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.
