Hebrews 1:5-6 is interesting:
5For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my son! Today I have fathered you”? And in another place he says, “I will be his father and he will be my son.” 6But when he again brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him!”
So God is commanding his angels to commit idolatry.
Proskuneo can be performed of people other than God without commuting idolatry.
Yes I know that’s how it sounds to you. Can you address what I wrote about Colwell’s Role?
Here.
“So the theological inclusio that frames John’s Gospel (1:1 and 20:28) is especially important, even though the phrase in 1:1c lacks a definite article in the predicate, kai theos ēn ho logos (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) and is therefore sometimes translated “the Word was divine” rather than “the Word was God.””, Neil G. Richardson, “God, NT View Of,” ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006–2009), 599
“In other words, John is saying, “The Word was divine.””, Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 75
And again here.
“So the theological inclusio that frames John’s Gospel (1:1 and 20:28) is especially important, even though the phrase in 1:1c lacks a definite article in the predicate, kai theos ēn ho logos (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) and is therefore sometimes translated “the Word was divine” rather than “the Word was God.””, Neil G. Richardson, “God, NT View Of,” ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006–2009), 599
“In other words, John is saying, “The Word was divine.””, Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 75
And here.
Surely, Jonathan, you know that Hurtado thinks that the experiences of the resurrection of Jesus was the pivotal event that convinced them of Jesus’ divinity. For example, Hurtado writes regarding the resurrection on his blog;
One immediate implication of this claim was that God had vindicated Jesus against the death-penalty imposed by the earthly authorities. That is, in the earliest setting, Jesus’ resurrection was very much divine vindication.
Hurtado further says in his back-and-forth with Loke that took place a few months ago;
It seems to me, Andrew, that your final sentence is a non sequitur, or at least is not a necessary follow-on from what precedes it. Yes, of course, the experiences of the risen/exalted Jesus conveyed to early believers that Jesus is now enthroned as Kyrios and as the ultimate revelation of God’s purposes, surpassing all that went before (e.g., Hebrews 1:1-4). But I find no statement in the NT that reflects your final sentence, that unless the earthly Jesus declared his divinity and demanded worship, it would have been rejected by his followers.
Enthroned as Lord. I think Hurtado is quite clear here. Couple this with the quotation of Hurtado I provided in my last response to you (to which I also await your response) where I clearly show that Hurtado thinks the phrase “call on the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:17/Romans 10:13/1 Corinthians 1:2/etc) refers to, without any doubt at all, the phrase “everyone who calls on the name YHWH will be saved” from Joel 2:32 which gives Jesus divine divine distinction in the NT. All this together makes Hurtado’s thoughts quite clear. I await your response to my previous comment.
I’ll also throw this quote in:
In my 2010 book, God in New Testament Theology, I’ve judged that Jesus is integral to NT discourse about God, and so integral to the worship of God in the NT as well. Indeed, he is so integral in NT texts that, for the early Christians whose faith and devotion are reflected in them, to put the matter negatively, to speak about God without reference to Jesus is inadequate discourse about God, and to worship without reference to Jesus is inadequate worship.
Surely you know all about devotion to Jesus in Hurtado’s books. Worship, prayer in the NT, etc. I do not know why I have to argue this at all.
I found it interesting that when Tilling was asked where scholarly inquiry should proceed now, he urged that we need to ask why and how early Jesus came to be regarded and reverenced as sharing in a status like that of God. In the final chapter of my 1988 book, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (3rd ed., Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), I offered a preliminary proposal of the “Causes of the Christian Mutation” in ancient Jewish devotional practice and beliefs. Then, in my later book, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003), I devoted a whole chapter to the “Forces and Factors” that generated and shaped early Jesus-devotion (pp. 27-78).
You really need to read him more carefully.
Hurtado says the resurrection was “divine vindication”. Where does he say it was the event which finally convinced his disciples that Jesus was God?
Yep, just what Hurtado says elsewhere, “Jesus is now enthroned as Kyrios and as the ultimate revelation of God’s purposes, surpassing all that went before (e.g., Hebrews 1:1-4)”. But he doesn’t say that this proved Jesus is God. Why does he not say this?
Yes, “Lord” not “God”. And the ultimate revelation of “God’s purpose”. Hurtado consistently differentiates between God and Jesus. Why doesn’t he call Jesus God?
In that very post Hurtado made himself very clear. Look at it again.
His conclusion is “early Christian devotional practice Jesus functions very similar in the way to which God functions in devotional practices”. Why doesn’t he say “early Christians worshiped Jesus as God, because they believed he was God”? Read the exchange with Witherington again. Witherington tries to get him to say it, but he won’t. This isn’t about avoiding anachronistic use of the terminology of later centuries, it’s about the fact that Hurtado consistently differentiates Jesus from God, and even talks of the apostles doing the same.
Do you realise that Hurtado believes that Jesus’ followers started to worship him because they believed God had told them to, rather than because they believed Jesus was God?
Can you give me the direct quotation from Hurtado please? Together with the source.
Jonathan, you’re making invalid distinctions between what Hurtado said. Hurtado doesn’t have to flat out say “Jesus claimed to be God” for the message to get clearly across from the New Testament and other sayings of Jesus. Before I explain your strange interpretations of what Hurtado says above, I’ll quote Hurtado himself clearly saying the message gets across without Jesus saying the words “I am God!”:
But Tilling (and some others, such as Crispin Fletcher-Louis) seem to me to be anxious about ascribing much in the way of new convictions about Jesus’ status to these “post-Easter” revelatory experiences. Perhaps their concern is that this would involve early believers making claims about Jesus that he hadn’t made or even held about himself. In earlier posting here, however, I have argued that this concern betrays (typically unconsciously) a dubious notion that emerged with particular force in 18th-century Deist thought that the validity of claims about Jesus rests upon whether Jesus himself made them about himself.
So Jesus does not have to say those words “I am God”. It can become very clear, as it is all throughout the New Testament, without those precise words being spoken, even not by Jesus Himself. Hurtado said from the quotation I provided earlier and you requote: “Old Testament passages that, ugh, inarguably refer to God – yod he vau he – are applied to Jesus”. But Hurtado is distinguishing persons when he distinguishes between Jesus and God, that’s why he calls it binitarianism or dyadic. It’s basically Trinitarianism except without the Holy Spirit. Of course Jesus is a different person from the Father. Applying something that only belongs to YHWH to Jesus is undoubtable. Jesus, per Hurtado, is given the divine glory given to God, he’s given the divine reverence given to God, even the divine name YHWH is given to Jesus. Where do you draw the line? Do you pray to Christ, worship Him, and withhold from giving Him a claim to being God? You also make a distinction between saying Jesus is “divine” and saying Jesus is “God”. Where is the logic to this distinction given everything else Hurtado has said?
Obviously, the Witherington quote had everything to do with terminology. I mean, Hurtado flat out said it, and he makes a distinction between Jesus and God (the Father, of course, YHWH of the Old Testament) for the same reason that I would make a distinction between Jesus and God. Because they’re not the same person. But it’s still not mononitarianism or whatever word you would call that, at the very least it is binitarianism. No bitheism as you had incorrectly assumed one time before.
And again, “enthroned as Lord” (and I’ve already shown earlier from the lecture quote that the meaning of Lord can either mean master or God according to the context, according to Hurtado, and the context of this passage makes it clearly a God title). Who else is enthroned on the judgement throne in all the Bible except God? A human being couldn’t comprehensibly be given such power.
What Hurtado says is clearly binitarianism, indeed. Two persons, one God.
Do you realise that Hurtado believes that Jesus’ followers started to worship him because they believed God had told them to, rather than because they believed Jesus was God?
Technically, yes, but that hardly makes a difference. It’s even more constricting on your view, isn’t it? If not Jesus said “I am God”, but God Himself who said it, immediately proliferated throughout the early church, and is now in the NT.
I also just did a bit more digging and found this that Hurtado sent in response to a question someone asked him on the blog:
Gabriel: I think that the better answer to your question is to note that the “dyadic” worship pattern reflected in the NT comprises Jesus being included in the worship that accrues ultimately to God. That is, Jesus isn’t treated as a second deity, a partner of sorts with God, but is consistently positioned with reference to God, as sent, commissioned, handed over (to death), raised, exalted, installed as king, etc. So, it’s not a matter of some actions reserved for God (although the traditional Eucharistic ritual is thanks to God for Christ, not thanks to Christ).
My problem with some of what you’re saying is that it’s very vague. This is why in my previous response you have not responded to yet I asked you these six questions to answer so I can get a grip on your worldview of Jesus:
Did anybody mention this?
The Alexamenos graffiti is fantastic early church stuff but I doubt Jonathan will take this as evidence that the NT or earliest Christians thought Jesus was literally God (it dates c. 200 AD).
Thanks, but those are not commentaries and the prolog is not translated.
Not sure what “commuting idolatry” is, but apparently even the NET Bible translators have been swigging Trinitarian Kool-Aid.
Still sounds like you were saying the vowel changed the meaning to me. I highlighted your words below saying,“before a vowel… being used… to mean.”
You said, “That is telling us that when theos is used in the nominative, without an article, before a vowel, it’s being used in the adjectival sense to mean divine.”
Why did you use the words “before a vowel” if you were not saying that affected the meaning in some way? Why don’t you just admit you made a mistake on this point?
I have explained this using Colwell’s Rule as an example. If you don’t understand it, tell me which part of what I wrote is confusing you.
Colwell’s rule has nothing to do with ‘before a vowel’ and the adjectival use of theos has nothing to do with ‘before a vowel’. ‘before a vowel’ is talking about how the word is pronounced.
Of course it doesn’t. I didn’t anything like that. Please read what I actually said and let me know which part you don’t understand.
For me, an important tie breaker is the scene of the Transfiguration.
Jesus ascends a mountain (a typical location of for intersecting the human with the divine). He begins to glow like the sun … with a glowing Moses and Elijah appearing - - and in communion with Jesus.
This is a scene of “angeliformation” , or sanctification as saints. In the Enochian schools, Moses and Elijah had been elevated to divine sainthood - - not to the status of a god.
And so this scene was originally purposed to show that Jesus was of equal divine rank as these other men. But as God’s participation in the Godhead became more aggressively asserted, the scene of the Transfiguration becomes orphaned as a strange spectacle. An explanation is literally required with the new interpretation:
And God’s voice is heard to say: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” (Mark 9:7).
It is plain for most anyone to see that this is an addition to the scene … for Jesus warns his disciples: "Jesus tells them to not tell anyone “the things they had seen” until the “Son of Man” has risen from the dead. "
It seems most unlikely that Jesus would have chosen words so inconsistent with terminology just employed by God.
In the original meaning of the scene, one could suppose that Jesus becomes deified at his death, or rather, during his tempering in his afterlife of 3 days. In the ANE, death was a common pre-requisite to becoming divine (as indicated by Vespasian’s last and dying words: “Vae, puto deus fio.” [translated: “Dear me, I think I’m becoming a god”]. This would have been a perfectly valid operation on Jesus. But over time, for an increasing component of the Early Church, Jesus was no longer just a man-turned-Saint, or a Saint-turned-Angel, or even Turned-God: Jesus had to become a God from the very moment of his birth.
No, you have church teaching wrong. No matter what you might think about orthodoxy, and you are entitled to your opinion, the church teaches that Jesus is co-eternal with God the Father; that is, he was always was God the Son. At his conception he became incarnate.
The text:
“The Greek inscription approximately translates to ‘Alexamenos worships [his] God,’ indicating that the graffito was apparently meant to mock a Christian named Alexamenos.”
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.