Book Review Final
Book Review Final
Book Review Final
Galilee, by Bart D. Ehrman and How God Became Jesus, The Real Origins
of Belief in Jesus Divine Nature, by Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans,
Simon J. Gathercole, Charles E. Hill, and Chris Tilling
_______________________________________________________________
A Review and Commentary by Patrick Navas (May, 2014)
_______________________________________________________________
Bart Ehrman may be one of
the most widely-recognized
New Testament scholars in the
world today. As a former
evangelical Christian turned
agnostic, Ehrman has authored
several best-selling books
presenting challenges to the
textual reliability of the New
Testament and to the validity of
the Christian faith as a whole.
Though at least some of
his arguments against the
reliability of the NT are flawed (as several NT scholars have shown 1), as a
historian of early Christianity, Ehrman has shown balance and integrity. For
example in 2012 Ehrman published a book in which he refutes the socalled mythicist claimand popular new atheist notionthat the man
Jesus of Nazareth never existed.2
In his most recent work, How Jesus Became God, Ehrman argues
that the long-held orthodox belief that Jesus is God himself was not the
original teaching of Jesus or the belief of his earliest followers. Unusually,
the book was simultaneously released with a corresponding response
book, How God Became Jesus, by a team of evangelical Bible scholars. In
How God Became Jesus five authors (M. Bird, C. Evans, S. Gathercole, C.
Hill, and C. Tilling) respond to Ehrmans thesis and defend the traditional
belief that Jesus is presented as God by the NT writers.
See: Jones, Misquoting Truth, A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrmans Misquoting Jesus (Illinois: InterVarsity
Press, 2007); Roberts, Can We Trust the Gospels?, Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
(Illinois: Crossway Books: 2007); Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, Manuscript, Patristic, and
Apocryphal Evidence (Grand Rapids: Kregel: 2011).
2
Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper Collins: 2012).
the Jews: before Abraham was born, I am the being (ego eimi ho on). If
Jesus had said something to that effect, then the traditional interpretation
Ehrman derives from the text might make sense. As F.F. Bruce observed in
his commentary: If a direct reference had been intended to Ex. 3:14 in the
present passage, one might have expected ho on rather than ego eimi.11
Bruce was right for calling attention to this point because, in the
Septuagint rendition, the actual name God reveals to Moses (or meaning
associated with the name), and the actual reference point (or identity in
question) is not found in the words ego eimi but in the words ho on. We
know this is the case because, in the Septuagint, God goes on to instruct
Moses to tell the children of Israel, ho on (the being/the existing one) has
sent me to you not ego eimi (I am) has sent me to you.
In this instance ego eimi is merely the linking verbal pair of words
(copula) and has the same function as the words I am have in a
statement like, I am the professor, or, to use a biblical example, when
Jesus said, I am the light of the world (Jn. 8:12). The point of Jesus
statement in Jn. 8:12 is, of course, that he is the light of the world not that
he is the so-called I am. In the same way, in the Septuagint translation of
Ex. 3:14, God is not identifying himself as I am (ego eimi) but as the
being/existing one (ho on)a seemingly rather obvious point.
Since Jesus does not in fact use the language of Ex. 3:14 (either the
Hebrew I-will-be-what-I-will-be or the Greek I-am-the-being) and apply it
to himself in Jn. 8:58, there is no reason to think that his words qualify as
some kind of allusion to Ex. 3:14, or as an invocation of the divine name,
as so often claimed.
In reference to Jn. 8:58 specifically, there are good reasons to think
that the traditional Before-Abraham-was-born-I-am does not fully or
accurately convey the intended nuance of the original language. Why not?
Because the common translation, Before Abraham was born, I am (itself
an awkwardly ungrammatical English sentence) overlooks, or arguably
overlooks, its connection to the adverbial reference to past time: before
Abraham came to be That is, unlike the other I am statements in
Johns Gospel, 8:58 is not a straightforward present-tense expression, but
includes an expression of past time that grammatically modifies the
meaning of the present-tense I am statement (or at least, very plausibly
modifies it). That is to say, Jesus existence (I am) is taking place before
Abraham came to be and continues right up to the present time when
11
The Gospel of John, Introduction, Exposition and Notes: (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1983), p. 193.
[vs. 55] a liar like you [vs. 57]) and subsequent, climactic claim to superhuman longevity, over against their highly-honored ancestral father
Abraham, is more than sufficient to account for the hostile reaction that
followed (they picked up stones to throw at him [vs. 59]).
Though it is often thought that a blasphemous claim on the part of
Jesus to be God is the only interpretation that explains why the Jews
reacted the way they did, distinguished NT professor Craig Blomberg
helpfully points out the following:
The fact that the Jews immediately tried to stone him does not mean they
understood his statement as a direct equation of himself with God.
Claiming that Abraham had seen his day (verse 56) itself bordered on
blasphemy, and the Jews had already tried to kill him for much lesser
crimes such as healing on the Sabbath (Mk. 3:6) and speaking of Gods
love for the gentiles (Lk. 4:29).12
Whether one concludes Jesus meant that he existed in a literalpersonal sense (i.e., as the Son of God) before the birth of Abraham, or
that he existed in an ideal-prophetic sense (i.e., in the mind and purpose
of God), may revolve largely around how one interprets the prologue of the
Gospel and the authors presentation of the word (ho logos) that was with
God (pros ton theon) in the beginningthe word that became flesh in
the man Jesus (Jn. 1:1-14).
John 10:30: I and the Father are one
At the risk of stating the obvious, Jesus statement, I and the Father
are one is hardly equivalent to declaring, unqualifiedly, I am God, as
Ehrman seems to suggest by his wording.
Contextually, Jesus scandalous, violence-provoking claim regarding
his oneness with the Father is best understood as a oneness of mind and
purpose with God, not a claim to actually being God himself, or a claim of
absolute-ontological-equality with the Father. If Jesus Jewish persecutors
took his statement to mean that he was making himself out to be, literally,
God himself, they were as usual mistaken, since Jesus responded in such
a way as to show that their accusation of blasphemy was in error and then
proceeded to clarify who he claimed to be.
It may be more likely, however, that the Jews accused Jesus of
claiming not to be God but a god (We are not going to stone you for any
good deed, but for blasphemy. You, a mere man, claim to be a god New
English Bible). This point appears to be confirmed based on the way Jesus
12
Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001), pgs. 164-165.
answers the accusation. Jesus reasons, essentially, that since in their own
law God said, you [evidently the unjust judges of ancient Israel] are gods
(Ps. 82:6) and scripture cannot be broken, the Jews were therefore wrong
for accusing Jesusin reality, the very one whom the Father consecrated
and sent into the worldof blasphemy for saying that he was not God but
the Son of God. In other words, if the judges of Israel (portrayed in the
Psalm as those who judged unjustly and showed partiality to the wicked)
were called gods by God, then it was clearly not blasphemous for Jesus
(the sanctified one sent by God) to have said that he was Gods Son (Jn.
10:36).
Even many orthodox NT commentators13 now tend to concede the
point that there is no contextual evidence that the oneness Jesus speaks of
in this case had to do with either Jesus claiming to be God, to be equal with
God, or claiming to be of the same metaphysical substance as the Father,
as some evangelicals have claimed.14 Centuries ago even John Calvin
contradicted the historic of-one-being argument in his commentary:
[Christ] testifies that his affairs are so closely united to those of the Father,
that the Fathers assistance will never be withheld from himself and his
sheep. The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that
Christ is (homoousios) of the same essence with the Father. For Christ
does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement
which he has with the Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be
confirmed by the power of his Father.15
Professor Marianne Thompson points out: the most famous of all the Johannine assertions regarding the unity of
the Father and Son, namely, I and the Father are one (10:30), actually refers in context to Jesus promise that the
Father and Son are one in the work of preserving the sheep of the fold from loss or harm. The God of the Gospel
of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 78.
14
See: Morey, The Trinity, Evidence and Issues (Iowa Falls: World Bible Publishers, 1996), p. 327; Tsoukalas,
Knowing Christ and the Challenge of Heresy, (University Press of America,1999) pgs. 77-78.
15
Calvins Commentaries (Delaware: Associated Publishers and Authors, n.d.), p. 780.
Jesus prays [in John 17:11] that His followers may all be one (hen), i.e.
united in purpose, as He and His Father are united.16
When Jesus prayed for his disciples to be one, he did not mean that
he wanted them to constitute one metaphysical substance or one being,
or the like, but that they would be united as onefully unifiedjust as he
and his Father are. Thus it seems reasonably clear that when Jesus spoke
to his Jewish opponents about his oneness with the Father in Jn. 10, he
was placing primary emphasis on the perfect unity of spirit (complete
agreement and harmony) he had with his Father, particularly with regard to
the one purpose they shared in protecting the said sheep from being
snatched away. The conclusion is supported by the sequence of
statements: no one will snatch them out of my hand, then, no one will
snatch them out of the Fathers hand, followed by, I and the Father are
one. As F.F. Bruce commented:
So responsive is the Son to the Father that he is one in mind, one in
purpose, one in action with him. Where the eternal wellbeing of true
believers is concerned, the Sons determination and pledge to guard them
from harm is endorsed by the Fathers word and confirmed by the Fathers
all-powerful act.17
16
Colin G. Kruse, The Gospel According to St John, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003) p. 136.
17
Bruce, The Gospel of John, Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, p. 233.
his wages according to his labor. For we are Gods fellow workers (1Cor.
3:6-8).
In this instance the one who plants and the one who waters are not
metaphysically one (one in terms of their very being) but functionally
one (united) in their cooperation, agreement, or aim to cause the plant
evidently, the believerto grow. As the NIV paraphrases: The man who
plants and the man who waters have one purpose In all likelihood Jesus
was making a similar point in Jn. 10 with respect to the oneness he had
with his Father in preventing the sheep from being snatched out of the
safety of their hands. There is no evidence that such was to be taken as an
ontological or metaphysical statement, as some apologists have
claimed, or a claim to be God, as Ehrman, Bird, and many evangelicals
evidently think.
John 14:9: Whoever has seen me has seen the Father
There is no biblical reason to think that Jesus statement to Philip in
Jn. 14:9 is a claim to be Almighty God (Trinitarianism or Binitarianism) or
a claim to be God the Father himself (Modalism). The point Jesus made to
the disciple Philip is entirely harmonious with how the NT documents
elsewhere describe Jesus as the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15)
and as the exact representation of [Gods] very being (Heb. 1:3).
In Col. 1:15 Jesus is not depicted as the invisible God himself but
the invisible Gods image or visible representation.18 Likewise, in Heb.
1:3, Jesus is not portrayed as the God of the Israelite fathers himself but as
the exact representation or reproduction19 of that Gods being.
When the author of Hebrews described the Son as an exact
representation or copy (Gk. charakter) of Gods very being (Gk.
hyposteseos), he was making use of a vivid metaphor.
18
In
the
ancient
world
(sometimes still in the modern
world), to make a document official,
often melted wax would be placed
on the paper and stamped by an
emblematic stamp or signet ring
which would serve as a seal or
signature of authentication from the
author or sender of the document.
He is the reflection of [Gods] glory and
Consequently the stamp or signet
the exact representation of his very being
ring would leave an impression in
Hebrews 1:3
the wax that would be an exact
representation (Gk. charakter) of
the original emblem (stamps like this were similarly impressed on coins and
on clay tablets). Just as the image on the wax (or clay) is not the original,
not the ring or emblem itself, yet is an exact representation of the emblem,
so, Gods Son, is likewise portrayed by the author of Hebrews as an exact
representation of Gods beingnot literally, or numerically identical to, God
himself.
In other words, in this metaphor, the signet ring would represent the
very being of God. The image left on the wax would represent the Son,
who is, consequently, portrayed as a copy, or representation, or exact
likeness of the original, not the original. To insistwith the classical
creedsthat the Son is the same being as the Father is unnecessary,
and is to confuse the original with the copy, the emblem on the signet ring
with the image impressed on the wax.
Though he clearly thought of himself as the Fathers Son and not as
the Father himself, Jesus could say, nevertheless, that those who had
seen him had indeed seen the Father (Jn. 14:9), because he knew
thatin word and in deedhe was the exact representation of the Father
who had sent him into the world (Compare Jn. 8:19; 12:45). Because the
NT portrays him as the chosen, sinless representation of the Father who in
fact dwells in him (Jn. 14:10), to honor Jesus, to believe in Jesus, to
receive Jesus, to know Jesus, and to see Jesus is to, in effect, honor,
believe in, receive, know, and see the God in whose name Jesus speaks
and acts (Jn. 5:23; 12:44-45; 13:20; 14:7, 9; Compare Jn. 5:43; 10:25).
How is it, though, that someone who is not Almighty Goda mere
creaturecan say that to see him is equivalent to seeing God? Part of
the answer lies in the fact that, biblically, and logically, one does not have
to be that one in order to represent that one. The other part of the
10
In the above texts, the treatment given to the sent one is equivalent to
the treatment given to the sender. In Mark 9 to receive a child in Jesus
name is to receive Jesus, without, obviously, meaning that the child and
Jesus are equal or identical. In turn, to receive Jesus is to, in effect,
receive the one who sent him, namely, God, without having to mean that
Jesus and God are either equal or identical. Likewise, he who hears
the disciples who faithfully pass on the word taught by Jesus hear Jesus
who sent them. This is so not because the disciples are Jesus,
ontologically equal to him, or because they somehow share his unique
identity or the like. To reject the ones sent by Jesus is to reject Jesus, and
to reject Jesus (who speaks the word God commanded him) is to reject the
God who commanded him what to speak. Clearly, a matter of identity or
equality is not what is in view but a matter of faithful representation on the
part of the one sent.
In a similar way, in the book of Acts, the risen Christ could speak of
Saul as persecuting him (Saul, why are you persecuting me? Acts 9:4). In
this case Saul was not persecuting Jesus literally, or directly (since he was
neither visible nor physically present on earth at that point), but the
11
community who represented him, without of course making Christ and the
Christian community equal or identical.
Matt. 25:31-46 is another example that illustrates the same basic
theme. With the final judgment in view, Jesus teaches that the way a
person treats the afflicted (the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked,
the sick, the prisoner) is indicative of how one regards Jesus himself. When
the righteous are granted entrance into the Fathers kingdom, Jesus says it
was based on the fact that they fed him, gave him drink, welcomed him,
clothed him, took care of him and visited him in prison. When the righteous
ask, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give
you something to drink? Jesus answers: Truly, I say to you, as you did it to
one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me. To the wicked,
however, he will say: Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the
least of these, you did not do it to me.
Biblically, to see Jesus is to see the God who sent him. To hear
Jesus apostles is to hear Jesus who commissioned them. To receive a
child in Jesus name is to receive Jesus. To persecute Christs followers
is to persecute Christ himself. To feed the hungry and clothe the naked is
to feed and clothe Jesus. To honor the Son is to honor the Father
(Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him
Jn. 5:23), and so forthall based on a matter of faithful representation on
the part of the sent one, not ontological identicalness or metaphysical
equality, or the like.
Michael Bird is right for pointing out: It is by looking at Jesus that we
see the face of God.20 But this is so from the NT perspective not because
Jesus is numerically or ontologically identical to the one God, but
because, as Gods sinless Son, Jesus isin all that he said and didthe
express image of that Gods very being. In another place Bird says:
In response to Ehrman, my objective is to show that Jesus identified
himself as a divine agent with a unique authority and a unique relationship
with Israels God. In addition, he spoke as one who spoke for God in an
immediate sense and believed himself to be embodying the very person of
God in his mission to renew and restore Israel21
12
13
Bird also helpfully shows that in the Old Testament the coming of the
Messiah was described also as the coming of God, finding this theme
notably in Isaiah 40:3 and mentioning John the Baptists use of that text
(54-57). If only Bird had closed the circuit of the argument and explained
why the citation of Isaiah 40:3 in the context of the Synoptics indicates that
Jesus is himself the Lord coming to his people!23
Bowman, How Jesus Became Godor How God Became Jesus? A Review of Bart Ehrmans New Book and a
Concurrent Response, Parchment & Pen Blog, March 25, 2014.
14
have left that task to his soldiers. This type of linguistic convention
undoubtedly explains the differences between Matthews and Lukes
narratives of the Capernaum centurion (Mt. 8:5-13; Lk. 7:1-10); in the
former the centurion himself comes to Jesus, while in the latter he sends
emissaries to summon the Lord. Lukes account is more literally accurate,
but Matthews way of phrasing it would have been considered no less
acceptable.24
Thus, if and whenever the biblical writers equate the coming of God
with the coming of the Messiah, it would be thoroughly consistent with the
NT portrayal of Jesus as Gods supreme emissary (Jn. 7:29; Heb. 3:1), or
divine agent par excellence.
But Gathercole also attempts to support the contention that Jesus is
identical to the God of Israel in the following way:
One of the best known facts about Jesus is that he chose the twelve
disciples, and scholars usually take this as Jesus forming the nucleus of a
renewed people of God, with the twelve disciples representing the twelve
tribes of Israel (Mark 3:13; Luke 6:13). This looks, therefore, as if Jesus is
occupying the position of God in the Old Testament and this is echoed in
the fact that Jesus has the power of electing people to be saved
elsewhere in the Gospels.25
The point about the twelve disciples really works against his case. It
is true that the twelve disciples were likely representing the twelve tribes of
Israel, as Gathercole points out. That is exactly the point. The disciples
were representing the twelve tribes of Israel; they were not actually or
literally the tribes of Israel themselves. In like manner Jesus the Messiah
who according to Gathercole formed the nucleus of a renewed people of
God was representing God in bringing about this purpose. Gathercole
goes on to argue:
The people of God in Mark can even be called his [i.e., Jesus] elect
(Mark 13:27/Matt 24:31): the people of God belong to Jesuswhat an
extraordinary thing it is that Jesus refers to angels belonging to him as
well (see also Matt 13:41 25:31).26
It is true that the people of God in Mark (and elsewhere in the NT) are
said to belong to Jesus. Does this mean that Jesus is the supreme God of
the OT as Gathercole and other defenders of evangelical orthodoxy have
implied? In the late 19th century a similar argument was advanced in regard
to the disputed translation of Titus 2:13 (some translations call Jesus God
24
15
Gathercole points out how extraordinary it is that even the angels are
said to belong to the Messiah. Gathercole is right. But the NT does not
present this extraordinary truth as a proof that Jesus is the God of Israel
himself. Instead all the NT writers who spoke to this issue portray it as the
result of the all-encompassing authority that God lovingly bestowed upon
him: The Father loves the Son and has entrusted everything to His hands
(Jn. 3:35, Weymouth).
At the end of Matthews account, following the resurrection, Jesus
told his disciples that he had been given not just a measure of authority but
all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:28). In addition to earthly
27
28
Abbot, Construction of Titus II. 13, from the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1881, p. 9.
John 17:6-10, NAB (emphasis added).
16
God of our Lord Jesus Christseated [Jesus] at his right hand in the
heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion,
and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the
one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head
over all things to the congregation (Eph. 1:17-22).
Jesus Christ who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God,
with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him (1Pet.
3:21-22).
According to the author of Hebrews, God has in fact not left anything
outside the Messiahs ruling authority: you [God] have crowned [Jesus]
with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet. Now in
putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control.29
Paul likewise clearly affirms the universal authority of Jesus the
exalted Messiah. Yet he labors to make the point clear that although all
things are in subjection to the Messiah, this would not include the God who
gave the Messiah the authority he came to posses:
Of course, when it says all things are under his authority, that does not
include God himself, who gave Christ his authority (1 Cor. 15:27, NLT).
17
and feeling the wounds on Jesus body, now convinced that he had risen
from the deadsaid to Jesus, My Lord and my God. Jesus responded:
Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who
have not seen and yet have believed (Jn. 20:29).
There appears to be no question that Thomas addressed Jesus as
his Lord and his God.30 The question isas Ehrman repeatedly
emphasizes in his bookin what sense did Thomas mean that?31 Chris
Tilling agrees: Ehrman is absolutely right that a key question to answer is:
In what sense did Christians think of Jesus as God?32
Upon careful reflection, the legitimacy of the question and the need
for clarification becomes evident. By calling Jesus Lord and God did
Thomas, for example, think that Jesus was the one God, the Father
(Modalism)? Not according to evangelical orthodoxy. Did Thomas mean
that Jesus was God in the absolute sense of the termas in the Most
High God, the God of Israel? Did Thomas mean that Jesus was God in
the sense ascribed to him by the fourth and fifth-century creeds, namely,
that he was of-one-being-with-the-Father, or that he was the Second
Person of a Triune God?
This is where the points brought out by Ehrman and Bird themselves
prove to be illuminating. Both writers helpfully point out that the term God
is used at times in biblical and extra-biblical (monotheistic) Jewish
literature of figures who are not God in the highest possible sense. In this
way the term God functions much like the terms Father, Lord, King,
and other descriptive words. That is to say, the Scriptures portray YHWH
as God, Father, Lord, and King in the highest sense. Yet others can
still appropriately bear the same descriptive terms without compromising or
calling into question the unique dignity of God, or the unique sense in which
God merits these exalted ascriptions.
Though God is Father in a supreme and exclusive sense (Deut.
32:6; Is. 63:16; Mal. 1:6; 2:10; Matt. 6:9; 1Cor. 8:6), Abraham is still,
biblically, the Father of many nations (Gen. 17:5), the patriarchal Father of
the Jewish people (Jn. 8:37-39), and the Father of all who have faith
(Rom. 4:11,16; Gal. 3:7). The figure in Isaiah 9:6 (for Christians, fulfilled
ultimately in Jesus) is even called everlasting Father but is clearly not
God the Father. The apostle Paul said he had become a Father to the
30
Unless, as some interpreters have suggested, that instead of directly calling Jesus himself God, Thomas was
actually expressing the fact that he finally recognized the truth that God was present in Jesus. In this way Thomas
declaration of faith would be understood in light of the account in Jn. 14:5-11 where the disciples are shown to have
not comprehended the point that to see and know Jesus was to see and know the Father who dwelled in him.
31
Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, p. 210.
32
Tilling, How God Became Jesus, p. 118.
18
33
Gen. 19:1-2; 23:26; 42:30; 2 Sam 1:10; Dan. 12:8; Acts 16:30; 25:26; Matt. 27:63; Jn. 12:21; 20:15.
The same principle applies to the term king. God is King in the highest sense. Others can still be, and be called,
king, or kings. For example, the prophet Daniel called Nebuchadnezzar king of kings because according to
Daniel the God of heaven had given him a kingdom (Dan. 2:37). There is also king David, king Solomon, and the rest
of the kings of Israel, etc. (1Kgs. 15:24).
35
Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, p. 55.
36
4QSongs of the Sabbath, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, Second Edition,
Edited by Florentino Garcia Martinez, translated by Wilfred G.E. Watson, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 422, 427.
34
19
Craig Blomberg makes the same basic point: The Hebrew for gods
(elohim) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh, without
implying any challenge to monotheism.38
Angels are called gods in the Bible and in extra-biblical Jewish
literature likely because of their exalted status as powerful heavenly beings
who serve and who often represent the Almighty. This is not surprising
given that the term for God in Hebrew (el or elohim) essentially means
mighty or powerful one. Paul even called Satan the god of this age,
likely, because the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one, as
John says (2Cor. 4:4; 1Jn. 5:19)demonstrating the link between the term
God and the concept of having power or authority over others (Compare
Jn. 16:11).
Even divinely-empowered human rulers or dignitaries were called
gods in biblical and other Jewish writings. Bird points out that Moses was
called God [Heb. elohim] in Exodus in Ex. 7:1 where YHWH tells Moses,
See, I have made you God [I have made thee a god ERV] to Pharaoh
(Compare Ex. 4:16). According to Bird this means that Moses will have
absolute divine power over Pharaoh and the Egyptian gods.39 Ehrman
similarly points out: Moreover, even though he was not God Almighty
himself, Moses, according to Philo, was called the god and king of the
whole nation (Life of Moses 1.158).40
Later in the history of Israel the judges of Israel were called gods
(Ps. 82:6), a point that Jesus himself affirms in Jn. 10:34 (Compare Ps.
58:1); and in Ps. 45:6 the king of Israel was also called God (Your throne,
37
20
O God, is forever and ever) though he was clearly not God in the
unqualified sense.
Thus in several instances biblical and extra-biblical Jewish writers
applied the term God or gods to exalted celestial figures (angels) and
divinely-empowered humans (judges, kings, leaders) without contradicting
the biblical doctrine of the one God, and without meaning that these
figures were God in the absolute sense, or members of the so-called
unique divine identity of Israels God.
With these biblical precedents in mind, it should come as no surprise
that the Messiah is called God in Scripture (Jn. 20:28; Heb. 1:8; possibly
Rom. 9:5, Tit. 2:13 and 2Pet. 1:1). If Moses can biblically be God to
Pharaoh, then surely the resurrected (and ultimately super-exalted)
Messiah who is worthy of greater honor than Moses can be God to
Thomas and to the entire community of believers (Heb. 3:3; Rom. 9:5).
Likewise since angels were, biblically, gods, then it would have been
surprising and inconsistent for the biblical writers not to have called the
Lord Jesus Christ God. If Scripture calls angels gods, how much more
deserving is the one who is far superior to the angels, as the name he has
inherited is more excellent than theirs (Heb. 1:4)?
When Thomas called Jesus God he did so within a contextthe
Gospel of Johnthat portrays Jesus as God in a sense distinct from the
sense in which the Father is unqualifiedly God. In this Gospel, Jesus
portrays himself, rather clearly, as a distinct figure from the only true God
(Jn. 17:3; 8:42; 14:1), as one who was sent by that same God (Jn. 8:29), as
part of the community of those who worship God (Jn. 4:22), and portrays
the God whom the Jews professed to worship as his God and Father (Jn.
8:54; 20:17).
Though Jesus is called God by Thomas, the Gospel of John does
not conceive of his Godship in the post-biblical Trinitarian sense (i.e., as
God the Son, the second person of the Trinity), but in the biblical sense
(i.e., the Godship/divine authority Jesus possesses as the Messiah is the
kind that allows him to have one who is God to or above him, whereas the
Fathers absolute Godship does not). Though rightly honored as God in
the NT, the Messiah always remains subject to the unqualified Godship of
his God and Father (Jn. 20:17; Compare Heb. 1:8-9; Rev. 3:2, 12).
John 1:1: In the beginning was the word
In the chapter titled Paradox Pushers and Persecutors? Charles Hill claims:
21
The writer of the Gospel of John clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is
preexistent God, even from the very first verse: and the Word was God
(John 1:1).41
41
22
mind and purpose.44 As Ehrman observes: since this Word was the Word
of God, it perfectly manifested the divine being of the Father and for that
reason was itself rightly called God.45 Ehrman also says: since it is Gods
word, his own outward expression of himself, it fully represents who he is,
and does nothing else, and in this sense it is itself God. So John tells us
that the Word was both with God and was God.46
Another possibility is that John meant to say that the word was not
God (ho theos) but a god (theos). In spite of popular arguments to the
contrary, Jn. 1:1 could very well mean and be legitimately translated the
word was a god. Other texts with the same or similar grammatical
construction include Jn. 8:34: Everyone who does sin is a slave of sin; Jn.
8:48: You are a Samaritan; Jn. 9:24: This man is a sinner; Jn: 9:28: You
are a disciple of that man; Jn. 10:1: This one is a thief; Jn. 12:6: He was a
thief; Acts 28:4: this man is a murderer.
In addition, the logos of Jn. 1:1 as a god is consistent with Philos
reference to the logos as a second god [Gk. deuteros theos],47 with Justin
Martyrs description of Christ as another God who is subject to the maker
of all things,48 is supported by the 2nd/3rd century Coptic translation (auw
neunoute pe pshaje; literally and a god was the word),49 and is congruent
with the most ancient manuscript reading of Jn. 1:18 which describes the
Son as a unique/only-begotten god who dwells in the bosom of the
Father. The a god translation is likewise consistent with what we know
overall about the flexibility of the term God (or god) and its application in
biblical and Jewish literature to exalted figures without representing a threat
to the Bibles one God doctrine.
If this is the correct sense, then it seems reasonable to conclude that
John did in fact mean that the logos was a divine being (a distinct person or
44
As one evangelical writer observed in a recent publication: Given the allusion to the creative speech of Genesis
1:3, 6, 9, etc., the meaning of Logos seems to be close to rational creative agent or principle. Peter Grice, True
Reason, Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2013), p. 133.
45
Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, p. 273.
46
Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, p. 275.
47
James Dunn observed: Philo demonstrates that a distinction between ho theos and theos such as we find in John
1.1b-c, would be deliberate by the author and significant for the Greek reader. Not only so, Philo shows that he could
happily call the Logos God/god without infringing his monotheism (or even the second God Qu.Gen. II.62).
Bearing in mind our findings with regard to the Logos in Philo, this cannot but be significant: the Logos for Philo is
God not as a being independent of the God but as the God in his knowability the Logos standing for that limited
apprehension of the one God which is all that the rational man, even the mystic may attain to. Christology in the
Making, A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, Second Edition (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1989), p. 241.
48
In Chapter 56 of Justin Martyrs Dialogue with Trypho, Justin says: I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have
understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord
subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker
of all thingsabove whom there is no other Godwishes to announce to them.
49
Unlike Koine Greek, which does not have an indefinite article (as in a or an), Coptic does have an indefinite
article which was used by the Coptic translators at John 1:1c.
23
entity that was with God in the beginning), unless this was Johns way of
poetically personifying the word as a god, in a similar way that the book of
Proverbs appears to poetically liken Gods wisdom to a master workman
that was with God before the beginning of the earth (Prov. 8:22-30).
Moreover, the link between word (logos) and wisdom (sophia) has
always been recognized: If wisdom is something that people have within
themselves, then Logos is the outward manifestation of the wisdom when
the person speaks.50
It is not that the word as a god translation can be proven
incontrovertibly correct, or that it is strictly necessary. It is only that,
contrary to popular belief, the a god translation cannot be dogmatically
ruled out on either grammatical or theological grounds. Grammatically, the
translation is certainly possible and, theologically, represents no conflict
with biblical monotheism since the biblical writers did not, and did not
have to, deny the existence of other gods in order to affirm the unique and
supreme Godship of YHWH and their exclusive devotion to him as God.
Hebrews 1:8: Your throne, O God, is forever and ever
In the first chapter of Hebrews the author quotes and applies an OT
text to Jesus:
But about the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved
righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set
you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.
The quotation is from Ps. 45:6-7 in which the original referent (the
king of Israel) was called God. One Bible commentary points out: since in
Hebrew thought the occupant of the throne of David was regarded as
Gods representative, it is in this sense that the king could be addressed as
God.51 The footnote in the New English Translation makes the same point:
Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as God because he ruled and fought
as Gods representative on earth. Professor Marianne Thompson gives
added insight:
In some instances theos or elohim predicates a God-given privilege or
function of an individual, with the exact nature of that privilege or function
50
24
In reference to the original Psalm, Ehrman helpfully points out the following:
It is clear that the person addressed as O God (Elohim) is not God
Almighty but the king, because of what is said later: God Almighty is the
kings own God and has anointed him with oilthe standard act of the
kings coronation ceremony in ancient Israel. And so God has both
anointed and exalted the king above all others, even to a level of deity.
The king is in the some sense God. Not equal with God Almighty,
obviously (since the differentiation is made clearly, even here), but God
nonetheless.53
Thompson also says: Other passages seem to refer to the gods (elohim) of the heavenly council (Ps. 82:1, 6 [MT])
or to various sorts of human judgment (Exod. 21:6; 22:7-9). In these passages in Exodus, the Targums [Aramaic
paraphrases of the Scriptures] read judges for elohim, and later midrashim [Jewish commentaries on the OT
compiled between A.D. 400 and 1200] offer variations such as the judgment seat of God. When elohim refers to
heavenly beings, the LXX typically renders it as angels (angeloi, Ps. 96:7; Job 1:6) or sons of God (huioi theou,
Deut. 32:43
53
Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, p. 79.
54
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1992), p.201.
55
Bird, How God Became Jesus, p. 42.
25
his own God (i.e., your God) upon whom he is reliant for the reception of
his reign (Heb. 1:9).
The fact that Jesus has his own God, even in his God status, is at
odds with evangelical tradition. The traditional rationale for the claim that
Jesus is God in the supreme sense, in spite of the fact that the Father is his
God, hinges on the notion that Jesus is fully God and fully man at the
same timethe so-called hypostatic union or dual nature of Christ. That
is to say, from this perspective, only as a man, or by virtue of his human
nature, can the Father be the God of Jesus. Heb. 1:8-9, however, clearly
demonstrates that, even as God, the Father is his God, revealing the
traditional claim to be contrived, not biblical.
Thus, in Heb. 1:8, Jesus is indeed God (as was the Davidic king in
Ps. 45:6) but, scripturally, Jesus Godhood is dependent upon God and is
the kind of Godhood that allows for him to have a supreme God above him,
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 15:6).
Mark 2:7: He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?
Simon Gathercole says that in the Synoptic Gospels it looks like
Jesus has the privileges of YHWH, God himself, with the implication that
Jesus therefore is YHWH, or that he shares in the identity of YHWH, the
God of Israel:
Strikingly, Jesus says and does things that not only overlap with what God
in the Old Testament says and does. Jesus says and does things that are
privileges uniquely of the God of IsraelOne of the most remarkable
statements is Jesus authority to forgive sins, seen once in Matthew and
Mark and twice in Luke (2:1-10 and parallels; also Luke 749). It is difficult
to see this as merely something Jesus can do as a god low down in the
divine pecking order because it is somethingas the scribes in Mark 2
recognizethat is a prerogative uniquely of the one true God.56
26
Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him,
for he will not forgive your transgression, for my name is in him (Ex.
23:21).
Birds claim is surprising because Jesus does not in fact claim for
himself an unmediated divine authority in the NT but a mediated one. The
Gospels clearly present Jesus authority to forgive sins as an authority God
gave (or mediated) to him. In Matthews account, Jesus emphasizes the
57
27
point that, as the Son of Man (not as the God of Israel) he had authority
on earth to forgive sins. Matthew reflects on the event by saying: When the
crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such
authority to men (Matt. 9:8, emphasis added). Later Gathercole observes:
To be sure, Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels as having extraordinary
authorityto repeat examples noted already, he has authority on earth to
forgive sins and authority over the Sabbath (Mark 2:10, 28). Matthew and
Luke record saying in which Jesus states that all things have been
committed to him by his Father (Matt 11:27/Luke 10:22).60
Exactly. As Gathercole points out, Jesus said that all things had been
committed to him by his Father. Therefore, the extraordinary authority
Jesus demonstrated in the NT as the Son of Man was not unmediated
but mediated to him by God.
Jesus as the Prophet Daniels Son of Man
Michael Bird observes that the overwhelming testimony of the Jesus
tradition is that the Son of Man is an apocalyptically encoded way of Jesus
self-describing his role as the one who embodies Gods authority on earth,
achieves Gods salvation by his death and resurrection, and shares Gods
glory in his enthronementJesus really outs himself not only as the
Messiah, but as a Messiah enthroned with God.61 In the chapter Did Jesus
Think He Was God? Bird also says:
at Jesus trial, he most likely spoke to the effect that he believed that he
was the figure of Dan 7:13-14 and that he was rightfully enthroned beside
God.62
60
28
In this passage [Matt. 26:63-64], Jesus is citing Daniel 7:13 where the
Messiah is described as the Ancient of Days, a phrase used to indicate
His deity (cf. Dan. 7:9).63
Geisler, Howe, When Critics Ask, A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (U.S.A: Victor Books, 1992), p. 336.
Bird, How God Became Jesus, p. 65.
65
Bird, How God Became Jesus, p. 66.
64
29
exactly what Bird describes him as, namely, a figure who would be
enthroned beside God on Gods throne.
But Bird asks the rhetorical question: Does YHWH share his throne
with anybody?66as if to imply that since YHWH does not share his throne
with anybody, according to Bird, we must conclude that therefore Jesus is
YHWH, or that he shares in the identity of YHWH.
Birds rhetorical question overlooks the biblical pattern and imposes
an anachronistic interpretation onto the biblical text. In the OT king
Solomon is said to have sat on YHWHs throne in Jerusalem not because
he was YHWH himself, of course, but because he was YHWHs appointed
king and representative:
Then Solomon sat on the throne of YHWH as king in place of David his
father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him (1 Chron. 29:23).
In the book of Revelation Jesus reveals that just as he had sat down
on his Fathers throne (i.e., the throne of YHWH) so too would his faithful
followers sit with him on his throne:
The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I
also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne (Rev. 3:21).
Are the ones who conquer in this text Jesus himself, or YHWH
himself, because they sit with Jesus on his throne? Are they members of
the Godhead? Are they those who share in the unique identity of Jesus
Christ or the God of Israel? Or are they, rather, those who have been
similarly exalted and granted an extraordinary honor by one who is greater
than themselves, as Jesus was?
Dan. 7:13 does not portray the son of man figure as YHWH himself. It
presents, instead, a heavenly vision of an exalted human or human-like
figure (one like a son of man) who approaches the Ancient of Days, not
one who is the Ancient of Days (i.e., God) himself. Ps. 110:1 likewise
presents the same messianic figure, Davids Lord, as the figure whom
YHWH speaks to and tells to sit at his right hand. Davids Lord is not
portrayed as YHWH himself. Why would one think so if Davids Lord is not
identified as YHWH but as the figure YHWH speaks to?
Philippians 2: Therefore, God has so highly exalted him
It is remarkable that defenders of orthodoxy remain so absolute in
their appeal to Phil. 2 as a proof-text for the deity of Christ, or for the
incarnation of God the Son, or for the hypostatic union (two natures) of
66
30
Christ. Ehrman points out that among scholars, it is one of the most
discussed, argued over, and commented upon passages in the New
Testament.67 Richard Bauckham similarly observes: Philippians 2:6-11 is
the subject of one of the most complex exegetical debates in New
Testament scholarship.68
Due to several uncertainties in terms of the original language, nearly
every aspect of this text has been subjected to diverse and conflicting
interpretations. Does Paul have in mind, at the start, a pre-existent
Christ? Or is he speaking about the human Jesus from the beginning?
What did Paul mean by the form of God exactly? Was Jesus equal to
God and did he not try to exploit or take advantage of his equality with
him? If so, what did Paul mean by equality (or likeness)? Or, was Jesus
not equal to God and did not even think to seize or grasp after equality
with him? What did Paul mean when he said that Jesus emptied himself?
Emptied himself of what? Is this literal or figurative language? Even
conservative NT interpreters do not fully agree on these issues.
In spite of the relative uncertainties that exist, however, much
remains clear. The first is that Pauls point was to induce the Christians to
imitate the same attitude of mind that was in Christ Jesusan attitude of
humility and selfless service (Phil. 2:3-5). Secondly, nowhere in this
passage is Jesus directly called God, or portrayed as God himself. He is
described, rather, as an obedient human being who died on a cross (Phil.
2:7-8), and he is clearly depicted as a distinguishable figure from God,
since he had (or did not have) a certain kind of relationship to God
(equality/likeness). Furthermore, it was God who so highly exalted him
and God who graciously gave him the name that is above all others (Phil.
2:9). Charles Hill, however, makes the following claim:
this [pre-Pauline] author too did not see the preexistence of Christ as
God as contradicted by his exaltation to heavenly status after the
resurrection.69
67
31
Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi, Philippians 2:5-11 In Recent Interpretation in the Setting of Early Christian
Worship, Revise Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), pgs. 107-112.
71
Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, p. 263.
72
Tilling, How God Became Jesus, p. 146.
73
Tilling, How God Became Jesus, p. 146.
32
Jn. 6:15 uses the same term: Jesus therefore perceived that [those
who had seen the miracle that Jesus did] would come and take him by
force [harpazein], to make him a king (KJV).
The Greek harpazein auton indicates that the people tried to seize
him in order to make Jesus king. That is why some translations have: they
meant to come and seize him (NEB), come and snatch Him
(Concordant), seize him by force (NET), carry Him off by force
(Williams). This helps to explain the Todays English Versions choice of
words for Phil. 2:6:
he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.
33
robbery which might have raised him higher[in] the Greek, and in
English, the word [harpagmos] involved the idea of violent seizure, and
what Christ resisted was not merely the prize but the means of obtaining
it. He refused to seize for his own the glory which belonged to God.75
The Interpreters Bible, Volume XI, The Epistle to the Philippians (Abingdon: Nashville: 1955), p. 48.
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, An Introduction and
Commentary, pp. 101, 102 (word in brackets added for clarification).
77
The commentary in the Westminster Version of the New Testament says that the expression is literally translated.
76
34
Tilling, however, quotes N.T. Wright who said: The God who refused
to share his glory with another has shared it with Jesus79as if to suggest
that the glory the NT attributes to Jesus requires, biblically or logically, that
Jesus be literally YHWH himself or that he share in the identity of God.
The conclusion is misguided. That the Messiah is glorified, or worshiped in
Phil. 2:10-11 and in other NT texts does not require that Jesus shares
Gods unique identity (i.e., that Jesus is the one God), nor does it conflict
with the principle of God refusing to share his glory with another (Isa. 42:8).
Examples of glory given to other figures in the NT help to make this clear.
In Jn. 17, for instance, Jesus prayed to God on behalf of his disciples:
The glory that you have given me I have given to them (Jn. 17:22).
In this instance, the disciples are given the glory that God had
given to the Son. This does not, however, conflict with Isa. 42:8 (where
God declares that he would not give his glory to another); nor does this
78
79
35
make the disciples God themselves or part of the so-called divine identity.
In the context of Isaiah, Gods refusal to share his glory with others speaks
to the unwillingness on his part to share glory with an undeserving rival or
competing god, particularly a man-made idol.80 Biblically, however, God
gladly confers glory upon those who serve him and carry out his will and
purpose. That is why Peter could say to his fellow Israelites:
The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of
our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus (Acts 3:13, emphasis added).
The entire verse from Isaiah reads: I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither
my praise unto graven images. Isaiah 42:8, ASV. This shows from the context that Jehovah was excluding the
gods of the nations in the form of carved idols (ESV) at the time of the prophet; certainly not his only-begotten Son
whom he would later glorify and exalt, the beloved one with whom God is well-pleased. Compare Is. 52:13; Matt.
3:17; Phil. 2:8-11.
81
Larry Hurtados Blog, Comments on the New Testament and Early Christianity (and related matters), Messiah and
Worship, March 19, 2014. http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/
36
In Phil. 2 Paul speaks of the Son as one who was obedient (i.e.,
obedient to God) to the point of death on a cross, and it was for this
reason (NASB), in consequence of this (Weymouth), that God has
super-exalted Jesus and given him the highest name so that all bow to
him and confess his Lordship. All this is to the glory of God the Father.
Thus, the worship the Lord Jesus receives in the NT is based on Gods will
and own exaltation of him. It is in no way a threat or compromise to the
glory of God but, in fact, enhances Gods glory.
Chris Tilling rightly observes that the Philippians poem is all about
the graciousness of true divinity.82 Jesus honors God through his
obedience, even to the point of dying the agonizing death of crucifixion.
God, in turn, gives Jesus an unprecedented exalted status right next to him
as Lord and kindly gives to him the name that is above every name
which is, ultimately, a testimony to the goodness, generosity, graciousness,
and glory of the one God. The Tyndale Commentaries point out:
The honor which [Christ] refused to arrogate to himself is now conferred
upon him by the Fathers good pleasure: gave him (echarisato) bears the
sense of granted by the exercise of a favor (charis).
This is why careful translators have rendered the verse not simply
given him but graces him (Concordant), favoured him (Rotherham),
freely granted him (Diaglott) the name above all other names.
Thussetting aside the more controversial points of interpretation
the entire context of Phil. 2 plainly presents Jesus not as God but as a
distinct figure from God who was obedient to him, who died, and who was
subsequently super-exalted by God and kindly given the name that is
above every name by that same Godresulting in the magnification of the
glory of the God who decreed it to be so.
Ehrman points out correctly: God had taken Jesus up to himself in
the heavenly realm, to be with him. God had exalted him to a position of
virtually unheard-of status and authority.83
Jesus exalted status and authority was indeed extraordinary and, as
Ehrman says, virtually unheard of, but not entirely so from the biblical
perspective. What Ehrman calls the virtually unheard-of status and
authority of Jesus in the NT was echoed in the prophetic oracle of David
centuries earlier. The famous Psalm of David (110:1) spoke of a messianic
figure (Davids Lord) who would be exalted to the right hand of God,
showing that the position of authority Jesus would assume in the NT era
82
83
37
38
The judges or ancient rulers of Israel were sons of the Most High
(Ps. 82:6). The Jewish Apocryphal Book of Wisdom similarly portrays an
unidentified righteous man as Gods son (2:12-20); and in at least two
85
39
biblical instances the angels were, likewise, portrayed as Gods sons (Gen.
6:4; Job 1:6).
The son-of-God language appears in the NT as well. Adam, the first
man, is called son of God (Lk. 3:38). Jesus said that peacemakers
would be called sons of God (Matt. 5:9). Believers are described as Gods
sons (Lk. 20:36; Rom. 8:14; 9:26; Gal. 3:26; 4:6) and, even, sons of the
living God (Rom. 9:26). Jesus the only-begotten/unique Son of God is,
harmoniously, the firstborn among many brothers (Rom. 8:29).
There is no biblical instance where the language/concept son-ofGod means one-who-is-himself-God or one-who-is-equal-to-God, or
one-who-shares-the-unique-identity-of-God, etc. In all instances a son of
God referred to individuals (angels, kings) or a nation (Israel) that had a
special relationship to God, and, often, one who was specially blessed by,
favored by, and beloved of God.
In what sense, then, does the NT portray Jesus as Son of God?
Biblically, Jesus appears to be Son of God not just for one reason but for
an accumulation of good reasons.
The opening of the Gospel of Luke, for example, appears to portray
Jesus as the Son of God in the sense that he had no human father. God
was his true Father (Lk. 1:35). As Ehrman observes:
He will be called the Son of God because he will in fact be the Son of God.
It is God, not Joseph, who will make Mary pregnant, so the child she bears
will be Gods offspring.88
40
Jesus is not only called Gods Son but repeatedly speaks of knowing
God, personally, as his own Father (my Father Matt. 11:27; Lk. 10:22; Jn.
5:17; 7:29; 20:17). This confirms the reciprocal nature of the Father-Son
relationship and the authenticity of Jesus sonship before God. Of the
Gospel of Mark, Blomberg observes: Calling God his own Father in a
uniquely intimate sense corresponds to Marks portrayal of Jesus
addressing God as Abba (Mark 14:36). But if God is Jesus Father, then
Jesus is Gods Son, a title that could be used in Judaism simply as a
synonym for Messiah.91
Speaking as a conservative evangelical, Blomberg even concedes
the following point:
[Jesus] repeated contrasts between himself as Son and God as Father
amount to the same thing. And we must again remember that Son of God
could be a virtual synonym for Messiah in first-century Judaism (above, p.
80); it certainly did not yet mean everything implied by the second person
of the Trinity as formulated by later creeds and councils.92
One wonders, then, when exactly did Son of God come to mean
everything implied by the second person of the Trinity? Certainly the NT
writers did not use this language. What evidence is there that such
language accurately represents the viewpoint they consciously held?
Ehrman correctly points out that in the context of first-century
Palestinian Judaism the word anointed or Christ always means
something like chosen and specially honored by God. It usually carries
with it the connotation in order to fulfill Gods purposes and mediate his will
on earth.93
Ehrmans observation is confirmed by Peters proclamation, where
the messianic concept did not involve the Messiah being God himself but
one who was anointed by God and empowered to fulfill Gods good
purpose:
91
41
God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He
went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil,
for God was with him (Acts 10:38).
and behold a voice from heaven said, this is my beloved Son with
whom I am well pleased (Matt. 3:17).
The one who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do
the things that are pleasing to him (Jn. 8:29).
just as I have kept my Fathers commands and remain in his love (Jn.
15:10).
If you know that [God] is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who
practices righteousness has been born of him (1Jn 2:29).
By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children
of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is
the one who does not love his brother (1Jn. 3:10).
In Jn. 8 Jesus also describes the devil as the father of lies. Clearly,
the devil is the father of lies because he is the originator, or begetter, of
the lie, i.e., the one who first brought the lie into existence. The NT calls
God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is fittingly
described as one who was born of God (1Jn. 5:18) and as Gods
firstborn (Heb. 1:6; Col. 1:15). In the absence of any articulation to the
contrary,either on the part of Jesus or his apostleswhat reason would
those in the first century who heard Jesus proclaimed as Gods Son have
had to interpret any of this language to mean that Jesus was, somehow, a
son who was as old as his eternal (beginningless) Father?
That Jesus is portrayed in the NT as having derived the life he has
from the Father who begat him seems to be integral to the authenticity of
his sonship before God as well. Do not the very terms Father and Son in
connection with God and Jesus imply that the Father is senior to, and lifegiver of, the Son who was born of him? As Gods genuine Son, Jesus
himself revealed that the life he had within himself was given or granted
to him by his Father and that he lives because of the Father (Jn. 5:26;
6:57). On the other hand, nowhere in the NT accounts did Jesus teach that
the life he possessed as Gods Son was without beginning or that he was
self-existent as the biblical God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, presumably is.
The authentic nature of Jesus sonship also appears to be closely
connected to the resurrection. In Rom. 1:3-4 Paul says of Gods Son:
He was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to
be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his
resurrection from the dead
It is not that this was the first or only time Jesus was identified as Son
of God, since he was identified as Gods Son prior to the resurrection.
43
McKenzie, Light on the Gospels (Illinois: The Thomas More Press, 1975), p. 187.
The New Clarendon Bible (New Testament), The Gospel According to John, With Introduction and Commentary
(Durham: Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1970), p. 71. Marriane Thompson makes the same basic point: the charge
that Jesus makes himself equal to God is countered by showing that the Son does all that he does through his
dependence on the Father (5:19). Hence, the Son is not independent of, but rather dependent on, the Father in all
things. The Father has authorized the Son precisely to exercise divine activities and prerogatives, including the giving
of life, passing judgment, and working on the Sabbath. The God of the Gospel of John, p. 234 (emphasis added).
96
In either interpretation, there is still a difference between making oneself equal with God and making oneself God.
Logically, if one is equal with God, one is not God but one who is equal with God, however equality is
interpreted. Equality with someone or something is not the same as identity with someone or something.
97
Compare Jn. 8:42-56.
95
45
If Ehrman is correct that the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is God was
not the original belief of Jesus disciples, then the statement should be reworded:
At the heart of the Christian faith is the spectacular claim: Jesus of
Nazareth was, and is, the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:13).
46
favor, and it is through the Messiah that God mediates his will on earth.
Only, unlike Israel as a whole, the Messiah was entirely faithful as a Son
before God. Bird similarly says:
The Johannine Evangelist interprets the Jesus tradition in a specific
theological trajectory, but he shares with the other Evangelists a
conception of Jesus as the Messiah and one-of-kind Son of God, in whom
God is definitively revealed.102
47
Unfortunately, the claims that (1) Paul included Christ in the shema
(Deut. 6:4), that (2) all the words of the shema in the Greek are repeated in
1Cor. 8:6, and that (3) God and Lord are split between the Father and
Jesus are, demonstrably, wrong and ill conceived.
104
105
Bauckham, God Crucified, Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament, p. viii.
Tilling, How God Became Jesus, p. 141.
48
First, in 1Cor. 8:6, Paul did not quote the shema (Hear O Israel, the
Lord [Heb. YHWH] our God, the Lord [Heb. YHWH] is one) or make any
clear reference to it; so, exegetically, it is not clear why Tilling, or
Bauckham, would claim with such certainty that Paul included Christ
within it. Perhaps it is possible that Paul alluded to the shema when he said
there is no God but one in vs. 4 since both Deut. 6:4 and 1Cor. 8:4 use
the word one and obviously refer to the same God. They are still,
nevertheless, two distinct statements (the Lord [YHWH] is one vs there is
no God but one).
Contrary to Tilling, all the Greek words in the Greek version of the
shema are not repeated in 1Cor. 8:6. Paul neither prefaces his statement
about God with Hear O Israel, nor does Paul repeat the key expression,
the Lord is one. Three key words (Lord [kurios], God [theos], and one
[heis]) do appear in both texts (Deut. 6:4 and 1Cor. 8:6), but the word
order, syntactical structure, and resulting meanings are distinct.
This is not difficult to see. The shema says, the Lord [YHWH] our
God, the Lord is one. Paul says, there is one God, the Fatherand one
Lord, Jesus Christ. Moreover, the word Lord (Gk. kurios) in the Greek
version is representative of the divine name (YHWH) that appears in the
Hebrew text, which does not appear and is not represented by any term in
1Cor. 8:6.
The claim that Paul somehow splits the shema between God the
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ is equally strange and erroneous. Paul
identifies the one God (i.e., the God of the shema) as the Father (not as
the Father and Jesus). Somehow Bauckham, Tilling and those who have
endorsed this view fail to recognize that when Paul goes on to speak about
the one Lord, Jesus Christ, he is not longer talking about the one God,
but a figure distinct from the one God.
We know that, in fact, Pauls creed was based on a contrast between
the numerous gods and lords of the surrounding world and the faith of the
Christian community. Though the world may have many gods and many
lords, Christians recognize only one from each category. For Paul, and
for the Christian community, the one God was the Father (Paul did not
identify the one God as Father and Son). If we assume Paul agreed with
his fellow apostles, then he recognized Jesus Christ as his one Lord
based on the fact that the same one God of 1Cor. 8:6 exalted Jesus and
endowed him with the Lordship he came to exercise over Paul and the
community of believers. In the words of Peter, Jesus is Lord because the
same one God has made him both Lord and Messiah (Acts 2:36). In
49
contrast, the Deuteronomic Lord of the shema was not made Lord, or
granted his exalted status by another, as Jesus was.
Clearly, Pauls creedal statement in 1Cor. 8:6 presents the same
basic picture aseven the fulfillment ofPs. 110:1, where YHWH (i.e.,
Pauls one God) tells Davids Lord (i.e., Pauls one Lord) to sit at his
right hand. Davids Psalm portrays Davids Lord explicitly as a distinct
figure from YHWH, just as clearly as Pauls creed portrays the one Lord,
Jesus Christ as a distinct figure from the one God he is paired with. In
reference to Ps. 110:1, Ehrman was right for pointing out what is really
basic:
There is not a question of identity or absolute parity herethe king, sitting
at Gods right handis not God Almighty himself. That is clear from what
is said next: God will conquer the kings enemies for him and put them
under his feet. But he is doing to so for one whom he has exalted up to the
level of his own throne.106
50
Scripture, as one who took the form of a slave (even washed his disciples
feet) and as one who came not to serve but to serve and give his life as a
ransom for many. Jesus is also portrayed, emphatically, as one whose role
was to carry out the will of God in total obedience (I have come down
from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me;
obedient to the point of death, etc.).108 Scripturally it is because of his
servanthood and obedience to God that Jesus attains his authority and
glorified status as a fitting gift from the God who greatly exalted him. On
Jesus Lordship in 1Cor. 8:6, Andrew Perriman perceptively pointed out:
when Paul says that for us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, he is not
saying that Jesus is the LORD in the Shema, that Jesus is YHWH. He is
saying that Jesus has been given an authorityor a nameabove that of
all the other lords that hold sway in the Greek-Roman world. He does not
have this authority as YHWH. He has received it from YHWH.109
Paul said nothing like this, of course. The only person Paul includes
in the unique identity of this one God is, of course, the Father.
Bauckham also claims:
Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation
of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite
clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine
identity. He is redefining monotheism as Christological monotheism. If he
were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the
Shema speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he
would certainly be producing not Christological monotheism but outright
ditheism.111
Compare Acts 2:36; Is. 52:13; Jn. 6:38; 13:5; Mk. 10:45; Phil. 2:6-8; Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:8-10.
Perriman, Is the Shema really so important for understanding one Godone Lord in 1 Corinthians 8:6?
http://www.postost.net/
110
Bauckham, God Crucified, p. 4.
111
Bauckham, God Crucified, p. 38.
109
51
the identity or category of the one God. Instead Paul calls the one God
the Father and portrays the one Lord, Jesus as a distinct figure from the
one God. Paul is neither producing Christological monotheism (whatever
that means) nor ditheism (belief in two Gods) because Paul nowhere
speaks of the Lord Jesus as the one God nor does he speak of two Gods
but one, the Father.
In the preface to God Crucified where he claims that the early
Christians unambiguously included Jesus in the unique identity of the one
God of Israel, Bauckham says:
They did so by including Jesus in the unique, defining characteristics by
which Jewish monotheism identified God as unique.112
52
Perplexingly, Bauckham and those who follow his lead have tried to
merge the Father and Jesus into the same category or identity as the one
Godexactly what Paul does not do! To simply read the text is to expose
the claim as baseless. Bauckham even goes as far as to claim:
Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema a Lord the Shema does
not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the Lord whom the Shema affirms
to be one. Thus, in Pauls quite unprecedented reformulation of the
Shema, the unique identity of the one god consists of the one God, the
Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah.115
115
116
Bauckham, God Crucified, Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament, p. 38.
Bauckham, God Crucified, Preface.
53
between Jesus and God, even Jesus and the one/only true God, is
apparent all throughout the NT writings:
This is eternal life, their knowing you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom you have sent (Jn. 17:3).
to us there is one God, the Fatherand one Lord, Jesus Christ...
(1Cor. 8:6).
I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a
wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God (1Cor. 11:13).
you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to
wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus
(1Thess. 1:9-10; Tilling observes that our earliest surviving writing is
probably 1 Thessalonians, How God Became Jesus, p. 130).
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus (1Tim. 2:5).
The God who made the world and everything in ithas fixed a day on
which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has
appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from
the dead (Acts 17:22-31).
What about Jesus words to the Jews would have given them or
anyone else the impression that Jesus was claiming to be God? Here
Jesus portrays himself not only as a man but as a man who spoke the
truth that he heard from God, not as God himself. In the same account:
Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I
came from God and am here; I did not come on my own, but he sent me
(Jn. 8:40-42).
In this instance, Jesus did not say to the Jews, If God were your
Father, you would love me, because I am God, or the like. Jesus indicated,
rather, that the children of God would love him because he came from
God, and even emphasizes the point that he did not come on his own but
was sent by God. Immediately after Jesus asks his hostile audience:
Why do you not understand what I say? Perhaps the same question could
be posed to the modern defenders of orthodoxy. As the NIV puts it: Why is
my language not clear to you? (Jn. 8:43). In the same account:
Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father
who glorifies me, of whom you say, He is our God (Jn. 8:54).
Here Jesus does not identify himself as the God the Jews professed
to worship. He indicates, rather, that the one they claimed as their God
(i.e., YHWH, the God of Israel) was his Father. Later, in Jn. 14, Jesus tells
his disciples:
Believe in God; believe also in me (Jn. 14:10).
If Jesus wanted his disciples to believe that he was God, why does
he always portray God as someone other than himself? Why does Jesus
portray himself as an object of faith in addition to God?
The proclamations of the apostles in the book of Acts are no different.
In a speech delivered to a crowd of fellow Israelites, Peter said:
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you
by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through
117
55
What about Peters words would have led the Jews to believe that
Jesus was the God of their fathers? How would portraying Jesus as the
servant of the God of their fathers whom God raised from the dead have
served to convince them that he was that very same God? Peter similarly
declared to the Sanhedrin (the Jewish Supreme Court):
The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a
tree. He is the one God exalted to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to
give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins (Acts 5:30).
Why is the articulation of the point that Jesus was the God of the
Jewish forefathers absent from Peters proclamation, if that is what Peter
allegedly believed? Likewise, in Acts 10, Peter said to Cornelius:
God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He
went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil,
for God was with him [Gk. ho theos en met autou] (Acts 10:38).
How could Peter have hoped to convince his Gentile audience that
Jesus was God by speaking of Jesus as a figure whom God anointed and
as a man who did good based on God being with him? The disciple
Steven used the same kind of language of Joseph: And the patriarchs,
jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him [Gk. ho theos
met autou] (Acts 7:9, emphasis added).
To the uninitiated it might seem puzzling that so many would
conclude that Jesus is God when Scripture so clearly and consistently
portrays God (even the the only true God) and Jesus as distinct figures.
56
Thus such a basic point as this is based on nothing more than a recognition
of what the terms would have meant to those who first uttered them and
how those same terms would have been understood by their original, firstcentury audience.
What reason, then, is there for not allowing the NT distinction
between God and Jesus to carry its original and most natural force
(what it would have meant or implied to those who first heard it)? In this
respect it seems to come down to a matter of how one defines the term
Godeither biblically, or post-biblically.
The divine identity language made popular by Bauckham is really
ambiguous anyway. In the NT Jesus is certainly bound up118 with the
identity of the one God but who thought otherwise? As Gods Son Jesus
belongs to God and is the exact representation of God, so much that to
see him is to see the God who sent him (1Cor. 3:23; Heb. 1:3; Jn. 14:9).
The one God, from the NT perspective, is none other than the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is how, in the minds of the apostles,
God was to be known and identified, i.e., always in association with the
Son he sent forth as the way to him (Jn. 14:6); and in these ways it seems
entirely appropriate to associate Jesus with Gods identity. But Jesus is
clearly not part of the unique divine identity of God if by that we mean that
he is the one God literally. In the NT that status belongs to the God of our
Lord Jesus Christ, exclusively.
Biblically it might even be said that Gods servants are bound up
with Gods identity as well:
Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him
144,000 who had his name and his Fathers name written on their
foreheads (Rev. 14:1).
They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads (Rev. 22:4).
118
Bird claims: the early church developed a uniquely cast Christological monotheism whereby the person of Jesus
was bound up with the identity of the God of Israel. How God Became Jesus, p. 202 (emphasis added).
58
make them literally God. God even says of Israels guardian angel: my
name is in him without making the angel God himself.
If Jesus himself bears the signature of Gods identity, the very name
of God (one viable way of interpreting Phil. 2:9), he does so from the NT
perspective not ontologically as the second person of the Trinity but by
inheritance as Gods faithful and beloved Son (Compare Jn. 5:43; 17:11;
Heb. 1:4).
59