Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Brief Selective Survey of Christ's Full Deity in the Synoptics
The following are my comments in Steve Hays' blogpost God Incognito. Typos corrected. Make sure to read the blogs my links refer to.
Speaking of the Synoptics...
Jesus is worshipped both before and after His resurrection Matt. 2:11; Matt. 14:33; Matt. 28:17; Luke 24:52 [cf. John 5:23; John 20:28; John 9:38]. Some instances before the resurrection might plausibly be translated "do/did obeisance" as Unitarians do, but the post-resurrection one's seem to better be interpreted as true religious worship. Something which would be uncharacteristic for Second Temple Jews to do if Jesus weren't fully Divine.
Matthew's use of "ho theos" for Jesus in Matt. 1:23 might plausibly be teaching Christ's full deity given the rest of what Matthew says of Christ.
Matthew has Jesus being greater than the temple (Matt. 12:6). How could Jesus claim to be greater than the temple when it's the place were YHVH resides unless God resides in the body of Christ as well [cf. John 1:14]?
Matthew's statement that Jesus is present whenever/wherever two or three gather in His name is an allusion to a famous passage in the Mishnah about the Shekinah glory and presence of YHVH (Mishnah, Pirke Aboth 3:2).
Both Matthew and Luke imply that Jesus' "Wings" are YHVH's "Wings".
The Synoptics uniformly teach Jesus' (apparently favorite) self-indentification of being "the Son of Man". As Steve said, that has clear divine implications as many have argued [and which I've argued in brief in one of my blogposts].
Matthew's concluding command to baptize in the Name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit suggests the Trinity. As Steve wrote in a recent blog, to which I added my own comments in the combox. See Dale's excellent interview with Robert Bowman. One of the things I can complement Dale on is his great interviews. Unlike other interviewers, Dale allows the guest to give his full comments with little interruption. Then Dale's latter interactions often get to the heart of the issues.
All three Synoptics quote Isa. 40:3 and/or Mal. 3:1 which was originally in reference to YHVH [Mark 1:2,3; Matt. 3:3; Luke 3:4; Matt. 11:10].
Apologist Tony Costa has said that Mark 1:1ff (esp. v. 2) alludes to Exodus 23:20 which refers to "the angel". Specifically, Costa says Mark 1:1ff is likely a cluster of three (3) quotations/allusion, not merely two (2). That's because Mark 1:2 in the Greek most closely resembles Exodus 23:20 (in the Septuagint) which refers to an angel/Angel whom God promised He would send. If 1. Mark really is alluding to this passage in Exodus, and 2. if that angel is The Angel of YHVH, then Mark is likely connecting Jesus with the Angel of YHVH. If so, then that kills at least two birds with one stone. It undermines versions of Unitarianism that 1. deny Christ's Preexistence and 2. versions of Unitarianism which affirm Jesus is only/merely a human savior.
The "I have come" sayings of Jesus in the Synoptics is consistent with Christ's preexistence. Though, Dale gave a link to Dunn's critique of Gathercole which made some good points that weakened Gathercole's case [I'd link to Dunn's book review, but I can't find the url].
All three Synoptics refer to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in contrast to sins against the Father and Son [Matthew 12; Mark 3; Luke 12]. This implies the personality of the Holy Spirit and that the blasphemy is a sin against Him. I've addressed this issue and how it's consistent with and hints at the Trinity in my blogs [e.g. here, or here].
The Synoptics teach Jesus is the bridegroom of the future church in a way that parallel's YHVH's marriage to Israel. Since the Church is the fulfillment of spiritual Israel, Jesus would seem to be the eschatological fulfillment of YHVH's receiving back His divorced and/or estranged wife.
All three Synoptics teach Jesus is the "Lord of the Sabbath" even though one would think that only YHVH, who instituted the sabbath, could be its Lord [Matt. 12; Mark 2Luke 6].
All three Synoptics have Jesus applying Ps. 110:1 to Himself [Matt. 22; Mark 12; Luke 20]. The Masoretic vowel pointing of "adoni" was standardized after the beginning of the Christian era and so may not be the correct pointing and reading [as non-Messianic Jews would have a vested interest in pointing it "adoni" rather than "adonai"]. But if some Christian apologists are correct that verse 5—which does have "Adonai"—interprets verse 1, then that would imply Jesus is Adonai. See McLatchie's blogposts on Ps. 110:1 HERE and HERE. The second link has my comments in the combox which slightly weakens McLatchie's line of argument. But I make them for the sake of full disclosure.
I've also got an ENTIRE BLOGPOST focused on the VERY HIGH Christology of the Gospel of Mark. I meticulously comb through the entire gospel looking for every possible passage that I can find where Jesus is plausibly being taught to be YHVH. Ignore the text highlighted in yellow which I have to seamlessly trim away in the future. Many of observations I made in Mark can be seen in Matthew and Luke as well (sometimes amplified). Nevertheless, the assumption of Markan Priority enhances their authenticity and earliness in a way that GMatt and GLuke don't. Most scholars think Mark has the lowest Christology of the four Gospels. But I think Mark's is definitely higher than Luke, and either equal with or higher than Matthew's. I haven't combed through Matthew like have with Mark and Luke.
Both Matthew and Luke teach Christ to be the future eschatological Judge [e.g. Matt. 19:28; Matt. 25; Luke 22:30; cf. John 5:22]. When one would think that only the omniscient [and therefore all fair/just] and all-authoritative YHVH would or could render such Judgment(s).
All three Synoptics teach Jesus can forgive sins [Mark 2, Matt. 9; Luke 5]. Some/all of them refer to Jesus as the Son of Man on earth [presumably in contrast to in heaven as in Dan. 7]. Some/all say that the Jews thought only God could forgive sin, AND that Jesus was blaspheming for presuming to do so.
All three Synoptics have Jesus being explicitly [Mark & Matthew] or implicitly [Luke] charged with blasphemy during His trial before the Jewish council and condemned as being worthy of death. The charge most plausibly was the [alleged] blasphemy for claiming to be on par with YHVH and to be the 2nd divine figure in Dan. 7 who was the Son of Man [divinely] "riding the clouds".
More could be said about the high Christology of the Synoptics, but that should do as examples.
Steve wrote: In addition, this has a counterpart in the OT. A "man" might turn out to be an angel, while an angel might turn out to be Yahweh!
There are many passages like that in the OT. For example, the interactions with the Angel of YHVH or the Word of YHVH by Hagar, Manoah, Gideon, Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel, Samuel etc. In some of those passages the entity is called the Angel of YHVH, then also called or predicated to be YHVH a few moments later without the qualifier of "the Angel/Messenger OF". Or it says YHVH looked or turned or had a form as if the Angel were YHVH Himself.
Saturday, March 10, 2018
The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre
I'm an Evangelical and former Roman Catholic. So, I clearly have disagreements about Catholicism. However, one point of general agreement among Evangelicals and Catholics is the doctrine of the Trinity. I've been reading Catholic scholar Brant Pitre's book The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ and he makes a very good introductory case for a conservative view of Jesus. Including Jesus' divinity. Here's a lecture by Pitre that he give based on his book. The case he makes for Jesus' divinity is worth watching if you're not inclined to read the book.
See especially his discussion of Jesus walking on water which is recorded in Mark 6, Luke 14 and John 6 [at 42 minutes for about 10 minutes].
Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?
The following are my main comments [with expansion and some alteration] in Steve Hays' blogpost HERE. Steve's comments in that blogpost and in Ipsissima verba were in response to Lydia McGrew's blogpost: Transcript and commentary: The "I am" statements, again
The pressing issue for the conservative Christian position on the historicity of the "I Am/am" sayings is not whether Jesus could have uttered them, but why they aren't recorded in the Synoptics if they were historical? Especially since they are so theologically important.
The following are some of my "solutions" to account for this apparent problem.
First off, it's incorrect to say that Jesus doesn't refer to Himself as "I Am" in the Synoptics in a way, and in a context, that might reasonably suggest a claim to full Deity. See for example Anthony Rogers' excellent article contribution Mark My Words; or my synopsis Here which shows Mark recording it twice and Matthew once. One of the great points Rogers makes is that Mark 6:50, Matt. 14:27 and John 6:20 are parallel passages, and that if you're going to be consistent and say that the "I am" saying in John 6:20 is a self-indentification of Deity on Christ's part, then Mark 6:50 and Matt. 14:27 might also plausibly indicate such a self-identification as well [I phrased it more modestly than Rogers]. Especially since all three passages have the flavor of an Old Testament theophany.
But why aren't they more numerously recorded in the Synoptics? One would think that Luke would record them because he did intensive research after others had already written gospels, and wrote at a time late enough that early strains of Christian tradition would have spread more uniformly throughout the church. Yet, also early enough that skeptics couldn't too easily chalk up any high Christology in Luke/Acts to development [at least to the degree they foist on GJohn].
I suspect that maybe Mark, Matthew, Luke and their sources just didn't recognize the full significance of the "I am" sayings as a claim to Deity and therefore didn't record them. At the very least that seems to be the case with Matthew and Luke since they would have included both of Mark's "I Am" sayings in their Gospels seeing they are explosively suggestive of a claim to deity. Remember that most skeptics accept Markan priority and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Besides Rogers' article, see (Catholic) Brant Pitre's video HERE (at 42:47 for about 10 minutes) where he describes the Divine implications of Jesus statement of "I am" when was walking on water in GMark. See my blogpost HERE regarding Jesus' "I am" statement at His trial in GMark. Matthew may have unintentionally, but fortuitously, preserved Mark's historical "I am" statement [Mark 6:50] into his own Gospel in Matt. 14:27. Unfortunately, he didn't do so in the case of the trial of Jesus. Interestingly, Matthew's account of Jesus walking on water ends with Jesus and Peter entering the boat and the passage saying, "And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.' " Matthew is clearly is implying Jesus is more than an ordinary human being, irrespective of whether you translate the Greek as "did obeisance" [as Unitarians would prefer] or "worshiped" [as Trinitarians would prefer].
It must also be realized that Luke and Matthew are among the largest books in the New Testament [Luke, I believe, being the largest]. With so much to record, it's easy to leave out things that are important. Not just easy, but inevitable because it would have been financially, physically and practically prohibitive to write books much longer than they did [See this video HERE at 12:46]. Books that were also meant to be short enough that they could be quickly copied repeatedly and distributed throughout the Roman empire.
Matthew and Luke were meant to be much more exhaustive than Mark. Yet interestingly, Mark records two contextually conspicuous "I am" sayings EVEN THOUGH it's the shortest Gospel and the earliest Gospel [and so likely to be more historical by comparison, given skeptical assumptions attached to Markan Priority, which is itself not necessarily a skeptical position to take].
Also, it should be recognized that Luke wrote for a Gentile audience, and so the "I am" sayings would not be as significant to Gentile readers [even given the fact that Gentile converts would eventually read the LXX which does have Divine "I am" statements]. Skeptics often claim Luke was written relatively late. Most scholars accept Markan priority and often also think Luke wrote his gospel after the finalized version of Matthew was more universally published. Yet, interestingly, Luke's Gospel [and possibly with the inclusion of Acts] has the lowest Christology of the canonical Gospels (IMO). That's contrary to the versions of theological and christological development popular among skeptics. Conservatives too can consistently affirm development, but not of the magnitude and type skeptics claim.
I already said that Matthew may not have recognized [or at least fully appreciated] the significance of the "I am" statements, but we should also take into consideration the fact that his target audience were Jews. For Matthew to too frequently have Jesus use them and directly claim divinity would likely have been too shocking to their Jewish ears. It would have been too incredible. Instead, Matthew only hints at Jesus' full Divinity in his Gospel [STRONG and frequent hints as they are, and as I've argued many times in my blogs on the Trinity].
When the church fathers talked about there not being any secret teachings/doctrines, they wrote those statements after the first generation of Christians had passed, and so everything by then was completely open to the public. I say that because I don't think it's impossible that there were deeper theological teachings of Jesus which John records and which the Synoptics didn't record precisely because the earlier Gospels were meant to be introductions to Christianity to ease people into the shocking claims of Christianity. Shocking to both Jews and Gentiles, but for different reasons. Though, one common reason would be to safeguard monotheism against polytheism. None of the Gospels wanted to give the impression that Jesus was just like the others pagan gods who came down to earth. They wanted to distance themselves from all that. Whereas John was written at such a late time that it would have been culturally and theologically safe, and apologetically necessary to proclaim the inner teaches of Jesus, which included the "I am" sayings. I don't think this contradicts Jesus' teaching to preach openly what He taught, since there can be different levels of teaching. Even at the present time we talk about introductory level, intermediate and advanced levels of teaching regarding modern secular subjects.
What about the epistles? Why don't they contain Jesus' "I am" sayings? The epistles are occasional letters written for specific purposes to address a pressing issue in the life of the church. In most instances, there would have been no occasion needed to quote Jesus as having claimed to be the I Am. Though, they did regularly attribute or apply Old Testament passages concerning YHVH to Jesus [see my blogpost on this topic HERE]. Thus showing very high Christologies in Christian writings/communities PRIOR to the writing of the canonical Gospels. At the same time they also wanted to affirm, and not deny, Jesus' functional subordination to the Father. There was a theological balancing act all early Christians were attempting when addressing Jesus' divinity AND submission to the Father. Different Christian communities made that attempt, and voiced it, differently. So, we shouldn't expect a Pauline community to sound like a Johannine community, or vice versa. Even today, pastors and theologians who have virtually the same theology will still express it differently and have different emphases in their sermons.
See also my blogpost Markan Christology which shows how the earliest of the canonical Gospels teach Jesus' full Deity. I'll post below an excerpt of my comments regarding the two "I am" saying in Mark.
Regarding Mark 6:48-52 (see especially verse 50)
However, with Jesus, there was no immediate need for a miracle. Jesus could have waited out the storm. Instead, for His own sake, and without an intention to showboat or show off His powers and authority before an audience, Jesus walks on the water like a god. Or like God, viz. Jehovah/Yahweh. In fact, in verse 50 Jesus uses the Greek phrase "ego eimi" which can be translated as "I am" or "I AM." Here's what Bowman and Komoszewski wrote concerning this passage:
"As various scholars, both conservative and liberal, have observed, the Gospel accounts of Jesus walking on the sea [Mt 14:23-33; Mk 6:47-52; Jn 6:16-21] allude rather clearly to the account in Exodus 14-15 of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea. The Israelites walked in `the midst of the sea' (Exod. 14:16, 22, 27, 29 NASB) and crossed to the other side (Exod. 15:16). Likewise, the disciples' boat was `in the middle of the sea' (Mark 6:47 NASB) and they also `crossed over' the sea (Mark 6:53). A strong wind from the east blew across the Red Sea and, close to daybreak, the Egyptians found it increasingly difficult to drive their chariots as they attempted to follow the Israelites (Exod. 14:21, 24-25). Likewise, an adverse wind blew across the Sea of Galilee and, based on the geography, it also would have been blowing from the east; this wind also blew close to daybreak and made it difficult for the disciples to row their boat (Mark 6:48). According to Mark, the disciples had the same problem as the Egyptians: their hearts were hardened (Exod. 14:4, 8, 17; Mark 6:52). ... in this miracle account `Jesus is portrayed as filling the role ... of a greater Moses and of Yahweh. Jesus' response to the disciples' fear encompasses both roles. Moses had told the Israelites, `Take heart!' (tharseite, Exod. 14:13 LXX) and Jesus told the disciples the same thing: `Take heart!' (tharseite, Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50). But then Jesus added, `It is I [ego eimi]; do not be afraid' (Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20). This statement echoes statements by the Lord God in Isaiah, where he speaks of a kind of `new Exodus' when the Jews would be restored to their land: `Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; Do not fear, for I am with you; ... so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he [ego eimi] ... I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King:' Thus says the LORD, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters. (Isa. 43:1-2, 5, 10, 15- 16)." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, p.205).[copy and pasted from this blog HERE]
Regarding Mark 14:62 and Mark 13:26 which allude to Dan. 7:13
This passage refers to the son of man "coming in the clouds." This is a clear reference to a divine being since in Semitic cultures only the gods (e.g.YHWH, Baal and other deities) rode on the clouds. They were the vehicles and chariots of the gods. According to Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser, Baal was the primary pagan God described and understood by pagans as the god who rode the clouds. [cued up at 1:29:32]. Everyone in the Semitic world knew about Baal. Baal was a major God. The cult of Baal was so pervasive and long lasting it endured till the time of the Romans. The Jews were in constant theological war against Baal worship. The Jews, in order to assert and make clear that YHWH (the God of Israel) was the true God rather than Baal, began describing YHWH in the Old Testament as the one who rode the clouds. Heiser goes on to say that in every instance of the Old Testament where a figure is riding the clouds it refers to YHWH (Deut. 33:26; Ps. 68:4, 33; Ps. 104:3; Isa. 19:1). With the one exception being Dan. 7:13 where the son of man is the one riding the clouds. This therefore strongly implies the divinity of the "Son of Man." Yet, Jesus applies that "Son of Man" passages to Himself. Jesus claimed to be the one who would be "coming with the clouds of heaven." The Septuagint in Dan. 7:13 states that people would "serve" the "son of man." According to James White (in his debate with Adnan Rashid) the underlying Greek word used in the LXX for "serve" refers to the highest kind of worship and service which only belongs to God. It's true that the Septuagint isn't an inspired translation of the Hebrew. Nevertheless, many of the 1st century Jews and Christians would have known this passage as it's found in a textual variant in the LXX and have known how Mark's claim that Jesus applied the passage to Himself is an indirect claim to full deity. This is why the High Priest and chief priests charged Jesus with blasphemy. He was claiming deity. Also, as noted previously, Mark 2:10 has Jesus referring to the Son of Man "on earth." The phrase "on earth" may be in contrast to the Son of Man "in heaven" or as Dan. 7:13 puts it "with the clouds of heaven."
It should also be noted that in Mark 14:62 Jesus says "I am" (ego eimi in Greek). It's true that Jesus could merely be saying "I am [the Messiah]" without claiming to be deity. However, it's possible that the author of Mark is having Jesus use the Greek phrase "ego eimi" in order to have Jesus claim absolute deity, as the author of John in John 8:58 almost certainly did. Especially since Jesus uses the phrase in the context of claiming to be the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13. When Jesus responded in the way He did, the high priest charges Jesus with blasphemy.
Additional Further Comments:
- These further comments added 2019/10/15
The issue is one example of the more general question of why the Synoptics are so similiar to each other but very different from the Gospel of John (GJohn).
Another possible reason for the differences is that the Synoptics often record the statements that Jesus made publicly in crowds in Galilee, while some of the unique sayings of Jesus in GJohn were spoken in private or more intimate settings. Often in Jerusalem (rather than Galilee) which would have a greater number of Jewish leaders, rabbis and scribes who would understand the theological innuendos and hintings of Jesus which the less learned masses would not get/understand in rural Galilee. In GJohn Jesus would seem to intentionally make statements which are sufficiently vague that His hearers couldn't pin Him with what they would rightly regard as blasphemy were Jesus merely a man as they thought. Yet, at the same time those statements would be sufficiently clear that one could infer a possible claim to full deity. See for example my understanding of John chapter 10 and my quotation of Daniel Waterland HERE. While Jesus was willing to make such shocking statements, the Synoptics may have intentionally left such statements out in order to not offend possible Jewish readers and so immediately cause them to dismiss Christian claims about Jesus. By the time GJohn was written, the majority of Christians were Gentiles and therefore it was safer for the author to recount and record the more scandalous statements of Jesus where He (upon further theological reflection made more evident to the contributors of GJohn) intimated and hinted at His own self knowledge of His divinity [e.g. "I Am" sayings].
Another reason why there would be some differences between the Synoptics and GJohn is that the latter was likely written by a direct disciple of Jesus (possibly the Apostle John son of Zebedeee). Whereas of the three Synoptics only Matthew might have been written by a direct disciple. Luke was not a direct disciple of Jesus. Mark may or may not have been, but Peter from whose recollections and sermons Mark allegedly [per tradition] wrote his Gospel was a disciple of Christ. Both Peter and John (of Zebedee) were both fishermen, and therefore not trained to be rabbis. In which case, Peter may not have recognized the theologically pregnant statements of Jesus in his recollections which were written down early in the history of the church. Whereas John had decades to reflect on Jesus' statements which he could later recognize as having implicit claims to deity.
It has been argued by some [e.g. atheist Richard Carrier] that if the resurrection of Lazarus were historical, then the Synoptics would have recorded it. But they were written early enough that it would likely not have been prudent to record Lazarus' resurrection. Since Lazarus and his sisters probably still were alive it would stir up again the hostilities between the Jews and Lazarus' family [John 11:46-54]. But by the time GJohn was written (probably in the 90s CE), it was safer for the author to include the details of Lazarus' miraculous resurrection from the dead.
Richard Carrier even goes so far as to argue that the author of GJohn took the fictional parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke, and turned it into a falsely claimed historical event of the literal resurrection of a historical Lazarus. But there's no good reason to think that. Especially since the Synoptics would have been circulating for a long time by the time GJohn was published and it would contradict the already well established Gospels for the author to blatantly fabricate a story about an alleged historical Lazarus. And so providing an obstacle for his own late Gospel being accepted as being truthful/reliable in the Christian communities.
Moreover, the (likely) fictional or fictionalized parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16) might possibly be based on a historical Lazarus distinct from the Lazarus of John 11. Lazarus being a common Jewish name in the region at the time. Jesus didn't normally give names to characters in His purely fictional parables. Whereas the parable of Lazarus does include a name. This might suggest that Jesus was either relaying a more or less literal story about Lazarus and the Rich Man (using figurative spacial metaphors of distance, chasm etc.), OR a stylized story of a real Lazarus who died. Similar to how Job might be a stylized retelling of a literal Job. Even though the dialogue between Job and his friends are possibly fictionally expanded for poetic purposes. As modern film makers might embellish the story of a historical figure which is nevertheless based on real events. All for the sake of getting the gist of the the person's character and life story in the limited space of about 2 hours.
- These further comments added 2019/10/27
In summary, what possible reasons might explain why there are fewer (not none) "I AM/Am/am" sayings in the Synoptics than in GJohn if they were actually spoken by Jesus?
With GMark (assuming its priority), Mark may not have been a disciple of Jesus. If he was, as I understand it, it would have been in the latter part of Christ's ministry and he likely wasn't among Jesus' inner circle. Nor with Jesus on a daily basis. Remember, he was young at the time, and youths are usually less zealous in their religiosity. Though he might have cryptically referenced himself as the youth who ran away naked in Mark 14:51-52. So, Mark wouldn't be in a position to remember the "I Am" sayings. GMark was likely based on Peter's sermons and recollections, but we have to remember that Peter was a man of action, not necessarily a man of deep philosophizing and theologizing thought. Peter's personality as a man of action shines through as he highlights Jesus' own personality when he repeatedly writes "immediately" or "forthwith" or "straightway" Jesus did this or Jesus did that. Also, [likely] being the first canonical Gospel, much time hadn't elapsed in which Peter (and his community) could contemplate the deeper meaning and implications of Jesus' "I Am" statements. Though, Mark does record two instances that are pregnant with implications of divine self-awareness. 1. When Jesus was walking on water reminiscent of an Old TestAment theophany (Mark 6:50). 2. At Jesus' trial when Jesus applies to Himself the combination of Dan. 7:13-14 with Ps. 110:1 [Mark 14:62].
[see HERE for why Dan. 7:13-14 teaches a divine "Son of Man"]
With GMatt, assuming it really was written by Matthew/Levi, one would think he would include the "I Am" sayings. Since, being a levite, he might have some special training in Judaism slightly above the average Israelite. Even if he was never really religiously studious or pious in his youth. However, as noted above, he wrote his Gospel with his fellow Jews [evangelistically] in mind and it would have likely been too shocking for unconverted Jews for Matthew to include too many "I am" sayings. Jews might have quickly dismissed the Gospel as blasphemous, otherwise. Though, Matthew does have one in Matt. 14:27. It's the same incident also recorded in Mark 6:50 and John 6:20. All three passages in each of the three Gospels have a seemingly theophanic context.
With GLuke, Luke wasn't a disciple of Christ, so he couldn't have remembered the sayings. His sources might have remembered, but Luke [likely a Gentile writing primarily for Gentiles] may not have recognized the divine implications of the "I Am" sayings and so might have excluded them. Or recognizing them himself, excluded them because his Gentile readers wouldn't have picked up on them. Excluded them especially since he had so much to record that he had to be very selective. GLuke of course being the longest canonical Gospel written. Like GMatt, GLuke's ending is clearly rushed/clipped/succinct because he was running out of space for the type and size of scroll he was looking to have his Gospel copied onto for mass distribution.
With GJohn, it was likely written by John son of Zebedee. Though some modern scholars speculate some other John or possibly even Lazarus wrote it. Assuming it was by Zebedee's son, it's true he was a "simple" fisherman like Peter. But he apparently was more contemplative than Peter and (as noted above) had many more decades to recall and reflect upon Jesus' sayings and recognize in them divine self-identification. GJohn being likely written in the 90s CE. The Ehrman's of the world like to emphasize the clear divine claims of Jesus in the "I Am" statements, but when we look at them, they are both clear and vague at the same time. Clear enough for us readers to see (partly) because of how they are recorded in the Gospel. Yet, if we were among the original audience, vague enough for us not to be absolutely sure what Jesus was saying or claiming. Even in GJohn Jesus doesn't go around shouting on the rooftops "I Am God!". The same [or similar] type of cryptic and enigmatic methods of speech Jesus is recorded to have used in the Synoptics on other topics is used of Jesus in GJohn regarding His divine identity.
Also, by the end of the 1st century, Jews in the empire would have known of the destruction of the temple. They would have known that something dramatic had occurred in their relationship with YHVH. That God may have been displeased with them or some how distanced Himself from them for some reason. The older generation of Jews would have already made up their mind to either follow or reject Jesus, while the younger generation of Jews wouldn't have been so sensitive to the "I Am" sayings. So, John wouldn't be in the situation that Matthew was in during the early fledgling Jesus Movement. Where he had to tiptoe around Jewish theological sensibilities. By the late 1st century the vast majority of the church was now Gentile and John was the last Apostle. Now was the time for him to disclose and record for posterity any deeper and more revealing teachings of Jesus beyond what was sufficient for evangelism and basic discipleship. Mark and Matthew were likely written when the church still had the hope that Christ's return might be in their lifetime. Whereas Luke had an inkling (Luke 19:11ff.), John started to strongly suspect that in all likelihood the Lord's return wouldn't be any time soon.
UPDATES:
The Historicity Of The "I Am" Statements Of Jesus by Jason Engwer
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Where Did Jesus Say, "I Am God, Worship Me"?
In the following video David Wood answers some Islamic objections to Jesus' Divinity.
Where Did Jesus Say, "I Am God, Worship Me"?
by David Wood
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)