Friday, March 14, 2008

Geza Vermes-Part II

This post is so long that I'm starting another thread. The following remarks constitute my final word on this subject for now. I will then reply to the questions about time. But my time is limited. Therefore, I'll let Jason have the last word on the Vermes' subject. I've made a clear distinction below in terms of my remarks and Jason's.

Hello Jason:

[Jason]
Regarding John 5:18, I am failing to see how your responses answer the question as to how Jesus' first century Jewish opponents managed to construe (whether rightly or wrongly is besides the point) His statement in John 5:17 as a claim to equality with God if Geza Vermes is correct that first century Jews had no concept of any such thing as natural divine sonship? If Vermes is correct would it not follow then that it would have been contrary to their categories of thought for them to have taken Jesus' statement as affirming something more than a claim to be at the very most either the Messiah or to having pre-existed as a created angel?

[Edgar]
I do not agree that a possible misconstrual of Jesus' words is tangential. But (to answer your question) Vermes does not say that the first century Jews had no concept of "natural divine sonship." He writes that a Jew would not have applied the noun phrase "son of God" to the offspring of deities, defied kings or to apotheosized rulers; moreover, he argues that Jews understood the phrase "son of God" to be metaphorical-a term that Vermes does not define but the context of his statement indicates that the speaker meaning of the term "metaphor" does not simply refer to rhetorical tropes or to conceptual domains (as that term is understood in cognitive semantics).

[Jason]
However, if Jesus' response in the verses which follow John 5:18 was intended for the purpose of clarifying that He was not breaking the Sabbath and that He was not calling God His own Father in such a way that would entail His being in some sense equal with God, then it would seem to me that He did a very poor job of expressing Himself here. For, given the conclusion His opponents drew from what He said in John 5:17, why would they be less inclined to take the words: "the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing" as an affimation that the Son has no will or operation of His own distinct and independent from that of that Father, and is therefore essentially inseparable from the Father? (Certainly, the angels can do things of their own accord: if they were not able to do so, how could it be that some of them have sinned?)

[Edgar]
I don't think you want to say that Christ was actually "making himself" equal to God. Christ legitimately would have been considered a blasphemer by making himself equal to God: "In rabbinic teaching a rebellious son is said to make himself equal [with] his Father (Lightfoot). Breaking the Law concerning the Sabbath was serious, but claiming God as his own Father was blasphemy" (Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 193). If Jesus was/is equal to God, I don't think that the writer of the Fourth Gospel desires to portray him as making himself equal to the Father. Additionally, it is important not to read post-4th century meanings into 1st century texts. Jesus was not necessarily stating that he had no will or operation of his own in the sense that you ascribe to him.

In The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, Paul N. Anderson (pp. 3, 267) observes that Jesus is asserting that he "can do nothing on his own authority" or is "totally dependent" on his Father. For Anderson, John 5:19 is a Johannine "subordinationist" passage; in other words, Christ is evidently stating that he does not have the ability (OU DUNATAI) or authority to act on his own initiative. He is not suggesting that he could never act on his own. Such an understanding of the text is much too strong and misrepresents the intentional (i.e. pragmatic) meaning of Jesus' words. Moreover, when Jesus says that he does that which he beholds the Father doing, hA (in the Greek text) is delimited by the context. In particular, the things that Jesus' Father does have to do with sustaining the creation: hA does not refer to all things in an absolute sense. A. T. Robertson also offers these remarks:

"Can do nothing by himself (OU DUNATAI POIEIN AF' hEAUTOU OUDEN). True in a sense of every man, but in a much deeper sense of Christ because of the intimate relation between him and the Father. See this same point in Joh_5:30; Joh_7:28; Joh_8:28; Joh_14:10. Jesus had already made it in Joh_5:17. Now he repeats and defends it" (Word Pictures).

[Jason]
"...whatever [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise." Interpretation: Just as the Father "works" on the Sabbath, not being bound to keep it, so also the Son works on the Sabbath, not being bound to keep it either. There is nothing that the Father can do that the Son also cannot do: Claim to equality of power with God."

[Edgar]
The Son is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8). Hence, he could probably labor on the Sabbath--doing God's work--without being considered a violator of this sacred day (Genesis 2:2-3). However, Jesus did not limit working on the Sabbath to the Father or himself. He demonstrated that works of mercy could be performed on the Sabbath by devout Jews or by men accomplishing God's will like the Levitical priests of old or men such as his ancestor David. Christ had been given the authority to work on the Sabbath by his Father (John 5:20-22). Without being given that authority, the Son would objectively have been a blasphemer.

[Jason]
Why would they not conclude from the words in John 5:21 that Jesus is asserting an equality of authority with God, making the giving of life just as dependent upon His will as it is dependent upon the Father's will? From verse 22, they could easily misconstrue Jesus' words as a claim that the Father has relinquished His own authority in giving it to the Son, leading to the charge that Jesus was claiming to be in at least one respect actually greater than God. Why would they not charge him with claiming to be worthy of equal honor with God, in view of the statement in verse 23: "that all may honor the Son, EVEN AS they honor the Father"? Finally, verse 26: The very unoriginated life of Father is communicated by the Father to the Son, and thus the Son has the same unoriginated life equally with the Father.

[Edgar]
John does not tell us how the Jews reacted to the rest of Jesus' words in chapter five of the Fourth Gospel. It is a little difficult to make an argument from silence. But none of what Jesus says in John 5 has to be interpreted as you suggest. While God (YHWH) is the one who grants life to men of all sorts (1 Samuel 2:6; Psalm 36:9), it is nonetheless his prerogative to allow others to perform resurrections or bring others back to life (e.g. God used Elijah and Elisha to bestow life on others) by means of the Holy Spirit. Luke relates that Christ was able to perform miracles or heal others because he was anointed with Holy Spirit and power (Luke 10:38). Christ resurrected others in his capacity as Messiah (Isaiah 11:1-5). As for John 5:23, compare John 6:57; 17:20-22. With all due respect, it seems that you are reading Nicene Christology into John 5:26. The context of 5:26 does not indicate that God has communicated his "unoriginated life" to his Son. What is at issue is bringing humans back to life by means of a resurrection; what is not at issue is God communicating his unoriginated life to the Son. See the chapter on aseity in my work Christology and the Trinity.

[Jason]
It would seem to me that the most natural reading of John 5:19-26 is that Jesus is affirming that as the Son of God He is not only equal but also identical with the Father in every respect EXCEPT that of being unoriginated. (I do not accept the implied interpretation of John 14:28 in the Athanasian Creed as being adequate to account for Jesus' statement about the Father being greater than the Son. Following Alexander, Athanasius, Hilary, Chrysostom, and the Cappadocians, I hold that the Father is eternally greater than the Son in that He alone is Unoriginated and in that He is the Cause of the Son's existence.)

[Edgar]
The text cannot bear the weight that you're assigning to it: John did not wear 4th century doctrinal lenses. Why not try appealing to the grammar or historical circumstances of the text? Jesus does not claim (ontological) equality with God nor does he imply that he is identical with the Father in every respect (ontologically) with the exception of being unoriginated (John 5:28-30; 17:3).

[Jason]
In view of Heb. 1:5, how can you maintain that Jesus is the Son of God in the same sense as the angels are? Does not 'only-begotten' imply 'without brothers or sisters' so that, even if Jesus' sonship were metaphorical, it would still have to be a category of metaphorical sonship unique to Him?

[Edgar]
I've addressed Hebrews 1:5 in my book Christology and the Trinity. As for the term "only-begotten" (MONOGENHS), there is much debate concerning its semantics. Does it mean "unique, one-of-a-king" or "only" or the only child born to X or Y? Without getting into that debate now, for which I recommend BDAG Greek-English Lexicon as a good start. Suffice it to say that "without brothers or sisters" is not a definition per se of MONOGENHS. For how the term is used in the LXX, see Genesis 22:2, 12, Judges 11:34 and see Ps. Solomon 18:4.

[Jason]
In all of Luke 3:23-38 the term 'son' occurs but once, it being understood only by implication after its initial occurence. Since this is the case, how can its definition change in verse 38? Does this not necessitate understanding Luke 3:23-38 (as opposed to Matt. 1 which due to the word beget can only be taken as a biological genealogy) as giving a 'legal' genealogy, so that one and the same definition of the term 'son' can be consistently applied all throughout the passage, including its final statement? Doesn't the genealogy in Gen. 5 appear to purposely avoid speaking of Adam as being 'begotten' by God?

[Edgar]
Are you insisting that Luke means to imply that God is the literal father of Adam in Luke 3:38? Is that what you really want to say here? My point was merely that the term "son" can be employed metaphorically. I also appealed to the book of Job, where the angels seem to be called "sons of God" as well (Job 38:1-7, etc.). I believe that there is a different contextual setting in Genesis 5:1ff. Notice how the term "Adam" is used in the first two verses of that chapter. The first pentateuchal work also concentrates on who begat whom; it does not employ the understood term "son" throughout the text.

[Jason]
Given the inherent nature of poetry, it is not surprising that the term 'born' would be used in place of the more accurate 'made' or 'created' in Ps. 90:2 in reference to the origin of the mountains? (But is not the expression itself 'before the mountains' a metaphor for 'from olam', so that the literal origin of literal mountains is not directly in view here?) Are there any non-poetic passages in Scripture in which 'made' or 'created' can justifiably be substituted for 'born' or 'begotten'?

[Edgar]
Why should we construe "before the mountains" as a metaphor? What contextual indicators suggest that we have a metaphor in this psalm? I don't see why the writer would not have literal mountains in mind since we read: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world . . . (KJV). For uses of "born" for "created," see Genesis 2:4 (consult the Hebrew text); Deuteronomy 32:6, 18; Psalm 7:14 (RSV); Proverbs 27:1; Isaiah 33:11; Zephaniah 2:2 (YLT). See Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon and BDB Lexicon.

2 comments:

Jason said...

Hi Edgar,

I am considering the possibility that "making himself equal to God" = "being disobedient to God" in John 5:18, and how this might bear on the interpretation of John 5:19-30. I am having difficulty, however, squaring this interpretation with the related accusations in John 10:33 and 19:7. At this point, it still seems to me that when all of these verses are read together in their respective contexts, that Jesus' Jewish opponents were operating off of the assumption that Jesus was claiming to be the natural Son of God, and that Jesus failed to make it clear to them that He was claiming to be the Son of God in a purely metaphorical sense. (While I admit that their reaction to his words in John 5:19-30 was not recorded, I have difficulty - in view of the details of the similar incident in John 10:28-39 - imagining them responding: "Oh, so you aren't claiming equality with God after all...."

A few clarifications:

1) By "making" in John 5:18 I understand "declaring" as in John 19:7 (see NRSV) or Matt. 12:33. I don't think anyone would seriously entertain the notion that it might be possible for someone to actually "make" themselves equal to God.

2) It was not my purpose here to argue that John 5:19-30 unambigously affirms a necessary unity of operation of the Son with the Father, but only that it is all too easy to take the passage in that manner if one is predisposed to doing so. I am operating here off of the understanding that John 5:17,18 shows that Jesus' opponents would have been so inclined to do so, and that, therefore, it is difficult to take John 5:19-30 as representing a attempt on the part of Jesus to 'correct' their interpretation of His words in John 5:17.

3) I am not implying that Luke 3:38 teaches that Adam is the natural son of God. My point is that Luke 3 provides a 'legal' not a 'biological' genealogy. Matt. 1 and Gen. 5 on the other hand are 'biological' genealogies. Thus, just as Matt. 1 purposely avoids saying that Joseph begat Jesus, so also Gen. 5 purposely avoids saying that God begat Adam.

Edgar Foster said...

Hi Jason,

This is really going to be my final word on the subject. I had time to compose a reply tonight but I'll address some of your other posts instead of offering more replies to this topic.

You wrote:

[Jason]
Hi Edgar,

I am considering the possibility that "making himself equal to God" = "being disobedient to God" in John 5:18, and how this might bear on the interpretation of John 5:19-30. I am having difficulty, however, squaring this interpretation with the related accusations in John 10:33 and 19:7. At this point, it still seems to me that when all of these verses are read together in their respective contexts, that Jesus' Jewish opponents were operating off of the assumption that Jesus was claiming to be the natural Son of God, and that Jesus failed to make it clear to them that He was claiming to be the Son of God in a purely metaphorical sense. (While I admit that their reaction to his words in John 5:19-30 was not recorded, I have difficulty - in view of the details of the similar incident in John 10:28-39 - imagining them responding: "Oh, so you aren't claiming equality with God after all...."

[Edgar]
In John 5:17-19, what makes the Jews conclude that Jesus is making himself equal to God is his use of the expression "my Father" (hO PATHR MOU) in the context of a dispute about working on the Sabbath, wherein Jesus claims that he has the prerogative to work on the Sabbath as his Father works on the seventh day. One is reminded of the famous statement by Philo that it is God's nature to work just as it is the nature of fire to burn. Hence, think of the associations that Jesus must have evoked in the minds of those who heard him when he uttered the words found in John 5:17. My point is that it is not necessary to interpret the dominical words of Jesus as an allusion to his status as a "natural son" of God. Regarding the conjunction of John 5:19-30 and 10:28-39, I never said that the Jewish opponents of Jesus might not construe his words as blasphemy. The question is, was he attempting to give them more fuel for the fire or was he trying to let them know his subordinate position in relation to the Father?

It is interesting that the Jews were interested in whether Jesus was the Messiah, according to John 10:24. What made them accuse him of blasphemy in John 10:33 was undoubtedly the utterance found in John 10:30. But Larry Hurtado has argued that John 10:33 should be understood as "you are trying to make yourself a god" rather than make yourself "God." The Greek construction of this verse is hOTI SU ANQRWPOS WN POIEIS SEAUTON QEON. Also note Jesus' response in John 10:34-36. Although a number of translations render John 19:7, "the Son of God," the Greek reads: hOTI hUION QEOU hEAUTON EPOIHSEN.

[Jason]
A few clarifications:

1) By "making" in John 5:18 I understand "declaring" as in John 19:7 (see NRSV) or Matt. 12:33. I don't think anyone would seriously entertain the notion that it might be possible for someone to actually "make" themselves equal to God.

[Edgar]
I have no problem understanding POIEW (in this context) as a reference to the act of declaring something to be the case. We must not forget, however, that Jesus is being accused of making himself equal to God or declaring that he is God's equal; a notion which if true would warrant the charge of blasphemy in light of what Moses wrote in Genesis 3:1-5. Compare Philippians 2:6ff about the preexistent Christ: he did not seek to be equal with God.

[Jason]
2) It was not my purpose here to argue that John 5:19-30 unambigously affirms a necessary unity of operation of the Son with the Father, but only that it is all too easy to take the passage in that manner if one is predisposed to doing so. I am operating here off of the understanding that John 5:17,18 shows that Jesus' opponents would have been so inclined to do so, and that, therefore, it is difficult to take John 5:19-30 as representing a attempt on the part of Jesus to 'correct' their interpretation of His words in John 5:17.

[Edgar]
One's presuppositions may possibly affect the way that one reads the account in John 5:19-30. I have already quoted the Catholic scholars Raymond E Brown and John McKenzie, who both argue that Jesus sought to correct those who accused him of blasphemy. Paul Anderson also writes that John 5:19 is a "subordinationist passage" that demonstrates the Son's total dependence on the Father. There are a number of verses in John 5:19ff that also support the notion that the Son is absolutely dependent on the Father in that he totally depends on the Father to grant him life in himself or to give him the power of judging. The Son's declaration in John 5:30 is clear. He can do nothing on his own authority (TEV); he only does that which God tells him to do. The Son does not what he wills but what his Father wills.

You might also find an article by Jerome Neyrey worth reading. Although he argues that the Johannine Gospel teaches that the Son is equal to God the Father, he nevertheless contends that "the Fourth Gospel rejects the assertion that Jesus 'makes himself' anything." See Neyrey, "I Said You Are Gods": Psalm 82:6 and John 10, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 108, No. 4. (Winter, 1989), pp. 647-663. In particular, see page 653 (footnote 33) and pages 660-663.

[Jason]
3) I am not implying that Luke 3:38 teaches that Adam is the natural son of God. My point is that Luke 3 provides a 'legal' not a 'biological' genealogy. Matt. 1 and Gen. 5 on the other hand are 'biological' genealogies. Thus, just as Matt. 1 purposely avoids saying that Joseph begat Jesus, so also Gen. 5 purposely avoids saying that God begat Adam.

[Edgar]
We agree that Luke provides a legal genealogy. But you seem to have evaded the simple point I wanted to make by citing Luke 3:38, namely, that Adam is called the "son of God" in a metaphorical (not legal) sense. I never suggested that God literally begat Adam. God created Adam, yet Adam is called God's son. Moreover, you failed to comment on the angels being called (metaphorical) sons of God. They too are creatures.