I was attempting to correct brenmcg’s historical misunderstanding about the Arian controversy. This is nothing unusual unfortunately. I have gotten into arguments with believers with depressing frequency who don’t understand the actual history of the controversy. The central source of their flabbergast is that the doctrine of the Trinity, especially Nicaean Trinitarianism, was post-Biblical and developed over a lengthy period. It was touch and go for decades. There were areas of Christendom where Arianism dominated for centuries. But “Arianism” itself was a post facto description of a system of thought that dominated the ante Nicaean Church. It was deemed a “heresy” but the truth is that it was the way most Christians thought for the first three centuries of the Church’s existence. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
brenmcg it’s perfectly acceptable to disagree with Father Brown. But you should try to understand his argument which is certainly not a fantasy. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
But why cant you try to defend the argument yourself?
Well I can explain the theory of evolution but if you didn’t know about it and wanted to educate yourself wouldn’t you rather read Darwin or Ernst Mayr?
How do you reconcile the belief that in Mark Jesus became the son of god at his baptism with the fact that nothing in Mark says that to be the case?
Well there is no overt statement in the gospel saying “Jesus became divine at his Baptism”. The gospel describes his adoption as Son of God at his baptism.
I [John the Baptist] have baptized you with water; but he [The Messiah] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”
–Mark 1: 8-11
It is at his baptism that the Holy Spirit comes upon Jesus implying that before his baptism he did not have the Holy Spirit. This is why I included verse 8. To baptize others with the Holy Spirit you must first be baptized and be indwelled with the Holy Spirit. This was an event that happened to Jesus at a specific time at a specific place – his baptism. He was not born divine.
But there are historical issues. Before Nicaea the Church Fathers who mention this episode invariably quote the statement of God from Heaven as “You are my beloved son; today I have begotten you” quoting Psalm 2:7. While we have no surviving Markan textual variants for v. 11 we do have such a textual variant for Luke 3:22. Luke is copying Mark. The clear evidence is that the original reading, ante Nicaea, was the adoptionist reading. Jesus becomes the Son of God at his baptism. It is only post Nicaea when Nicaean trinitarianism finally won the day that the version we have begins to appear in our sources.
There are literary issues. Note how Mark’s gospel pivots on the Transfiguration episode in chapter 9. One interesting aspect of the Transfiguration narrative is how it simultaneously points backward to the baptism and forward to Jesus’ resurrection. The Transfiguration is the fulcrum and the baptism and the resurrection are the weights at the two ends of the lever. The author of Mark is balancing the baptism and the resurrection, strange unless he regarded the baptism as a moment as important as the resurrection, the moment Jesus became divine.
What Father Raymond Brown pointed out was that there seems to be a progression in the views of the early Christians of when Jesus became divine. There are passages where Jesus seems to have been made divine at the resurrection. Note Paul’s salutation to the Romans in his letter-
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
There are similar passages in other sources like Acts and Hebrews. Some early Christians at least had this idea. Matthew has the view that Jesus was the Son of God at his physical birth. Mark seems to show a transitional view. Luke’s gospel shows an adoptionist strata of material that was later redacted to a view more similar to Matthew’s.
I haven’t looked at Father Brown’s work in a long while. I would have to go back and check about a reference to textual variants. The logic seems sound to me though. If “today I have begotten you” was the original reading of Luke then it seems likely that it was the original reading of Mark as well. Mark has an adoptionist Christology and he thinks Jesus became divine at the baptism. Why would he use the “well pleased” reading? And I find it compelling that none of the ante Nicene Fathers who mention the passage (and they don’t all indicate which gospel they’re quoting) use the “today” variant. The “well pleased” variant only appears post Nicaea. Brenmcg will have none of it of course because he doesn’t believe in Markan priority.
The Wellhausen hypothesis is interesting. I have definitely become convinced that the Transfiguration is a Markan literary invention that functions as a centerpiece to the gospel. (I’m just a hoot and a holler away from thinking the empty tomb is a Markan invention as well.)
Stephen said
Well there is no overt statement in the gospel saying “Jesus became divine at his Baptism”. The gospel describes his adoption as Son of God at his baptism.
Jesus is “Lord” in the gospel of Mark. At what point in the gospel did he become Lord?
Before or after he became son of god?
Obviously at least before his baptism as John is “preparing the way for the Lord”. Was he “Lord” when David spoke about him through the spirit?
Did God adopt the “Lord” to be his son at the baptism?
It is at his baptism that the Holy Spirit comes upon Jesus implying that before his baptism he did not have the Holy Spirit. This is why I included verse 8. To baptize others with the Holy Spirit you must first be baptized and be indwelled with the Holy Spirit. This was an event that happened to Jesus at a specific time at a specific place – his baptism. He was not born divine.
Was he born “Lord”?
Others go through the same baptism. James and John will drink the same cup and be baptized with the same baptism. Jesus will baptize others with the holy spirit. Will they all become “Lord” and “Son of God”? Or are these titles unique to Jesus in Mark?
But there are historical issues. Before Nicaea the Church Fathers who mention this episode invariably quote the statement of God from Heaven as “You are my beloved son; today I have begotten you” quoting Psalm 2:7. While we have no surviving Markan textual variants for v. 11 we do have such a textual variant for Luke 3:22. Luke is copying Mark. The clear evidence is that the original reading, ante Nicaea, was the adoptionist reading. Jesus becomes the Son of God at his baptism. It is only post Nicaea when Nicaean trinitarianism finally won the day that the version we have begins to appear in our sources.
So the gospel with a textual variant for “today I have begotten you” has Jesus clearly born as the son of god, and the gospel without a nativity has no textual variant containing “today I have begotten you”? Yet we’re supposed to conclude that adoptionist christology is clearly the original?
There are literary issues. Note how Mark’s gospel pivots on the Transfiguration episode in chapter 9. One interesting aspect of the Transfiguration narrative is how it simultaneously points backward to the baptism and forward to Jesus’ resurrection. The Transfiguration is the fulcrum and the baptism and the resurrection are the weights at the two ends of the lever. The author of Mark is balancing the baptism and the resurrection, strange unless he regarded the baptism as a moment as important as the resurrection, the moment Jesus became divine.
The transfiguration also points forward to his trial and passion. Baptism, Transfiguration and Trial. The three public testimonies of Jesus being the Son of God (just as the writer of 1stJohn says), which were confirmed by his resurrection. He was the son of god before the testimony at the trial, son of god before the testimony at his transfiguration and son of god before the testimony at his baptism.
The only place Mark gives any indication of what he means by “Son” of god is in the parable of the beloved son and heir. Who is sent at harvest time only after the failure of previous servants. The beloved son’s purpose is not to collect the harvest but to be the heir. He is sent only after the servants have all failed and because the owner of vineyard believes the tenants will respect his son, whom he loves. How could anyone conclude this is adoptionist?
brenmcg I found this discussion online ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Bolded passage done by me. (Note that the writer is a believer.)
Here I want to consider the claim that the Old Testament quotations in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** introduce the theme of the divinity of Jesus. The theoretical discussion should not be pursued apart from a careful and unprejudiced reading of the texts.
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’” John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. (** you do not have permission to see this link **)
The quotations from Isaiah and Malachi make it clear that Jesus is expected to fulfil the role of the “Lord” who will both judge the corrupt temple system (** you do not have permission to see this link **). In the Old Testament this role is performed by YHWH. John proclaims a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins because Israel faces divine judgment.
But as I’ve pointed out on many occasions, the synoptic writers—and the writers of the New Testament generally—do not construe the lordship of Jesus as an expression of his identification with God, as a matter of ontological equivalence. Rather they maintain that Jesus has been chosen and authorized exceptionally by God to judge and restore.
So yes, Old Testament kyrios texts are applied to Jesus, but not because Jesus is thought to be YHWH: rather the role or function or agency that is indicated by kyrios has been transferred by YHWH to Jesus for the sake of the eschatological renewal of his people. So the Jews who will be saved from the destruction of the end of the age are those who call not on the name of YHWH but on the name of the Lord Jesus (** you do not have permission to see this link **).
This is clearly and repeatedly stated, and it needs to be respected. There is no point in defending a high view of Christ at the cost of a low view of scripture.
Mark’s Gospel slips comfortably into this narrative. The messenger who prepares the way for the Lord says that Jesus will be greater in that he will baptize with the Holy Spirit (** you do not have permission to see this link **):
Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. (** you do not have permission to see this link **)
I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.” (** you do not have permission to see this link **)
That is, John prepares the way for the Lord who will come to judge and restore Israel, but the one who directly appears is the chosen, Spirit-filled, servant of God, authorized to carry out, on behalf of God, the tasks implied in ** you do not have permission to see this link **).
This is also what we are to understand by the proclamation with which Jesus then begins his ministry:
The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel. (** you do not have permission to see this link **)
The coming of the kingdom of God will climax in the vindication of Jesus as the Son of Man, who will receive kingdom and glory from God, and of those who are not ashamed of him at his coming (** you do not have permission to see this link **).
At the end, Jesus tells Caiaphas that he will “see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (** you do not have permission to see this link **). The allusion to Daniel 7 and Psalm 110 makes it abundantly clear that Jesus sees himself as the one who will, as a consequence of his suffering, be authorized by God to judge and rule at least Israel and possibly also the nations.
So this is how the expectation generated by the quotation of Isaiah and Malachi right at the start of the Gospel is realized. First, the story of Jesus’s baptism identifies him as the chosen servant who will baptize Israel with the Holy Spirit, who will judge the corrupt temple system, who will rule at the right hand of YHWH. Secondly, Jesus himself tells a story about the coming kingdom of God that will climax in his exaltation to the right hand of the Father in the heaven, from where he will rule as God’s proxy until the last enemy has been destroyed (cf. ** you do not have permission to see this link **).
Stephen said
brenmcg I found this discussion online ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Bolded passage done by me. (Note that the writer is a believer.)But as I’ve pointed out on many occasions, the synoptic writers—and the writers of the New Testament generally—do not construe the lordship of Jesus as an expression of his identification with God, as a matter of ontological equivalence. Rather they maintain that Jesus has been chosen and authorized exceptionally by God to judge and restore.
No. This is fiction.
John the baptist tells us one more powerful than him is coming.
What is the explanation in Mark’s gospel for why Jesus is more powerful than John? Why is John not worthy to stoop down and untie his sandals? What is the explanation in Mark’s gospel for why Jesus is “chosen”?
Why is Jesus both the Son of God and Lord in Mark’s gospel? They are two separate titles. Was he made Son and Lord at the same time? Where does Mark say when he was made Lord?
The only explanation in Mark’s gospel for why Jesus is Lord is that he is the beloved Son and heir.
“He still had one other a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them saying They will respect my son But those tenants said to one another This is the heir come let us kill him“
This is speaking about Jesus (as in all 3 synoptics). What is Jesus heir to?
No. This is fiction.
Well I agree Jesus wasn’t really divine but the author of Mark believes that Jesus was adopted by God as his son at his baptism when God bestowed his spirit upon him. If you think Jesus was made divine son of God earlier than that then why do you think the author of Mark began his gospel with Jesus’ baptism?
What is the explanation in Mark’s gospel for why Jesus is more powerful than John? Why is John not worthy to stoop down and untie his sandals? What is the explanation in Mark’s gospel for why Jesus is “chosen”?
Mark asserts that Jesus was chosen and John was chosen but doesn’t really explore the “why” question. These ancient writers weren’t interested in this aspect of the story. That would be a modern concern. We are the ones interested in personal psychology and motivations. Including God’s motivations.
What is Jesus heir to?
The kingdom of God.
Stephen said
Well I agree Jesus wasn’t really divine but the author of Mark believes that Jesus was adopted by God as his son at his baptism when God bestowed his spirit upon him. If you think Jesus was made divine son of God earlier than that then why do you think the author of Mark began his gospel with Jesus’ baptism?
Because the historical Jesus was baptized by John and began his ministry shortly after. The disciples didn’t know him before that. Mark didn’t believe the nativity accounts of Matthew/Luke or didn’t know them to be true so started his gospel when people first encountered him,
and opens with “The beginning of the gospel … “.
He might as well have said “Despite what you heard previously this is the beginning of the gospel … “
Mark asserts that Jesus was chosen and John was chosen but doesn’t really explore the “why” question. These ancient writers weren’t interested in this aspect of the story. That would be a modern concern. We are the ones interested in personal psychology and motivations. Including God’s motivations.
If Mark asserted that Jesus was chosen then Mark would have an adoptionist christology. But Mark does not have an adoptionist christology and nowehere in Mark is it asserted that Jesus was “chosen”.
I’m not sure why you were saying ancient writers weren’t interested in god’s motivations?
What is Jesus heir to?
The kingdom of God.
So in Mark’s gospel Jesus is replacing God as king of the kingdom of God? (or who is he inheriting the kingdom of god from?)
jakejones said
“John the baptist tells us one more powerful than him is coming” Which is strange because john does not notice anything special about jesus. john purifies jesus of his sins by putting him in water.
Where does it say John purified Jesus of his sins?
If Jesus was sinful why would John be unfit to stoop down and untie his sandals?
I am aware of no Christian doctrine that implies that Jesus replaces God in any way. I believe that the idea promoted is merely that Jesus embodied a new covenant with God, as opposed to the covenant that God initially made with Abraham and his descendants. But here, again, we necessarily get into the confusing issue of the nature of the Trinity.
“John the baptist tells us one more powerful than him is coming” Which is strange because john does not notice anything special about jesus. john purifies jesus of his sins by putting him in water.
The relationship between Jesus and John is one of the fascinating mysteries of the NT. Clearly there was some kind of historical relationship which the gospel writers felt they had to acknowledge and account for. Theologically John assumes the role of forerunner, Elijah preparing the way of the Lord. Historically? Who knows? it easy to imagine that some of John’s followers might have attached themselves to Jesus after John’s death. Was Jesus a follower who broke away with his own ministry after John’s death? Note that in Mark’s account Jesus’ vision at the baptism is private, internal. The later gospels add more details but further marginalize John.
Because the historical Jesus was baptized by John and began his ministry shortly after. The disciples didn’t know him before that.
You’re just restating the narrative. This situation was the same for all the gospels but the later ones chose to begin with Jesus birth or for gJohn, before his birth. All begin with the point that Jesus became divine. Mark begins with Jesus’ baptism because for Mark that’s the point at which Jesus was adopted by God as his son. Matthew/Luke begin with the Nativity because they think Jesus was divine at birth. John begins with the Logos as an emanation of the Father in the divine realm.
If Mark asserted that Jesus was chosen then Mark would have an adoptionist christology. But Mark does not have an adoptionist christology and nowehere in Mark is it asserted that Jesus was “chosen”.
I’ve answered this one before. Mark doesn’t say “Jesus was chosen at his baptism”, no. Mark depicts Jesus being chosen at his baptism. Mark doesn’t tell, he shows.
I’m not sure why you were saying ancient writers weren’t interested in god’s motivations?
My actual point is that ancient writers tended not to psychologize. Character is revealed by actions.
So in Mark’s gospel Jesus is replacing God as king of the kingdom of God? (or who is he inheriting the kingdom of god from?)
Now you’re just being obtuse. God adopted Jesus as his divine son who takes charge of the Kingdom when it is established on earth.
Where does it say John purified Jesus of his sins?
Because that’s what baptism is!
...so John the baptizer appeared] in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
-Mark 1:4
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
-Mark 1:9
This is precisely the thing that made later non-adoptionist Christians so uncomfortable about Jesus’ baptism. This is apparently not as much of a problem for Mark because he acknowledges Jesus was a human being who was adopted by God.
If Jesus was sinful why would John be unfit to stoop down and untie his sandals?
Because theologically John is the preparer of the way for the Messiah. Not the Messiah himself.
I am aware of no Christian doctrine that implies that Jesus replaces God in any way. I believe that the idea promoted is merely that Jesus embodied a new covenant with God, as opposed to the covenant that God initially made with Abraham and his descendants.
It helps to consider that with Second Temple Judaism God the Father had rather retreated into the Heavenlies and it was considered unseemly for him to cavort around like Yahweh of old. This is the impetus for the development of complex angelologies and mediator figures like the Son of Man.
Jesus is appointed by God as his adopted son who will rule in the Kingdom.
JAS said
I am aware of no Christian doctrine that implies that Jesus replaces God in any way. I believe that the idea promoted is merely that Jesus embodied a new covenant with God, as opposed to the covenant that God initially made with Abraham and his descendants. But here, again, we necessarily get into the confusing issue of the nature of the Trinity.
Matthew 11:27 “all things have been handed over to me by the father … “
Matthew 28:19 “all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me … “
brenmcg said
JAS said
I am aware of no Christian doctrine that implies that Jesus replaces God in any way. I believe that the idea promoted is merely that Jesus embodied a new covenant with God, as opposed to the covenant that God initially made with Abraham and his descendants. But here, again, we necessarily get into the confusing issue of the nature of the Trinity.
Matthew 11:27 “all things have been handed over to me by the father … “
Matthew 28:19 “all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me … “
Not really a replacement . . . subject to interpretation. I have given you the standard Christian interpretation.
Stephen said
You’re just restating the narrative. This situation was the same for all the gospels but the later ones chose to begin with Jesus birth or for gJohn, before his birth. All begin with the point that Jesus became divine. Mark begins with Jesus’ baptism because for Mark that’s the point at which Jesus was adopted by God as his son. Matthew/Luke begin with the Nativity because they think Jesus was divine at birth. John begins with the Logos as an emanation of the Father in the divine realm.
That would be one interpretation. Another would be; at no point in Matthew/Luke/John does Jesus go from being only human to being divine also. And at no point in Mark is Jesus ever stated to have become divine after being only human.
There’s nothing in the phrase “you are my beloved son” that indicates he hadn’t been a beloved son prior to god making the statement.
I’ve answered this one before. Mark doesn’t say “Jesus was chosen at his baptism”, no. Mark depicts Jesus being chosen at his baptism. Mark doesn’t tell, he shows.
Mark shows Jesus, along with the whole Judean region, getting baptized by John with water. Heaven opens and a voice from heaven says “you are my beloved son”. That this is a depiction of adoption to sonship is just a baseless assertion.
Now you’re just being obtuse. God adopted Jesus as his divine son who takes charge of the Kingdom when it is established on earth.
In chapter 12 there is a “Lord” of the vineyard who has a son and heir. This son is Jesus. In what sense is Jesus inheriting the Lordship of the vineyard from God? Why is god handing it over to him?
How long will Jesus be taking charge of the kingdom for? Forever?
Where does it say John purified Jesus of his sins?
Because that’s what baptism is!
...so John the baptizer appeared] in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
-Mark 1:4
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
-Mark 1:9
This is precisely the thing that made later non-adoptionist Christians so uncomfortable about Jesus’ baptism. This is apparently not as much of a problem for Mark because he acknowledges Jesus was a human being who was adopted by God.
Yes but Jesus goes through another baptism in Mark (his death) but it is not a baptism for his own sins.
Mark 10:38 “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
So although Mark gets John’s baptism with water where does it say he confessed his sins and had them washed away?
If Jesus was sinful why would John be unfit to stoop down and untie his sandals?
Because theologically John is the preparer of the way for the Messiah. Not the Messiah himself.
So John is the preparer of the way for the Messiah who is a sinful man. John is able to baptize and wash away the sins of this sinful man but is unworthy to stoop down and untie his sandals? How does that make sense?
JAS said
Not really a replacement . . . subject to interpretation. I have given you the standard Christian interpretation.
Yes its not really a replacement
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)