Robert said
I agree that Mark’s Jesus is condemned and killed for blasphemy, specifically for the claim that he makes for himself about the future. He makes no claim about divine heavenly pre-existence. You can imagine that it is implied in the parable, but nowhere in Mark is there any explicit discussion of a heavenly being becoming incarnate in human flesh. Nowhere.

The chief priest stands up and asks him directly “Are you the Messiah the son of the blessed One?” because this is what he’s on trial for. If he answers “Yes” he’ll be executed. His extended answer of “I am, and you will see the son of man …” just confirms he meant his answer in the blasphemous sense. He’s not claiming to be a righteous son of god, not claiming the right to be king of Israel, but claiming divine sonship and the right to heavenly authority. 

If you’re interested in “the normal understanding of ‘son’,” you will learn that it has a very broad range of meanings in Hebrew and Aramaic, which stands behind Mark’s traditions. One can be a ‘son of peace’, meaning a peaceful person. Mark is still using this lowest sense of this Semitic idiom in 2,19 3,17 3,28. Somewhat more elevated, Bartimaeus refers to Jesus as a ‘son of David’ (10,47-48), by which he does not mean David’s literal son such as Solomon, but it is a messianic title for a much later descendent of David. Being a ‘son of God’, need not mean more than being a godly person, or a powerful person, such as the king in Israel would also be called a son of God at his enthronement, as in Psalm 2, which is being alluded to at Jesus’ baptism.

Yes there can be sons of peace or sons of god or sons of david. But the normal sense of son is as Father/Son relationship. The sonship of Jesus is unique. God’s fathership to him is unique. A relationship defining the Father and the Son which no one else shares.

Mark 8:39 “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

Mark 13:32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.“

What the parable does is confirm this relationship. Many servants are sent but the sending of the son is unique. The owner had one more left to send.  A son unlike any of he servants that had been sent before. The killing of the son will be the last straw, the ending of the farmers tenancy.

By the way, you once again declined to answer my question: If Jesus had already come from heaven and incarnated himself as God in the flesh, why would God tell him that he was his beloved son at his baptism? Wouldn’t he already know who he was?  

He is told he is the son for the reader’s benefit not for his own. 

—

If Mark thought Jesus was an adopted son why didn’t he say so?

“Jesus, a righteous man for nazareth, was chosen by god to be lord of the universe and so he adopted him as his son”.

“The owner of the vineyard found a righteous worker and decided to adopt him as heir and give him the kingdom”

Stephen said
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. 

The spirit of god raising him up from the dead was a declaration that he was the son of god. 

If Paul was using a confessional statement he didn’t think it was adoptionist. And if Paul didn’t think it was adoptionist, we shouldn’t either.

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.

Jesus was certainly a man in the NT, the question is whether he was anything before being a man.

Acts 2:23 “David said about him (ie Jesus of Nazareth), ‘I saw the Lord always before me Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.“

God made him Lord and Messiah. But doesn’t say it was at the resurrection. He was obviously Messiah before the resurrection.

A textual variant which directly quotes a Psalm, in an other wise non-adoptionist gospel is a very weak grounds for claiming adoptionism was a 1st century idea.

Robert said

brenmcg said

The chief priest stands up and asks him directly “Are you the Messiah the son of the blessed One?” because this is what he’s on trial for. If he answers “Yes” he’ll be executed. …

You assert your opinion with great certainty but it is entirely hypothetical since you’re commenting on an imaginary text that only exists in your mind.

Jesus repeatedly warns the impure spirits not to reveal that he is the son of god, and warns the disciples not to tell people he is the messiah. Because this is what will get him into trouble. The culmination of the story is Jesus finally admitting to this openly. “you will see the son of man sitting on the right hand …” is just clarification of this central message of the gospel. 

As is your imagining that you can intuit exactly what Mark may only merely imply in his parable. You infer, but you cannot know what is only implied. At least you have admitted that above.

Do you agree that the owner had a son whom he loved before he sent him to the vineyard?

That cannot be the only or even primary reason since the reader already knows this in reading Mk 1,1. Instead the reader is introduced into God’s proclamation to Jesus himself that he is God’s beloved son. Why would this need to be narrated? If the reader already knows this, and if Jesus as pre-existent God had already incarnated himself into a human being, why did Jesus need to hear this during his baptism? You’ve yet to answer this question.

The reader knows its a story about Jesus the son of god but now they’ve heard god proclaim it. If Mark means anything more by it he doesnt say. Jesus has a very muted response to finding out he’s just become the son of god.

I’ve already answered this for you. The adoptionist vs incarnational christology debate did not occur until later. That’s why you are reduced to inferring what you would like to believe Mark implied in a parable that has a much more obvious application in context.   

What do you think is the much more obvious application of the parable? that the son is sent to Jerusalem? But John the baptist was a servant that was killed and he wasn’t sent to Jerusalem.

Robert said

brenmcg said

Jesus repeatedly warns the impure spirits not to reveal that he is the son of god, and warns the disciples not to tell people he is the messiah. Because this is what will get him into trouble. The culmination of the story is Jesus finally admitting to this openly. “you will see the son of man sitting on the right hand …” is just clarification of this central message of the gospel.

Irrelevant to the discussion here. Only after Jesus is told by God at his baptism that he is his beloved son in whom he is well pleased, is Jesus immediately cast out into the wilderness by the holy spirit and tested by Satan himself. There’s no indication that the knowledge of Jesus’ identify by the impure spirits is based upon Jesus’ pre-existence as a divine being incarnated into human flesh.

Ok – but it’s relevant to the side discussion of why Jesus was condemned to death.

Do you agree that the owner had a son whom he loved before he sent him to the vineyard?

There’s no discussion in the parable about the incarnation of a pre-existent divine being or the timing of such. Your interpretation of the parable is not supported by Mark’s lexical choices or verb tenses. You’re trying to build a christological castle in the air.

But do you agree that the owner had a son whom he loved before he sent him to the vineyard?

The reader knows its a story about Jesus the son of god but now they’ve heard god proclaim it. If Mark means anything more by it he doesnt say. Jesus has a very muted response to finding out he’s just become the son of god.

You’ve still failed to answer the question. Why would this be narrated? If the reader already knows this, and if Jesus as pre-existent God had already incarnated himself into a human being, why did Jesus need to hear this during his baptism? 

The reader doesn’t know he’s a son that is loved whom god is well pleased with.

Maybe he’s a fallen son cast down into the sinful world.

On the contrary, people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Jesus too received this baptism for the forgiveness of his sins. And immediately prior to this parable, Jesus aligns his authority with that of John:

“By what authority are you doing these things? Who gave you this authority to do them?” Jesus said to them, “I will ask you one question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin? Answer me.” They argued with one another, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But shall we say, ‘Of human origin’?”—they were afraid of the crowd, for all regarded John as truly a prophet. So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

In other words, both John’s and Jesus’ authority came from heaven. Are you going to argue therefore that John the Baptizer was also a pre-existent divine being who incarnated himself into adult human flesh? The point of the parable is that Jesus is the son of God, coming to Jerusalem with full authority, and he is killed by the Jewish authorities, as was John and many of the prophets before them. This helps explain, for Mark, the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem and the kingdom of God’s success among gentiles. There is no explicit claim that Jesus’ special identity as God’s beloved son necessarily implies pre-existence and an incarnation christology.  

So John is only figuratively sent to Jerusalem. Sent to the people of Israel, as is Jesus. Jesus is the son that the owner loves who is sent to the people of Israel.

We can’t claim John to be pre-existent because the servants aren’t necessarily pre-existent to being sent. The point of the parable is that Jesus is different to what was sent before. He is a beloved son that is held back til the end. Only when all the servants/prophets are beaten/killed is he sent to the vineyard/Israel. He necessarily pre-exists his being sent.