On this slow path we are taking to see where the doctrine of the Trinity came from (it may seem slow, but of course a full analysis would take volumes!) I have been trying to show how different understandings of Christ emerged in early Christianity – starting from the original belief of his disciples in his resurrection and exaltation, to later exaltation views (he was a man who became divine at his resurrection; NO! at his baptism; NO! at his birth) and then incarnation views (he was never a man who was not God. He was God who became a man).
Paul has both views: Christ was a divine being who became human but then got exalted to a higher level of divinity; the final view is found in the Gospel of John: Christ was completely divine from the beginning, and in fact was the Creator of the universe. Wow.
In the last post I showed that this incredibly “high” Christology in John was taken yet higher in the later Johannine community, as some members came to think Christ was so *much* divine that he was not *at all* human. This is the view scholars have called “Docetism” from the Greek word (dokeo) that means to “seem” or to “appear.” In this view Christ “appeared” to be a human but he wasn’t really: he was in fact only divine.
The are debates among scholars about how to understand the opponents of the author of 1 John, whom he calls “antiChrists” because they do not think Christ “came in the flesh.” There are further debates about docetists that appeared not long after, as attested in the writings of Ignatius. Here is how
The writings of Ignatius are not widely known among the general reading public; but they are both fascinating and incredibly important. If you’d like to see something about them, and their importance for understanding the developing Trinity, JOIN THE BLOG. You’ll get this post, and four others this week. And every bit of your small membership fee will go to help those in need.
Does Ignatius explain the paradox that Jesus was both God and man, or the mystery of how God could die? Or is he content to just say that the Docetists are wrong and leave it at that?
To my mind, there exists a strange similarity between Docetism and the Christ myth theory: both deny that Jesus was a man! So when Ignatius says the Docetists are “atheists”, the circle closes.
I am curious whence came the idea that people having a different view of what Jesus was meant that they have “in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death” — that’s not really a feature of pagan religion (Greek philosophers didn’t debate whether Herakles was human or mortal, nor would they think of condemning anyone based on their beliefs about Herakles). And yet we see this tendency very early in Christianity. Why?
The people who held these views would not agree with that characterization of them, of course. It was teh kind of slander one would use against other Christians who were seen as a problem. Their opponents may ave saaid the same thing about *them*!
I think the vehemence comes from a perceived threat to unity. Ignatius seems to have a thing with unity
(“Therefore you need to abide in irreproachable unity if you really want to be God’s members forever.” Ignatius2Ephesians, 4). Thus another believer with a different view of Christ was probably seen as far more dangerous than a mere pagan, and a deserving recipient of vitriolic rebuke.
Maybe Bart can explain this emphasis on unity.
On a simple level, the people you have the most knock-down drag-out arguments are those closest to you — your spouse, siblings, parents, friends. Those you don’t know well not so much. Even today fundamentalists go after other Chrsitians far more than they go after Hindus….
1John provides evidence of existence of 1st century groups who denied Jesus’ humanity. The earliest references to the Docetists – groups who denied the divinity of Jesus – are found in the 2nd century. Do we have any evidence from 1st century of Christian groups who explicitly denied Jesus’ divinity?
Was Mark 10:18 (“Why do you call me good? No one is good–except God alone.”) ever used by any group – Christian or non-Christian – in the early centuries as proof-text against Jesus’ divinity?
Second question: not that we know of. Matthew appears to have thought that it could at least be *interpreted* that way (possibly). As to “adoptionists” yes I’ve been arguing that some Christian groups claimed JEsus wasn’t inherently God but was *made* divine in some snese. I don’t know of any Christian who claimed Jesus was not the Son of God, though….
Quick question regarding Mark 10:18, primarily because I couldn’t find any other blog post where you addressed this verse, so this comment was the only search result that popped up…
I recently heard Mike Licona explain that this verse was said rhetorically, as in implying “Do you know what you’re saying by calling me good? You realize you’re calling me God, right?” – this was very interesting to me since I never realized that before, and I had my own theories as to what Jesus meant by this… to me (as an Arian-Christian), it was just one of many examples of Jesus displaying His subordination to the Father, even though it still confused me (how is Jesus God but not good?). But after considering Mike’s view, I now realize that Jesus could’ve said “no one is good except my Father alone” since he’s referred to “the Father” specifically several times (ie. Matthew 11:27, John 10:29, John 14:21, etc.) – so now I’m resonating more with what Mike said. Which still fits my Arian lens since Jesus is 1/3 of the Godhead, effectively a “God”, but just subordinate to the Father.
Do you have any rebuttal to this? Appreciate your time.
Yes, that’s the line I learned at Moody Bible Institute. But that’s actually not how one would read the verse if just simply reading it for waht it says. Imagine that in stead of Jesus it was Joe Smith who was asked the question and who responded that way — how would it be understood. Never in the sense that he was claiming to be God. The only reason to think Jesus is is because the reader already *thinks* Jesus is God. But that’s a theological reading premised on a person’s theology, not a reading of a text for what the text indicates.
I hear ya, but to be fair… “Joe Smith” is a nobody without any previous claims of divine origin. This is Jesus we’re talking about, Mark 1:11 declares His title as “Son of God” early before His ministry began. So wouldn’t that set the premise for everything else He says and does afterward in the rest of Mark? A premise that’s not only understood by the people of His day whispering about who He is and what He’s been doing (miracles, preaching, etc. which shaped the rich man’s view of Him as he approached Jesus in Mark 10:18) – but also it’s understood already to the reader as well from chapter 1:11 to chapter 10:18 ya know? So with this timeline of events in Mark, wouldn’t that be proper exegesis of 10:18?
God telling Jesus is his son is not the same as Jesus declaring himself to be God, especially in such a subtle way (and in particular because being the “son of God” does not normally mean being “God” in our sense in the Bible; think 2 Sam 7:11-14). When Jesus does declare himself as a divine being in the Gospel of John, they try to stone him. It doesn’t get any reaction here. So I don’t see anything in the context to suggest he is making a divine claim. He could just as easily, for example, be claiming not to be good. And if so, then the exegete would have to figure out what he means by that.
Yes, I see your point. But, the implication of 2 Sam 7:11-14 is the same style of implication as Exodus 7:1, where humans are called “sons of god” or “like God” by association or participation in God’s decree for their purpose as God’s people. From Adam to Paul, we’re all technically called “sons of god” but not in the same meaning as Jesus, which is expressed in Hebrews 1:5-6. So when God calls Jesus His Son in Matthew 3:17 (NSRV), the implication is very clear that it is a specific status of sonship by calling Jesus His “Beloved Son.”
Why would there be a reaction if the rich man already viewed Jesus as the Son of God? If anything, his reaction is detailed by how he walked away sad knowing he couldn’t follow Jesus’ *authoritative* advice – he (the rich-man) already adhered to the law, so Jesus’ last suggestion must prove His authority, otherwise why would he be sad if by Jewish standards he was fully adhering to the law? On the contrary, the pharisees didn’t view Jesus the same way, so of course there was a reaction to His claim of godhood there.
Does that make sense? (thanks for your time.)
I don’t think the passage is about whether Jesus is the Son of God. It’s about whether a person is willing to commit absolutely everything to do the will of God. I think that the only way to read the passage Christologically is to assume that that’s what it must be about. But when the man asks Jesus what he must do for eternal life, Jesus absolutely does not say “believe in me.” That’s one reason for thinking a passage like this probably reflects what was happening in Jesus’ own life — that is, that it is not a story made up by his later followers who thought that his death and resurrection are what brought salvation and showed he was the son of God. Those ideas are missing here.
Well, Jesus does say “Then come, follow me.” as the last statement, which is similar to “believe in me.” wouldn’t you agree? Especially in combination with the notion of the rhetorical question as an expression of godhood by Jesus in Mark 10:18…
I don’t think the passage is centered around displaying that Jesus is the Son of God either, since the focus is what the rich-man lacks in order to be “perfect” in his commitment to God like you said… but the notion of Jesus as God is indeed a detail displayed within it considering how Mark 10:18 is worded.
These two concepts (Jesus’ divinity, and the rich-man’s request for godly instruction) is described here simultaneously. Even though I know you disagree with the *rhetorical question* hypothesis, would you acknowledge that this conclusion is plausible?
Yes. But following him is contingent on giving away everything. And it is giving away everything that assures the person he will have treasure in heaven.
>>Docetists – groups who denied the divinity of Jesus –<<
Sorry, but you seem to have it backwards. Docetists deny the humanity of Jesus and the Adoptionists deny the divinity of Jesus (at least until he was adopted by God).
I suppose I’ve always assumed that a hypothetical Johannine community would have been Jewish. I have also assumed that Docetism would have been a Gentile phenomenon. Both assumptions can’t be correct but both can be wrong. Were there Jewish Docetists? Could the Johannine community have been Gentile?
thanks
I think the community was predominantly gentile, even if it started out with Jewish roots. We don’t have any solid evidence of Jewish docetists, but our evidence in general is frustratingly thin, so who knows?
Was martyrdom popular in the early church? I don’t mean did a lot of people do it but was it well regarded by most Christians? Or was it viewed as an oddity that should be discouraged by church leaders?
Most of our surviving writings strongly support the idea, often quite explicitly. But it’s very hard to know what the broad views were, especially since we have clear indications that many Christians avoided it at all costs, including Christian leaders, often with justifications (they could do more good while living; there was no need to die; God would forgive those who repented, etc.). We do know of a few people who volunteered for it, but these seem to be the exception. So it’s difficult to know which views prevailed.
Dear Bart, is it possible Ignatius does not share at all the Pauline view of a resurrected Jesus, i.e. not of flesh and bone but only spiritual/angelic? How could this tension be resolved in the early Hellenestic church and later dogmatic theology? It seems the conceptual difference is enormous.
It appears that Ignatius was very enthusiastic for a completely bodily Jesus, one who physically suffered and died; Ignatius uses that as an explanation for why he himself had to be torn apart by wild beasts, in imitation of Christ.
I’m reading The Earliest Christologies: Five Images of Christ in the Postapostolic Age, by James L. Papandrea. It confirms what I already understood. Imagine any possible idea of who Jesus was: a god, purely human, a god-man, God appearing as a man, God ‘entering’ a man, and eventually the trinity doctrines. Some Christians somewhere believed those ideas. No one is willing to admit the obvious truth: the emperor has no clothes. No one knows the nature of that universal sacrifice. And I think if we had records from earliest Christianity, no one cared. It didn’t matter. All that mattered was that the gods accepted the universal sacrifice. That’s probably closest to Paul’s own view. All he cared about was “Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).
I have read most of your books, and fully enjoyed them. Also, have read about pagan religions of the time, and it seems to me that Christianity as it developed among the gentiles became more and more like the pagan religions of the time. Examples are the evolution of Jesus as God. But also, the pantheon of lesser gods was replaced by saints and martyrs, special days, rituals, vestments, priests with special powers, …
Please comment and refer to any references on this specific topic. Thank you.
But does the book of John REALLY say jesus is god, or was it manipulated both in writing over time, and in explanation to support a particular agenda? Could the text be read from a different point of view, and conclude with a different understanding. It seems to me that all understandings of jesus is god, has been put forth to support a more political agenda that a religious view. Simply put the proponents put for a religious view so that their political aspirations could be achieved. The quatrodeciman issue shows this political angling very early on. Over time it seems that the construct of the “church” hierarchy follows along with the development of certain religious doctrines . Basically there are always people who will subvert anything they can to promote themselves into positions of honor and authority. These people infiltrate any movement they can, become masters of it, and then bend it to further exalt themselves. Over approx 200-250 years people of this caliber were able to morph this “faith” into a full blown political structure yielding many positions of power. This was accomplished by sacrificing and manipulating many very committed believers.
I suppose you’d have to show at what points a politically motivated reading has led to the view, in detail on the verse level. The book begins with a statement that the Word who “was God” became a human and is then identified as Jesus Christ; it ends with Thomas calling Jesus “My Lord and My God”; and in it Jesus makes claims that lead to near-stonings for “calling himself God.”