Stephen said
But Mark didn’t have an early Adoptionist Christology.So you say but many scholars don’t agree with you. Jesus was divine but was made divine, in Mark’s case, at his baptism. There are references in Mark to Jesus’ biological family.
Jesus being adopted to sonship at the baptism is pure speculation, contradicted by the parable of the vineyard.
Mark’s Jesus is the son of god sent to the world, he is the Lord of Isaiah 40:3, he is the son of man who came not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many. There is no adoptionist language anywhere in Mark.
shadybasta said
but I do think that Mark, and other gospels Except Johan, have never seen Jesus as god himself, from their writing and words you could consider him as prophet, please correct me if I am wrong, its only in Johan that you will see clearly that Jesus is saying that I am god ( of course in other words, like, before Abraham was I am…etc).
For John, Jesus possesses the divine name “I AM”
John 1:12 “to those who believed in his name he gave the right to become children of God”
John 8:24 “if you do not believe that I AM, you will indeed die in your sins”
Mark thinks the same of Jesus.
Mark 13:6 “Many will come in my name saying I AM, and deceive many”
Robert said
And you think this implies that Mark had an incarnation christology as opposed to an adoptionist christology? Why?
Because the owner of the vineyard has a son whom he loves and decides to send this son to the vineyard to collect the fruit.
If this parable is about god and Jesus then Jesus was the beloved son of god before he was sent into the world.
An adoptionist christology would have an ordinary human being become the son at the baptism.
My understanding of the parable is that the beloved son existed prior to being sent to the vineyard and had an existence external to the vineyard.
If the parable was about a righteous tenant whom the owner decided to make his adopted son and heir, then Mark could be said to have an adoptionist christology.
Robert said
So Jesus in Mark’s gospel is known existed prior to his baptism, with a mother and brothers and sisters who did not believe in him and in whose presence he was not able to work any miracles.
He doesn’t say he couldn’t do any miracles in his home town, he says the only miracles he could do there was lay his hands on a few people and heal them. A confused account by Mark but not relevant to the question of Jesus’s pre-incarnate being.
At his baptism, he was identified by God to be his son, and only after that heavenly proclamation of sonship did Jesus begin his public ministry to Israel.
He’s identified as god’s beloved son at the baptism, just as someone in the parable of the vineyard is identified as the owner’s beloved son. Neither are spoken of as being chosen or adopted to sonship. Mark adds the description of “beloved” – its not in Matthew,’s version – specifically to link to the language of the parable with the baptism. God has a beloved son just as the owner of the vineyard has a beloved son.
There’s no need to introduce an idea foreign to the gospel of Mark to interpret this parable in the most obvious sense.
The obvious sense of the parable is that the owner of the vineyard is God. The vineyard is the world, the servants sent to collect the fruit are the prophets and the tenants are the religious leaders. God, seeing how badly the prophets have been treated sends last of all his beloved son into the world thinking they will respect his son.
What part of the interpretation do you not agree with?
No where does Mark speak of Jesus existing as a divine being in heaven prior to his being incarnated as a human being.
Mark’s Jesus is the Lord of Isaiah 40.3 whom John the baptist has been sent to prepare the way of.
Mark’s Jesus is the Lord of Psalm 110 whom David says was told by God to sit at his right hand until he had made his enemies his footstool.
Stephen said
An adoptionist christology would have an ordinary human being become the son at the baptism.Brenmcg, what is it you imagine is happening to Jesus at his baptism in Mark’s account?
The same thing that is happening at the transfiguration
Mark 9:7 “This is my son, the beloved one, listen to him”.
He is being declared from heaven to be the son of god. Everything else that went before him can be ignored. The way has been prepared and now Jesus the son of god is all the matters. He is all anyone needs to listen to.
brenmcg said
The same thing that is happening at the transfiguration
Mark 9:7 “This is my son, the beloved one, listen to him”.
He is being declared from heaven to be the son of god. Everything else that went before him can be ignored. The way has been prepared and now Jesus the son of god is all the matters. He is all anyone needs to listen to.
Well the episode of the Transfiguration certainly points back to the Baptism as it points forward to the Resurrection. (Nobody asked but my intuition is that this is a perfect example of Markan creativity.) However these episodes are not functionally equivalent. What happens at the Baptism?
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.”
Note that God is not announcing anything. This is a subjective internal spiritual experience where Jesus is being filled for the first time by the Holy Spirit of God who drives him to the wilderness as if possessed. God is addressing Jesus directly. It was the later gospels (like Matthew heh he heh) that made this a public event. For Mark the Baptism initiates Jesus’ career and is the point at which Mark becomes interested in Jesus. If Jesus was already the Son of God why would that be? Wouldn’t you expect Mark’s gospel to begin at the point at which Jesus became God’s Son, the way the others all do? I submit that it does! For Mark, Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his Baptism. His birth and youth were normal human biology which is why Mark starts where he does. As Robert pointed out, Jesus had a mother and brothers and sisters who apparently thought he was crazy! Odd for a god-man who appeared as an adult.
We know “Adoptionism” was an early form of Christology because Paul is already familiar with it even though it is not his own view. We see the concept expressed in other NT writings. And even though it was ultimately declared a heresy it never entirely died out. I think it’s logical to suppose it was in fact the earliest Christology.
The Parable of the Vineyard doesn’t really help your case. The adopted Son of God wasn’t a pretend son. His sonship was totally legitimate.
Robert said
Aside healing a few people, ie, relatively minor acts, he was not able to do any mighty deeds in his home town among his mother, brothers, and sisters, who thought he was out of his mind. This is relevant because you think Mark was avoiding portraying Jesus as having been “born as a normal birth ( from a a woman , regardless of the miracles way ), and why he had to live a normal life, grow, learn, get educated and then start his teaching.” This pericope shows that Mark is not at all afraid of portraying Jesus as having had such a normal origin and family life, no more remarkable than that of any prophet who has no honor “in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.”
What it shows is a deep disconnect between Jesus, as Mark understands him, and his biological family. They have no faith in him and think he’s insane.
For Mark they are not important in the story of the son of god made flesh and he’d prefer if they were forgotten about.
Jesus being baptized with a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins is not the same as a pre-existent divine being becoming an incarnate human being. Surely you can see the difference, right?
Yes I’m not claiming they are the same. I’m saying the baptism is not about adoption to sonship. Just as the use of the same language in the parable of the vineyard confirms. But the son in the parable is a being existing prior and externally to his entrance into the vineyard.
The vineyard is not the created, cosmological human world into which an uncreated pre-existent divine being is incarnated, but merely Israel and its current leadership in Jerusalem. Your interpretation is anachronistic, introducing much later christological and trinitarian ideas that simply are not found in Mark’s gospel.
The farmers/tenants are the current leadership in Jerusalem. The vineyard may be the whole world or merely Israel, but that’s not important. What’s important is that the owner is God. That the owner is not present in the vineyard but living abroad. He has a son whom he loves that he sends to the vineyard after all his servants have failed. He does not adopt a son after the servants have failed.
Sure, but Isaiah 40,3 and Psalm 110 do not speak of a pre-existent divine being becoming an incarnate human being in a non-divine human, cosmological world. The earliest Christians, like Mark, did believe that Jesus had been exalted to some kind of divine status, but there’s no indication in the gospel of Mark of an incarnational christology.
Believe whatever you like, but at least know that your interpretation is not accepted by critical scholars or educated lay people who can read the gospel of Mark on its own terms.
Isaiah 40 and Psalm 110 speak of someone who pre-exists Jesus’s birth. If Mark believes Jesus is the that person Mark necessarily believes in his pre-existence.
The earliest christians, like Mark, believed Jesus was the son and heir, entitled to receive the name and Lordship of God his father.
Stephen said
Well the episode of the Transfiguration certainly points back to the Baptism as it points forward to the Resurrection. (Nobody asked but my intuition is that this is a perfect example of Markan creativity.) However these episodes are not functionally equivalent. What happens at the Baptism?
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.”
Note that God is not announcing anything. This is a subjective internal spiritual experience where Jesus is being filled for the first time by the Holy Spirit of God who drives him to the wilderness as if possessed. God is addressing Jesus directly. It was the later gospels (like Matthew heh he heh) that made this a public event.
In Matthew god announces to all present that “this is his don”. But for the later writers god only speaks to Jesus, and Jesus tell us what god has said.
For Mark the Baptism initiates Jesus’ career and is the point at which Mark becomes interested in Jesus. If Jesus was already the Son of God why would that be? Wouldn’t you expect Mark’s gospel to begin at the point at which Jesus became God’s Son, the way the others all do? I submit that it does! For Mark, Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his Baptism.
For Mark, Jesus’s career and purpose to his coming was to bear the sins of the world and give his life as a ransom for many. As he is bearing their sins he must undergo baptism, first with water, then the holy spirit, then the ultimate baptism on the cross.
The baptism is where Jesus accepts this mission and begins his career/ministry. There is nothing about him being adopted to sonship.
We know “Adoptionism” was an early form of Christology because Paul is already familiar with it even though it is not his own view. We see the concept expressed in other NT writings. And even though it was ultimately declared a heresy it never entirely died out. I think it’s logical to suppose it was in fact the earliest Christology.
Paul believed that humans could become adopted sons of god. But where does Paul show any awareness or criticism of beliefs that christ was an adopted son?
It is only logical to suppose that the earliest christology was philippians 2
“though he was in the form of god did not consider equality with god something to be grasped. Rather he emptied himself and took on the form of a slave, having been born in human likeness“.
The Parable of the Vineyard doesn’t really help your case. The adopted Son of God wasn’t a pretend son. His sonship was totally legitimate.
The sonship of an adopted son of god might be totally legitimate, but the point of the parable reference is that he was the son before being sent to the vineyard. He wasnt someone in the vineyard adopted to be son and heir.
Robert said
Yes, Isaiah 40 speaks of someone prior to Jesus, namely John the Baptizer, according to Mark’s interpretation. Psalm 110 is just as easily understood as hyper-literal pesher type exegesis, not necessarily implying Jesus’ divine pre-existence. Although the latter is a possible interpretation, it doesn’t really fit Mark use of the quotation. David is said to be speaking “by the Holy Spirit,” ie, prophetically, not about past pre-existence but about a fulfillment that is still in the future for Jesus and Mark: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet‘.”
Mark 1:2 “as in written by Isaiah the prophet, behold I send messenger ahead of you who will prepare the way for you”
The messenger is John the baptist, “you” is Jesus.
Mark 1:3 “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord make straight the paths for him.”
John came baptising in the wilderness preparing the way of the Lord (Jesus). “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.” He is the adonai yahweh isaiah 40:10 who comes with power and rules with a mighty hand.
–
The point of quoting Psalm 110 is to show that the messiah is not a mere descendant of David. He is David’s lord. David as king of Israel only has one Lord.
For Mark they are not important in the story of the son of god made flesh and he’d prefer if they were forgotten about.
You want too dismiss what Mark narrates in favor of your own or others’ religious beliefs that Mark does not even mention. He says nothing about “god made flesh.”
Son of god made flesh. Mark believes Jesus to be son of god and to have existed prior to becoming human.
Baptism certainly is about sonship. It is the occasion of Jesus being told he is God’s beloved son. It precedes his public ministry that concludes in Jerusalem, where the chief priests, scribes, and elders perceived that he told this parable against him. Thus Jesus going to the vineyard and being killed like the prophets before him is merely speaking of the death of Jesus at the hands of the Jerusalem authorities. Jesus’ existence prior to the events spoken of in the parable need not refer to any incarnation of a pre-existent divinity, which Mark nowhere mentions.
The parable is about the owner of the vineyard sending his beloved son to the vineyard to collect the fruit at harvest time.
There are two options: either the owner of the vineyard is not God, or Mark is not an adoptionist.
You’re introducing time distinctions and ideas that are not in the parable. There’s no pluperfect verb tense used here. The point of the parable is simple and has nothing to do with your extended allegorical interpretation of divine pre-existence and incarnation. But you will go on believing whatever you want so, no offense, but I see no point in continuing this discussion.
All the time distinctions are in the parable. The servants are sent one after the other who are either beaten or killed. He has one left, a son that he loves, whom he sends last of all.
The point of the parable is that the killing of the prophets can be forgiven but the killing of the son will result in the kingdom of god being given to someone else.
Its an implication of the parable that Mark is not Adoptionist. No one in the new testament is.
Mark’s Jesus is the son and heir. He inherits the name and title of his father in heaven – Lord Yahweh. This is the means of the fulfillment of Isaiah 40 – Jesus is the Lord Yahweh who comes with power and rules with a mighty hand. This is the means of fulfillment of Daniel – Lord Yahweh becomes human, becomes son of man, and this is how one like a son of man will have an everlasting dominion.
It is this utterly outrageous blasphemous claim of Mark’s Jesus that signs his death sentence.
The adoptionist controversy would come later when people would try to clarify these questions but for Mark there is no talk of such distinctions and controversies
Yes absolutely, Mark has no concept of adoption to sonship of God. It doesn’t exist in his gospel. Its a second century idea.
Mark assumes the normal understanding of “son” – as confirmed by the parable. The owner has a son that he loves and sends him to the vineyard. No hint of “adoption”, its an idea foreign to Mark’s gospel.
But where does Paul show any awareness or criticism of beliefs that christ was an adopted son?
Paul, a slave] 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…
In his greeting to the church at Rome, Paul seems to be quoting an early confessional statement (as he does in 1 Cor 15) that reflects the notion of Adoptionism. This is interesting in the light of his own views which seem different. Perhaps he is aware of the views of his intended audience and is practicing his “all things to all men” approach? But at any rate Paul knows the doctrine which contradicts the notion that it is merely a second century heresy.
That notion is belied by other references in the NT. Peter’s first sermon in Acts 2 has an Adoptionist context with its talk of Jesus being a man through whom god worked signs and miracles being made Lord and Messiah at the Resurrection. And there is an interesting textual variation in Luke’s account of the Baptism which may reflect the original reading which followed Psalms 2:7 –
You are my son, today I have begotten you.
And there are others. Of course the doctrine had been submerged in many of these writings but it’s there early on.
The best discussion of all this is in Prof Ehrman’s Orthodox Corruption of Scripture which has a long discussion of Adoptionism in the early Church.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)