Jesus, as opposed to “later” NT documents that (all agree) present Jesus as more than just human (as Daniel seems to think the synoptics are limited to), this seems to invert the proper order. Paul’s letters are already out there for (perhaps) decades before the Gospels are written. And clearly the Gospels are written to Christians who already know the story and are grounded in the kinds of things Paul (and others) are writing. If Mark and the others, then, think Jesus is “only” human, I don’t think that can be fit within Daniel’s trajectory view–i.e. that later on Paul and others came to realize he was more than human and actually also divine in some sense. Instead, it would mean that two radically different and fully-formed Christologies are present in the NT.
I’m still persuaded by Bauckham, though: the earliest Christology was already the highest Christology. Even if Daniel is right and the synoptics do not emphasize AT ALL Jesus’ divinity, I do not see how this constitutes their lack of belief in it (anymore than James’ neglect of the cross, or Paul of Jesus’ high priesthood, clearly do not constitute a positive denial of these realities).
Nick, as you rightly point out, such a developmental view would be anachronistic. I don’t hold to such.
The question here isn’t really so much what did the writers and readers “believe”, I suppose, as what did he actually attempt to communicate in the text, what were they likely to hear, and what might he have expressed in the text that might point beyond what he could articulate to other beliefs about Jesus. We didn’t canonize the writer, we canonized the writing, so that’s what I want to explore and attempt to understand better.
My view is that the OT and early Judaism provide an interpretive context for making sense of the Gospels that points in other directions for explaining the associations with God than the sort of identity that the later creeds would rightly articulate.
Daniel says: “My view is that the OT and early Judaism provide an interpretive context for making sense of the Gospels that points in other directions for explaining the associations with God than the sort of identity that the later creeds would rightly articulate.”
I guess this is the missing piece that I need to understand what you are claiming regarding the synoptics. Which “other directions” get us to the later creeds.
Give the above comment, then would you say that for Mark, writing in a milieu that already understood Jesus as divine in some sense, that he went out of his way to assert the humanity of Christ?
I’m more likely to say, I think, that the Synoptics show interestingly little awareness of Pauline theology (and vice versa). That is, from internal evidence (look at Mark itself in comparison with Paul), I see no reason to think that either developed in full knowledge of the other.
But you’re leaving the rest of the NT out of your response; I don’t care about the creeds (in comparison). It seems that on your view you either need to argue that Colossians and Revelation and I Corinthians and John (etc.) have the same Christology as Mark does (on your interpretation), OR that there are massively divergent Christologies in the NT canon. Given that you point to the creeds as what diverges (rather than Paul or John), that makes me think you don’t see a Trinitarian Christology anywhere in the NT?
Hi.
Rodrigo, you said about articulating what the gospel writers say (particularly Mark):
“It seems to me the best way to do articulate this is to use categories that Mark didn’t have, the later trinitarian categories. I would argue that those categories articulate what is implicit in the text.”
I am wondering if this is not problematic. Shouldn’t we be first trying to sort out what categories Mark may have, or did, have? I am not saying yea or nay on whether Mark thought Jesus was God. I am just raising a point of method–how do we go about explaining Mark’s Christology? If later explanations use categories that Mark did not have, shouldn’t we wonder if those later categories might be imposing something on Mark? Alternatively, how then is Mark’s Christology to be explained, according to whatever categories or frameworks of thought were available to him and most plausibly used by him?
This is not directed only at Rodrigo. I am raising questions in general that issue from a statement he made.
Kyle Fever
I guess this depends on how one understands the use of later categories to interpret earlier texts. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to question whether later categories impose on Mark, but I also think it’s unwise to assume that they do as a foregone conclusion. To a certain extent the use of later categories are inevitable – we are not native first century Greek-speakers, and we have to translate (not just in the linguistic sense) the ideas of previous historical periods to make sense in our own. I guess I would argue that the trinitarian formulations faithfully explicate the reality to which Mark’s gospel bears witness, even though they do so in a different idiom. Along with the Rowe article I mentioned above, I think David Yeago’s article, “Nicene Dogma and New Testament Exegesis” does a nice job of laying out the relationship.
So the big question then is whether or not later theologians and exegetes correctly understood and interpreted Mark (or other NT writers). If they rightly understood (or in the right ballpark!) what Mark was saying according to his context and categories familiar to him, then their application of this to their own categories would, in theory, be correct. But if their exegesis of Mark according to his contexts is incorrect, then their application of their frameworks to explain Mark’s Christology would also be off. It comes down to a judgment on their exegesis. This is no simple task, for in our judgment we also bring in our own categories and frameworks of thought. What are we going to emphasize?
This also raises the issue of “trajectory.” Is it possible that other things find their way into the stream of trajectory somewhere between the point of origin (Mark or Jesus) and the ending point (later theologians; us today)? How do we evaluate these? Do they throw off the trajectory? Or not? Also what comes to my mind is the hermeneutical issue of whether the later idioms or categories are equivalent to the categories Mark used in his articulation of Jesus.