To set this up again: though standing on the common ground of the traditional Christian confession of Jesus Christ as very God, we disagree on the extent to which this facet of Jesus’ identity is visible in the Synoptic Gospels.

But our agreement extends beyond the confessional. We would both say things about Jesus in (say) Mark to the effect of, “Look, Jesus is being identified with Israel’s God here,” or, “Look, here’s Jesus doing something that we’d normally think only God can do.”

Given our largely Christan context for reading the Gospels, I imagine that it sounds like special pleading to many of my readers that I would say, “Here’s Jesus being identified with God–and yet this is no indication that he is ontologically divine.” But, as James McGrath suggested in the comments of our “Pass them by” discussion, this only means that based on our theological commitments we think that “identification with God” entails divine ontology.

What we really need to hammer out is how we can adjudicate between a human’s being identified with the work of God, the super-expansion of such a category that would happen if one human actually came and was a faithful representative where others (Adam, Israel, David) had failed, and at what point a quantitative expansion of the human vocation to represent God to the world is insufficient to account for the data and we have to start positing a qualitative difference for Jesus (i.e., what must Jesus do or say to take us to the point where we must say, “This is not something that could be said or done by a human being, however so great he may be; now we’re talking about God”).

In my estimation, the Old Testament provides such a robust category for understanding human agency in general, and for interpreting the Christology of the Gospels in particular, that I find little evidence of “identification with God” to offer compelling indications that the category of “human representative of YHWH on earth” has been blown up into “YHWH physically present among us.”

To take but the most obvious example, the title “son of God” clearly identifies Jesus with God. But what sort of identification is it? The biblical co-texts that help us make sense of such a title indicate that this is a way of saying that Jesus is the Davidic King (Ps 2; 2 Sam 7), the one who fulfills primordial humanity’s vocation to rule the world on God’s behalf as God’s faithful child (Gen 1:26-28).

The idea of Jesus as “son of God” structures Mark’s narrative: at his baptism, transfiguration, and crucifixion Jesus is called “son of God” by God (first two) and a centurion (final episode). The point in each case (especially as the baptism prefigures the crucifixion) is that Jesus is son of God as he fulfills his particular Messianic vocation.

In other words: Christ = Son of God = vocation to suffer, die, and then be raised.

With an OT narrative telling us that humanity is created to be entrusted with God’s rule over the created order, and with numerous indications that God identifies himself with a people such that his name is on them–their fate is His fate and His reputation is their reputation–it seem that the default mode for reading the Gospels should be that ideal first readers would hear the stories of Jesus in this way.

Yes, he is wonderfully exhibiting the saving work of YHWH–and this means that, at last, the king has come.

So the question as we wrestle with how to read and understand the Christology of the Gospels is: how do we know when identification has moved beyond unique possession of the divine imprimatur and empowering Spirit and moved into the realm of ontological identity?

One initial answer I want to give is this: if we see other humans doing it, it is no indication that Jesus is ontologically divine. Other thoughts?

RJM:

I’m shamelessly stealing my second example from our esteemed Doktorvater Richard Hays.  Hays notices a peculiar detail in Mark’s account of Jesus’ walking on the water (Mark 6:45-52).  As Jesus comes towards the boat, Mark writes, “And he meant to pass them by” (6:48b).  What an odd description – why would Jesus pass them by?  Hays suggests that Mark uses this language to show subtly and allusively an important aspect of Jesus’ identity.

Three different passages in the Old Testament describe God in the act of “passing by” someone. In Exodus 33, when Moses asks to see God’s glory, God hides him in the cleft of a rock while “[God’s] glory passes by” (Exod 33:22).  Similarly, in 1 Kings 19 when Elijah meets the LORD on Mount Horeb, the writer notes, “The LORD passed by” (1 Kings 19:11).  Both of these stories recount theophanies, revelations of God to the prophets.  In a similar way, the walking on the water in Mark functions as a theophany, especially when one takes into account the language from Job that overlaps with the story.

In Job 9, Job gives a lengthy description of God that includes some interesting phrases: “who [God] alone stretched out the heavens, and trampled the waves of the sea” (Job 9:8).  The LXX of Job is even closer to Mark’s language of walking on the water.  Shortly thereafter, Job continues, “Lo, he passes by me, and I see him not; he moves on, but I do not perceive him.”  This language of walking on the water, passing by, and lack of understanding dovetails perfectly with Mark’s account.  Mark is presenting Jesus as the manifestation of God, and his disciples in the role of uncomprehending Job.

JRDK:

There are a couple of contextual clues for interpreting that enigmatic statement about Jesus intending to pass by the disciples. First, in 6:52, the reason the disciples don’t get it, and presumably thus the reason why Jesus was not able to pass by them, is that “they didn’t understand about the loaves, but their heart was hardened” (6:52). This means that our interpretation of the feeding narrative must inform our reading of the water-walking.

On the one hand, if the OT is determinative for the content of the NT allusion, one can say that “The Lord is my shepherd” = YHWH = Jesus. Or, as we see often in other parts of the NT, the narrative of the OT might be given new substance with the person and presence of Jesus. Not only is the LORD the shepherd of the flock, but the good king is a faithful shepherd, caring for the flock of God as God Himself would.

RJM:

I agree that the walking on the water and the feeding of the 5,000 go together, and I’m happy to connect it with Psalm 23.  Daniel’s reading of Mark’s allusion to the psalm, however, seems like a classic case of special pleading to me.  I think the interpretation “The Lord is my shepherd” = YHWH = Jesus is the most natural one, and strengthens my interpretation of the Isaiah citation at the beginning of the Gospel.  (There is another OT text that would suit Daniel’s interpretation much better and fits quite well with the reference to the people as “sheep without a shepherd” [let the reader understand], but I’m not going to give it away.

In my initial post for lack of space I left out an important element of the walking on the water story that I think seals an interpretation in terms of divine identity. When the disciples see Jesus coming to them on the water, they become terrified (a typical Markan theme) and think that he’s a ghost.  Jesus reassures them with the words, “ἐγώ εἰμι.”  One could translate this flatly as a simple, “It’s me.”  Given the other allusions to the theophanies of the OT, however, it seems much more likely that Mark has Jesus appropriate the divine name from Exodus 3:14, “I AM.”  The combination of walking on the water, intending to pass by the disciples, and appropriating the divine name all point in the direction of an identification on Mark’s part of Jesus with the God of Israel.

Again, this is not to deny the importance of Jesus’ humanity or his suffering – these are clearly important to Mark.  Nevertheless, I believe this reading of the walking on the water adds a further dimension to Jesus’ already mysterious identity in this cryptic gospel.

Now to you: what’s your take, o dutiful reader of the Gospels?

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.