I confess: I am a theological reader of the Bible. I know, you already knew this, but in Biblical studies I have just cut myself off from a huge portion of the guild. So be kind.
But I am not a systematic theologian. I prefer to see myself as a biblical theologian or, better, a narrative theologian.
I know, you don’t have any idea what I’m talking about, and probably don’t care. But wait, this actually explains something.
A couple of weeks ago I expressed (again!) my exasperation at the suggestion that “Jesus is God” is the most natural thing to get from the Bible, as though it’s the point of the whole New Testament. I keep suggesting, instead, that “Jesus is Lord” is the main thing, or perhaps “Jesus is The Man.”
And a couple of you grumped at me. Don’t I think that Jesus really is God? Don’t I care? Doing my best to show myself a good, Orthodox, Nicene Chalcedonian Constantinopalitan Christian, I posted a couple of thoughts (one based on John, one on Colossians) tied to Jesus’ preexistence.
So what am I doing here and why am I doing it? If I believe Jesus is preexistent son of God, why do I give folks so much crap for reading the Bible as though it teaches that Jesus is the preexistent, divine Son? Let’s start with a couple of definitions:
(1) “Low Christology.” When I use this phrase what I mean is that the person or text in question sees Jesus as Messiah, as Christ, as specially empowered by God to act in God’s name, as specially anointed by the Spirit to work deeds of power over the entire created order–and that the document or person does not simultaneously depict Jesus as preeexistent or otherwise divine. That is to say, its understanding of Jesus is a unique human.
(2) “High Christology.” High Christology takes all of low Christology, including its robust affirmation of Jesus’ humanity, in addition to affirming all that great stuff Jesus does, but also adds the piece that Jesus is preexistent son of God in some sense.
(3) “Gnostic Christology.” This is like high Christology without the humanity. The Jesus of what I’ll talk about as “Gnostic Christology” is a human who is not the Christ; the Christ comes upon the man Jesus at baptism, and leaves him at his death. The Christ is not human, but only spirit.
So, now that we have some terms on the table, why do I agitate so much against “high Christology”?
First, because high Christology is the assumption of modern readers. For many of us, this boarders on gnostic Christology, such that our default mode is to say that Jesus can do what he does because he is God–whereas even the high Christology of the church should impel readers to say, “He can do it because he is the man, and he can do it because he is God incarnate.”
Thus, one reason I harp on the humanity is because the pop-Christian version consistently falls off the horse on what it takes to be the “divinity”/high Christology side.
But the other reason is because as a biblical rather than systematic theologian, I think that the first thing we should say about the text is not what the church says as the conclusion to its theological assimilation of various texts, but what the text itself says that we are reading.
And, much if not most of the New Testament, develops its theology of Jesus within a framework of low Christology. Low versus high Christology is one of the points of genuine theological diversity in the New Testament, with the Synoptic Gospels in particular (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) telling stories of Jesus as a specially empowered man whom they do not simultaneously depict as God incarnate.
By the way, in denying that these Gospels have high Christology, I just alienated myself from all the rest of the New Testament scholarly guild who still liked me after I said I was a theological reader of the NT.
As a narrative/biblical theologian, reading the text according to some sort of historically-rooted attempt at understanding what an ideal author wanted an ideal reader to hear is the first goal I want us to strive for. In the case of much of the NT, including most of the Gospels, what this means is being willing to be surprised about what Jesus can do because he is a specially endowed man.
The very push-back I get when I highlight this point at the expense of the divinity is clear indication to me that we do not give sufficient weight to the humanness of Jesus in our readings of the Gospels. People see the wonders and they attribute them to Jesus’ divinity.
But Peter at Pentecost has a different interpretation: Jesus was a man, testified to by God by signs and wonders.
But at the same time, none of this means that I don’t affirm Jesus’ divinity. It simply means that not every text in the New Testament that tells us about Jesus views him as divine/preexistent. That is the claim advanced in John, and in Colossians 1 (I think…) and a few other places. And it is a legitimate and important theological position to hold.
But, it’s not the unanimous position from which the NT was written. And, thus, it is not the most basic thing there is to say about Jesus. Without downplaying the importance of continuing to affirm high Christology at our point in the story, I think that the extensive evidence for low Christology should challenge us to rethink what it is that we have to say about Jesus that makes his the saving story to which we are committed.
Tomorrow I’ll reflect on some of what I see along these lines in Irenaeus, who both does what I love and does what drive me nuts.
A very important point to make. Reducing theology to either “High” or “Low” negates the robustness of the narrative of Scripture. Some emphasizes “high”, some emphasizes “low”. A lot of it, I think, has to do with the audience and the author. Some audiences needed the historical, physical, man Jesus to give proof that, yes, this is the guy we were talking about and he really did what we are saying he did. Some audiences needed something more Spiritual, more mystical, to counter the over-rationalizing of the person of Jesus.
For my historical tradition, Anabaptist Mennonite, we have a tendency to emphasize a bit more of the “low” as we like the teacher, the human who walked and served, the suffering-servant. So, into the context where I minister, I need to stress the “high”, not because I think it is more important, but because I need to contrast to the ingrained emphasis on “low”. Perhaps, someday, someone down the road will have to undo what I’m doing because the church will swing the other way… that’s what a narrative is all about, isn’t it? A continuing story.
BTW, I’m with you on narrative theologian. I think the story (including all the plot devices, juxtapositions, etc), and even the way the story is told sometimes, tells as much about God and His mission as the actual words on the page do…
Good words, Robert. I’m not sure that the NT writers were intentionally making the choice to emphasize one or the other, I think it’s more an issue of having varying angles of theological reflection on who Jesus is, but I really like how you’re talking about our own need to be aware of and think through what is most needed for our time and place.
Hmmm, the Transfiguration in Luke 9 seems like some pretty high Christology to me.
Why?
Shining face and clothes white as lightning (a near impossibility in the 1st century except in the case of the very rich) which matches the garb of unearthly angels, a series of events recalling the exodus narrative creating a parallel between Jesus and Moses with an eventual illustration of Jesus’ superiority, God coming in the cloud and declaring “This is my Son” and then using the language of election to describe him, and finally the use of the imperative by God in reference to Jesus (“hear him”) indicating that Jesus is the one to be obeyed. So, we have a pericope which, given the cotext, is concerned with the identity of Jesus, portrays Jesus as a heavenly prophet like Moses who is more than Moses and who is God’s son, his chosen, and one whose authority has been emphatically declared by God. Sounds like high christology to me.
So Jesus has a shining face–sounds like Moses, reflecting God’s glory.
Exodus narrative–sounds like Moses, leading God’s people to freedom.
Jesus as chosen one–sounds like David, or Moses, or any other OT prophet. Or, a Messiah whom God had chosen for a particular task.
God’s son–that makes him either Adam (cf. Luke 3) or Israel or David.
All of that makes him the Christ, and a man specially chosen to reflect the glory of God and speak authoritatively for God, but none of that indicates preexistence or divinity.
In my reading, which could be wrong, it is Jesus’ very proximity to such messianic ideas that demonstrates he is something more. He’s like Moses but better, Like Elijah but better, Like David but better. We already know that Jesus is Messiah because it is said explicitly just prior to this in Peter’s statement and Jesus’ response. If we combine this with Luke’s predilection for making prayer a revelatory experience, as we see emphatically pointed out in v. 28,29, then it suggests to my mind that something more is going on here. Perhaps I have made mountains of mole hills, but I see this as an epiphany.
Of course he’s greater–he’s the Messiah! He’s The Son of Man! He’s the one who’s bringing this whole thing to its climax. It is a revelatory scene, but the question is, What’s being revealed? I think that the connection with the confession in the Synpotics tends toward bolstering Jesus’ claims for what it means for him to be Son of Man in the face of Peter’s protests.
This seems to be parallel to the baptism, in which Jesus is declared Son of God, but then is tempted toward other ways of realizing that messianic vocation.
Jesus with a “face of lightning” and clothed in white seems to be referencing a Daniel typology (Dan. 10:5). Nevertheless, this is apocalyptic language, which is hyperbolic in scope and is not meant to be taken literally. Did zombies really rise up and walk around during the interim of cross and resurrection in Matt. 27:51-53? Probably not. This sort of language ought to be seen through the lens of cross and resurrection, grounding it in human terms.
Be careful, your historical critical disdain for the text is showing.
?? Not sure what you’re talking about here, Jeremiah?
Thats @ David
I don’t hear disdain for the text, but cautions about reading it anachronistically or with insufficient attention to genre, imagery, etc.
Talking about what could or could not happen is what I was referring to, especially the sarcastic use of “Zombies”
I think “zombie” talk is going around: http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2010/10/zombies-in-gospel-of-matthew.html
Ha!
Sorry, maybe I should have been more politically correct. What do the undead prefer to be called nowadays?
Either way, deciding what could or could not happen is completely unhelpful in determining what Luke is trying to say. As for the passage being apocalyptic, I doubt it. One might see the use of idou in the passage as reminiscent of the sort of usage we see in John’s Apocalypse, but in this pericope (that is Luke 9:28-36) all the action is portrayed as actually occurring in the lives of the characters concerned. It is impossible to derive from any fair reading of the text that this is merely a vision. We need to be careful not to stifle the text with our decisions about what it could possibly mean based on arbitrary historical criteria. What does the text say? Let’s talk about that first, and the rest afterward.
The imagery — apocalyptic or not — is elaborately heightened in order to explain a real or literal transformation of body and spirit. I think you are wedging in a false dichotomy between what really happened and what the narrative is intending to do with that reality.
– how else would you begin to explain something so momentous and life altering? Epiphanies are sort of hard to explain; literally and scientifically that is.
I’m with Daniel on most of this. I would likely find a mediating position with regard to the transfiguration specifically and Matthew & Luke more broadly.
Re: transfiguration – Wasn’t uncommon for Immortals of Greco-Roman mythology (e.g., Dionysius or Hercules) to undergo some sort of transformation or transfiguration. These characters were offspring of a human/divine union.
Re: Matthew and Luke – They seem to have a higher christology than Mark, but certainly not as high as John. Lots of redaction of Mark point to these evangelists making Jesus less human—maybe not more divine, but surely less human.
My point – I think it is helpful to see the low/high christology of the NT on a spectrum. The transfiguration, to my mind, does not fall nicely into a strictly low or high box, nor do Matthew and Luke.
Dan,
Thanks for the post. I agree that the synoptics exhibit a low Christology. I think you have explained the reason why it is important to keep the humanness of Jesus in mind. So often my students only look at a divine Jesus and assume that the NT authors held this same view. When one is able to observe that theology was under development even in the NT, it makes it easier for us to appreciate our own theological journey.
John
A low Christology in the synoptics seems to connect with John’s vision in Revelation 21 of heaven descending downward toward earth; further, the uniting of these two realms of heaven and earth is likened to the very human, very earthly convention of marriage. This nod to an earthly, cultural redemption of things seems to echo Jesus’ oft use of farmers and such in his parables.
After all, we can only hope for something that we can imagine or resonate with, right?
Also, in a strong sense, it really is not so important who Christ is but rather what he is doing in and for humankind and creation as a whole — aka gospel. These actions in and around creation echoes the overall biblical typology of Yahweh hearing the call of his people and responding to them in kind (cf: exile/exodus paradigm). Identity or metaphysical speculation of self — a Western concept — takes a back seat to action and being-ness in the biblical metanarrative.
I have read somewhere that there is a current disconnect in systematic theologians and biblical studies in the OT. This is a shame, as the OT is an indissoluble key to the NT.
Maybe this is why, JRDK, you are having a hard time with the mainstream NT theologians; they do not fully appreciate the entire metanarrative of both the OT and NT?
Question (said with Schrute-ish expression): Can it is be considered a legitimate practice (one among several, possibly not the first, last, or best) to approach low christology texts, bearing in mind what we know from the high christology texts, believing there to have been and to be one Jesus Christ the same yesterday today and forever, and seek to enhance our knowledge of the one preexistent incarnate Word/Son of God via these low christology texts?
Adam, does this post answer your question?
Thank you, you’ve helped me understand christology better.
I just posted something similar on my blog. Personally, I do not think the synoptics portray a “high” Christology (as you defined it above). Certainly a “low” Christology, but not a “high” one.
I like your thoughts. I’ve been reading your blog for a few months now and it’s consistently been my favorite reading. Thanks for sharing!
While I understand how the NT often ‘emphasizes’ Jesus’ humanity, the fact remains, Jesus is a Divine Person, not a human person, so “low Christology” is impossible by orthodox standards. *Any* human action performed by Jesus is that of a Divine Person performing them. To ignore this is Nestorianism.
Nick… to deny that Jesus is a human person is Docetism.
Nick & Diglot,
I agree with Diglot, Nick, that you fell off the other side of the horse in your response.
It is all well and good for us, from our later theological vantage point, to say that the Gospels “emphasize” the humanity, but that is an anachronistic claim to make for the texts themselves. Mark wasn’t “emphasizing” the humanity of Jesus on purpose, his theology of Jesus was one of low Christology. That doesn’t mean low Christology is the end of the story. But it is a NT voice that should be heard, even if we come back around and incorporate that into a high Christology of which all that great, exalted humanness is but one part of a larger whole.
I think my point was a bit missed: In orthodox Christology, Jesus is a Divine Person only, with a Divine and human nature. He is not a Divine and human *person*, that’s Nestorianism by definition. In short, the proper distinctions between Nature and Person are not being maintained in most of the above comments.
To deny Jesus was really human by nature is Docetism.
Nick, I know this us going to rankle you, but…
That’s one of those places where being theologically orthodox makes us bad readers of the Bible. Mark simply isn’t, as the story was written, about a divine person. It’s about a human person. I don’t think the old Greek categories and distinctions b/t person and nature continue to serve us very well.
LOL, yes, rankle me it did!
The Analogy of Faith shows that there never can be a point in which being theologically orthodox makes one a bad reader of the Bible. And note that this doesn’t mean one should incorrectly project onto a text, in this case ignoring Christ’s real humanity, including places that seem to emphasize it to the exclusion of His Divinity.
As for the “old Greek categories,” those are the underpinnings of orthodox Christology and Trinitarianism. They’re dogmatic. If they are dumped or tampered with, there goes the Trinity in any formal sense, and the path to Arianism/Nestorianism/etc is facilitated for the unlearned and weak of faith. The result is a more and more common apostasy in the form of “as long as you accept ‘Jesus is Lord’ you’re Christian, irregardless of how you interpret ‘Jesus’ or ‘Lord’.”
A good example of the problems when those (dogmatic) categories are dumped is that your comments like “it’s about a human person” become ambiguous. Under those categories, to say Jesus is a “human person” is de facto heresy (Nestorianism). Without those categories, one doesn’t have any definite view of Who Jesus is in their overall analysis of Him and the Trinity.
I’m wary of pinning our judgments about valid theology on Greek philosophy. It was important for the time, perhaps, but I find my ambiguous comment more comprehensible than your orthodox rendition. I worry that requiring adherence to 1500 year old philosophical systems undermines the inherently inculturated reception of the gospel.
I’m very glad you see the interconnections so clearly, among traditional articulations and ancient philosophy. Many who advocate for a defining role for the ancient creeds aren’t as aware and/or forthcoming.
JRDK: I think you’re obligated to take the categories of Greek anthropological categories into account so long as they’re relevant to the historical interpretation of the text. It seems to me that they are. That said, Nick: if I understand the real guts of JRDK’s concern, these categories are only appropriate so long as early church theologies built around those catetories aren’t imposed on the texts. And they typically are.
From my perspective, it’s absolutely appropriate to say that Jesus had a fusis (“nature” is a miserable translation, BTW). He also had a pneuma, pseuche, and soma. But arguing about whether he had monofusis or duofusis is, as far as I can tell, completely overreaching the bounds of the evidence and has its roots in imposed philosophical/theological debate. I, frankly, don’t see any practical reason to think that Nestorius was wrong–much less any biblical one. But the anthropological categories are definitely present.
This may imply that the “orthodox” view is neutered of some of its argument. But then again, “orthodox” doesn’t mean its right. And every time I read things like the Athanasian Creed I get very nervous about all the extra shit that gets smuggled into “orthodoxy.”
@ JD and Nick
I think you may be confusing the soma/sarx distinction. Paul again and again made this distinction, where soma, the physical dimension which is made for the divine, is connected with but not identical to sarx (the physical brokenness of the body).
What does this paradox mean then when one does an exegesis of the synoptic narrative?
For starters, it means that even after the transfiguration and spiritual renewal of Jesus on the mount, which was intensely congruous with the divine realm of things, Christ prayed that very human lament at Gethsemane; further, he filed that scathing complaint of God on the cross. In other words, human doubt and complaint is intensely divine and ought not be relegated to the theological backseat, letting obedience and submission to God infinitely ride up front. All of creation, including that of humankind, is sacred. Isn’t this Irenaeus’ argument, that creation, even postfall, is integrally sacred and unified in the divine? Isn’t this why he alternated the Spirit of God with “the hands of God”?
Perhaps the narrative of Christ’s life is an argument in and of itself, as presented in the synoptics, just as much — if not more — than Paul’s theological ideas and arguments about Christ’s actions (Paul even admits he is skating on thin theological ice).
David,
Being somewhat late to this discussion and even series of posts, perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I think I broadly agree with your theological points here…at least the ones I have read.
That said, how is JD “confusing the soma/sarx distinction”? As for Paul “again and again” making this distinction, I am unclear what you are saying Paul’s soma/sarx distinction is. For Paul soma is, generally, a body — not a “physical dimension” made for the divine as opposed to sarx. Sarx, btw, was for Paul also physical stuff, “flesh” (not the best translation, but it will do). The issue here is that Paul was a (Middle-)Platonist in his “anthropology.” Sarx is often associated with, to use your word choice here, brokenness (and sin for that matter) in Paul because in some contexts Paul’s discourse on sin is one of (Platonist) Hellenistic “moral-psychology:” the passions and appetites of the lower parts of the soul operate in the flesh of people, orienting them to being ruled by excess desires for satisfying flesh-bodily wants. His solution in these contexts is that in Christ people receive Christ’s pneuma (here Paul slides a bit into Stoic notions), which is itself a material substance. This, BTW, is how Paul speaks of Christians being united to or participating in Christ. He means it…literally, philosophically, cosmologically, scientifically, concretely, etc. We are materially united to Christ by his material pneuma. His pneuma renews Christians by renovating and strengthening the highest part of the (Platonic) soul, enabling them to master their passions that operate in association with the flesh. Emphasizing Paul’s embeddedness in various “Greek” philosophical-cosmological-“scientific” notions does not render him less Jewish or less tied to the Old Testament.
Why this excursus? For me the theological issue here is how to affirm what you and Daniel and others are affirming about the goodness and glory of creation and humanity (even divine glory of humanity as meant to be) while at the same time noting that Paul’s “anthropological” categories may not necessarily map as cleanly onto our edifying theology. Paul was a Platonist quite consciously about some things. For him the resurrection “body” itself is very much NOT going to be anything in substance or “order” like what we have now because “Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.” You have talked about Irenaeus. He busts out some serious acrobatics to make that verse (1Cor 15.50) fit his program. Instead of flesh and blood bodies (and, again, Paul means that concretely; he is talking substances and physics and biology), Christians will have pneumatic bodies; “bodies” composed of a much more rarefied and refined heavenly substance of the stars as opposed to the heavy, denser, and less refined, further-from-divine substances of the flesh and blood of our bodies now. A genuine question here: how do you theologically read these notions?
Stephen,
Sarx is not flesh in the mere physical sense but a symbolic reference to the parasitic reality of sin which clings onto the very good physical frame of humankind, which is soma. As I said before, but you misunderstood, sarx is connected to but not identical to soma (hence the parasite metaphor). Pneuma is the thing which imbues and fuels the soma; the two are connected (as in 1 Cor. 15). To understand more about this latter distinction see N.T. Wrights “Creation and Covenant” paper.
The body or soma is not discarded for the “substance of stars” but is rather of an earthly substance remixed and remade, a new Adam. This is is why Christ is hungry and has a meal of fish after he resurrects, to refresh and regain his energy; this is why Christ has scars on his body left over from his previous life; this is why we are able to hope and imagine a re-newed life in our own soma and pneuma.
Thus the definition of sin ought to be something like “the misuse of human power” or “misguided actions” or “missing the mark.” Irenaeus is at pains to underscore the goodness of creation at a fundamental level, which is why he says that Adam and Eve’s fall was not depraved or diabolical, but rather an act of immaturity — a power grab. Thus, Irenaeus concludes that Christ recapitulates or sums up humankind par excellent, and is the Second Adam (he was theotokos or “God-bearer” as it was originally intended in the creational mandate in Gen. 1).
– Correction: 1 Cor. 15 utilizes “pneumatikos”.. thus it is an adjective which describes the noun body or soma.
Michael,
Thanks for getting back to me. As I said, I have great sympathy for the theology of what you are stressing here — creation affirming (that does not even far enough); God in-Christ summing up, fulfilling, and perfecting humanity and creation for that matter. Salvation as creation-encompassing and renewing, not discarding, etc.! You mention Tom Wright, this is one of his emphases I find most edifying for the church. Again, the theological issue for me is how this relates to, for example, Paul. Though I do not want to say he is creation rejecting (certainly not the case), as I wrote above, his Middle-Platonism (including some Stoicism) do not map quite evenly onto our theology there.
You will have problems maintaining a thoroughgoing and consistent distinction between sarx and physical stuff in Paul. For Paul sarx is physical stuff, but its significance in his thought encompasses physical descent (in some places) and in others is the location where sin is most operative, etc. But again, this is because of his Platonist physics or biology, if you will. I agree about Christ’s pneuma and Christian body being connected for Paul — for him they are connected in a Stoic way (see previous comment).
As for the resurrection body, I am unclear how you can show from 1 Cor 15.35-58 that Paul thinks it will be “of an earthly substance…” Paul says precisely the opposite. Christ as the last Adam and Second Man fulfills humanity concretely in the form of having that rarefied heavenly “pneumatic” body, at least this is how Paul sees things. Not to be too combative, but Paul in no place indicates that he thought Christ was hungry, ate, had to refresh to regain his energy, or still had scars, etc., in his resurrection pneumatic state. I am not denying that Paul thought Christ and Christians (will) have physical bodies. Paul just thinks their substance will be of a different “order” altogether from what we have now. Again, he seems to make this pretty explicit in 1 Cor 15. Before letting this point go, this is why understanding his Stoic physics about pneuma is useful: it is precisely a bodily and material pneuma; same substance as the stars and that highest rarefied heavenly stuff. Perhaps Paul did envision Christians eating and sleeping after the resurrection. It is certainly possible for Paul to have innovated upon various expectations and sensitivities thus. But he does not tell us.
For what it’s worth, many Jewish writings of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods have an eschatology quite similar to Paul’s here: the righteous will be resurrected or exalted to be with or transformed into angels (e.g., “stars”). You mention Tom Wright…he misses this and also confuses Paul here. Wright basically (despite some claims to the contrary) buys into the old notion that Jews believed in resurrection of the body while Greeks believed in the immortality of the soul. Jews believe in physical and creation affirming afterlife, Greeks believe in totally immaterial, etc. He then filters most Jewish sources and Paul through these confused and generally inaccurate dichotomies and ends up making some laughable claims about various writings. While Wright highlights many useful things and takes apart earlier generations of scholars who denied that Paul conceived of a resurrection or thought Paul posited a purely “immaterial” resurrection, etc. etc. etc., he still misses some basics of Paul’s Christ-event-redefined Jewish eschatology with Platonist and Stoic physics, biology, and cosmology.
Sorry for calling you Michael instead of David. I just had the name Michael in my head when I quickly dashed off my reply. At least I got it sort of right
Paul in Col. 1:15-22 presents us with a recapitulation of creation’s intent, only here Christ fulfills the original intent of the imago Dei set forth in Genesis (Irenaeus’ point). Any OT scholar will tell you that the semantic range of imago Dei, or selem in Hebrew, means a physical, bodily frame. Paul, a lawman, knew his Hebrew of course. The implication being, we are not like God in relational/ethical ways (Barth) nor are we like God in intrapsychic, meditative ways (Augustine), rather we are image-bearers through and through (Irenaeus and theotokos). Thus, Paul’s conception of Christ leaps from this substantive creational point of departure; the body is sacred, Godly, and something like the fall only redirects it in misguided ways. Also, see the sweep of Ephesians 1-5, where creation’s sub-stance is sacred and retained via Christ. This is very much an Near Eastern way of thinking about Christ, not a Western Platonic way.
Also, I think it is pretty much consensus across the board that in Second Temple Judaism the idea of an earthen bodily resurrection was a staple of Scripture. Notably, we see this in Ezekiel’s reanimation of the valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37), which is exile and exodus language and imagery. Also we see it in Isaiah.
So, I am not sure how Wright has filtered out the real intent or trajectory of the meaning of resurrection in the OT? Perhaps you can enlighten me
Irenaeus perhaps penned these very words with his codex on the side opened to Col. 1:15-22…
“But if [the first Adam] was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the lattermaking a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should require to be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam]” (Against Heresies III.21.10).
David,
Part of your framing may illustrate differences in our approaches. You comment about whether or not “Wright has filtered out the real intent or trajectory of the meaning of resurrection in the OT” (emphasis added). This seems to reflect your broader notion that some essence or true core of Judaism both exists as a historical category and primarily comes “from” the Old Testament and “Near Eastern way[s] of thinking” as opposed to Greek-“Western Platonic”-philosophical loci. You also presume Paul’s position within this “true” Jewish essence.
Beyond the numerous historical-methodological problems of assuming that whatever the OT says must constitute a true essence of Judaism in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, that this is obviously different or even opposed to Greek thought, and Paul is properly understood in this essentially non-Greek Jewish context – I disagree that “in Second Temple Judaism the idea of an earthen bodily resurrection was a staple of Scripture” or even that that represents a “consensus across the board (among scholars?).” Aside from what we (think we) know about the Sadducees, in many extant Jewish sources “an earthen bodily resurrection” is NOT the expectation. Quite prominent is the notion of an angelic exaltation or transformation of the righteous (e.g., 1En. 104.2-6; Dan 12.2-3; T.Mos 10.1-10; 2 Bar. 49.1-51.13; 4Q418 81.1-5; 4Ez 7.97, 7.126; Ascen. Isa. 9.6-9; Philo Sacr. 5; 4Mac. 17.4-6; Wis. 3.1-9, 5.5-6). I only listed some passages; a sampling to give you an idea of the range here – and left out copious material from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, and various “ascent Apocalypses.” Some of these writings even define resurrection in precisely this angelic manner. Among those writings several use that language but possibly still envision an eschatological state of an “earthen bodily resurrection” or perhaps are not that concerned with specifying the physical mode of existence even though elsewhere they represent eschatology in very “this-worldly” terms (e.g., 1En. 51.1-5, though this passage is textually very complex; Luke 20.34-36?; LAB. 33.5 [see the rest of LAB, e.g., 19.12-15]). But many/most extant sources concretely mean the righteous will be transformed into angels or their heavenly state and thus demonstrably do not envision “an earthen bodily resurrection.” Other eschatological expectations exist as well.
The point here is that any notion that the standard or dominant Jewish view was “an earthen bodily resurrection” is wrong. In particular, the claim that Jewish sources standardly expect a resurrection of the earthen body because they in that way inherently differ from “Greek” views on the immaterial immortality of the soul distorts the data. In addition misrepresenting extant Jewish sources, it does not accurately represent “the Greek” side of things. Stoics, for example, were materialists who considered the soul to be a physical material with extension in space. Epicureans were also straight materialists, though they did not tend to believe in an afterlife. Platonists also considered the soul to be made up of “stuff,” though they talked about it in ways seeming more “immaterial” to us. Beyond that, however, Platonism or recognizable Platonist positions were much less common in Paul’s time, when Stoicism was more the recognizable dominant philosophical discourse. (Middle)Platonism was gaining steam by Paul’s time, but Platonism did not really start taking over and ousting Stoicism across the Mediterranean until later.
As for the Old Testament, what passages other than Daniel 12.2-3 depict an eschatological resurrection of (some of) the righteous? Ezekiel 36-37 does not depict a bodily post-mortem resurrection of the righteous. The passage deploys resurrection language to describe the re-gathering of Israel from Exile – and does so in revivification and bringing-to-life from death language. You reverse the passage’s dynamic here (if I understood you correctly). Isaiah says nothing about individual bodily resurrection, though scholars debate a passage in Isaiah 25-27. Sure, these authors thought God could resurrect peoples’ bodies, but that is not the point in Ezekiel 36-37, for example. Jon Levenson has a great book (Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life) about how resurrection and death-to-life type language works in many Hebrew Bible writings. So, again, what other passages from the Hebrew Bible would you adduce to show that “an earthen bodily resurrection” is “the real intent or trajectory of the meaning of resurrection in the OT”? I do not think you can produce a single passage clearly showing that idea. Daniel 12.2-3 describes “resurrection” as an exaltation of “the wise” to be like and with the angels (e.g., stars of heaven). The passage does not clearly mean “an earthen bodily resurrection.” You would have to argue that based upon broader readings of Daniel, which may be possible. However, just because other passages in the form of Daniel we have depict the eschatological state in terms of God’s people ruling or receiving a kingdom does not necessarily mean Daniel represents an “earthen bodily resurrection.” That would be your assumption…not necessarily that of Daniel’s producer.
Even if Paul did know Hebrew (which is not clear to me on the basis of his letters), why would the meaning and significance in Genesis 1 in its context, for example, determine how Paul means “image of God”? You discount recognizably Platonist positions, to pick one example, as a salient context for Paul on image and the like. Numerous Platonists, especially around and just after Paul’s time, talked about the image of god and assimilation or transformation into it as a virtue and/or eschatological ideal (ring a bell? C.f., Rom 8.29; 2 Cor 3.17-18, 4.4; etc.). Some of the Jewish sources of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods that talk about the image of God do so in precisely a Platonist or at least philosophical-physics or even “ethical” way (Sirach 17; Wis. 2.21-23; Ps-Phoc. 100-108; PHILO!!!, etc.). So, why do you assume that Paul’s positioning himself as talking about something from the sacred writings and stories of the Jews means he also does not think about such topics in a “Western Platonist” way? Just for fun, among the writings from this period (well, actually later than Paul) that scholars commonly associate with Jews, the ones possibly talking about “the image of God” in a “bodily” way are also precisely the ones that scholars think Christ-followers wrote: e.g., T.Naph; Sibylline Oracles 1 and 7; Life of Adam and Eve (Apoc. Mos.); 2Enoch; T.Isaac. Regardless of what you make of this for your ideas, it does not help the argument that material “earthen bodily resurrection” was the dominant or necessarily expected or “true” Jewish view.
More broadly, you are begging the question as to how Paul thinks about renewal of creation. You cannot simply adduce passages showing him to value creation, consider Christ fulfilling creation’s, renewing creation, etc., and claim you have shown that Paul views eschatology as including “an earthen bodily” resurrection. What if Paul spells out his Jewish-apocalyptic-eschatological positions about New Creation, creation-renewal, and Christ’s decisiveness in this, etc., with Platonist or Stoic physics and cosmology? Wisdom of Solomon in no way stresses “an earthen bodily resurrection” like 2Mac (contra Wright), and yet explicitly foregrounds God as the God of creation whose creation is good. Wisdom of Solomon instead has a Middle Platonist physics and cosmology. In no way does its author consider himself “less Jewish” or outside “the real intent or trajectory” of the Old Testament. Beyond this, I stand by my earlier point that Paul denies precisely the notion that our resurrection bodies are “earthen” the way you mean it: 1 Cor 15.35-58. Part of the problem for us (and Wright too) is our modern dichotomy of “spiritual” (non-material) versus “earthly” (physical and material). Toss this out for reading the sources in question, as you should, and there is no problem of Paul being creation affirming, talking about Christ as the Last Adam or Second Man, talking about us having bodies like Christ’s, talking about renewal or fulfillment of creation as his eschatology and also taking the position that our resurrection bodies are of a refined heavenly astral substance of the stars and fundamentally-substantially different from our current “flesh and blood” bodies.
Sorry for the long comment. I wanted to spell out some of my claims a bit more for people less familiar with the materials and notions in question. We can bring this around full-circle to the Christology discussion in many ways. For now, again, to me a pressing theological reading issue revolves around how our edifying creation-shaped missiology/theology/eschatology relate to Paul’s notions that I have tried to set forth a bit here.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Yes, I am all for the spiritual side of things being laden with stuff, or Paul having a “Stoic” element to his ideas – I am not working from a dualistic stance but a monist one. I think the real problem cam Neo-Platonism arrived on the scene, where Plotinus (influencing Augustine greatly) introduced a new concept of complete immateral ascedence, leaving the bodily to be something base, unworthy. As you point out, even Plato saw the Forms to be physical, just perfections of the physical.
Likewise, I don’t think Scripture advocates for a substantially different resurrection body precisely because of the bulwark of creation theology which bookends both Genesis and Revelation, and which threads its way through the entire biblical metanarrative. There is a growing consensus of OT scholars which see Gen. 1 as being a critique of the prevailing Mesopotamian ideas that humans are categorically different from the gods they serve, aside from the king-priest which was the sole bearer of god-status. Genesis radically emphasizes the democratization of the image of God. There is also an ambiguity surrounding the “elohim” where, depending on the context, it can mean either God or God’s appointed (angel) or even humans – see the debate regarding Psalm 8:5. And so, you speak of this angelic resurrectrion body… that is fine, I am all for that as long as it as seen as a nuance of the human body we have right now (hence the ambiguity of angel/God/human). Make sense?
This all said, the resurrection is not as apocalyptic as we may think it to be; it is radically (radix) covenantal and thus mundane, grounded, everyday. The eschaton is likened to the very human convention of marriage of heaven and earth; a new heaven and new earth – quite a nuance .
I think when we resurrect from death, there is going to be an “oh ya” moment, where we realize that sin and death were not as detrimental as tradition and church would lead us to think. Christ, in the synoptics, eats a meal of broiled fish; he shows off his scars; he sits down and pow-wows. Very mundane and everyday. And at creation, God rests after creating; he sits back and observes, like an Artisan, and concludes or reports that it is good. Very mundane. Paul’s letters reflect this macrostory or meta-narrative.
JD,
You said “‘orthodox’ doesn’t mean it’s right.”
What troubles me about this comment is that it seems built on a notion that either truth is relative or that man must take an agnostic approach to Christianity, in which questions cannot be asked beyond the surface level. The notion of “orthodoxy” is that a definitive Truth and Guidelines has been laid down, and those wishing to be in the Truth must by necessity be ‘orthodox’ in their ways. Otherwise, “orthodox” means nothing.
Imagine if everyone went around defining what they considered “orthodoxy,” that’d be theological relativism and a mockery of the term “orthodox.” But if there is one “orthodoxy,” then there must be one Church Authority proclaiming such, and which all Christians are bound to adhere to.
You said: “I, frankly, don’t see any practical reason to think that Nestorius was wrong.”
Well, then you’ve not (yet) recognized the ramifications of Nestorianism. The Nestorian Jesus makes the incarnation irrelevant, since the ‘human Jesus’ is a human in his own right *wholly independent* of union with the Logos. In other words, Mary gave birth to a man named Jesus, and some time after conception the Logos “joined forces” with this fully self-conscious human, each remaining in their own “realm” throughout the life of Jesus (i.e. the human Jesus doing human things, while the Logos doing divine things). Further, on the cross, it was a human who died, not the Logos, undermining the Atonement. When Paul said in 1 Cor 2, if the Jews really knew Who Jesus was, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,” according to Nestorianism Paul was mistaken, since “the Lord of Glory” was untouched, and only a human died (unless the “Lord of Glory” was the man Jesus and *not* the Logos).
As for the Trinity, if there is no Person-Nature distinction, you have a blob-god (no Trinity) and no way to say God became incarnate without the whole Trinity becoming incarnate. This highlights the danger with “go-it-alone Christianity,” where the religion becomes whatever the individual’s own understanding determines it to be.
Nick,
You’ve just exemplified the problem. You’re imposing a strand of distinctively patristic christ-anthropology on top of texts and a anthropology that in fact say little about it. That’s the problem.
Please elaborate/clarify.
And please comment on what “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” means. Was the Logos crucified here, or does “Lord of Glory” apply strictly to a human?
Nick,
You are pigeon-holing JD here. Why is the obvious reading of “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” the way that the various 4th-6th (and later) century Christian educated neo-Platonist elites who are responsible for the creeds you like would have read the passage? What if Paul considers Jesus as various contemporary Middle-Platonists thought of the Logos or image of God: not the high-God but the slightly lower mediatorial divine figure that did most of the High God’s dirty work in creation? There…not that I necessarily agree with this, but I have just offered a reading that accounts for the verse but most certainly does not square it with some (not dominant even in their own time!) Christian creeds.
What if Paul’s categories or “physics” for how he conceived of Christ and God or divine figures were simply different from the neo-Platonist categories of the creeds you reference? Daniel here often talks about “more Jewish” categories for Jesus as God in Paul; categories not oriented around philosophical questions of substance and metaphysics. While I disagree with Daniel to some extent here, I still agree with him against you that Paul plausibly operated with different categories than the ones of later Christian Orthodoxy as you are talking about.
If you are going to use the Bible to legitimate “Orthodoxy,” what do you do when its writings do not even use the categories of “Orthodoxy” or, even more interested, use related categories but take different positions within them? Hopefully this is not too blunt, but rather than jumping straight to historical-theological strong arming, conversation stopping, question begging, loaded, etc. “questions” to JD and others about how they would read X passage or how they avoid “relativism” and the like, why not address the questions Daniel and JD (and I think David as well) put to you? To what extent do you see “High Christology Orthodoxy” possibly forcing the writings of the Bible through a grid that distorts those writings’ historical meanings? Is this an issue to you? If not, do you explain its non-issue-ness by appeals to (unquestionable and self-authenticating) theological positions, to historical arguments without the advantage of “special rules” that automatically render your position right, to some mixture or place in between, etc.?
I’d say it’s not Greek philosophy per se, any more than the Biblical authors were corrupting God’s Divine Revelation by using the Greek alphabet/words to write Scripture. And the “adherence” these categories is simply a touchstone of orthodoxy, not some baggage holding folks back.
It’s very easy to take all we have today for granted (formulations of the Trinity and Christology, personalized Bibles, commentaries, etc), though the fact is Christians before us were not so lucky. And the problem with taking things for granted is that people forget the historical roots of Christianity and thus gradually turn the notion of “Christianity” into a blob that is re-shaped however the individual wants. So when you say, “I find my ambiguous comment more comprehensible than your orthodox rendition,” the danger here is that this is orthodoxy according to your standards, not that of the Fathers, Councils, and History. And even if problems don’t seem immediately apparent when one deems their ways more accurate than the Church, eventually the ramifications become manifest (in this case you lose the capability of a systematic theology in regards to Christology and the Trinity).
Okay, you may have alienated everybody in the world *except* me by the end of the paragraph that concludes at the bottom of the fantastically awesome picture of Jesus in the boat. It wasn’t until you said, “understanding what an ideal author wanted an ideal reader to hear is the first goal I want us to strive for” that I wanted to throw something at you.
BTW, I was talking about zombies (esp. in terms of the problems of personhood and theological anthropology, though not so much Matthew) about a year and half ago (cf. long fb discussion on this). Old news. There’s also a whole academic mini-discipline on zombie-theory, I’ve found. It is fascinating.
And rather than “zombies” or “undead,” the preferred term is “ontologically challenged.”
LOL.. “ontologically challenged,” yes, I like that very much.
BTW, I really did actually laugh out loud. I think a lot of times we text LOL, when we really should text LTMQ, or “laughing to myself quietly.”
Nick: It is certainly not wrong to deny Jesus was a human person.
Also, it doesn’t matter if a person says “Jesus is Lord”, regardless of how they define “Lord.” The only way people can truly show that they believe Jesus is Lord is by how they live their life.
Antinomianism – the first (and most important) heresy of Christianity.
Diglot,
A few questions:
(1) How are you using the term “person”: in the sense that the Logos (the “Word” of John 1:1) is the Second Person of the Trinity?
(2) If *yes* to the above question, then how can the Logos be a (created) human person at the same time? Or is the “human person” Jesus different from the Logos? (If the latter, then the Logos cannot have said to become Incarnate.)
(3) If it doesn’t matter how one interprets/defines “Jesus is Lord,” are you saying even JWs, Mormons, Unitarians, etc, etc, are all equally Christian as long as they live a moral life?
Nick,
I had written something out to the first two questions but just decided I am going to skip it.
In answer to the third question you posed, I would say that no, Mormons etc are not “Christians” in the historic use of the term, but that does not mean that no Mormons will obtain eternal life. Being an inclusivist, I do not think that only those who are part of the historic orthodox Christian tradition will be saved. While I think that Jesus is indeed the only “way, truth, and the life”, I do not think this necessitates that epistemological knowledge of Christ is necessary to be ontologically saved by God. At least, that certainly isn’t what Jesus taught about salvation in the gospels, and isn’t what I find in Paul either.
Hi Diglot,
By what ‘standard’ would you say a Mormon and such is not Christian? Mormons and other similar sects live generally “Christian” lifestyles in terms of morality. By your elaborating below, we would have to conclude they’re Christian if all we’re looking at is Christian living.
To elaborate: In order to determine whether someone is ‘saved’ by God, the evidence one should look at is not the person’s stance on a certain theological issue, even an important one like the Triune nature of God, but is rather whether that person is living a Spirit filled life. That is the true marker to determine whether someone is saved.
Nick, I guess it depends on how you define “Christian.” The way the term is used today seemingly provides a definition of belonging to the historic orthodox church (whether it be the Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox branch). That definition is frankly useless at determining whether someone is going to obtain eternal life, because that just simply isn’t what the bible teaches. Orthodoxy (right-belief) is important, but no where near as important as orthopraxy (right-living).
Also, I don’t equate a “Spirit filled life” (my words) with a “generally Christian lifestyle in terms of morality” (your words).
Stephen,
I will try to address all you’ve talked about in your post to me:
(1) I believe my take is the “obvious reading” for the phrase “crucified the Lord of glory” because (1) it’s the Church’s dogmatic categories, and (2) I see no other way to take the phrase that would make sense in my overall look at the Trinity and Christology. The “alternative” you offer of Jesus being a demigod of sorts doesn’t really affect my take since I could simply rephrase it to ask if “Lord of glory” refered to the demigod personhood of Jesus or the human personhood of Jesus.
But things just get confused when the person-nature distinction isn’t being made, since your categorization is that of ‘high divine being’ versus ‘lower divine being’ ignores personhood all together. At that point, you’re only speaking in terms of “beings”, so you’re going to have to explain how the demigod being became incarnate, without confusing either being or it’s operations (unless you hold to a mish-mashing of beings, as if mixing two colors of play-dough).
A quick note, I’m not playing off of arrogance here, but rather the confidence that folks before me (us) have thought about these issues in a lot more detail and systematically, and know how things can go wrong fast (i.e. absurdities, heresies) when these categories are not maintained.
(2) You asked what if Paul’s categories were different than the historical Church categories I’m suggesting. My answer would be the same as (1a) above. Tamper or reject those categories, and one is left either dumping the Trinity all together (which leads to it’s own problems of exegesis), or holding onto a Trinity which you ‘believe in your heart but not in your head’.
(3) You asked about whether the Bible uses the categories of Catholicism.
One good example that the NT is operating in the same categories from which I’m speaking is John 1:1. When it says the Logos was *with* “the God” it means the Son was with the Father, obviously entailing real distinction. This is taken to mean a distinction in what we’d simply title “Personhood”. But then it goes to say the Logos *was* theos (God), which can only be speaking about Logos’ Nature. This fits logically and exegetically.
(4) You suggested my question regarding “crucified the Lord of glory” was question-begging and loaded, and overall, unfair…yet I’ve not see how this is so.
All I’m saying is I see only one way to interpret it, if there are other ways, then all I’m asking is please show me. As of now, I’ve seen no alternatives. Even more disheartening is the wishy-washy attitude I’ve seen towards upholding the Trinity, with some folks on the virge of dumping any intelltectual foundation for it, while others would opt to not respond rather than find themselves in an obviously problematic theological position.
(5a) You asked: “To what extent do you see “High Christology Orthodoxy” possibly forcing the writings of the Bible through a grid that distorts those writings’ historical meanings? Is this an issue to you?”
The only sense I see distortion from those categories is if people don’t keep in mind the categories make real distinctions between Christ’s humanity and Divinity. Some texts only emphasize the humanity, and that’s fine. So the ‘distortion’ would come about when someone insisted that a text cannot be read in a truly ‘human’ sense in regards to Christ.
(5b) You said: “If not, do you explain its non-issue-ness by appeals to (unquestionable and self-authenticating) theological positions, to historical arguments without the advantage of “special rules” that automatically render your position right, to some mixture or place in between, etc.?”
My approach takes into consideration the notion that there is One True Church Christ established precisely to guide believers through issues likes these. Other approaches are more akin to an agnostic/deistic view of Christ’s Church, such that men are left fending for themselves, guessing at various theological issues, though no way to *settle* them. I wouldn’t call that “special rules” as much as I’d say I’m taking into consideration the foundation I’m building on. As I noted above, many of the folks responding here are one step away of intellectually (though not necessarily emotionally) dumping the central doctrine of Christendom, the Trinity, since a rejection of those categories leaves one in a position to leave it with no intelligibility.
Hi Daniel,
Interesting blog post. I don’t know if you remember me or not, but I presented a paper at the Pacific Coast SBL regional meeting at Santa Clara a couple of years ago, and we talked afterward… and it pertained somewhat to this subject. (I was asserting that I think Mark’s christology is a “comparative Christology”… Jesus as the “only” Son… in a way that he is distinct from and greater than Moses, Elijah, and other OT heroes.)
Anyway, my take is not so much that John and Colossians have a “high” Christology and other parts of the NT (e.g., the Synoptics) a “low” Christology… that seems like an anachronism to me. I think that Mark has a “high” Christology (especially based on the walking on water and transfiguration episodes, which I think function almost like theophanies for Mark), but that John has a “higher” Christology.
My reason for such a semantic distinction is that I’m afrad we fail to recognize how radically high Mark’s christology would seem in a first-century Jewish context (thought it might seem low compared to John at a later time). Just as Mark’s gospel seems to end abruptly at 16:8 compared to Matthew, Luke, and John written later, but would that ending necessarily seem abrupt if you only had Mark? In the same way, I think Mark’s christology is often unfairly characatured as low when it would have seemed radically high in a first-century Jewish context… and that later John’s christology would seem even higher. I think Larry Hurtado does a good job bringing this out in his recent books… how radical the early Christian confession (“Jesus is Lord”) would be in a Jewish context whose creed was “Here O Israel, the Lord our God is one.”
Anyway, hope this is somewhat helpful. I hope all is well over at Fuller.
–Jeff
Jeff, I certainly remember you and your paper from SBL regional last year!
You and I disagree here, as I also disagree with Hurtado. I worry that Christian readers are afraid of low Christology; and, more importantly, that our commitment to high Christology is keeping us from recognizing that everything Jesus does has a OT precedent in the people and/or kings of Israel.
To be sure, some of what is there spoken in figurative language is literalized in surprising ways (e.g., water walking) but to call a human “Lord” isn’t radical, except insofar as it means that someone who was crucified is still, somehow, the Messiah.
YHWH is always capable of saying to my Lord, the king, Sit at my right hand while I make your enemies a footstool.
Good points, Daniel. In regards to Mark, I still think Mark’s christology is high compared to the Judaism of his day (just not high compared to John or later creeds like the Nicene). I think that’s much of the point in the narrative as I see it…
At the baptism, the heavenly voice states, “You are my only Son” (which was the thesis of my paper… based on Gen 22, agapetos should be understood as “only/unique” rather than merely “beloved”). This statement singles out Jesus as unique and more special than all others in the narrative (even if it’s presented as personal revelation to Jesus in Mark).
At the tranfiguration, again the heavenly voice singles out Jesus in the presence of Moses and Elijah as being the only/unique son. In classes, I often compare this to how radical it would seem if some modern US president was hailed as being greater than Washington or Lincoln… very lofty standards indeed.
In the parable of the wicked tenants (chap 12), again the term agapetos is used with the sense of unique/only as the son is singled out as greater than the servants (i.e., the prophets) that went before.
I think all of that (and other scenes like the walking on water, the question about David’s son in chap 12, and even how Jesus’ miracles such as the feedings are greater than ones done similarly by Elisha and others) is Mark’s way of asserting Jesus to a loftier position in his narrative than anyone prior in Hebrew history. Granted, that’s not as high as John’s christology (which involves pre-existence, omniscience, oneness with the Father, “I am” claims, lofty titles, etc.)… but still I think that’s high compared to the Judaism of Jesus’ day.
I agree with all of that, but none of those things is addressing the question of high versus low Christology in a technical sense.
To say “high Christology” is to say, “preexistence of some sort,” “divinity” or something like it. I would say that Mark has a high human Christology, that as Messiah he plays the role that no one else has played or, perhaps, could have played before.
But to assign him the lead in the narrative and to assert that his ontology is categorically distinct from other humans are two different things.
My only reason to demur is for the sake of historical context. “Low” and “high” are obviously relative terms, and I think Mark’s christology should be defined in its context to Judaism, not by statements of pre-existence that come later in John or the Nicene creed, long after Mark wrote.
And in that regard, I do think Mark’s pre-Johannine christology was high compared to the Judaism of his day. I think Mark shows that Jesus was more than just a lead character in his narrative, but someone of unusual high importance (based on the examples I mention above), even though Mark never clearly defines how highly regarded that individual was to be considered.
We usually don’t judge John’s christology to be low based on gnostic christologies that come afterward. Is it right to refer to Mark’s christology as low based on gospels such as John that were written afterward?… even if those gospels end up canonized together with Mark in the NT.
I think we both probably agree on most aspects of Mark’s christology. Our difference seems to be our preference of terminology to refer to it. But maybe I’m wrong.
Anyway, I really enjoy your blog. A few of your posts I’ve linked to a web-enhanced NT class I teach in which I utilize significant web articles for extra reading. I think my students will find them very helpful. Keep up the great blogging!
Interesting posts guys, Simon Gathercole in his book The Pre-existent Son:Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, argues for a high Christology in the synoptics. In particular he argues that the “i have come” statements describe a descent from a heavenly to an earthly realm” its an interesting thesis. What do you think?
Matt, reading that book convinced me that someone needed to write a book on the Gospel’s low Christology. I did not find his arguments true to the text.
The Spirit is Willing but the Flesh is Weak. I can see all 3 operating within on a daily basis. The flesh being the ego, and intellect and past knowledge acquired through doctrine. Jesus transcends and embodies all three concepts, as he was God in Spirit but knew no ego, yet His Flesh was also Resurrected (although some will not embrace the concept)..for Mary did not recognized him and thought a gardener. Was this because he was no longer wearing clothes? He could not have been the same after as before the Resurrection to transcend to heaven and die a human death. But I realize that what lived then, lived before from the beginning, the word the Gnosis. Granted, there is some mixed messages here, in realizing, Jesus Knew before hand what was to come. I consider what he might have been writing in the sand when the woman was contemned of adultery. Perhaps, the names of those attackers adulteresses who themselves had committed the same sin? It is the Gnosis the Knower Knows, it is in the Low I know him as Man and Spirit, and it is in the High I know Him always as well. Before I know where I Am , I must know where I was… my built in forget-er (ego/..mind)..slips easily to “putting the mind in the heart which desires the greatest riches beyond measure’..and so to..are words lacking.
A lot of errors in the writing above…apology.