Loading...In order to explain how Jesus came to be seen as his followers as God – the first step to understanding where the doctrine of the Trinity came from – I have been discussing a widespread view in the Greek and Roman worlds, that other very special human beings were thought to have become divine, considered and worshiped as immortal gods, for example by being taken up to heaven at the end of their lives.
You might well wonder, though, what “pagan” beliefs have to do with early Christian beliefs. Jesus and his followers were Jews, so why would it be relevant what polytheists believed? It’s a good question, but there’s also a good answer. The belief that humans could be divine is found not only in ancient Greek and Roman circles (and Egyptian circles and others!), but also in Jewish.
That may come as a surprise. Jews who were monotheists thought that others could be God, along with the one God? Uh, how does *that* work?
As it turns out, you can find it in the Hebrew Bible and in later Jewish traditions as well. Angelic beings are sometimes called “gods” (e.g. Psalm 82, esp. vv. 1, 7); a figure called “The Son of Man” is considered a divine being before whom the entire world falls down in worship (1 Enoch 48:2-7); God’s “Wisdom,” a being separate from God himself, is said to have created the world (Wisdom of Solomon 9:-10); so too God’s “Word” (the Logos) is called “God” and “the second God”(Philo, Dreams 1.230 and Questions on Genesis 2.62).
But more than that, even some Jews held to the idea that a human being could, in some sense, be God. I stress again: “In some sense.” No one thought a human was the one Almighty God; but humans could be divine and called “god.” I know, it’s confusing.
Here is how I begin to discuss it in my book How Jesus Became God. (This will take three posts)
*******************************
Humans Who Become Divine
Just as within pagan circles the Roman emperor was thought to be both the son of god and, in some sense, himself god, so too in ancient Judaism (much earlier) the king of Israel was considered both Son of God and – astonishingly enough – even God.
There is nothing controversial in the claim that There aren’t a lot of people who know *this* one. Want to be one of the chosen few? Join the blog! A basic membership is three bucks a month. And every buck goes to charity.
Very interesting Bart; Certainly Jewish thought allowed that there were other divine entities than the One God; But should there not be a distinction drawn (seen perhaps in the passage from 1 Enoch 48)? The ‘Anointed One’ may be blessed and glorfied; but those who fall down in worship before him are singing praises to the Lord of spirits; that worship is not directed to the the Anointed One himself.
“All, who dwell on earth, shall fall down and worship before him; shall bless and glorify him, and sing praises to the name of the Lord of spirits.”
Indeed it is emphasised that the Anointed One in Enoch’s vision (who we find later is Enoch himself glorified) still remains a human being – a ‘son of man’; and is not worshipped. Whereas God’s ‘Wisdom’ and God’s ‘Word’ – even when personified – are not human beings; and may be worshipped.
When Paul applies the language of worship to Jesus; he is. I think, going considerably further than the ‘bless and glorify’ actions offered in 1 Enoch to the ‘Annointed One’.
Yes, there are certainly distinctions in most of these apocryphal texts. And yes that’s the remarkable thing about Paul’s Christology: in the PHilippians hymn he stresses that God elevated Christ to his *own level*, to be *equal* with him, as the one to whom all things would bow and confess. It’s a remarkable Christology. And very different from what you find in the Synoptics nad even in John (in very different ways).
““You are my son, today I have begotten you.” In this case the king is not adopted by God; he is actually born of God. God has brought him forth.”
How would have Jews in Second Temple period have understood this? A modern-day reader would struggle to understand in what sense is the king literally “born of God”. Could the passage be using metaphorical language?
They appear to have thought that God had made the king his son (i.e the one human in closest relationshiop with him) on the day of his coronation, and used the metaphorical language of birth to make the point.
It remains unclear to me how a metaphorical birth from God differs from a literal adoption by God.
It doesn’t necessarily. But a metaphorical birth might be a literary description rather htan a literal reality.
It doesn’t necessarily. But a metaphorical birth might be a literary description rather htan a literal reality.
It doesn’t necessarily. But a metaphorical birth might be a literary description rather htan a literal reality.
However Son does not automatically mean God.
E.g.: Numbers 8:24 “son of 25 years” בֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה does not mean son=25yrs.
Hi Bart, I decided to join your forum again. My question is somewhat on topic in that it deals with Jesus as God, son of man, etc. Here’s an interesting Jewish website: https://torahlifeministry.com/teachings/articles/23-bible-study/65-the-hebrew-v-greek-world-view.html#:~:text=The%20distinction%20comes%20from%20the,Right%20thinking%20that%20of%20theGreek.
Obviously this is quite different than the gospels and I would like your opinion on it.
Now look at Luke 23:3 “And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.”
The above passage has never made sense to me. Pilot had a reputation as a no nonsense ruler. It seems to me that if Jesus had really given such an evasive answer a guard would have whacked him in the head and shouted “Answer the question!” So did Jesus really say this, and if so, why did Pilot accept such a non-answer?
I don’t think we have any idea what words were used at Jesus’ trial. None of Jesus’ followers were there and no one was taking notes. Luke is written 55 years later. He’s just coming up with the best answer he could….
I realize the gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew. But it seem to me that both Greek and Hebrew in the Bible have translation problems.
My specific question is why is the writing in much of the Old Testament so bland? Consider this passage from the book of Samuel: Samuel was lying in the temple of the LORD. Then the LORD called Samuel. Samuel answered, “Here I am.” And he ran to Eli and said, “Here I am; you called me,” Eli said, “I did not call; go back and lie down.” So he went and lay down.
How old was Samuel? What did he look like? What did Samuel sleep on? A mat, a bed, straw, etc? How many other young men slept in the temple?
Now compare Samuel to the Iliad. Homer uses long sentences full of descriptions, similes, metaphors, etc. He really paints a picture.
Both the Greeks and the Jews were highly intelligent peoples. So why is there so much bland writing in the Old Testament? Maybe they didn’t have enough scrolls to waste space on descriptions?
Yes, I don’t think any close reader of texts would confuse any of the biblical writers with Homer. BUT, there are some real gems in there, nonetheless….
Dear Bart. I’ve searched the blog and “How Jesus became God“ and I can’t find an answer to a question. John 10:36 is translated as “because I called myself *the *son of God” (KJV) or “God’s Son” (NIV), having just quoted Psalm 82:6 (“You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High”). I looked at the Greek in John 10:36, and it appears to me that, in line with the quoted Psalm, Jesus is not saying I am *the* son of God, but he’ is saying I am *a* son of God. This would fit with him telling the disciples to pray “our Father” and also later in John, he says my father *and your* father John 20:17. To me, it seems to be a clue that Jesus was not claiming unique sonship. In John 8:58 where he says “before Abraham was, I am”, maybe we should take this in the context of him talking about not only himself being one with the father, but also his disciples in John 17:21-22 ? In other words, perhaps Jesus was just being a little advaita vedanta in how he talked in John’s Gospel?
There’s a texual variant there: our oldest manuscript (P66; around 200 CE) has the article before son “The son of God” — but it’s probably not the original text. THe scribe had the same question you do. This is one of those really intriguing controversy passages in the Gospels where Jesus is in dispute with Jewish opponents and he’s trying to trip them up by appealing to their own authorities (in the OT). Whenever he does this he *seems* to be suggesting that he is not who the Gospel itself indicates he is (so too, e.g. “How can he be the son of David if he is his Lord). But he doesn’t come out and confirm that suggestion — he is backing his enemies into a corner because they can’t hold their view AND accept their own Bible. And so it’s a way of twisting them in a knot without explaining how he gets out of it himself. A really clever device of one upmanship (Oh YEAH? If you think THAT how to you explain THIS??)