I’ve been wondering something for a while. Super layman so my question will be basic.
Based on my reading, Paul seems to literally think Jesus is a god. Not capital God as in maker of the universe, revealer of the Torah God but god enough to sit at His right hand and share authority and rule over the universe, with a genuine father son relationship. Jesus is now lord as in capital Lord. Not fully the king but also not fully subordinate either.
John has it about the same except here Jesus is god from pre-eternity, I suppose asexually reproduced into existence OR he thinks Jesus is simultaneously God and the son of God and manifests as His son in this world in some mysterious divine fashion.
Those are two very divergent views of God head. In one version, Jesus always is God, the later version(John) In another, earlier version he was big but not too big, until now where he truly has become a God or demigod(Paul)
Between these two very high but still divergent christologies, where do the “Ebionites” come in? They *appear* to have a christology that has Jesus as son of God but in the more, exalted, older Jewish sense of the term, as a term of praise but not godhood.
Is it at all possible, even remotely, that though Mark comes after Paul he isn’t higher than Paul? I know Paul precedes the ebionites so it doesn’t seem to me such a stretch that someone post Paul could have a lower christology than Paul(ebionites) in the same way we know a community post Paul had a vastly higher christology (johannines).
Robert, I would like to see the argument for a higher Christology in Mark. I read it as an adoptionist Christology where the spirit enters Jesus at his baptism and leaves him while he is on the cross, although he is then exalted in heaven after his death, perhaps upon resurrections. What am I missing? Thanks.
Robert said
I think Mark’s christology is definitely lower than Paul’s. There are legitimate (and disputed) ways of divining a rather high christology in Mark, which I support, but it is still nowhere near as high as what is found in Paul’s writings and possibly pre-Pauline traditions (eg, Philippians 2).
I must inquire further! Lower than Pauline a lot of leeway. Does Mark think Jesus is genuinely a kind of equal or “partially-equal” ruler with God by the time he rises to God or is Jesus in his mind less this and more “just a creation, a servant” instead of a “lord along with the Lord.” I get that this can get a bit fuzzy but perhaps we can discern if Mark is a kind of ebionite or a kind of “binitarian”
Robert said
RM said
I must inquire further! Lower than Pauline a lot of leeway. Does Mark think Jesus is genuinely a kind of equal or “partially-equal” ruler with God by the time he rises to God or is Jesus in his mind less this and more “just a creation, a servant” instead of a “lord along with the Lord.” I get that this can get a bit fuzzy but perhaps we can discern if Mark is a kind of ebionite or a kind of “binitarian”
We must be careful not to ask questions of a text that the author might not have ever imagined when composing his text. While Mark never clearly discusses any of this, I cannot imagine that he would have seen the exalted Jesus, even seated at the right hand of Power, as equal to God in any sense. Unlike Paul, Mark presumably thought of Jesus as created and not as a pre-existent instrument of all creation (1 Cor 8,6). At least there’s no clear indication in Mark’s text of this. Even Paul, with his very high christology, still certainly considered Jesus to be subordinate to the Father (1 Cor 15,24-28) so Mark likewise would probably have done so.
I never liked Hurtado’s term ‘binitarian’ as it evokes too much of much later church dogma. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** later expressed this very reservation about his own term:
I don’t recall ever referring to “binitarianism”, but instead to a “binitarian devotional pattern” (and similar phrasing). …
Until recently, I used the term “binitarian” to characterize that devotional practice/pattern, and I repeatedly explained that by that term I meant simply a pattern in which we find two distinguishable but uniquely linked figures: God and Jesus. More recently, I’ve begun to use the term “dyadic” (from “dyad”), to avoid accusations/suspicions that I was trying to sneak in doctrinal/conceptual developments later than the NT.
Thank you for the detailed answers!
Robert said
Others will argue, and I’m inclined to agree, that Mark meant Son of God in an even more exalted sense. For example, Larry Hurtado, would argue that Jesus’ “I am” statements of Mk 6,50 and 14,62 evoke the “I am” statement at the heart of the revelation of Yahweh’s name in Ex 3,14.
Mark 13:6 is the more obvious example, “Many will come in the name of me saying “I AM”.
brenmcg said
Mark 13:6 is the more obvious example, “Many will come in the name of me saying “I AM”.
“In the name of me” strikes me as strange English. Do you see something specific that makes you say something other than “my name”? Greek can say either ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ὀνόματι or ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, and both mean “in my name.” I don’t know what would make someone render it as “in the name of me.” That is unnatural English.
Robert said
As I said above, the words “I am” in and of themselves do not really carry any special significance. At least Hurtado is able to appeal to the trappings of an epiphany in Mk 6,50 and a possible allusion to Isaiah (but see also Dennis McDonald’s discussion of this passage with reference to Homer). There’s no reason to assume that the false christs in Mk 13,6 are making any sort of claim to divinity, let alone the very identity of Yahweh. It could only conceivably convey this connotation in light of Mark possibly indicating this elsewhere for Jesus, and the strongest possibility of this can only be Mk 14,62 where Jesus is subsequently and immediately accused of blasphemy. And even there the scriptural reference is to Daniel 7, not Exodus 3. We are at best dealing with a possible allusion, important because of its structural significance. It is really only the author of the gospel of John that plays up the explicit importance of the ‘I am’ statements of his Jesus character.
What does it mean if a deceiver comes up to you and says “ego eimi”?
According to Mark they are coming the name of Jesus.
Mark 11:9 “blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord”.
jaihare said
“In the name of me” strikes me as strange English. Do you see something specific that makes you say something other than “my name”? Greek can say either ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ὀνόματι or ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, and both mean “in my name.” I don’t know what would make someone render it as “in the name of me.” That is unnatural English.
Translating as “in the name of me” puts it more in line with the usual translation of Mark 11:6 “in the name of the lord”.
Robert said
brenmcg said
What does it mean if a deceiver comes up to you and says “ego eimi”?
It could merely mean, “It’s me. I’m the one. I’m the guy.” Matthew interpreted it to mean, “I’m the Messiah,” not “I am Yahweh.”
So when a deceiver says “its me. I’m the one. I’m the guy” they are coming in the name of Jesus? How exactly?
Mark 13:13 “you will be hated by all on account of the name of me”.
“Name of me” in both instances, 13:6 and 13:13, should be taken as referring to the same thing. Either it means “Jesus” or it refers to the name of the lord “I AM”.
He claims to be lord. He claims to come in the name of the lord. He claims deceivers will come in his name saying the words “I AM”. He says his disciples will be persecuted on account of his name. (That is they’ll be persecuted for claiming Jesus is lord). If this was in John there’d be no question what was meant.
The use of I AM to mean something more than ordinary sense can be recognised by unusual sentence structure.
Fear not I AM
You will die in your sins unless you believe that I AM
Before abraham was I AM
Many deceivers will come in my name saying I AM
Robert said
brenmcg said
What does it mean if a deceiver comes up to you and says “ego eimi”?
It could merely mean, “It’s me. I’m the one. I’m the guy.” Matthew interpreted it to mean, “I’m the Messiah,” not “I am Yahweh.”
Absolutely correct. In Hebrew, it would be אֲנִי הוּא ʾănî hûʾ, “I [am] he.” It is him saying that he is the one that people are expecting. That is, the Messiah.
brenmcg said
So when a deceiver says “its me. I’m the one. I’m the guy” they are coming in the name of Jesus? How exactly?Mark 13:13 “you will be hated by all on account of the name of me”.
“Name of me” in both instances, 13:6 and 13:13, should be taken as referring to the same thing. Either it means “Jesus” or it refers to the name of the lord “I AM”.
In this case, it means claiming to be the Messiah. People will come saying that they are the Christ. I don’t know who any deceiver would be, though. Jesus wasn’t himself the Messiah. There never has been one, nor does it appear that there ever will be one. However, lots of loonies have thought they were the Messiah and declared it to others. Aren’t there parallel passages to Mark 13:6 in the Synoptic Gospels? Did you check how they worded this? Hint: Look at Matt 24:5 and Luke 21:8 to see what it clearly means.
brenmcg said
He claims to be lord. He claims to come in the name of the lord. He claims deceivers will come in his name saying the words “I AM”. He says his disciples will be persecuted on account of his name. (That is they’ll be persecuted for claiming Jesus is lord). If this was in John there’d be no question what was meant.The use of I AM to mean something more than ordinary sense can be recognised by unusual sentence structure.
Fear not I AM
You will die in your sins unless you believe that I AM
Before abraham was I AM
Many deceivers will come in my name saying I AM
You’re reading into ἐγώ εἰμι something that no Greek scholar would agree with. It’s just a statement of identification. It is not a statement of identification with Supreme Deity.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)