Getting Past the Christianese
In my previous post, I looked at the idea that “good news about the son of God” in the first century Greco-Roman world would have brought about ideas of emperor worship. And we saw that Mark, in the opening sentence of his gospel, was making the bold statement that the real good news was that Jesus was the true Emperor who was bringing peace and new creation through his kingship.So, what would the Jews have heard when someone mentioned the term “son of God?”
We modern American Christians often allow terms like this to fit comfortably within our Christianese vocabulary without any thought, and therefore we give answers like, “Well, they would have thought of the second person of the trinity, of course.”
In reality, it is much more likely that the original audience of Mark’s account would have immediately thought of YHWH’s anointed one, His servant. They would have remembered Judas Maccabaeus, and how they were sure that He was the messiah, the son of God, sent to free them from exile and tyranny. But ultimately, that effort had failed, and the kingdoms of this world had prevailed. So on and on they waited for YHWH’s servant, a descendant of that great son of God, King David, to come and vindicate His people.
Therefore, in Jewish thought, as in Greco-Roman thought, “Son of God” was a title- more like “King” or “Emperor” than the associations to the trinity/divinity that come to our minds today.
This then begs the question, when he was born, was Jesus the Son of God? And my answer is [wincing] No… sort of. Before you stone me, let me explain.
My answer would be yes, if you would also say, for example, that George W. Bush was born as the President of the United States of America. And my answer would be no, if you would say that George W. Bush was not born as the President. In other words, if we look back in the history books, we will not likely distinguish G.W. from his office and say that he was not the President. However, we can look back at an earlier chapter in his life, to a time before he was declared and appointed as President.
[Please don’t jump to conclusions here. Let me state emphatically that I believe that Jesus is God. We are simply looking at what Mark meant by the title “Son of God,” and what his readers would have understood.]
So when did Jesus become the son of God? At his baptism, of course.
And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opening and the Spirit descending like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well-pleased” (Mk 1:10-11).
Much more needs to be said, and many assertions have been made, but this post is already too long. So... thoughts?
posted by DrewDog | 3:59 PM
15 Comments:
Liberal heretic... No really, good post. one question: Do you see the baptism scene as confering the Title? Some may argue it simply acknowledges a preexisting condition.
What about SImeon in Like 2, who sees Jesus at 8 days and that counts as him seeing the Christ?
Am I reading too much into this? Is your arguement focused exclusively on the title son of GOd?
ditto Steve's "one question."
Further on in the Gospel of Like (2:49), why then does the adolescent Jesus also refer to God as his present father? ("Did you not know that I had to be in my father's house?")
Thanks for the questions, guys. These are great points. I’ll do my best to answer pithily.
Yes, I see the baptism scene as conferring the title. After all, this is where Jesus is anointed, as it were, by the Holy Spirit (harkening back to Saul, David, et al.) as He descends like a dove. And, as a bit of an aside, I think that the title is fully consummated at the resurrection, as Jesus is declared the son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness (see Romans 1). While I grant that it acknowledges a preexisting condition, I would clarify that it does so in the same way that the president gets voted into office on election day in November (Jesus pre-baptism) and yet is conferred the Title on the day of the inauguration in January (Jesus’ baptism).
Regarding Simeon, there are a lot of things I could say, but I hope it will suffice to propose that the wise insight of Simeon to see that the messiah was in his presence does not contradict the assertion that Jesus was not officially given that title until his baptism. It could be like someone seeing Michael Jordan as a child and saying, “That kid is bound to be the best basketball player ever.” Add to this the fact that God obviously gave Simeon that insight, and I see no tension here.
Regarding Jesus’ statement in Luke 2:49: While this is an interesting question, I do not see it directly linked to the discussion at hand. This seems more like a question regarding whether or not Jesus was self-conscious of his deity, relationship to YHWH, sonship, etc. By the way, that would be a great post for another day.
These are my initial thoughts at 12:30am, so let me know if I’m all wet, or if I missed your points.
Cheers,
Andrew
Andrew,
You are all wet and here is why... Just kidding. Allow me to sound jargony and pretension for a second.
Would it be fair to reformulate the issue this way: Jesus was/is ontologically the Son of GOd (In the same way that he was the lamb of God slain from the foundations of the world). But that this info epistemologically passed into our knowledge at his baptism.
Sure, if I can add to it.
I would add that at his baptism, the title was officially conferred, in time. This event was that which unveiled to the world God's choice of Jesus to be His messiah, his son.
I see Jesus' baptism blasting everyone who was watching; reminding them of the declaration made to David by God: "You are my son, today I have begotten you."
The Son of God was thus
qualified by his Incarnation,
declared by his baptism,
affirmed by his transfiguration,
initiated by his Passion,
authenticated by his resurrection,
and inaugurated by his ascension.
Forever may he reign.
That's good stuff, Lawton.
Where'd you get it from, I mean, from where did you get it? Or did you make it up?
It just came to me in the shower (without much thought, hence the rather primitive prepositions): my attempt to join the jargon-fest. Or should I say "argot-fest"? My undergraduate Technical Writing instructor once said that such specialized verbage is really "argot" when used within its professional context and is only "jargon" when (mis)used out-of-context.
Thanks, Lawton, for that new bit of jargon...I mean argot. Is it pronounced ar-go or ar-got?
"Argot" is apparently French for "slang," so it probably should sound like Jason's ship. Of course, English-speakers can just as easily make it rhyme with "target."
Hi, Drew and others,
I guess my reason to blanche at this approach (and, I note with some comfort that Drew winces at the right point) is this:
This approach leaves the barn door wide open for the entrance of all sorts of Christological heresies -- adoptionism, for example. Or all those views of Christ that say he is NOT Christ until God zaps Him with the Holy Ghost. Etc. etc.
Here's a different analogy that is, I think, not even analogous but rather parallel to what I *think* Drew is getting at:
A crown prince has not yet assumed the throne for which he is headed. While he is headed toward that goal in history, he is still the crown prince -- that is, no one else is in line for the throne, and it is guaran-damn-teed that He is the one who will ascend the throne.
On the day of his father's death, or his father's abdication, he comes fully into what he always was: the coming King.
Of course, I don't mean by this that the Eternal Father has died. The point of parallelism is only on Jesus' standing from the moment of his birth.
This way of understanding Jesus' standing before His baptism is better than comparing him to a president who is not president before his inauguration. For many many years, no one would have ever considered GWB a future president. Indeed, twice on election night, his future presidential status was very much up in the air. This was never the case with Jesus' standing before His baptism.
Thanks, Father Bill. I agree completely. And I think that the crown prince analogy works much better than mine.
I guess the reason I liked the president analogy was that some people knew he would be president (because they could just see it in him) and others had no idea; cf. Jesus.
Upon further reflection, a great analogy would be a specific crown prince: Prince Cor (aka Shasta) from The Horse and His Boy. Of course, this analogy breaks down in all sorts of places too, but it is cool that he grew up around people who never knew he was royal, and who assumed he was just an unimportant servant boy.
PS- Father Bill, I got your email, and emailed you back. Let me know if you received my reply.
Also, ever considered gmail? I love it.
Cheers,
Andrew
I'm a little late, but NICE Andrew. I'm a huge fanatic for analogies pertaining to Christianity. In particular, I enjoy them because I know they always breakdown, yet the hunt for the truth inside them fuels my interest. I have heard "the Prince" analogy a lot; however, when combined with Andrew's take, it makes everything all the more succulent.
Here's another analogy of Christ's title to "Son of God" for you tasting pleasure. The destiny of a seed. The orange seed must become an orange tree, but it isn't called a tree until further growth... hmm... nah, that doesn't look as good on paper as it did in my head.
God Bless,
Mark
Plus, I'd be wary of an analogy that seems to allude to the idea that some kind of ontological change occurred in Jesus, as opposed to merely a titular one.
I think that is indeed one of the weaknesses of my original president analogy.
Know what I mean?
Post a Comment
<< Home