Assignments
1 The veneration of the ancestors in Africa is compatible with the worship of a tripersonal God. Discuss.
2 Compare the God of the Koran with the God of the New Testament.
3 Explore the connections between the divinities of African Traditional Religion and the Triune God.
4 Communal living in African traditional societies presents us with an image of inner trinitarian life. Consider and explore.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Wisdom & Logos
Divine Agency in Old Testament: Wisdom and Logos.
When the Jewish people returned after their exile in 538 BC, their faith and devotion began to accept various heavenly figures who were, then, described as participating in some way in God’s rule of the world and bringing his salvation to his people. We see that the writings of Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, many of the Psalms, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, Jonah, Tobit and Daniel contain many references to heavenly figures. In particular, these figures are described as occupying a position second only to God and acting on God’s behalf in some major capacity. It is these figures which are very relevant for understanding the historical origins of the cultic devotional veneration of Jesus. The references to these particular figures all reflect an interest in what may be termed “divine agency”. It is true that the motives behind the interest varied and the interest manifested itself in a variety of forms. The use of “divine agency” is an attempt to label the basic conception that lies behind the description of the various figures in question, in which a chief agent is associated with God in a unique capacity in the manifestation of his sovereignty. Scholars have often focused their attention on specific examples of divine agency figures, for example Wisdom and Logos.
Both in the history of Israel and beyond, the OT understood Wisdom and Word to serve as personified agents of divine activity. As personifications that were not yet formally recognised as persons, they operated with personal characteristics, and this was particularly so in the case of Wisdom. Hokmah, or wisdom (as noun, adjective, or verb) occurs 318 times in the OT, and nearly 75 percent of these occurrences turn up in Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth), Sirach, and Wisdom. Wise counsels are also found elsewhere: for example, Tobit 4:3-21: 12:6-13; and Baruch 3:9-4:4. Wisdom enjoys a very distinctive “face” and also engages in dialogue with God (Sir 24:8).
Personified Wisdom or Sophia becomes increasingly related to the divine work of creation, providence, and salvation and grows in dignity and power along with OT sapiential thinking. So Wisdom (sophia) is described as the “fashioner of all things”, the one who “reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other” and who “orders all things well”, who is “an associate in his works”. Like Wisdom, the Word is with God and is powerfully creative from the beginning (Gn 1:1-2:4). To cite the classical passage from Isaiah: “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there until they have watered the earth, making it bring forth and sprout. giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth: it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Is 55:10-11). The psalms celebrate the creative and conserving Word of God: “Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm” (Ps 33:8-9; see Ps 148:5). Sirach also appreciates how the divine Word operates to conserve creation: by God’s “Word all things hold together” (Sir 43:26), a sentiment that will be applied to Christ by Col 1:17. At times, the OT scriptures set word in parallelism with spirit or breath as instruments of creation: “The Word of the Lord created the heavens; all the host of heaven was formed by the Breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6); “Let all your creatures serve you, for you spoke, and they were made. You sent forth your Spirit, and it formed them” (Jdt 16:14). Solomon’s famous prayer takes word and wisdom as synonymous agents of divine creation: “God of my fathers and Lord of mercy, you made all things by your Word, and by your Wisdom fashioned humankind” (Wis 9:1-2).
Word also personified the divine activity in the story of the chosen people’s deliverance from Egypt, at least when death came to the firstborn of the Egyptians. In a vivid personification of Word, the Book of Wisdom declares: “Your all-powerful Word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed; a stern warrior, carrying a sharp sword of your authentic command, he stood and filled all things with death” (Wis 18:15-16). Word also repeatedly expressed God’s historical and saving revelation mediated in a special way through the OT prophets. The Word of the Lord comes to them; hence they can communicate divine oracles and declare, “Thus says the Lord.” The prophets convey divine words of judgement over the people along with indications of God’s will for them.
Summary
1. The literature of Judaism after the exile shows an interest in various figures who are each described as holding a position next to God in honour and power, and behind the interest in these various figures was what we designate “divine agency.’
2 This concept may have been important in giving early Jewish Christians a conceptual framework into which to begin fitting the exalted Jesus, their religious experiences having communicated the conviction that Jesus had been given a position “at the right hand” of God.
3 Although the concept that God had a chief agent seems to have been widely shared in the Judaism of this period, the variation in the names and descriptions of the figures placed in this position shows that Jews employed the concept to serve a variety of religious interests. Such figures had an exalted position but the interest in them did not amount to a fundamental changing of the nature of Jewish monotheistic faith. In contrast, in early Christian devotion the exalted Jesus was made chief agent of all God’s activities.
When the Jewish people returned after their exile in 538 BC, their faith and devotion began to accept various heavenly figures who were, then, described as participating in some way in God’s rule of the world and bringing his salvation to his people. We see that the writings of Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, many of the Psalms, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, Jonah, Tobit and Daniel contain many references to heavenly figures. In particular, these figures are described as occupying a position second only to God and acting on God’s behalf in some major capacity. It is these figures which are very relevant for understanding the historical origins of the cultic devotional veneration of Jesus. The references to these particular figures all reflect an interest in what may be termed “divine agency”. It is true that the motives behind the interest varied and the interest manifested itself in a variety of forms. The use of “divine agency” is an attempt to label the basic conception that lies behind the description of the various figures in question, in which a chief agent is associated with God in a unique capacity in the manifestation of his sovereignty. Scholars have often focused their attention on specific examples of divine agency figures, for example Wisdom and Logos.
Both in the history of Israel and beyond, the OT understood Wisdom and Word to serve as personified agents of divine activity. As personifications that were not yet formally recognised as persons, they operated with personal characteristics, and this was particularly so in the case of Wisdom. Hokmah, or wisdom (as noun, adjective, or verb) occurs 318 times in the OT, and nearly 75 percent of these occurrences turn up in Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth), Sirach, and Wisdom. Wise counsels are also found elsewhere: for example, Tobit 4:3-21: 12:6-13; and Baruch 3:9-4:4. Wisdom enjoys a very distinctive “face” and also engages in dialogue with God (Sir 24:8).
Personified Wisdom or Sophia becomes increasingly related to the divine work of creation, providence, and salvation and grows in dignity and power along with OT sapiential thinking. So Wisdom (sophia) is described as the “fashioner of all things”, the one who “reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other” and who “orders all things well”, who is “an associate in his works”. Like Wisdom, the Word is with God and is powerfully creative from the beginning (Gn 1:1-2:4). To cite the classical passage from Isaiah: “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there until they have watered the earth, making it bring forth and sprout. giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth: it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Is 55:10-11). The psalms celebrate the creative and conserving Word of God: “Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm” (Ps 33:8-9; see Ps 148:5). Sirach also appreciates how the divine Word operates to conserve creation: by God’s “Word all things hold together” (Sir 43:26), a sentiment that will be applied to Christ by Col 1:17. At times, the OT scriptures set word in parallelism with spirit or breath as instruments of creation: “The Word of the Lord created the heavens; all the host of heaven was formed by the Breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6); “Let all your creatures serve you, for you spoke, and they were made. You sent forth your Spirit, and it formed them” (Jdt 16:14). Solomon’s famous prayer takes word and wisdom as synonymous agents of divine creation: “God of my fathers and Lord of mercy, you made all things by your Word, and by your Wisdom fashioned humankind” (Wis 9:1-2).
Word also personified the divine activity in the story of the chosen people’s deliverance from Egypt, at least when death came to the firstborn of the Egyptians. In a vivid personification of Word, the Book of Wisdom declares: “Your all-powerful Word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed; a stern warrior, carrying a sharp sword of your authentic command, he stood and filled all things with death” (Wis 18:15-16). Word also repeatedly expressed God’s historical and saving revelation mediated in a special way through the OT prophets. The Word of the Lord comes to them; hence they can communicate divine oracles and declare, “Thus says the Lord.” The prophets convey divine words of judgement over the people along with indications of God’s will for them.
Summary
1. The literature of Judaism after the exile shows an interest in various figures who are each described as holding a position next to God in honour and power, and behind the interest in these various figures was what we designate “divine agency.’
2 This concept may have been important in giving early Jewish Christians a conceptual framework into which to begin fitting the exalted Jesus, their religious experiences having communicated the conviction that Jesus had been given a position “at the right hand” of God.
3 Although the concept that God had a chief agent seems to have been widely shared in the Judaism of this period, the variation in the names and descriptions of the figures placed in this position shows that Jews employed the concept to serve a variety of religious interests. Such figures had an exalted position but the interest in them did not amount to a fundamental changing of the nature of Jewish monotheistic faith. In contrast, in early Christian devotion the exalted Jesus was made chief agent of all God’s activities.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Son of God & Son of Man
Son of God
Reginald Fuller
Harper’s Biblical Dictionary
Son of God. a person or a people with a special relationship to God.
In the OT: In the OT and pre-Christian Judaism there are four notable uses of the term" Son of God." First, it is predicated of Israel constituted as a nation through the Exodus (e.g. Hos. 11:1). Second, it is a title given to the monarch at the time of enthronement (e.g., Ps. 2:7, a coronation psalm). Third, the angels are called "sons of God" (e.g., Job 38:7). Fourth, in the deuterocanonical book The Wisdom of Solomon it is applied to the righteous individual (Wisd. of Sol 2:18). Primarily, it denotes not physical filiation but a divine call to obedience in a predestined role in salvation history.
It is a matter of dispute whether the term "Son of God" was already current in pre-Christian Judaism as a messianic title as Mark 14:61 would seem to suggest. But in view of the discovery of Psalm 2:7 in a messianic application in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QFlor. 10-14), it is probably safe to conclude that it was just coming into use in this context during the period of Christian origins.
In the NT: The pre-Easter Jesus undoubtedly had a unique experience of God as his Abba ("Father"). He addressed God with this intimate appellation, normally reserved for an earthly father (e.g., Mark 14:36) Although the synoptic tradition contains two sayings in which Jesus refers to himself as "son" in relation to God as his Father (Mark 13:32; Matt. 11:27 IQ)), the authenticity of these sayings is widely questioned, and it remains uncertain whether Jesus actually called himself "son" in relation to God as Father. The most we can be certain of is that, since his use of Abba implies a unique filial consciousness, it implies the idea that he is "son"
The use of "Son of God" as a christological title should be clearly distinguished from the Father/Son language. The evidence suggests that in spite of its presence in the synoptic Gospels, the title did not come into use until after Easter. At his resurrection/exaltation Jesus was appointed "Son of God" (Rom. 1:4). This belief seems to have arisen through the application of the coronation psalm, already interpreted messianic ally at Qumran, to the Risen One (Acts 13: 33: cf., Heb. 5:5). The use of the word "appointed" in Rom. 1:4 indicates that "Son of Cod" at this stage in the history of Christian thought denoted an office or function, rather than a metaphysical quality as in later dogmatics. This usage is in accord with OT and Jewish practice. Christology of this type is sometimes designated "adoptionist," but it is not adoptionism in the later, heretical sense, according to which Jesus, having been initially purely human, later became divine. It means that at his resurrection/exaltation Jesus embarked upon a new role in salvation history as the mediator of Cod's final offer of salvation.
In the course of time the moment at which Jesus was appointed "Son of God" in this functional sense was pushed back to his baptism as is indicated by the voice from heaven (Mark 1: 111 At that moment Jesus was marked out for his messianic role. This process of retrojection does not entail the christologizing of a life that had been previously unmessianic, for from the earliest time after Easter the community had recognized that God had been at work in Jesus (Acts 2:22: 10:38) and such terms as "prophet" or “servant" were used to indicate that in his earthly lifetime Jesus had appeared as God's agent (prophet, Luke 24:19; servant, Acts 3:13). “Son of God" simply takes over the duty of these earlier titles. It has also been suggested that the Son of God christology was first pushed back only to the moment of the transfiguration (Mark 9:7), but this is unlikely for the voice at the transfiguration seems rather to have been modelled on the voice at the baptism. Once this process of retrojection had shifted the crucial christological moment to baptism, the title "Son of God" could be used occasionally by others, e.g., the demons (Mark 3:11). It is noteworthy, however, that Jesus never claims for himself the title "Son of God." While he is represented as accepting it in Mark 1461-62, both Matthew (27:64) and Luke (22: 67) are at pains to tone down Jesus' acceptance of the title as though what he says to the High Priest is. "It-like the title 'messiah'-is your word, not mine." The ejaculation of the crowd, “For he said he was the son of God" (Matt. 27:43) is clearly secondary, as a comparison with the Markan parallel shows.
A connected development with the foregoing process of retrojection is the idea of the sending of the Son. This appears in a formula exhibiting a constant pattern: God as subject: a verb of sending or its equivalent: the Son as object; and d statement of God's saving purpose in sending the Son (see Gal. 4:4-5; Rom. 8:3-4; John 3:17). In the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Mark 12:6) a similar image occurs, though without an explicit statement of the saving purpose. The roots of this sending formula probably lie in the earlier designation of Jesus as "prophet," which in turn originates in his own self-understanding. Jesus had a strong consciousness of his sending (cf., Mark 9:37), a consciousness that was shared by the OT prophets, on whom it was patterned
(e.g., Is. 6:8). When "Son of God" took over from "prophet" the sending of the Son formula was born.
A related formula is the "handing over" formula (Mark 14:21: Rom. 4:25; John 3:16). This in turn could have its roots in the earlier designation of Jesus as "servant of God," for the term "handed over" or "delivered" occurs in the Servant Song of Isaiah 53 (as found in the Septuagint version).
It is sometimes held that the sending formula was designed to express a preexistence Christology, according to which sending refers to the incarnation of the preexistent Son. The origin of the preexistence Christology is probably to be dated later than the sending formulas, for the latter almost certainly antedates the writings in which they occur. Thus, Gal. 4:4 is widely held to be pre-Pauline and John 3:16-17 to be pre-Johannine. However, Paul may have understood and John certainly understood these formulas in light of their own preexistence theologies.
In the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke the title "Son of God" is shifted back to the conception, birth, or infancy of Jesus (Mat. 2:15: Luke 1:35). However, this also does not imply a preexistence and incarnational Christology or a divine sonship in the metaphysical sense. Rather, it implies his predestination from the womb for a messianic role in salvation history. This functional sense of the divine sonship is made particularly clear in Luke 1:32-33.
There is a growing consensus among scholars that the preexistence Christology originated not with the title "Son of God," but with the identification of Jesus as the personal incarnation of the divine Wisdom. This identification underlies the development of preexistence Christology in the wisdom hymns of the NT (Phil. 2: 6-11, though the presence of preexistence in this hymn is sometimes questioned; Col. 1:1520: Heb. 1:2-3: John 1:1-18). This identification leads to an expansion of the meaning of "Son of God." The preexistent Wisdom or Word of God is as such also the eternal Son of God, who was with God from all eternity as the agent of creation, revelation, and redemption. That identification has already taken place in the Logos hymn of John 1 (see v. 14: also v. 18, if "Son" rather than "God" is the correct text).
The traditional dogmatic Christology of Nicea (A.D. 325) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451) and of Christian orthodoxy since that time rests upon the Johannine development from a functional to a metaphysical Christology. See also Incarnation: Jesus Christ; Wisdom.
Bibliography
Dunn. J. D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Philadelphia: Westminster. 1980. Pp. 12-64.163-250.
Fuller, R. and P. Perkins. Who Is This Christ? Gospel Christology and Contemporary Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1983. Pp. 41-66. 96-108, 121-34.
Hengel, M. The Son of God. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. R.H.F
Son of Man
Reginald Fuller
Harper’s Biblical Dictionary
Son of man, a term with a variety of meanings in the Bible. The NT usage of the term "Son of man" is at first sight simple enough. With one exception (Acts 7:56) and apart from the citation of Ps. 8:4 in Heb. 2:6 and an allusion to Dan. 7: 13 in Rev. 2:13, the term is used exclusively by the earthly Jesus in reference to himself. It is usual to classify these occurrences in the synoptic Gospels under three headings: sayings in which Jesus refers to his present activity during his earthly ministry (e.g. Mark 2:12 and parallels; 2:24 and parallels; also Matt. 8:20 IQI and 11:19 [QJ); sayings in which Jesus refers to his impending passion and/or resurrection (Mark 8: 31 and parallels; 9:9 and parallels; 9:31 and parallels; 10:33 and parallels); and sayings in which he refers to his future activity as judge and Saviour at the end (e.g., Mark 8:38; d. Luke 12:8 [Q]; Mark 13:26 and parallels; 14:62 and parallels). In John "Son of man" as a self-referent of Jesus has a more varied usage, the most characteristic being those sayings that speak of the exaltation of the Son of man, an expression that makes a double allusion to the cross and exaltation (John 3:14; 8:28;12:34). John 1:51 looks like an original Parousia saying (third category above) transferred to the present ministry (first category). John 6:53 speaks of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of man, and John 9:35 (if the text is correct) of believing in the Son of man.
The difficulties begin when one asks the origin of the term. Is it authentic to Jesus? If so, in what sense did he use it? Regarding the origin of the term, it is widely held, especially among German scholars, that the term "Son of man" was already current in pre-Christian, Jewish apocalyptic writings (Dan 7:14; The Similitudes of Enoch). Here already the Son of man appears as God's end-time agent of salvation and judgment. British scholars, in particular, often argue that the only pre-Christian example is Daniel, but that there the "Son of man" stands for Israel as a corporate entity. The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) do not appear in early versions of Enoch.
It has therefore been argued by some British scholars that there was no pre-Christian, apocalyptic concept of a "Son of man," and that therefore no light is cast by such sources on the way Jesus used that phrase. Jesus must have used "Son of man" as a simple self-designation, perhaps as a self-effacing way of referring to himself simply as a human being (cf., Ps 8 4). This usage could account for both the present and suffering references. Sometimes in this view, the future sayings are explained as post-Easter developments under the influence of Dan. 7:14.
Those who accept the view that there was a pre-Christian apocalyptic concept of a "Son of man" sometimes argue that Jesus used it of a transcendental figure other than himself (see esp. Mark 8:38: Luke 128 [Q], where Jesus appears to distinguish between himself and the coming Son of man). This coming Son of man will vindicate Jesus' present offer of final salvation to his contemporaries. After Easter and the rise of an explicit christological faith in Jesus, it is held his followers saw in him his own vindicator and therefore identified him with the apocalyptic Son of man.
Yet another current view is that Jesus dic1 not use the term "Son of man" at all, either as a self-designation or in reference to a coming figure distinct from himself. It was in this view the post-Easter community that first introduced the term "Son of man" to the Jesus tradition in the apocalyptic sense. In both the last mentioned views the present and suffering savings must have developed out of the future savings by retrojecting the title into Jesus' earthly life. As this survey indicates, there is no unanimity among scholars at present either as to the origin or the exact meaning of the title "Son of man."
Bibliography
Dunn, J. D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Philadelphia: Westminster 1980. Pp. 65-97.
Fitzmyer, J. A "The New Testament Title Son of Man' Philologically Considered." In A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. 1979. Pp. 143-60.
R H F
Reginald Fuller
Harper’s Biblical Dictionary
Son of God. a person or a people with a special relationship to God.
In the OT: In the OT and pre-Christian Judaism there are four notable uses of the term" Son of God." First, it is predicated of Israel constituted as a nation through the Exodus (e.g. Hos. 11:1). Second, it is a title given to the monarch at the time of enthronement (e.g., Ps. 2:7, a coronation psalm). Third, the angels are called "sons of God" (e.g., Job 38:7). Fourth, in the deuterocanonical book The Wisdom of Solomon it is applied to the righteous individual (Wisd. of Sol 2:18). Primarily, it denotes not physical filiation but a divine call to obedience in a predestined role in salvation history.
It is a matter of dispute whether the term "Son of God" was already current in pre-Christian Judaism as a messianic title as Mark 14:61 would seem to suggest. But in view of the discovery of Psalm 2:7 in a messianic application in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QFlor. 10-14), it is probably safe to conclude that it was just coming into use in this context during the period of Christian origins.
In the NT: The pre-Easter Jesus undoubtedly had a unique experience of God as his Abba ("Father"). He addressed God with this intimate appellation, normally reserved for an earthly father (e.g., Mark 14:36) Although the synoptic tradition contains two sayings in which Jesus refers to himself as "son" in relation to God as his Father (Mark 13:32; Matt. 11:27 IQ)), the authenticity of these sayings is widely questioned, and it remains uncertain whether Jesus actually called himself "son" in relation to God as Father. The most we can be certain of is that, since his use of Abba implies a unique filial consciousness, it implies the idea that he is "son"
The use of "Son of God" as a christological title should be clearly distinguished from the Father/Son language. The evidence suggests that in spite of its presence in the synoptic Gospels, the title did not come into use until after Easter. At his resurrection/exaltation Jesus was appointed "Son of God" (Rom. 1:4). This belief seems to have arisen through the application of the coronation psalm, already interpreted messianic ally at Qumran, to the Risen One (Acts 13: 33: cf., Heb. 5:5). The use of the word "appointed" in Rom. 1:4 indicates that "Son of Cod" at this stage in the history of Christian thought denoted an office or function, rather than a metaphysical quality as in later dogmatics. This usage is in accord with OT and Jewish practice. Christology of this type is sometimes designated "adoptionist," but it is not adoptionism in the later, heretical sense, according to which Jesus, having been initially purely human, later became divine. It means that at his resurrection/exaltation Jesus embarked upon a new role in salvation history as the mediator of Cod's final offer of salvation.
In the course of time the moment at which Jesus was appointed "Son of God" in this functional sense was pushed back to his baptism as is indicated by the voice from heaven (Mark 1: 111 At that moment Jesus was marked out for his messianic role. This process of retrojection does not entail the christologizing of a life that had been previously unmessianic, for from the earliest time after Easter the community had recognized that God had been at work in Jesus (Acts 2:22: 10:38) and such terms as "prophet" or “servant" were used to indicate that in his earthly lifetime Jesus had appeared as God's agent (prophet, Luke 24:19; servant, Acts 3:13). “Son of God" simply takes over the duty of these earlier titles. It has also been suggested that the Son of God christology was first pushed back only to the moment of the transfiguration (Mark 9:7), but this is unlikely for the voice at the transfiguration seems rather to have been modelled on the voice at the baptism. Once this process of retrojection had shifted the crucial christological moment to baptism, the title "Son of God" could be used occasionally by others, e.g., the demons (Mark 3:11). It is noteworthy, however, that Jesus never claims for himself the title "Son of God." While he is represented as accepting it in Mark 1461-62, both Matthew (27:64) and Luke (22: 67) are at pains to tone down Jesus' acceptance of the title as though what he says to the High Priest is. "It-like the title 'messiah'-is your word, not mine." The ejaculation of the crowd, “For he said he was the son of God" (Matt. 27:43) is clearly secondary, as a comparison with the Markan parallel shows.
A connected development with the foregoing process of retrojection is the idea of the sending of the Son. This appears in a formula exhibiting a constant pattern: God as subject: a verb of sending or its equivalent: the Son as object; and d statement of God's saving purpose in sending the Son (see Gal. 4:4-5; Rom. 8:3-4; John 3:17). In the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Mark 12:6) a similar image occurs, though without an explicit statement of the saving purpose. The roots of this sending formula probably lie in the earlier designation of Jesus as "prophet," which in turn originates in his own self-understanding. Jesus had a strong consciousness of his sending (cf., Mark 9:37), a consciousness that was shared by the OT prophets, on whom it was patterned
(e.g., Is. 6:8). When "Son of God" took over from "prophet" the sending of the Son formula was born.
A related formula is the "handing over" formula (Mark 14:21: Rom. 4:25; John 3:16). This in turn could have its roots in the earlier designation of Jesus as "servant of God," for the term "handed over" or "delivered" occurs in the Servant Song of Isaiah 53 (as found in the Septuagint version).
It is sometimes held that the sending formula was designed to express a preexistence Christology, according to which sending refers to the incarnation of the preexistent Son. The origin of the preexistence Christology is probably to be dated later than the sending formulas, for the latter almost certainly antedates the writings in which they occur. Thus, Gal. 4:4 is widely held to be pre-Pauline and John 3:16-17 to be pre-Johannine. However, Paul may have understood and John certainly understood these formulas in light of their own preexistence theologies.
In the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke the title "Son of God" is shifted back to the conception, birth, or infancy of Jesus (Mat. 2:15: Luke 1:35). However, this also does not imply a preexistence and incarnational Christology or a divine sonship in the metaphysical sense. Rather, it implies his predestination from the womb for a messianic role in salvation history. This functional sense of the divine sonship is made particularly clear in Luke 1:32-33.
There is a growing consensus among scholars that the preexistence Christology originated not with the title "Son of God," but with the identification of Jesus as the personal incarnation of the divine Wisdom. This identification underlies the development of preexistence Christology in the wisdom hymns of the NT (Phil. 2: 6-11, though the presence of preexistence in this hymn is sometimes questioned; Col. 1:1520: Heb. 1:2-3: John 1:1-18). This identification leads to an expansion of the meaning of "Son of God." The preexistent Wisdom or Word of God is as such also the eternal Son of God, who was with God from all eternity as the agent of creation, revelation, and redemption. That identification has already taken place in the Logos hymn of John 1 (see v. 14: also v. 18, if "Son" rather than "God" is the correct text).
The traditional dogmatic Christology of Nicea (A.D. 325) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451) and of Christian orthodoxy since that time rests upon the Johannine development from a functional to a metaphysical Christology. See also Incarnation: Jesus Christ; Wisdom.
Bibliography
Dunn. J. D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Philadelphia: Westminster. 1980. Pp. 12-64.163-250.
Fuller, R. and P. Perkins. Who Is This Christ? Gospel Christology and Contemporary Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1983. Pp. 41-66. 96-108, 121-34.
Hengel, M. The Son of God. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. R.H.F
Son of Man
Reginald Fuller
Harper’s Biblical Dictionary
Son of man, a term with a variety of meanings in the Bible. The NT usage of the term "Son of man" is at first sight simple enough. With one exception (Acts 7:56) and apart from the citation of Ps. 8:4 in Heb. 2:6 and an allusion to Dan. 7: 13 in Rev. 2:13, the term is used exclusively by the earthly Jesus in reference to himself. It is usual to classify these occurrences in the synoptic Gospels under three headings: sayings in which Jesus refers to his present activity during his earthly ministry (e.g. Mark 2:12 and parallels; 2:24 and parallels; also Matt. 8:20 IQI and 11:19 [QJ); sayings in which Jesus refers to his impending passion and/or resurrection (Mark 8: 31 and parallels; 9:9 and parallels; 9:31 and parallels; 10:33 and parallels); and sayings in which he refers to his future activity as judge and Saviour at the end (e.g., Mark 8:38; d. Luke 12:8 [Q]; Mark 13:26 and parallels; 14:62 and parallels). In John "Son of man" as a self-referent of Jesus has a more varied usage, the most characteristic being those sayings that speak of the exaltation of the Son of man, an expression that makes a double allusion to the cross and exaltation (John 3:14; 8:28;12:34). John 1:51 looks like an original Parousia saying (third category above) transferred to the present ministry (first category). John 6:53 speaks of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of man, and John 9:35 (if the text is correct) of believing in the Son of man.
The difficulties begin when one asks the origin of the term. Is it authentic to Jesus? If so, in what sense did he use it? Regarding the origin of the term, it is widely held, especially among German scholars, that the term "Son of man" was already current in pre-Christian, Jewish apocalyptic writings (Dan 7:14; The Similitudes of Enoch). Here already the Son of man appears as God's end-time agent of salvation and judgment. British scholars, in particular, often argue that the only pre-Christian example is Daniel, but that there the "Son of man" stands for Israel as a corporate entity. The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) do not appear in early versions of Enoch.
It has therefore been argued by some British scholars that there was no pre-Christian, apocalyptic concept of a "Son of man," and that therefore no light is cast by such sources on the way Jesus used that phrase. Jesus must have used "Son of man" as a simple self-designation, perhaps as a self-effacing way of referring to himself simply as a human being (cf., Ps 8 4). This usage could account for both the present and suffering references. Sometimes in this view, the future sayings are explained as post-Easter developments under the influence of Dan. 7:14.
Those who accept the view that there was a pre-Christian apocalyptic concept of a "Son of man" sometimes argue that Jesus used it of a transcendental figure other than himself (see esp. Mark 8:38: Luke 128 [Q], where Jesus appears to distinguish between himself and the coming Son of man). This coming Son of man will vindicate Jesus' present offer of final salvation to his contemporaries. After Easter and the rise of an explicit christological faith in Jesus, it is held his followers saw in him his own vindicator and therefore identified him with the apocalyptic Son of man.
Yet another current view is that Jesus dic1 not use the term "Son of man" at all, either as a self-designation or in reference to a coming figure distinct from himself. It was in this view the post-Easter community that first introduced the term "Son of man" to the Jesus tradition in the apocalyptic sense. In both the last mentioned views the present and suffering savings must have developed out of the future savings by retrojecting the title into Jesus' earthly life. As this survey indicates, there is no unanimity among scholars at present either as to the origin or the exact meaning of the title "Son of man."
Bibliography
Dunn, J. D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Philadelphia: Westminster 1980. Pp. 65-97.
Fitzmyer, J. A "The New Testament Title Son of Man' Philologically Considered." In A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. 1979. Pp. 143-60.
R H F
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Notes for Students
Tangaza College, Nairobi.
Self-Revelation of the Triune God
1st Semester, 2008, Class 2B
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boff, Leonardo, Trinity and Society. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1988.
Congar, Yves, 1 Believe in the Holy Spirit. 3 vols. New York: Seabury Press, 1983.
The Word and the Spirit, London: Chapman, 1986.
Hunt, Anne, What they are saying about the Trinity, Paulist, New York, 1998
Moltmann, Jurgen, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God. London: SCM Press, 1981.
O’Collins, Gerald, The Tripersonal God, New York, Paulist, 1999.
O’Donnell, John, The Mystery of the Triune God, London, Sheed and Ward, 1988.
Chapter One
Old Testament Monotheistic Faith with anticipations of Trinitarian Belief
The core of Jewish faith is that there is one unique God. The prophet Isaiah states: “God is unique; there are no other gods besides him”, (Is 44:6), (Dt 6:4-5, Neh 9:6, Is 45:22-24, Mk 12:29-30). While the religion of Israel was a declaration of monotheistic faith, it developed from the polytheistic faith of the contemporaries of Abraham. Then it was normal for everybody to have their gods including Abraham. (Gen 12, 51:19-35) The Old Testament nevertheless provides a framework and terminology with which to speak of plurality in God.
FATHER
There are six contexts in which the people of Israel refer to God as Father.
1 Creator: Dt 32:6 states, “Is this the return you make to Yahweh? Is he not your father, who gave you being, who made you, by whom you subsist?’ (Mal 2:10, Wis 14:3).
2 Father of People. The fidelity of God as the Father of his people is asserted many times in the Scriptures. (Dt 32:6). The people are called God’s firstborn son (Ex 4:22-23; Hos 11:1) & God’s “sons and daughters” (Dt 32:19; Is 1:2; 30:1), (Dt 32:18).
An ideal father, Dt 1:31, Jer 3:4, 19; 2:27; 31:9, Is 40:3-4; 42:16; 43:19-20), (Is 63:l5ff., 64:6-8).
3 Father of King: 2 Sam 7:12-14, Ps 2:7; 89: 26-28. (Ps 2:6).
4 Compassion: “When Israel was young, I loved him; I called my son out of Egypt. It was I who taught him to walk, I who had taken him in my arms... I led them with reins of kindness, with leading strings of love. I was to them like one who lifts a little infant close against the cheek, stooping down to him, I gave him his food (Hos 11:1-4) (Jer 31:20, 2 Sam 7-14, Ps 68:4-6, Is 66:13, Is 49:15, Sirach 4:10).
5 Leader: God has the authority and power of a Father and so must be respected and followed. (Mal 1:2, 6, Ps 123:2, Dt 8:5, Wis 11:9-10, Prov 3:12).
6 Cultic: The two words “Our Father” are found in Jewish prayers used in Liturgy (The Eighteen Benedictions, New Year and Day of Atonement Liturgies, Tobit 13:4). This prayer of praise discloses a very personal attitude toward God and anticipates the NT’s prayerful relationship to God as “our Father.”
Conclusion: Naming God Father expressed God’s deep involvement in the story of Israel. As the Catechism writes: “By calling God "Father," the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children” CCC 239.
SON
The Old Testament also speaks of the Son of God, at first in reference to the people as a whole (Hos 11:1) and sometimes in reference to a king (Ps 2:7) or an upright Jew (Wis 2:18). Primarily, it indicates not physical filiation, but a divine call to fulfill a particular task in salvation history. The Old Testament also speaks of the Word (Jdt 16:14, Wis 9:1-2, 18:15-16) and the Wisdom of God (Sir 24:8), but without personification. In other words, Word and Wisdom in the Old Testament do not refer to personal divine beings as such. While they personify a divine activity, neither Word nor Wisdom is a person to be addressed. They do not connote any kind of plurality in the Godhead. Nor is there evidence of paternity and filiation within the Godhead in the Old Testament. There are presentations on the Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah, Wisdom and Word in trinitytangaza08.blogspot.com.
SPIRIT
1 Creation
It is the “ruah elohim” that brings forth the world out of the primeval waste. He creates the world. Nothing comes into existence except through the power of God’s creative Spirit. He is the agent of creation as well as of life, Genesis 1:2; 2:7, Psalm 104:30.
New creation (Is 43:19, Ez 36:27; 37:1-14).
The end-time will be the “golden age of the Spirit” (Is 44:3; Zc 6:1-8 and Joel 2:23-30; 3:1-3). First, the “one who comes” is characterised as a man of the Spirit” (Is 11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Secondly, the age to come is inaugurated by the outpouring of the Spirit on all people (Is 32:15; 44:3; Ez 39:29; 11 2:28). Thirdly, this age of the Spirit is marked by a new Covenant (Is 59:21; Jr31:31-34; 32:37-40, Ez 36:27).
2 Prophecy and Revelation
The Spirit takes possession of prophets to empower them to speak God’s word, (Ez 2:2ff; 3:24; 11:4-5). Moses - Nb 11:17, 25; Is 63:11.
Joel 3:1-2, Jer 31:31-34, Ez 36:24-28; 37:19-21 and 36:26-27).”
3. Messiah
The Messiah is perceived as prophetic (Dt 18:15), as a charismatic leader (Is 11:1-10) and as a glorious supernatural person of divine qualities (Dn 7:l3ff).
Isaiah 11:1ff.
4. Link with Wisdom and Word
There exists very intimate links between word, wisdom and spirit in pre-Christian Judaism (Ps 33:6; Ps 147:18, Jdt 16:14; Ps 104:29-30)
Wis 9:17: see 1:4-5; 7:7, 22, 25.
Dt 34:9; Jb 32:8-9; Is 11:2.
Conclusion
While the Old Testament evinces no sense of plurality in the Godhead, what it does provide is, first, a climate within which plurality was later conceivable and, second, a terminology with which to express that plurality.
Chapter Two
Jesus Christ: Revelation of the Triune God.
If the reality of Jesus Christ is a myth, then the Trinity is a myth. Now we will explore the witness to the divinity of Jesus.
I Spouse of Israel
A Yahweh as Spouse: In Hosea, God’s relationship with Israel is described in terms of marriage. The wedding imagery of God’s love for his people is taken up by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Song of Songs. Isaiah says, ‘For now, your creator will be your husband, his name, Yahweh Sabaoth’, Is 54:5. (Hos 1:2; Ez 16; Jer 2:2 Is 62:4-5). So in the centuries before Jesus Christ was born, Yahweh was perceived as the Spouse of Israel.
B Jesus as Spouse.
1. Mark 2:18-19
2. Matthew 22:1-13; 19:10-12; 25:1-13.
3. Luke 12:35-40; 19:28-38; 14:8.
4. Paul. - Eph 5:21-32.
5. John 3:29; 2:1-12; Rev 21.
We have found five very strong communities and other possible references to Jesus as Bridegroom. This means that it must be traced back to Jesus himself; that Jesus regarded himself as the Spouse of Israel. The implication is that Jesus saw himself as Yahweh.
II Mark
The Gospel of Mark is said to be Low Christological Gospel. Still, there is an implicit narrative statement in his Gospel that Jesus is God, as the following texts show.
1. Mk 10:17-18: ‘Why do you call me good?’
2. Mk 2:5-12: The Healing of the Paralytic. ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?’
3. Mk 2:23-3:5: The Disciples plucking ears of grain; ‘The Son of Man is master even of the Sabbath’.
4. Mk 12:35-37: “The Lord said to my Lord”.
5. There are many other incidents in the Gospels in which the divinity of Jesus is portrayed; Mk 9:2-8 - The Transfiguration.
6. Jesus walking on the water, (Mk 6:45-52).
III THE WORD
The evangelist develops the theme of the Son of God as the Revealer who brings the divine self-revelation (Jn 1:18). The Johannine Word presented rich trinitarian possibilities.
· Identification and distinction.
· God has been uttering the divine word always.
· John can move smoothly from the language of the Word to focus on “God the only Son who has made the Father known.”
· Opens up dialogue with non-Christian thinkers.
· By maintaining that the whole world was created through the divine Wisdom and Word (Jn 1:3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2) the early Christians interpreted Jesus as the divine agent of all creation.
Jesus and the Father
1 Father
The New Testament refers 421 times to God. 183 (43 per-cent) of these references refer to God as “Father.” The use of the word, ‘Father’, denotes in most instances the special relationship of Jesus to God.
2 Abba
What has been discovered in all four gospel traditions is that they report unanimously and without any hesitation that Jesus constantly addressed God as “My Father” (except Mk 15:34), and show that in so doing he used the Aramaic form “Abba.”
Father – Lk 10:21; Jn 11:41. God – Mk 15:34.
The term ‘Abba’ occurs three times in the New Testament: Mk 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6.
Father meaning Abba – Mt 6:9; 11:25-26; 16:17; Lk 11:2.
3 Son of God
Mk 1:1, 11; 15:39.
Mt 3:14-17; 4:1-11; 27:39, 54; 16:16.
The title Son of Man is associated with the power to forgive sins and with power over the Sabbath.
The title Lord is only rarely applied to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Note Acts 7:59-60.
1. Mt 11:25-30; Lk 10:21-22.
2. Mk 13:32; Mt 24:36.
3. Mk 12:1-12 par.
Yet neither here nor elsewhere in the synoptic Gospels does Jesus ever come out into the open and say, “I am the Son of God.” (Mt 27:43)
Jesus applied the language of divine sonship individually (to himself), filling it with a meaning that lifted “Son (of God)” beyond the level of his merely being either a man made like Adam in the divine image (Lk 3:38), or someone perfectly sensitive to the Holy Spirit (Lk 4:1,14,18), or someone bringing God’s peace (Lk 1; 14; 10:5-6) albeit in his own way (Mt 10:34; par. in Lk 12:51), or even a Davidic king (Lk 1:33). Implicitly, Jesus claimed an essential, “ontological” relationship of sonship toward God that provided the grounds for his functions as revealer, lawgiver, forgiver of and agent of the final kingdom. Those functions (his “doing”) depended on his ontological relationship as Son of God (his “being”).
In Paul's letters, God (ho theos) is Father and Jesus is Our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul would seem to be reluctant to call Jesus God, preferring the title Lord, presenting a soteriological function rather than an ontological reference. Paul is, at times subordinationist, but the Son is never a creature in Paul's witness. John clearly calls Jesus God in John 1:18 and John 20:20. But the Johannine text "the Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28) will later be used to justify subordination.
CCC 240.
So, in his identity and ministry as Son, Jesus is the divine Revealer of God the Father.
4 The Sending and Coming of Jesus.
At times, Jesus expressed his mission as one who had been sent by God. Mk 9:36-37 par; Mk 12:6 par, (cf. Mt 15:24). But on other occasions Jesus went beyond the normal prophetic “I was sent” to say, “I came,” Mk 2:17 par; Lk 12:49, 51; Mt 10:34-35. Mk 10:45 par.
Paul: sending - Rom 8:3 and initiative - 2 Cor 8:9, emptying himself Ph 2:7.
John: sending - 3:17, 34; 20:21 and descending from heaven - Jn 3:13. “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me” (Jn 6:38).
This ‘sending and coming’ motif presents Jesus as a divine being coming from God the Father, intimates an equality and unity between the Son and the Father and leads to the ‘begotten’ or the ‘generated’ status of the Son.
5 The Virginal Conception
The major value of the virginal conception has been to express Jesus’ divine origin and identity, without, at the same time, denying his true humanity. Gal 4:4.
Holy Spirit (Lk 24:49; Jn 14:26) had been actively present in the whole of Jesus’ life (Lk 3:22; 4:1, 14, 18) even back at his conception (Mt 1:20; Lk 1:35).
Virginal conception: from the beginning to the end, the story of Jesus Christ reveals a God who is triune.
6 Easter Mystery
“God (the Father) who raised Jesus (from the dead),”
1 Th 1:9-10; Gal 1:1; 1 Cor 6:14; Rom 4:24; 8:11; 10:9; 6:4; 1 Cor 6:14; 2 Cor 13:4; Rom 4:25; 6:9; 1 Cor 15:4, 13; Acts 3:15; 4:10
Jesus and the Holy Spirit
In the New Testament, the experience of the Spirit is intrinsically bound up with the historical Jesus. Luke’s designation of the divine spirit as the Holy Spirit has become standard for all Christians. Luke in his Gospel and Acts refers 54 times to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this usage aims principally at expressing the central purpose of the Spirit’s mission - to be the source of holiness by reproducing the characteristics of divine holiness and so creating truly holy men and women. Paul closely associates Christ and the Holy Spirit in the work of sanctification, but without identifying them and without articulating their relationship. (Gal. 4:4-6). In John’s Gospel, the person of the Holy Spirit emerges in the Paraclete passages (14:16, 17, 26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15), and John attests to a distinctly personal reality more explicitly than anywhere else in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit is the Paraclete, the Consoler, the Advocate, and the Intercessor.
1. The Annunciation Story: Luke1:35.
2. The Baptism of Jesus: Mark 1:10-11.
Although Jesus already possessed the Spirit by virtue of his unique conception, this special bestowal of the Holy Spirit is necessary if Jesus is to fulfil his role as initiator of the age to come.
3. The Public Ministry of Jesus.
Mark 1:12
Healings: Mt 12:28; Lk 4:36; 5:17; 6:19; 8:54; 13:32.
Prayer: Lk 3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18; 11:1; 22:32; 23:34-46.
Jesus was aware of being empowered by the Spirit, Mk 3:22-30. But he never unambiguously pointed to his deeds as signs of the Spirit’s power. Jesus is never credited with an awareness of the Spirit that had anything like the same intensity as his consciousness of the God whom he called “Abba.” It took Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation to initiate a new, characteristically Christian manner of thinking about the Spirit and the relationship of Jesus to the Spirit.
4 Paschal Mystery
The resurrection of Jesus is also seen in Scripture as the work of the Holy Spirit: Rom 8:11; Eph 1:19-20; 1 Cor 6:14; 2 Cor 13:4; Acts 2:33, (Jn 13:1-21:25).
5 The Sending of the Spirit
The NT writers understand the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit to be transformed by the resurrection. The exalted Jesus is now seen to share in God’s prerogative as Sender or Giver of the divine Spirit. (Jn 7:39; 15:26; 19:30, 34; 20:22). John also talks about the Father giving the Spirit (Jn 14:16-17) and sending the Spirit (Jn 14:26), and the Spirit proceeding from the Father (Jn 15.26). Even if the coming of the Spirit (Jn 14:16-17, 25) seems to merge with the return of Jesus himself (Jn 14:3, 18, 23, 28), in John’s Gospel the Spirit is not equated with Jesus but enjoys some individual identity.
Luke talks of Christ as co-sending the Spirit. (Acts 2:33; Lk 24:49). Paul never quite says that Christ has sent or will send the Spirit, (1 Cor 15:45?; Gal 4:6; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:7, 8, 12; Gal 3:2).
6. Jesus and the Spirit in the Church
The Spirit “in us” (Rom 5:5; 8:9,11,16; Gal 4:6) is nearly synonymous with talk about our being “in Christ” (Rom 6:3,11,23; 16:11; 1 Cor 1:30; 3:1; 4:15; Phil 3:1; 4:1-2). This near functional identity implies not only that for Paul the Spirit is the medium for Christ in his relating to human beings but even that “no distinction can be detected in the believer’s experience” between the exalted Christ and the Spirit of God.
Trinitarian Expressions
1 The Synoptics and Acts
There are a number of scriptural events that witness to an experience of the Three: the infancy narrative, the baptismal theophany, the story of Jesus' temptations, the transfiguration, the farewell discourses, the ascension, Peter's speech at Pentecost, the martyrdom of Stephen, and most importantly, of course, the narrative of Jesus' paschal mystery of death and resurrection. But there are in fact very few texts that make reference to the three persons in the one text. Moreover, if we define "trinitarian" to refer to the existence of three coequal persons in the Godhead, there is no trinitarian witness as such in the Synoptics and Acts. There are, however, undoubtedly traces of what we could call triadic patterns that attest to a sense of three persons in God.
· Matt. 28:19.
2 Paul
The Pauline letters yield a number of triadic formulas and other triadic passages about God, (Rom 1:3-4; 1 Cor 6:14; Rom 15:16). At the end of 2 Corinthians, as happens also in Rom 5:1-11, Paul emphasises the soteriological functions of the Trinity or the Trinity “for us,” (2 Cor 13:13).
1 Cor 12:4-7 and Gal 4:4-6. The salvation, initiated by God (2 Cor 13:13), is effected by Christ through his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection (Rom 4:25), and appropriated by participating in the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:1-5).
Finally, let us note four triadic formulas in Ephesians, 2:18; 3:14-17; 4:4-6 and 5:18-20.
Paul witnesses to a soteriological view of the tripersonal God, from whom comes our initial adoption, ongoing guidance and future inheritance, Rom 8:14-17. Salvation takes place because we are loved by the Lord Jesus, elected by God the Father, and sanctified by the Spirit (2 Th 2:13; 1 Th 1:4-6).
Conclusion
The New Testament writers do not even ordinarily speak of Jesus as “God” (except in the rarest of cases, e.g., the Prologue of John’s Gospel), since this would be for them an identification of Jesus with the Father. On the other hand, the New Testament recognises the divinity of the Son. More clearly than any other writer, John presents an understanding of the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as person. The New Testament does not specify the terms of the relationship between Father and Son, nor among Father and Son and Holy Spirit. It assumes only that there is some relationship (Mt 11:27; Jn 1:1; 8:38; 10:38; 1 Cor 2:10). But no text expresses a theology of the Trinity as such. Still even though we certainly do not find in the NT anything like the eventual, full-blown doctrine of God as three in one and one in three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), nevertheless, the NT witnesses provide a foundation and a starting point for that doctrinal development. While the Scriptures do not give an explicit doctrine of the Trinity, however, they do more than simply pave the way for it: they attest to the vibrant lived experience in the early Christian community of the threefold structure of God’s self-revelation, they witness to the threefoldness of God as expressed in liturgical and sacramental practice; they provide clear intimations of a trinitarian pattern; they establish a rhetoric for the expression of trinitarian faith; and they provide the basis for later development of trinitarian doctrine.
Chapter Three Athanasius: Formulating the Doctrine
Arius (d. ca. 336), a presbyter from Alexandria living in the early fourth century, denied the full divinity of the Son. Arius, concerned to protect the divine unity, immutability, and impassibility, reasoned that the Word, while preexistent in regard to the world, is a created intermediary, a kind of demi-god, (half-size or imperfect god), neither fully God nor fully human. “There was when he was not,” Arius argued. He adopted a subordinationist stance in regard to the question of the divinity of Jesus.
Nicea, 325
Is the Son truly God or is that designation merely a courtesy title? The issue was brought to a head when pressed to its soteriological consequences: Are we really and truly saved or are we not? If Christ is not truly divine, then he is a creature like us and has no special standing before God. We are still in our sins. The Council resolved that the Son is truly God and replied in response to the Arian slogan, "there was not when he was not." He was the eternally begotten Son of God. He was not a creature of the Creator. The resolution was articulated in the Creed of Nicaea, which used the word, homoousios, "from the same being/substance," to state that the Son is truly, fully, equally and eternally God, as the Father is God.
Aftermath of Nicea
Greek theology - “economic Trinity” - the one God is God the Father, and that the Son and the Spirit share with Him His divine life (subordinationism).
Latin theology - “immanent Trinity” - God is the one divine substance, comprising Father, Son and Spirit (modalism).
Homoousios and homoiousios (of like substance).
Where Irenaeus’s image of the Son and Spirit as “the two hands of God” might encourage the notion that the Son and Spirit could operate separately, if not independently, the former in the work of creation and the latter in that of divinization or re-creation, Athanasius underlined the unity in trinitarian activity: “The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the holy Triad is preserved.” Yet the more Athanasius and others were to insist on the unity of divine operations ad extra, the more problematic it becomes for us to distinguish the eternal existence of three distinct divine persons ad intro.
Tertullian introduced the expression tres personae in una substantia (three persons in one substance) to define the unity and triplicity of the Christian God. 'Person' here is a label for whatever accounts for the distinctive identity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Cappadocians
Ousia and hypostasis, both of which refer to something that subsists, an essential characteristic.
The Cappadocians – Basil of Caesarea (d. 379), his brother Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394), and sister Macrina (d. 379), and friend Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390). They used the term ousia to denote the triune God's one same nature, what God is – life, truth, being and goodness – and the term hypostasis to denote who the Father, Son and Spirit are as distinct.
Challenge of terminology - Person and substance: Hypostasis and ousia.
Gregory of Nazianzus explains: “God is three in regard to distinctive properties, or subsistences [hypostases], or, if you like, persons [prosopa]: for we shall not quarrel about the names, as long as the terms lead to the same conception. He is one in respect of the category of substance, that is, of godhead... We must avoid any notion of superiority or inferiority between the Persons; nor must we turn the union into a confusion, nor the distinction into a difference of natures.” (Oratio 39.11). So, thanks in large measure to the Cappadocians, hypostasis (person) gradually emerged as the term with which to refer to the Three in their distinction from each other within the One God, while ousia (substance) came to be the term to refer to the Oneness of God.
Arians challenge – tritheists or monarchianists.
The divine persons are distinguished by their mutual relations to one another What the Father, Son and Spirit are is the one divine nature which is to be life and goodness itself. But who each person is, is sheer relation to each other, in a way absolutely unknown to our own experience. The divine persons thus are not separate substances; neither, however, are they simply "accidental" qualities of or names for the Father who alone is God. They are unique persons distinguished precisely by their unique relation to one another. The Father alone is the first person, God unbegotten, source without source. The Son alone is second person, God eternally begotten from the Father in perfect equality. And the Spirit alone is third person, God eternally proceeding from the Father in perfect equality.
The function of homoousios is to establish that there can be a sharing in being. The Arians claimed that God cannot be one God if he is Son as well as Father. By insisting that God is eternally Son as well as Father, the Nicene theologians introduced a note of relationality into the being of God: God's being is defined as being in relation. God is being in communion. This was a theological revolution, a revolution in the way in which the word God was to be understood. God is no more than what Father, Son and Spirit give to and receive from each other in the inseparable communion that is the outcome of their love. There is no 'being' of God other than this dynamic of persons in relation.
At the heart of the doctrine that being is communion are four central concepts: person, relation, otherness and freedom. To think of persons is to think in terms of relations: Father, Son and Spirit are the particular persons they are by virtue of their relations with each other. Personal relations are those which constitute the other person as other, as truly particular. Persons are those whose relations with others are free relations.
The Cappadocians never tired of repeating that we cannot know what God is, but we know God from God’s “operations”. The biblical, credal, and anaphoral use of Father as a synonym for God was amplified in emerging trinitarian doctrine. “God the Father” now had two meanings: (1) the one who comes from nothing, from nowhere, from no one, principle without principle, and (2) the one who eternally begets the Son. The Cappadocians distinguished between the Three in terms of their origin and mutual relations: the Father is font or cause; the Son is begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father. Each of the divine hypostases, or Persons, is the ousia or essence of God; these Persons are distinguished from one another only by their relationships to one another, and those relationships are determined, in turn, by their origins. The divine persons are persons in different ways because of distinct immanent events within the divine life, with the Father eternally “generating” the Son and “breathing” the Spirit, the Son being “generated” (and in some sense being involved in the “breathing” of the Spirit), and the Spirit being “breathed.”
To counter the charge of tritheism, they explained the mystery of the unity of the three hypostases in the one divine ousia in terms of the notion of co inherence in each other. So, the expanded meaning of divine fatherhood forced an adjustment in the understanding of the “monarchy” of the Father. While the Father is the principle of unity, the unity of God was more and more understood to reside in the perichoresis (mutual interdependence) of three persons in each other. In the eighth century, John Damascene would speak in terms of perichoresis. The Council of Florence (1438-1445) later articulated the doctrine of the perichoresis, or circumincession, the coinherence or mutual indwelling of the persons, as an explication of the true identity of substance in the Trinity.
The Holy Spirit
Meanwhile the question of the divinity of the Holy Spirit had also emerged as an issue of dispute. A challenge from the “Tropici” led Athanasius to claim that to call the Spirit a creature was to be “guilty of a direct impiety against the Son himself.” According to Athanasius, being truly divine, the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father and is “given” by the Son. It is through the Son that the Spirit is in and from the Father. To counter the charge that the Spirit and the Word would be “two brothers,” the uniqueness of the Son as only begotten was stressed. To counter the suggestion that the Spirit is of the Son, the distinctive characteristic of the Father as being principle of the divine life that is in the Son and the Spirit was emphasised. For Basil, the Spirit issues from God not by way of generation (as in the case of the Son) but “as from the breath of (God’s) mouth,” (Jn 3:8). Nazianzus insisted that the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father, as John’s Gospel has it (Jn 15:26)
Constantinople, 381
This Council clarified that the Holy Spirit was also truly, really, and fully God. Athanasius explained: “If, by participation in the Spirit, we are made 'sharers in the divine nature,' we should be mad to say that the Spirit has a created nature and not the nature of God. For it is on this account that those in whom he is are made divine. If he makes men divine, it is not to be doubted that his nature is of God.”
The use of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed gradually spread through East and West from the late fifth century, but it was not adopted in Rome until 1014. The bishops of Constantinople accepted a creed that was already available, probably the Baptismal Creed of Jerusalem. At this point then, in 381, the trinitarian faith of the church was distilled and proclaimed in what came to be called the Nicene Creed, which Christians, both East and West, continue to recite today as the symbol par excellence of our faith and is recited today in every Sunday Mass throughout the Catholic world. Trinitarian doctrine was effectively settled. The task of meaning-making and interpretation remained, however, as indeed it does for every generation. Theology at this stage moves from a dogmatic stage, wherein doctrine is formulated and promulgated, into what we might describe as a more properly theological stage, wherein our faith seeks understanding of the mysteries we proclaim.
Self-Revelation of the Triune God
1st Semester, 2008, Class 2B
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boff, Leonardo, Trinity and Society. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1988.
Congar, Yves, 1 Believe in the Holy Spirit. 3 vols. New York: Seabury Press, 1983.
The Word and the Spirit, London: Chapman, 1986.
Hunt, Anne, What they are saying about the Trinity, Paulist, New York, 1998
Moltmann, Jurgen, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God. London: SCM Press, 1981.
O’Collins, Gerald, The Tripersonal God, New York, Paulist, 1999.
O’Donnell, John, The Mystery of the Triune God, London, Sheed and Ward, 1988.
Chapter One
Old Testament Monotheistic Faith with anticipations of Trinitarian Belief
The core of Jewish faith is that there is one unique God. The prophet Isaiah states: “God is unique; there are no other gods besides him”, (Is 44:6), (Dt 6:4-5, Neh 9:6, Is 45:22-24, Mk 12:29-30). While the religion of Israel was a declaration of monotheistic faith, it developed from the polytheistic faith of the contemporaries of Abraham. Then it was normal for everybody to have their gods including Abraham. (Gen 12, 51:19-35) The Old Testament nevertheless provides a framework and terminology with which to speak of plurality in God.
FATHER
There are six contexts in which the people of Israel refer to God as Father.
1 Creator: Dt 32:6 states, “Is this the return you make to Yahweh? Is he not your father, who gave you being, who made you, by whom you subsist?’ (Mal 2:10, Wis 14:3).
2 Father of People. The fidelity of God as the Father of his people is asserted many times in the Scriptures. (Dt 32:6). The people are called God’s firstborn son (Ex 4:22-23; Hos 11:1) & God’s “sons and daughters” (Dt 32:19; Is 1:2; 30:1), (Dt 32:18).
An ideal father, Dt 1:31, Jer 3:4, 19; 2:27; 31:9, Is 40:3-4; 42:16; 43:19-20), (Is 63:l5ff., 64:6-8).
3 Father of King: 2 Sam 7:12-14, Ps 2:7; 89: 26-28. (Ps 2:6).
4 Compassion: “When Israel was young, I loved him; I called my son out of Egypt. It was I who taught him to walk, I who had taken him in my arms... I led them with reins of kindness, with leading strings of love. I was to them like one who lifts a little infant close against the cheek, stooping down to him, I gave him his food (Hos 11:1-4) (Jer 31:20, 2 Sam 7-14, Ps 68:4-6, Is 66:13, Is 49:15, Sirach 4:10).
5 Leader: God has the authority and power of a Father and so must be respected and followed. (Mal 1:2, 6, Ps 123:2, Dt 8:5, Wis 11:9-10, Prov 3:12).
6 Cultic: The two words “Our Father” are found in Jewish prayers used in Liturgy (The Eighteen Benedictions, New Year and Day of Atonement Liturgies, Tobit 13:4). This prayer of praise discloses a very personal attitude toward God and anticipates the NT’s prayerful relationship to God as “our Father.”
Conclusion: Naming God Father expressed God’s deep involvement in the story of Israel. As the Catechism writes: “By calling God "Father," the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children” CCC 239.
SON
The Old Testament also speaks of the Son of God, at first in reference to the people as a whole (Hos 11:1) and sometimes in reference to a king (Ps 2:7) or an upright Jew (Wis 2:18). Primarily, it indicates not physical filiation, but a divine call to fulfill a particular task in salvation history. The Old Testament also speaks of the Word (Jdt 16:14, Wis 9:1-2, 18:15-16) and the Wisdom of God (Sir 24:8), but without personification. In other words, Word and Wisdom in the Old Testament do not refer to personal divine beings as such. While they personify a divine activity, neither Word nor Wisdom is a person to be addressed. They do not connote any kind of plurality in the Godhead. Nor is there evidence of paternity and filiation within the Godhead in the Old Testament. There are presentations on the Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah, Wisdom and Word in trinitytangaza08.blogspot.com.
SPIRIT
1 Creation
It is the “ruah elohim” that brings forth the world out of the primeval waste. He creates the world. Nothing comes into existence except through the power of God’s creative Spirit. He is the agent of creation as well as of life, Genesis 1:2; 2:7, Psalm 104:30.
New creation (Is 43:19, Ez 36:27; 37:1-14).
The end-time will be the “golden age of the Spirit” (Is 44:3; Zc 6:1-8 and Joel 2:23-30; 3:1-3). First, the “one who comes” is characterised as a man of the Spirit” (Is 11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Secondly, the age to come is inaugurated by the outpouring of the Spirit on all people (Is 32:15; 44:3; Ez 39:29; 11 2:28). Thirdly, this age of the Spirit is marked by a new Covenant (Is 59:21; Jr31:31-34; 32:37-40, Ez 36:27).
2 Prophecy and Revelation
The Spirit takes possession of prophets to empower them to speak God’s word, (Ez 2:2ff; 3:24; 11:4-5). Moses - Nb 11:17, 25; Is 63:11.
Joel 3:1-2, Jer 31:31-34, Ez 36:24-28; 37:19-21 and 36:26-27).”
3. Messiah
The Messiah is perceived as prophetic (Dt 18:15), as a charismatic leader (Is 11:1-10) and as a glorious supernatural person of divine qualities (Dn 7:l3ff).
Isaiah 11:1ff.
4. Link with Wisdom and Word
There exists very intimate links between word, wisdom and spirit in pre-Christian Judaism (Ps 33:6; Ps 147:18, Jdt 16:14; Ps 104:29-30)
Wis 9:17: see 1:4-5; 7:7, 22, 25.
Dt 34:9; Jb 32:8-9; Is 11:2.
Conclusion
While the Old Testament evinces no sense of plurality in the Godhead, what it does provide is, first, a climate within which plurality was later conceivable and, second, a terminology with which to express that plurality.
Chapter Two
Jesus Christ: Revelation of the Triune God.
If the reality of Jesus Christ is a myth, then the Trinity is a myth. Now we will explore the witness to the divinity of Jesus.
I Spouse of Israel
A Yahweh as Spouse: In Hosea, God’s relationship with Israel is described in terms of marriage. The wedding imagery of God’s love for his people is taken up by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Song of Songs. Isaiah says, ‘For now, your creator will be your husband, his name, Yahweh Sabaoth’, Is 54:5. (Hos 1:2; Ez 16; Jer 2:2 Is 62:4-5). So in the centuries before Jesus Christ was born, Yahweh was perceived as the Spouse of Israel.
B Jesus as Spouse.
1. Mark 2:18-19
2. Matthew 22:1-13; 19:10-12; 25:1-13.
3. Luke 12:35-40; 19:28-38; 14:8.
4. Paul. - Eph 5:21-32.
5. John 3:29; 2:1-12; Rev 21.
We have found five very strong communities and other possible references to Jesus as Bridegroom. This means that it must be traced back to Jesus himself; that Jesus regarded himself as the Spouse of Israel. The implication is that Jesus saw himself as Yahweh.
II Mark
The Gospel of Mark is said to be Low Christological Gospel. Still, there is an implicit narrative statement in his Gospel that Jesus is God, as the following texts show.
1. Mk 10:17-18: ‘Why do you call me good?’
2. Mk 2:5-12: The Healing of the Paralytic. ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?’
3. Mk 2:23-3:5: The Disciples plucking ears of grain; ‘The Son of Man is master even of the Sabbath’.
4. Mk 12:35-37: “The Lord said to my Lord”.
5. There are many other incidents in the Gospels in which the divinity of Jesus is portrayed; Mk 9:2-8 - The Transfiguration.
6. Jesus walking on the water, (Mk 6:45-52).
III THE WORD
The evangelist develops the theme of the Son of God as the Revealer who brings the divine self-revelation (Jn 1:18). The Johannine Word presented rich trinitarian possibilities.
· Identification and distinction.
· God has been uttering the divine word always.
· John can move smoothly from the language of the Word to focus on “God the only Son who has made the Father known.”
· Opens up dialogue with non-Christian thinkers.
· By maintaining that the whole world was created through the divine Wisdom and Word (Jn 1:3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2) the early Christians interpreted Jesus as the divine agent of all creation.
Jesus and the Father
1 Father
The New Testament refers 421 times to God. 183 (43 per-cent) of these references refer to God as “Father.” The use of the word, ‘Father’, denotes in most instances the special relationship of Jesus to God.
2 Abba
What has been discovered in all four gospel traditions is that they report unanimously and without any hesitation that Jesus constantly addressed God as “My Father” (except Mk 15:34), and show that in so doing he used the Aramaic form “Abba.”
Father – Lk 10:21; Jn 11:41. God – Mk 15:34.
The term ‘Abba’ occurs three times in the New Testament: Mk 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6.
Father meaning Abba – Mt 6:9; 11:25-26; 16:17; Lk 11:2.
3 Son of God
Mk 1:1, 11; 15:39.
Mt 3:14-17; 4:1-11; 27:39, 54; 16:16.
The title Son of Man is associated with the power to forgive sins and with power over the Sabbath.
The title Lord is only rarely applied to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Note Acts 7:59-60.
1. Mt 11:25-30; Lk 10:21-22.
2. Mk 13:32; Mt 24:36.
3. Mk 12:1-12 par.
Yet neither here nor elsewhere in the synoptic Gospels does Jesus ever come out into the open and say, “I am the Son of God.” (Mt 27:43)
Jesus applied the language of divine sonship individually (to himself), filling it with a meaning that lifted “Son (of God)” beyond the level of his merely being either a man made like Adam in the divine image (Lk 3:38), or someone perfectly sensitive to the Holy Spirit (Lk 4:1,14,18), or someone bringing God’s peace (Lk 1; 14; 10:5-6) albeit in his own way (Mt 10:34; par. in Lk 12:51), or even a Davidic king (Lk 1:33). Implicitly, Jesus claimed an essential, “ontological” relationship of sonship toward God that provided the grounds for his functions as revealer, lawgiver, forgiver of and agent of the final kingdom. Those functions (his “doing”) depended on his ontological relationship as Son of God (his “being”).
In Paul's letters, God (ho theos) is Father and Jesus is Our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul would seem to be reluctant to call Jesus God, preferring the title Lord, presenting a soteriological function rather than an ontological reference. Paul is, at times subordinationist, but the Son is never a creature in Paul's witness. John clearly calls Jesus God in John 1:18 and John 20:20. But the Johannine text "the Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28) will later be used to justify subordination.
CCC 240.
So, in his identity and ministry as Son, Jesus is the divine Revealer of God the Father.
4 The Sending and Coming of Jesus.
At times, Jesus expressed his mission as one who had been sent by God. Mk 9:36-37 par; Mk 12:6 par, (cf. Mt 15:24). But on other occasions Jesus went beyond the normal prophetic “I was sent” to say, “I came,” Mk 2:17 par; Lk 12:49, 51; Mt 10:34-35. Mk 10:45 par.
Paul: sending - Rom 8:3 and initiative - 2 Cor 8:9, emptying himself Ph 2:7.
John: sending - 3:17, 34; 20:21 and descending from heaven - Jn 3:13. “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me” (Jn 6:38).
This ‘sending and coming’ motif presents Jesus as a divine being coming from God the Father, intimates an equality and unity between the Son and the Father and leads to the ‘begotten’ or the ‘generated’ status of the Son.
5 The Virginal Conception
The major value of the virginal conception has been to express Jesus’ divine origin and identity, without, at the same time, denying his true humanity. Gal 4:4.
Holy Spirit (Lk 24:49; Jn 14:26) had been actively present in the whole of Jesus’ life (Lk 3:22; 4:1, 14, 18) even back at his conception (Mt 1:20; Lk 1:35).
Virginal conception: from the beginning to the end, the story of Jesus Christ reveals a God who is triune.
6 Easter Mystery
“God (the Father) who raised Jesus (from the dead),”
1 Th 1:9-10; Gal 1:1; 1 Cor 6:14; Rom 4:24; 8:11; 10:9; 6:4; 1 Cor 6:14; 2 Cor 13:4; Rom 4:25; 6:9; 1 Cor 15:4, 13; Acts 3:15; 4:10
Jesus and the Holy Spirit
In the New Testament, the experience of the Spirit is intrinsically bound up with the historical Jesus. Luke’s designation of the divine spirit as the Holy Spirit has become standard for all Christians. Luke in his Gospel and Acts refers 54 times to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this usage aims principally at expressing the central purpose of the Spirit’s mission - to be the source of holiness by reproducing the characteristics of divine holiness and so creating truly holy men and women. Paul closely associates Christ and the Holy Spirit in the work of sanctification, but without identifying them and without articulating their relationship. (Gal. 4:4-6). In John’s Gospel, the person of the Holy Spirit emerges in the Paraclete passages (14:16, 17, 26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15), and John attests to a distinctly personal reality more explicitly than anywhere else in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit is the Paraclete, the Consoler, the Advocate, and the Intercessor.
1. The Annunciation Story: Luke1:35.
2. The Baptism of Jesus: Mark 1:10-11.
Although Jesus already possessed the Spirit by virtue of his unique conception, this special bestowal of the Holy Spirit is necessary if Jesus is to fulfil his role as initiator of the age to come.
3. The Public Ministry of Jesus.
Mark 1:12
Healings: Mt 12:28; Lk 4:36; 5:17; 6:19; 8:54; 13:32.
Prayer: Lk 3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18; 11:1; 22:32; 23:34-46.
Jesus was aware of being empowered by the Spirit, Mk 3:22-30. But he never unambiguously pointed to his deeds as signs of the Spirit’s power. Jesus is never credited with an awareness of the Spirit that had anything like the same intensity as his consciousness of the God whom he called “Abba.” It took Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation to initiate a new, characteristically Christian manner of thinking about the Spirit and the relationship of Jesus to the Spirit.
4 Paschal Mystery
The resurrection of Jesus is also seen in Scripture as the work of the Holy Spirit: Rom 8:11; Eph 1:19-20; 1 Cor 6:14; 2 Cor 13:4; Acts 2:33, (Jn 13:1-21:25).
5 The Sending of the Spirit
The NT writers understand the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit to be transformed by the resurrection. The exalted Jesus is now seen to share in God’s prerogative as Sender or Giver of the divine Spirit. (Jn 7:39; 15:26; 19:30, 34; 20:22). John also talks about the Father giving the Spirit (Jn 14:16-17) and sending the Spirit (Jn 14:26), and the Spirit proceeding from the Father (Jn 15.26). Even if the coming of the Spirit (Jn 14:16-17, 25) seems to merge with the return of Jesus himself (Jn 14:3, 18, 23, 28), in John’s Gospel the Spirit is not equated with Jesus but enjoys some individual identity.
Luke talks of Christ as co-sending the Spirit. (Acts 2:33; Lk 24:49). Paul never quite says that Christ has sent or will send the Spirit, (1 Cor 15:45?; Gal 4:6; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:7, 8, 12; Gal 3:2).
6. Jesus and the Spirit in the Church
The Spirit “in us” (Rom 5:5; 8:9,11,16; Gal 4:6) is nearly synonymous with talk about our being “in Christ” (Rom 6:3,11,23; 16:11; 1 Cor 1:30; 3:1; 4:15; Phil 3:1; 4:1-2). This near functional identity implies not only that for Paul the Spirit is the medium for Christ in his relating to human beings but even that “no distinction can be detected in the believer’s experience” between the exalted Christ and the Spirit of God.
Trinitarian Expressions
1 The Synoptics and Acts
There are a number of scriptural events that witness to an experience of the Three: the infancy narrative, the baptismal theophany, the story of Jesus' temptations, the transfiguration, the farewell discourses, the ascension, Peter's speech at Pentecost, the martyrdom of Stephen, and most importantly, of course, the narrative of Jesus' paschal mystery of death and resurrection. But there are in fact very few texts that make reference to the three persons in the one text. Moreover, if we define "trinitarian" to refer to the existence of three coequal persons in the Godhead, there is no trinitarian witness as such in the Synoptics and Acts. There are, however, undoubtedly traces of what we could call triadic patterns that attest to a sense of three persons in God.
· Matt. 28:19.
2 Paul
The Pauline letters yield a number of triadic formulas and other triadic passages about God, (Rom 1:3-4; 1 Cor 6:14; Rom 15:16). At the end of 2 Corinthians, as happens also in Rom 5:1-11, Paul emphasises the soteriological functions of the Trinity or the Trinity “for us,” (2 Cor 13:13).
1 Cor 12:4-7 and Gal 4:4-6. The salvation, initiated by God (2 Cor 13:13), is effected by Christ through his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection (Rom 4:25), and appropriated by participating in the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:1-5).
Finally, let us note four triadic formulas in Ephesians, 2:18; 3:14-17; 4:4-6 and 5:18-20.
Paul witnesses to a soteriological view of the tripersonal God, from whom comes our initial adoption, ongoing guidance and future inheritance, Rom 8:14-17. Salvation takes place because we are loved by the Lord Jesus, elected by God the Father, and sanctified by the Spirit (2 Th 2:13; 1 Th 1:4-6).
Conclusion
The New Testament writers do not even ordinarily speak of Jesus as “God” (except in the rarest of cases, e.g., the Prologue of John’s Gospel), since this would be for them an identification of Jesus with the Father. On the other hand, the New Testament recognises the divinity of the Son. More clearly than any other writer, John presents an understanding of the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as person. The New Testament does not specify the terms of the relationship between Father and Son, nor among Father and Son and Holy Spirit. It assumes only that there is some relationship (Mt 11:27; Jn 1:1; 8:38; 10:38; 1 Cor 2:10). But no text expresses a theology of the Trinity as such. Still even though we certainly do not find in the NT anything like the eventual, full-blown doctrine of God as three in one and one in three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), nevertheless, the NT witnesses provide a foundation and a starting point for that doctrinal development. While the Scriptures do not give an explicit doctrine of the Trinity, however, they do more than simply pave the way for it: they attest to the vibrant lived experience in the early Christian community of the threefold structure of God’s self-revelation, they witness to the threefoldness of God as expressed in liturgical and sacramental practice; they provide clear intimations of a trinitarian pattern; they establish a rhetoric for the expression of trinitarian faith; and they provide the basis for later development of trinitarian doctrine.
Chapter Three Athanasius: Formulating the Doctrine
Arius (d. ca. 336), a presbyter from Alexandria living in the early fourth century, denied the full divinity of the Son. Arius, concerned to protect the divine unity, immutability, and impassibility, reasoned that the Word, while preexistent in regard to the world, is a created intermediary, a kind of demi-god, (half-size or imperfect god), neither fully God nor fully human. “There was when he was not,” Arius argued. He adopted a subordinationist stance in regard to the question of the divinity of Jesus.
Nicea, 325
Is the Son truly God or is that designation merely a courtesy title? The issue was brought to a head when pressed to its soteriological consequences: Are we really and truly saved or are we not? If Christ is not truly divine, then he is a creature like us and has no special standing before God. We are still in our sins. The Council resolved that the Son is truly God and replied in response to the Arian slogan, "there was not when he was not." He was the eternally begotten Son of God. He was not a creature of the Creator. The resolution was articulated in the Creed of Nicaea, which used the word, homoousios, "from the same being/substance," to state that the Son is truly, fully, equally and eternally God, as the Father is God.
Aftermath of Nicea
Greek theology - “economic Trinity” - the one God is God the Father, and that the Son and the Spirit share with Him His divine life (subordinationism).
Latin theology - “immanent Trinity” - God is the one divine substance, comprising Father, Son and Spirit (modalism).
Homoousios and homoiousios (of like substance).
Where Irenaeus’s image of the Son and Spirit as “the two hands of God” might encourage the notion that the Son and Spirit could operate separately, if not independently, the former in the work of creation and the latter in that of divinization or re-creation, Athanasius underlined the unity in trinitarian activity: “The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the holy Triad is preserved.” Yet the more Athanasius and others were to insist on the unity of divine operations ad extra, the more problematic it becomes for us to distinguish the eternal existence of three distinct divine persons ad intro.
Tertullian introduced the expression tres personae in una substantia (three persons in one substance) to define the unity and triplicity of the Christian God. 'Person' here is a label for whatever accounts for the distinctive identity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Cappadocians
Ousia and hypostasis, both of which refer to something that subsists, an essential characteristic.
The Cappadocians – Basil of Caesarea (d. 379), his brother Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394), and sister Macrina (d. 379), and friend Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390). They used the term ousia to denote the triune God's one same nature, what God is – life, truth, being and goodness – and the term hypostasis to denote who the Father, Son and Spirit are as distinct.
Challenge of terminology - Person and substance: Hypostasis and ousia.
Gregory of Nazianzus explains: “God is three in regard to distinctive properties, or subsistences [hypostases], or, if you like, persons [prosopa]: for we shall not quarrel about the names, as long as the terms lead to the same conception. He is one in respect of the category of substance, that is, of godhead... We must avoid any notion of superiority or inferiority between the Persons; nor must we turn the union into a confusion, nor the distinction into a difference of natures.” (Oratio 39.11). So, thanks in large measure to the Cappadocians, hypostasis (person) gradually emerged as the term with which to refer to the Three in their distinction from each other within the One God, while ousia (substance) came to be the term to refer to the Oneness of God.
Arians challenge – tritheists or monarchianists.
The divine persons are distinguished by their mutual relations to one another What the Father, Son and Spirit are is the one divine nature which is to be life and goodness itself. But who each person is, is sheer relation to each other, in a way absolutely unknown to our own experience. The divine persons thus are not separate substances; neither, however, are they simply "accidental" qualities of or names for the Father who alone is God. They are unique persons distinguished precisely by their unique relation to one another. The Father alone is the first person, God unbegotten, source without source. The Son alone is second person, God eternally begotten from the Father in perfect equality. And the Spirit alone is third person, God eternally proceeding from the Father in perfect equality.
The function of homoousios is to establish that there can be a sharing in being. The Arians claimed that God cannot be one God if he is Son as well as Father. By insisting that God is eternally Son as well as Father, the Nicene theologians introduced a note of relationality into the being of God: God's being is defined as being in relation. God is being in communion. This was a theological revolution, a revolution in the way in which the word God was to be understood. God is no more than what Father, Son and Spirit give to and receive from each other in the inseparable communion that is the outcome of their love. There is no 'being' of God other than this dynamic of persons in relation.
At the heart of the doctrine that being is communion are four central concepts: person, relation, otherness and freedom. To think of persons is to think in terms of relations: Father, Son and Spirit are the particular persons they are by virtue of their relations with each other. Personal relations are those which constitute the other person as other, as truly particular. Persons are those whose relations with others are free relations.
The Cappadocians never tired of repeating that we cannot know what God is, but we know God from God’s “operations”. The biblical, credal, and anaphoral use of Father as a synonym for God was amplified in emerging trinitarian doctrine. “God the Father” now had two meanings: (1) the one who comes from nothing, from nowhere, from no one, principle without principle, and (2) the one who eternally begets the Son. The Cappadocians distinguished between the Three in terms of their origin and mutual relations: the Father is font or cause; the Son is begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father. Each of the divine hypostases, or Persons, is the ousia or essence of God; these Persons are distinguished from one another only by their relationships to one another, and those relationships are determined, in turn, by their origins. The divine persons are persons in different ways because of distinct immanent events within the divine life, with the Father eternally “generating” the Son and “breathing” the Spirit, the Son being “generated” (and in some sense being involved in the “breathing” of the Spirit), and the Spirit being “breathed.”
To counter the charge of tritheism, they explained the mystery of the unity of the three hypostases in the one divine ousia in terms of the notion of co inherence in each other. So, the expanded meaning of divine fatherhood forced an adjustment in the understanding of the “monarchy” of the Father. While the Father is the principle of unity, the unity of God was more and more understood to reside in the perichoresis (mutual interdependence) of three persons in each other. In the eighth century, John Damascene would speak in terms of perichoresis. The Council of Florence (1438-1445) later articulated the doctrine of the perichoresis, or circumincession, the coinherence or mutual indwelling of the persons, as an explication of the true identity of substance in the Trinity.
The Holy Spirit
Meanwhile the question of the divinity of the Holy Spirit had also emerged as an issue of dispute. A challenge from the “Tropici” led Athanasius to claim that to call the Spirit a creature was to be “guilty of a direct impiety against the Son himself.” According to Athanasius, being truly divine, the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father and is “given” by the Son. It is through the Son that the Spirit is in and from the Father. To counter the charge that the Spirit and the Word would be “two brothers,” the uniqueness of the Son as only begotten was stressed. To counter the suggestion that the Spirit is of the Son, the distinctive characteristic of the Father as being principle of the divine life that is in the Son and the Spirit was emphasised. For Basil, the Spirit issues from God not by way of generation (as in the case of the Son) but “as from the breath of (God’s) mouth,” (Jn 3:8). Nazianzus insisted that the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father, as John’s Gospel has it (Jn 15:26)
Constantinople, 381
This Council clarified that the Holy Spirit was also truly, really, and fully God. Athanasius explained: “If, by participation in the Spirit, we are made 'sharers in the divine nature,' we should be mad to say that the Spirit has a created nature and not the nature of God. For it is on this account that those in whom he is are made divine. If he makes men divine, it is not to be doubted that his nature is of God.”
The use of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed gradually spread through East and West from the late fifth century, but it was not adopted in Rome until 1014. The bishops of Constantinople accepted a creed that was already available, probably the Baptismal Creed of Jerusalem. At this point then, in 381, the trinitarian faith of the church was distilled and proclaimed in what came to be called the Nicene Creed, which Christians, both East and West, continue to recite today as the symbol par excellence of our faith and is recited today in every Sunday Mass throughout the Catholic world. Trinitarian doctrine was effectively settled. The task of meaning-making and interpretation remained, however, as indeed it does for every generation. Theology at this stage moves from a dogmatic stage, wherein doctrine is formulated and promulgated, into what we might describe as a more properly theological stage, wherein our faith seeks understanding of the mysteries we proclaim.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Glossary
GLOSSARY
Adoptionists – All those who hold that Christ was a mere man who was adopted by God at the baptism or resurrection.
Arians – Those who followed Arius of Alexandria in asserting that God’s Son did not always exist and hence was not divine by nature but only first among creatures.
Deists – Those in modern times who accept the existence of the Creator but reject in principle any special divine revelation or activity. The Deist ‘God’ leaves nature and human history to unfold according to their own laws.
Macedonians – Fourth century heretics who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit; they drew their name from Macedonius, a Bishop of Constantinople, deposed in 360.
Modalists – Those who stress the unity of the ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ that they deny any personal distinction within God; they understand the three divine names to refer merely to the modes, or manners, in which the monopersonal God acts and is revealed.
Monarchians – Those who stressed the one principle (arche) in God, sometimes to the point of denying any personal distinctions within the divinity.
Nature – The essential properties that characterise some individual living being and that are expressed in its activity.
Patripassians – ‘Father sufferers’ or those early third century monarchian modalists who elaborated the consequences of their heresy – the Father becomes incarnate, suffered the passion and died on the cross.
Person – A distinct individual with the power to know, love, and act freely in relationship with other human beings and their world.
Pneumatomachians – ‘Spirit fighters’ or those early fourth century heretics who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Sabellians – Followers of Sabellius (3rd Century); they belonged among the modalist monarchians by denying the distinct persons in God.
Substance – That which ‘stands under,’ or the essential characteristics shared in common with those of the same nature.
Tritheism – The belief in three separate gods who choose to exist and function together. This belief differs sharply from orthodo trinitarian faith in three divine persons who constitute one God.
Unitarians – Those who accept only one divine person.
The definitions of these terms are taken from ‘The Tripersonal God’ by Gerald O’Collins (Paulist, New York, 1999), pp. 204-207.
Adoptionists – All those who hold that Christ was a mere man who was adopted by God at the baptism or resurrection.
Arians – Those who followed Arius of Alexandria in asserting that God’s Son did not always exist and hence was not divine by nature but only first among creatures.
Deists – Those in modern times who accept the existence of the Creator but reject in principle any special divine revelation or activity. The Deist ‘God’ leaves nature and human history to unfold according to their own laws.
Macedonians – Fourth century heretics who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit; they drew their name from Macedonius, a Bishop of Constantinople, deposed in 360.
Modalists – Those who stress the unity of the ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ that they deny any personal distinction within God; they understand the three divine names to refer merely to the modes, or manners, in which the monopersonal God acts and is revealed.
Monarchians – Those who stressed the one principle (arche) in God, sometimes to the point of denying any personal distinctions within the divinity.
Nature – The essential properties that characterise some individual living being and that are expressed in its activity.
Patripassians – ‘Father sufferers’ or those early third century monarchian modalists who elaborated the consequences of their heresy – the Father becomes incarnate, suffered the passion and died on the cross.
Person – A distinct individual with the power to know, love, and act freely in relationship with other human beings and their world.
Pneumatomachians – ‘Spirit fighters’ or those early fourth century heretics who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Sabellians – Followers of Sabellius (3rd Century); they belonged among the modalist monarchians by denying the distinct persons in God.
Substance – That which ‘stands under,’ or the essential characteristics shared in common with those of the same nature.
Tritheism – The belief in three separate gods who choose to exist and function together. This belief differs sharply from orthodo trinitarian faith in three divine persons who constitute one God.
Unitarians – Those who accept only one divine person.
The definitions of these terms are taken from ‘The Tripersonal God’ by Gerald O’Collins (Paulist, New York, 1999), pp. 204-207.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Messiah
Messiah
Pheme Parkins
Harpers Bible Dictionary
Messiah (from the Heb. mashiab, "anointed one"), a term that could be applied to any person "anointed" and sent by God.
Early Usage: In the political sphere, it referred to the kings who would come to continue the Davidic dynasty (Pss. 18:50; 89:20, 38, 51; 132: 10,17). "Anointed" might also refer to a priest (ef. Lev. 4:3, 5). "Messiah" could refer to anyone divinely appointed to a task that affected the destiny of the chosen people. Since the Davidic king is the chosen ruler of God (2 Sam. 7:8-16), "messiah" is often associated with the prophetic expectation that God would raise up an ideal Davidic ruler to occupy the throne of Israel (e.g., Jer. 33:15; Ezek. 37:23-24). However, none of the prophetic books use "messiah" for the future king. In Is 45:1 "anointed" refers to Cyrus as God's agent. In Hab. 3:13 "messiah" refers either to the reigning king or to Israel as a nation.
Dan. 9:25 associates the renewal of Jerusalem with a coming "anointed one," a prince. However, Daniel does not contain any further speculation about "the anointed." Similar caution must be exercised in regard to the claim that the "king from the sun" in Sib. Or. 3:652-56 represents a future "messianic king" of Israel. The author appears to be referring to the seventh king in the Ptolemaic line as one who would bring great peace. Such expectations are similar to those associated with Cyrus. We find a more firmly established expectation of a future Davidic king, described as God's "anointed," in the Psalms of Solomon 17-18. This "ideal king" reflects opposition to the non-Davidic Hasmonean dynasty. He is a human ruler, though endowed with special gifts of wisdom and righteousness (17:23, 35, 41-42, 46-47).
A more complex picture of the "anointed one" emerges in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Christian editing of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs makes it difficult to trace the development of its images of the "messiah." Levi and Judah are the priestly and kingly rulers of the people (T. Simeon 7:2; T. Joseph 19:6). T. Judah 21:2 states that God made kingship subordinate to priesthood, a reflection of the predominate role of the chief priest in the postexilic period. Since royal characteristics are also attributed ta Levi, some scholars hold that the dual "messiahship" was a later development, perhaps in opposition to the combination of priestly and kingly power by the Hasmonean kings. The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain passages referring to tha coming of two figures, a priestly "anointed" of Aaron, and a kingly "anointed" of Israel (e.g., 1QS 9:11; 1QSa 2:14, 20; CD 20:1; 4QPBless 2: 4; 4QFlor 1:11-13). The material so far published shows little interest in the persons of the "anointed ones" as though they were "savior figures." Parallels between the conduct of the "messianic meal" eaten by the community with the "messiahs" (lQSa 2:11-22), and the meal celebrated by the sect (lQS 6:4) suggest that what is said of the future "messiahs" can also be experienced as part of the daily life of the community.
The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), probably from the mid-first century A.D., link the day of judgment with a heavenly figure, the "Son of man," who is also referred to as "messiah" (1 Enoch 48:10; 52:4). However, exploration of the Danielic image "Son of man" is the real focus of attention in this work. These exam. pies are sufficient to show that "messiah" had no fixed, technical meaning in Jesus' time. In some circles, it denoted a political or priestly agent sent from God as part of the triumphant establishment of God's power.
Jesus as Messiah: Similar ambiguities surround the application in the NT of the expression "anointed" (Gk. christos) to Jesus. "Messiah" was evidently not a role that a person might simply assume by identifying himself with it. "Messiah" is missing from the sayings of Jesus in "Q," an early source used by Matthew and Luke. The Gospels consistently show Jesus' reluctance to accept the designation "messiah" without qualification. Peter's confession (Mark 8:29; an independent version of this tradition is preserved in John 6:67-69) is immediately "cor. rected" by the announcement that Jesus is the suffering Son of man (8:30-31). In Mark 14:62 Jesus admits to being "messiah" before the Sanhedrin, although in Matt. 26:64 and Luke 22:67 the wording of this passage is changed. Evidently, the possibility of misunderstanding the Christian use of "anointed" for Jesus still had to be avoided. Such misinterpretation would seem to have been linked to the use of "messiah" in connection with a future king of Israel.
Although "messiah" did not unambiguously denote a person who would claim the political position of "king of Israel," Jesus' execution as "King of the Jews" (Mark 15:2, 26) makes that association with the title probable (see the mockery scene, Mark 15:32). Luke preserves the Jewish expression "God's anointed" at several points (Luke 2:26; 9:20; 23:35; Acts 3:18). In other places "messiah/christ" is provided with some explication using other phrases or titles, especially "Son of God" (Matt. 16:16; 26:63; Mark 14:61; Luke 23:35). Matt. 1:16 and 27:17, 22 refer to Jesus "who is called 'the Christ.'" Such passages may represent an early tradition that Jesus was at first "called 'messiah’" by others. That designation might well have been more like an epithet than a formal title or designation of political or religious office. It could easily have emerged in response to those words and deeds of Jesus that were seen to carry with them the authority of divine commissioning. John 6:15 preserves a tradition in which the people react to the feeding of the multitude by seeking to make Jesus "king." In John 6:14 the miracle is treated as a sign that Jesus was the Mosaic prophet of the last days (cf., Deut. 18:15, 18). In the Dead Sea Scrolls an anointed "prophet" is to accompany the "messiahs" though his function is not clear (lQS 9:10-11; 4QTestim 5-8). The Johannine trial narrative takes great pains to explain that the ‘kingship" attributed to Jesus is not to be defined in political terms (John 18:33-37; 19:12-15). Other episodes in which Jesus arouses expectations that he is to be identified with a future "deliverer" of the people are the entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1-10 and parallels) and the cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:15-19 and parallels). In the Gospel tradition both episodes have been explicated as the fulfilment of prophecies (cf. Matt. 21:4; John 12:15-16; Matt. 21:10--17; John 2:13-22). Matt. 21:10-11 links the two episodes with the crowd's identification of Jesus as "the prophet from Galilee." Such "prophetic" actions may have provided the foundation for some to refer to Jesus as “anointed of God" without presuming that Jesus, himself, sought a political revolution in which he would be established as the "anointed" Davidic "king of Israel."
Christian Usage: After the death and resurrection of Jesus, "messiah" takes on a specifically Christian meaning as a "title" that refers only to Jesus. The "messiah" Jesus is the crucified agent of God, who has died "for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). Acts 2:36 speaks of God having made Jesus “both Lord and Christ" at his resurrection/exaltation into heaven. In such a context "messiah" denotes Jesus' vindication and exaltation by God. Luke 2:11 links "messiah" with the christological titles "Lord," commonly associated with the risen/exalted Jesus (cf. Rom. 1:4b; Phil. 2.11), and "Savior" in the announcement of Jesus' birth. Acts 3:19-22 preserves yet another early Christian use of "messiah" for Jesus. It describes his return at the Parousia, a function elsewhere ascribed to him as "Lord" (1 Thess. 4.17, 1 Cor. 11:26; 16:22).
None of the uses of "messiah" in Jewish writings of the period points toward the suffering or death of the person so designated. The juxtaposition of the confession that Jesus is "messiah" with the prediction of the suffering Son of man in Mark 8:27-33 brings out this difficulty. The "suffering servant" of God (Isa. 52: 13-53:12) provided Christians with powerful images of Jesus' vocation to suffering. However, the "servant" is not "the anointed of God." Explicit acknowledgment of the theme of the "suffering messiah" occurs in the Lucan writings. The messiah, according to Scripture, was to suffer before entering his glory (Luke 24: 26,46; also see Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23). Paul can also speak of the paradox of "Christ" crucified (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2; Gal. 3:1), but concern with the expression "messiah/christ" is not part of that reflection. In Paul, as in much of the rest of the NT, "Christ" is frequently used as part of Jesus' name (see also such passages as Acts 4:10; 8: 12).
The Christian confession that Jesus is "messiah" played its primary role in Christian debates with Judaism. This role is evident in the speeches of Acts (Acts 2:31-32; 3:18; 5:42; 8:5; 17:3; 18:5, 28). It is also evident in the Fourth Gospel. John 1:41 preserves the Aramaic "messiah," with a translation for the Greek-speaking reader, in Andrew's summons to Peter. Other passages in the Fourth Gospel represent debates between Johannine Christians and their Jewish opponents over the claim that Jesus is messiah. Jesus' origins are said to disqualify him by those who do not recognize that his true origin is "from God" (John 7:41-42). Jesus' death is said to disqualify him because the messiah was to have "remained forever" (John 12:34). An uncertain crowd wonders whether Jesus might be "messiah" (7:26-31; 10:24). Finally, "messiah" is spoken as a confession of faith in Jesus as Son of God and Savior by those who are believers (4: 29; 11:27; 17:3; 20:31). When Johannine Christians were excommunicated from the Jewish synagogue for their faith in Jesus, the confession "Jesus is messiah" became an identifying mark of the true Christian (9:22). It retains this function in the struggle against dissident Christians reflected in the Johannine Letters (1 John 2:22; 5:1). Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho provides a mid-second-century example of the use of "messiah" in Christian debate with Judaism (35.7; 39.6; 43.8; 47.4; 48.4; 108.2). See also Jesus Christ; Son of God; Son of Man.
Bibliography
Collins, J.J. The Apocalyptic Imagination. New York: Crossroad, 1984. Dunn, J.D.G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Schiirer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979.P.P.
Pheme Parkins
Harpers Bible Dictionary
Messiah (from the Heb. mashiab, "anointed one"), a term that could be applied to any person "anointed" and sent by God.
Early Usage: In the political sphere, it referred to the kings who would come to continue the Davidic dynasty (Pss. 18:50; 89:20, 38, 51; 132: 10,17). "Anointed" might also refer to a priest (ef. Lev. 4:3, 5). "Messiah" could refer to anyone divinely appointed to a task that affected the destiny of the chosen people. Since the Davidic king is the chosen ruler of God (2 Sam. 7:8-16), "messiah" is often associated with the prophetic expectation that God would raise up an ideal Davidic ruler to occupy the throne of Israel (e.g., Jer. 33:15; Ezek. 37:23-24). However, none of the prophetic books use "messiah" for the future king. In Is 45:1 "anointed" refers to Cyrus as God's agent. In Hab. 3:13 "messiah" refers either to the reigning king or to Israel as a nation.
Dan. 9:25 associates the renewal of Jerusalem with a coming "anointed one," a prince. However, Daniel does not contain any further speculation about "the anointed." Similar caution must be exercised in regard to the claim that the "king from the sun" in Sib. Or. 3:652-56 represents a future "messianic king" of Israel. The author appears to be referring to the seventh king in the Ptolemaic line as one who would bring great peace. Such expectations are similar to those associated with Cyrus. We find a more firmly established expectation of a future Davidic king, described as God's "anointed," in the Psalms of Solomon 17-18. This "ideal king" reflects opposition to the non-Davidic Hasmonean dynasty. He is a human ruler, though endowed with special gifts of wisdom and righteousness (17:23, 35, 41-42, 46-47).
A more complex picture of the "anointed one" emerges in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Christian editing of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs makes it difficult to trace the development of its images of the "messiah." Levi and Judah are the priestly and kingly rulers of the people (T. Simeon 7:2; T. Joseph 19:6). T. Judah 21:2 states that God made kingship subordinate to priesthood, a reflection of the predominate role of the chief priest in the postexilic period. Since royal characteristics are also attributed ta Levi, some scholars hold that the dual "messiahship" was a later development, perhaps in opposition to the combination of priestly and kingly power by the Hasmonean kings. The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain passages referring to tha coming of two figures, a priestly "anointed" of Aaron, and a kingly "anointed" of Israel (e.g., 1QS 9:11; 1QSa 2:14, 20; CD 20:1; 4QPBless 2: 4; 4QFlor 1:11-13). The material so far published shows little interest in the persons of the "anointed ones" as though they were "savior figures." Parallels between the conduct of the "messianic meal" eaten by the community with the "messiahs" (lQSa 2:11-22), and the meal celebrated by the sect (lQS 6:4) suggest that what is said of the future "messiahs" can also be experienced as part of the daily life of the community.
The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), probably from the mid-first century A.D., link the day of judgment with a heavenly figure, the "Son of man," who is also referred to as "messiah" (1 Enoch 48:10; 52:4). However, exploration of the Danielic image "Son of man" is the real focus of attention in this work. These exam. pies are sufficient to show that "messiah" had no fixed, technical meaning in Jesus' time. In some circles, it denoted a political or priestly agent sent from God as part of the triumphant establishment of God's power.
Jesus as Messiah: Similar ambiguities surround the application in the NT of the expression "anointed" (Gk. christos) to Jesus. "Messiah" was evidently not a role that a person might simply assume by identifying himself with it. "Messiah" is missing from the sayings of Jesus in "Q," an early source used by Matthew and Luke. The Gospels consistently show Jesus' reluctance to accept the designation "messiah" without qualification. Peter's confession (Mark 8:29; an independent version of this tradition is preserved in John 6:67-69) is immediately "cor. rected" by the announcement that Jesus is the suffering Son of man (8:30-31). In Mark 14:62 Jesus admits to being "messiah" before the Sanhedrin, although in Matt. 26:64 and Luke 22:67 the wording of this passage is changed. Evidently, the possibility of misunderstanding the Christian use of "anointed" for Jesus still had to be avoided. Such misinterpretation would seem to have been linked to the use of "messiah" in connection with a future king of Israel.
Although "messiah" did not unambiguously denote a person who would claim the political position of "king of Israel," Jesus' execution as "King of the Jews" (Mark 15:2, 26) makes that association with the title probable (see the mockery scene, Mark 15:32). Luke preserves the Jewish expression "God's anointed" at several points (Luke 2:26; 9:20; 23:35; Acts 3:18). In other places "messiah/christ" is provided with some explication using other phrases or titles, especially "Son of God" (Matt. 16:16; 26:63; Mark 14:61; Luke 23:35). Matt. 1:16 and 27:17, 22 refer to Jesus "who is called 'the Christ.'" Such passages may represent an early tradition that Jesus was at first "called 'messiah’" by others. That designation might well have been more like an epithet than a formal title or designation of political or religious office. It could easily have emerged in response to those words and deeds of Jesus that were seen to carry with them the authority of divine commissioning. John 6:15 preserves a tradition in which the people react to the feeding of the multitude by seeking to make Jesus "king." In John 6:14 the miracle is treated as a sign that Jesus was the Mosaic prophet of the last days (cf., Deut. 18:15, 18). In the Dead Sea Scrolls an anointed "prophet" is to accompany the "messiahs" though his function is not clear (lQS 9:10-11; 4QTestim 5-8). The Johannine trial narrative takes great pains to explain that the ‘kingship" attributed to Jesus is not to be defined in political terms (John 18:33-37; 19:12-15). Other episodes in which Jesus arouses expectations that he is to be identified with a future "deliverer" of the people are the entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1-10 and parallels) and the cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:15-19 and parallels). In the Gospel tradition both episodes have been explicated as the fulfilment of prophecies (cf. Matt. 21:4; John 12:15-16; Matt. 21:10--17; John 2:13-22). Matt. 21:10-11 links the two episodes with the crowd's identification of Jesus as "the prophet from Galilee." Such "prophetic" actions may have provided the foundation for some to refer to Jesus as “anointed of God" without presuming that Jesus, himself, sought a political revolution in which he would be established as the "anointed" Davidic "king of Israel."
Christian Usage: After the death and resurrection of Jesus, "messiah" takes on a specifically Christian meaning as a "title" that refers only to Jesus. The "messiah" Jesus is the crucified agent of God, who has died "for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). Acts 2:36 speaks of God having made Jesus “both Lord and Christ" at his resurrection/exaltation into heaven. In such a context "messiah" denotes Jesus' vindication and exaltation by God. Luke 2:11 links "messiah" with the christological titles "Lord," commonly associated with the risen/exalted Jesus (cf. Rom. 1:4b; Phil. 2.11), and "Savior" in the announcement of Jesus' birth. Acts 3:19-22 preserves yet another early Christian use of "messiah" for Jesus. It describes his return at the Parousia, a function elsewhere ascribed to him as "Lord" (1 Thess. 4.17, 1 Cor. 11:26; 16:22).
None of the uses of "messiah" in Jewish writings of the period points toward the suffering or death of the person so designated. The juxtaposition of the confession that Jesus is "messiah" with the prediction of the suffering Son of man in Mark 8:27-33 brings out this difficulty. The "suffering servant" of God (Isa. 52: 13-53:12) provided Christians with powerful images of Jesus' vocation to suffering. However, the "servant" is not "the anointed of God." Explicit acknowledgment of the theme of the "suffering messiah" occurs in the Lucan writings. The messiah, according to Scripture, was to suffer before entering his glory (Luke 24: 26,46; also see Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23). Paul can also speak of the paradox of "Christ" crucified (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2; Gal. 3:1), but concern with the expression "messiah/christ" is not part of that reflection. In Paul, as in much of the rest of the NT, "Christ" is frequently used as part of Jesus' name (see also such passages as Acts 4:10; 8: 12).
The Christian confession that Jesus is "messiah" played its primary role in Christian debates with Judaism. This role is evident in the speeches of Acts (Acts 2:31-32; 3:18; 5:42; 8:5; 17:3; 18:5, 28). It is also evident in the Fourth Gospel. John 1:41 preserves the Aramaic "messiah," with a translation for the Greek-speaking reader, in Andrew's summons to Peter. Other passages in the Fourth Gospel represent debates between Johannine Christians and their Jewish opponents over the claim that Jesus is messiah. Jesus' origins are said to disqualify him by those who do not recognize that his true origin is "from God" (John 7:41-42). Jesus' death is said to disqualify him because the messiah was to have "remained forever" (John 12:34). An uncertain crowd wonders whether Jesus might be "messiah" (7:26-31; 10:24). Finally, "messiah" is spoken as a confession of faith in Jesus as Son of God and Savior by those who are believers (4: 29; 11:27; 17:3; 20:31). When Johannine Christians were excommunicated from the Jewish synagogue for their faith in Jesus, the confession "Jesus is messiah" became an identifying mark of the true Christian (9:22). It retains this function in the struggle against dissident Christians reflected in the Johannine Letters (1 John 2:22; 5:1). Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho provides a mid-second-century example of the use of "messiah" in Christian debate with Judaism (35.7; 39.6; 43.8; 47.4; 48.4; 108.2). See also Jesus Christ; Son of God; Son of Man.
Bibliography
Collins, J.J. The Apocalyptic Imagination. New York: Crossroad, 1984. Dunn, J.D.G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Schiirer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979.P.P.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)