Volume 69:l January 2005 Table of Contents Confronting Current Christological Controversy Charles A. Gieschen ............................................................ 3 A Review of Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity James W. Voelz ............................................................ 33 Recent Research on Jesus: Assessing the Contribution of Larry Hutado David P. Scaer .................................................................... 48 Lukan Christology: Jesus as Beautiful Savior Peter J. Scaer ....................................................................... 63 Entering Holiness: Christology and Eucharist in Hebrews Arthur A. Just, Jr ................................................................ 75 Confronting Current Christological Controversy Charles A. Gieschen For most of us, the term clnistological catrol~~sy conjures up a lengthy List of challenges concerning the person and work of Christ that arose in the first centuries of Christianity. We think of teachings that were branded as heretical by church bishops and councils, such as Docetism, Ebionism, Momrchhism, Gnosticism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Apohiukmkm, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism? We are certain that these were the big christological controversies but are equally confident that they were resolved by the church councils that took place between the fourth and eighth centuries, espec~ally those at Nicea in AD 325 and Chalcedon in AD 451. We view these challenges from a rather distant and triumphant post-Easter perspective: "The strife is o'er, the battle done."* Despite the seriousness of these early heresies and the clarity of confession that arose fiom the crucible of conflict, they neither marked the end to duistological controversies, nor wen the climax. The past two centuries, in fact, have witnessed cluistological controversies that rival and surpass those early 0nes.3 What is the basis for this bold assertion? Many of those early controversies concerned the true humanity of Jesus, especially the relationship of the humanity to his divinity, but not a denial of his divinity:' The current situation is much worse: the divinity of Christ as true God is incessantly questioned or denied. Therefore, although Jesus' 1 For a discusdon of these controversies, see Aloys Griheier, Christ in the Christian Tndition: Votume 1, Frum thc Apostdic Age to CMcedon (451), 2nd ed., trans. John Bowden (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), and also the short summary in David P. Scaer, Christology, Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics VI (Fort Wayne: International Foundation fox Lutheran Confessional Reseanh, 1489). 10-20. 2 Thge are the opening words of the Easter hymn "The Strife is O'er, the Bade k." 3 For example, see the esays in Crisis in Christdogy: Essays in Quest of Resolution. ed. William R Farmer (Livh. Dove Booksellers, 1995). 4 Larry Hurtado notes that it was espedy "proto-orthodox" auisths that regarded Jesus' humanity as crucial for his redemptive work; Lord Jesus Christ: Dmtion Charles A. Gieschen is Professor of Exegetical Theology and Ominnan of the Depmhnent of Exegetical Theology at Concordia TheoIogrcal Seminmy, Fort Wayne, Indinnu. historical existence as a human is acknowledged by most scholars, serious discussion about the two natures of Christ has ceased among those who deny his divinity. This study, therefore, will argue that the church can defend the divinity of the Son by showing, through rigorous historical research, that the formative period for the identification of Jesus within the mystery of the one God was the two decades that followed his death and resurrection as evidenced in the worship of Jesus by Jews. Furthermore, this study will set forth four often underappreciated theological categories that should be used in defending the divine identity of the Son. I. The Current Controversy Concerning Jesus' Divinity M us begin with a very terse overview of the past two centuries of christological controversy in order to set the stage for where the church finds herself at the start of the twenty-first century. Although there were several post-Enlightenment scholars who were products of the rise of rationalism and the scientific method that sowed the seeds which blossomed into modem christological controversies, it is perhaps best to begin with David Friedrich Strauss. In his 1835 book The Life of Jesus Cnticdly Examined, Strauss approached the Gospels from the perspective that they should be read as religious texts and not as historical texts.5 The point of his attack was the miracle stories, especially the resurrection of Jesus. He characterized the miracle accounts in the Gospels as mythic presentations that symbolized the truth that Jesus is the Messiah. He is the first to make the distinction between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history. In his view, Chrisfs deification took place within the early church long after the death of Jesus. Although this early book was optimistic for the viability of Christianity after his attack on the historical foundation of Jesus, he offered this pessimistic assessment a few decades later: The founder (of Christianity] is at the same time the most prominent object of worship; the system based upon him loses its support as soon as he is shown to be lacking in the qualities appropriate to an ow of religious worship. This, indeed, has long been apparent; for an object of religious adoration must be a Divinity, and thinking men have long since ceased to regard the founder of Christianity as such.6 5 David Friedrich Strauss, The Lib of Jesus Cnticnlly Examined ed. Peter C. Hodgson, trans. George Eiiot (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972). 6 David Friedrich Strauss, 7he Old and the New Faith, trans. G. A. Wells, 2 vols. (Anherst Prometheus Books, 1997) 1 54. Confronting Current Christological Controversy 5 This historical skepticism, which ceased to regard Jesus as divine, characterized those who followed Strauss during the latter half of the nkteenth century. After they scraped the Christ of faith off the pages of the four Gospels, the image that remained was Jesus as an ethical teacher. The accurakness of this research on Jesus was challenged by Albert Schweitzer at the beginning of the twentieth century in The Quest for the Historical lesus: The Jesus who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who reached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modem theology in an historical garb? Although Schweitzer debunked the simplistic portrait of Jesus painted by his predecessors and pointed instead to understanding Jesus as an apocalyptic visionary who was tragically martyred, he was even more skeptical than others about what could be known of Jesus. The complete dissembling of the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith, however, climaxed two decades later with Rudolf Bultmann. After applying his criteria of authenticity to Gospel traditions, he stated: "We can, strictly speaking, know nothing of the personality of Jesus. But this does not really matter, for it is not the historical Jesus that concerns us, but the kerygmatic Christ"8 Bultmann went on to become the dominant voice in twentiethcentury scholarship on the Gospels. He had been influenced by the work of WilheIm Bousset, whose name is synonymous with the well-known religionsgesclnchtliche Schuk (the History-of-Religions School)? Bousset had sought to use his vast knowledge of comparative religions to explain how Jesus came to be confessed as divine. He understood this confession as a late firstcentury development that resulted from the contact of Jesus' followers with the imperial cult, mystery religions, and Oriental religion outside of Palestine. Although Bousset died at a relatively early age, 7 Albert Schweitzer, The Questfor the Hist& jests, trans. J. W. Montgomery (New York MacMillan, 1970 [German origmal l906]), 398. 8 Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus rmd the Word (Berlin: Deutschetniothek, 1926), 147. 9 See Wilhelrn Bomset, Kyrios Christos: A History of the Bekef in Christ from the Beginnings of Christirmity to 1rwuaeu.s. trans. J. Steely, 5th ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970). The first German edition was published in 1913. Bultrnann endorsed Bousset's flawed developmental model and extended its life through much of the twentieth century?O The closing decades of the twentieth century have witnessed a renewed interest in the relationship between the historical Jesus and the depictions of him in the Gospels, but this interest is stiU characterized by historical skepticism. The now infamous Jesus Seminar consisted of a group of scholars who voted on the historical probability of individual sayings and ations of Jesus from individual Gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas." Several of these scholars have produced monographs, but none has captivated as much popular attention as John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant.= He prides himself on his methodological rigor which leads him to conclude that Jesus was a poor, illiterate, peasant leader who Ied a social movement against the established religious and political powers of his day. Similar recent studies depict Jesus as a cynic teacher or an apocalyptic prophet, usually far short of one who is the divine Son, although serious voices have been raised against such portraits.'3 Two major paradigm shifts have occurred in the study of Jesus over the past two centuries. First, a very conscious and sharp separation of the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith has occurred in scholarship. The concIusion has been drawn that the Gospels teach us much about the Christ of faith but very little about the Jesus of history. This historical skepticism is seen in the movement from historical approaches to various literary approaches over the last half of the twentieth century.'4 Recent commentaries on the Gospels are no longer dominated by source criticism, '0 For Bulimann's endorsement of Bousset's flawed approach, see The Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols., trans. Kenneth Grobel (New YO*: Charles Scnier's Sons, 1951 and 1955). 1: 52 11 Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, The Fm Gospels: Wt Did Jesus Renlly Say? The Search fir the Authentic Words ofJesus (New York: MacMillan, 1993). For a helpful critique, see Jeffrey Gibbs, "The Search for the Idiosyncratic Jesus: A Critique of the Jesus Sands The Fiue Gospeb," Concoda Journd20 (1994): 368-384. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: 7he Lifi of a Mediferrrmen Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 199l). 13 For example, see Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Isus: The Misguided Quest fir the Historid Jesus md the Truth of the Traditionnl Gospels (San Francisco: Harper, 19%). 14 Especially prominent among literary approaches to the Gcspels wer the past few decades is narrative criticism. This shift to the use of narrative criticism was seen first in the study of the Gospel of John; R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (PhiIadelphia- Fortrrss, 1m). Confronting Current Christological Controversy 7 form criticism, or redaction criticism. While some celebrate this change, with it has also come a growing lack of engagement with the history of Jesus as interpreters increasingly focus exclusively on the literary artistry of the narrative. The historical research that has survived tends to focus on the social context of the evangelists and their communities, not Jesus. David Scaer warns us that we must not ignore the history of Jesus himseIf: "For those who have no firm confidence in the historicity of Jesus, a true Christology is impo~sible."~5 !%cond, the evolutionary or developmental model for understanding Jesus Christ has become firmly entrenched among New Testament scholars and theologians.'b This model presents Christology as gradually developing from understanding Jesus as a prophet in AD 30 to asserting that he is a divine being who is one with God in a few New Testament documents of the late first century (for example, the Gospel of John) and finally to confessing him to be "of one substance with the Father, very God of very God" at Nicea in the fourth century.17 This is a modem form of Adoptionism. IL The Search for Historical Evidence of Jesus' Divine Identity There have been three basic responses from within the church to these controversies. One response has been to follow the consensus. Even as Christmas and Easter articles in Newsweek and Time, TV network specials, and fiction like The DaVinn' 6de have all popularized the conclusion that the divinity of Jesus was a aeation of the later church, some within Christianity deny his incarnation and physical resurrection. Another response has been to ignore these controversies as scholarly rubbish that does not merit Christian response. More than a few have chosen this path. Let the academy discredit its Jesus and the church adore her Lord. The third response has been to challenge these controversies by refuting assertions claiming to be historically trustworthy. Since many Christians wiU be mesmerized by sensational scholarship, Christian scholars must respond. Even as we confess the Nicene Creed, we must defend the divine identity of Jesus through careful and credible historical research in the Scriptures that are the Iiving foundation for this confession. " Scaer, Christdogy, 16. '6 I am using these terms as synonyms. Some scholars distinguish between the use of these two terms; for example, see C. F. D. Mode, The Origin of ChrisMogy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, lq, 2-3. '7 For example, see Manrice Casey, From leurish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Dewlopment of New Testament Christology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991). Historical research has identified the earLiest extant evidence for identification of Jesus with the one God of Israel. This was not a development that occurred over the first few centuries or even over the course of the first century. The evidence points us to the earthly ministry of Jesus and the two decades that followed, namely between AD 30 and 50. Despite the divergent dating of New Testament documents by scholars, we can be certain that the first ones were written no later than the early 50s. They contain evidence that Jesus was worshipped, which is very significant evidence for his divine identification Such worship, moreover, must predate the documents themselves. In light of this, consider this provocative assertion by Martin Hengel, the highly respected New Testament scholar who taught many years at Tiibingen: . . . one is tempted to say that more happened in this period of less than two decades than in the whole of the next seven centuries, up to the time when the doctrine of the early church was completed. Indeed, one might euen ask whether the finnation of doctrine in the early church was essentially moTe than a consistent dmelapment and completion of what has already been unfolded in the primal mt of the first two decades, but in the languuge and thght-fi of Greek, whch was its necessary setting.18 Hengel's statement stands against the sea of scholarship that has eroded the understanding and confession of Jesus' divine identity. Historians must deal with the evidence that Jesus was worshipped as Lord by Jews already in the earliest years of Christianity, and not only by Gentiles in the final decade of the first century. m. The Worship of Jesus The most important evidence for Jesus' divine identity is the worship of him by Jews prior to the first New Testament writings. The First Commandment testifies that worship of any beiig other than YHWH is idolatry (Exodus 20:3-6). For first-century Jews to worship Jesus and to reflect this veneration in their writing, they would first need to believe that the fleshly Jesus is within the mystery of YHWH, otherwise they would be practicing blatant idolatry. Although the New Testament documents undoubtedly nurtured future worship of Jesus, these documents did not 18 Martin Hengel, The Son of W The Origin of Christobgy and the History of Jewish Hellenistic ReIigion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 2 his emp-, see also his logy and New Testament Chronology," Between Jesus und Pal, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, I=), 30-47. Confronting Current Christological Controversy 9 create or commence such worship; they reflect, rather, the worship of Jesus that existed to their composition. Larry Hurtado has defended this thesis in his Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Emliest Christianity.19 In this volume he demonstrates that devotion to Jesus arose in the first decade or two after Jesus' death and resurrection, was intense, and was widespread among monotheistic J~ws.~~ Hurtado resifts the historical sources in order to show that Jesus' position in prayers, hymns, confession, baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the Gospels, all understand "the reverence given to Jesus as an extension of the worship of God."P After reviewing the evidence for the multiple ways devotion was shown to Jesus in the early decades of Christianity, he then offers these conclusions: Moreover, devotion to Jesus as divine erupted suddenly and quickly, not gradually and late, among firstcentury circles of followers. More specifically, the origins lie in Jewish circles of the earliest years. Only a certain wishful thinking continues to attribute the reverence of Jesus as divine decisively to the influence of pagan religion and the influx of Gentile converts, charaderizing it as developing late and incrementally. Furthermore, devotion to Jesus as the "Lord," to whom cultic reverence and total obedience were the appropriate response, was widespread, not confined or attributable to particular circles, such as "Hellenists" or Gentile Christians of a supposed Syrian "Christ cult"" The Gospels contain some testimony that Jesus was even worshipped during his earthly ministry. For example, Matthew records the posture of worship (~pomwh) towards Jesus being taken by different individuals on different occasions: the visit of the Magi (Matthew 2:11), those who seek a miracle (Matthew 8:2, 918, 15:25), the mother of the Zebedee brothers (Matthew 20-a), the women at tomb after the resurrection (Matthew 28:9), and the disciples after the resurrection (Matthew 28:17). The sigruficance of apol~t& as implying actual veneration is made clear by its use in the temptation narrative where Satan requests that Jesus take such a posture before him (Mathew 49). Even if such evidence is dismissed by critical 19 It should be noted that Hurtado prefers the nomenclature of devotion wer worship because it is M~I and more inclusive of the type of evidence he discusses. m !+e fuxthe~ the rrviews of Hurtado's book by James Voelz and David Scaer that follow this article. Hurtado, Lord Jms Christ, 151. Hurtado, Lord Jesus U?ist, 650. historians as reflecting later Christian practice, these texts remain solid evidence that Jesus was indeed being worshipped by Jews prior to the composition of Matthew. Like most literary traditions, these presuppose actual practice. N. Undeappreciated Categories for the Divine Identity of Jesus Based upon the evidence of the worship of Jesus by Jews, which was both very early and extensive, this question arises: What were the theological categories that allowed for the identification of Jesus within the mystery of the one God of Israel YHWH, which must have taken place prior to, or in conjunction with, the actual worship of Jesus? There are two categories that have been traditionally used as support for Jesus' divine identity. First, Jesus did divine deeds during his earthly ministry (for example, miracles), the foremost being his own resurrection from the dead.= It is difficult to overstate the role that Jesus' resurrection played in confirming his divine identity. It must be realized, however, that the primary deed of Jesus upon which New Testament writers focus much attention is his death. The sigruficance of the death of Jesus for his divine identity is expressed well by Richard Bauckham: The profoundest points of New Testament Christology occur when the inclusion of the exalted Christ in the divine identity entails the inclusion of the crucified Christ in the divine identity, and when the Uuistological pattern of humiliation and dtation is recogmad as revelatory of God, indeed as the definitive revelation of who God is.Z4 Moreover, New Testament documents evinte that many of the other deeds of Jesus were understwd primarily in relationship to YHWH's past deeds in the history of Israel; the same God is understood and presented to be acting in both. Second, the divine tides which are given to Jesus are a category frequently used as support for the identification of Jesus within the mystery of YHWH.5 Here ~~oc ("Lord") and &oD ui& ("Son of For example, see espedally N. T. Wright, 7he Resurrection 4 Ute Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God Volume 3 (Phhdelphia: Form, 20M). 21 Richard Baudcham, God Cncafiut. Monotheism Pnd ChristoIogy in the New Testament (Grand Rapids. hdmans, 1999), 46. My use of the "divine identity" nomenclature is iduemed by Bauckham. For an important discusion of Jesus' title, see Oscar Cullmann, 7hr Christdogy of tk New Testmnenf, rev. ed., trans. Shirley C Guthrie and Charles A. tvi. Hall (F'hiladelphk W-, 1963). Confronting Current Quistological Controversy 11 God") usually receive pride of place. Less frequent are discussions about the significance of Jesus possessing the divine name (transliterated "YHWH") or Jesus' use of b uik to5 &vOpdnou ("the Son of man") as testimony to his divinity and preexistence (and not his humanity as an offspring of humans). Within these two broad divisions are theological categories that are marginalized in discussions of the divine identity of Jesus. Four such underappreciated categories that were important among first-century Jewish Christians are: Jesus' Death as Universal Atonement; The Son's Preincarnak Existence; Jesus' Possession of the divine name; and Jesus' Self-Identification as the Son of Man. Each of these will now be examined for important historical evidence that testifies to the divine identity of JesusasYHWH. Jesus' Death as Universal Atonement The passion narratives dominate the presentation of Jesus in the four Gospels. Even skeptical historians have difficulty denying the crucifixion of Jesus. A natural question arises: If the church was out to transform the human Jesus into the divine Christ as critics allege, why would they focus doggedly on the crucifixion as central to understanding him? It is noteworthy that historical research often attacks the reliability of miracle accounts in the Gospels. If miracles are so important to the identity of Jesus, why do the Gospels depict Jesus discouraging those who are healed from speaking about them (for example, Mark 1:44)? The Gospels, instead, focus on the necessity of Jesus' death and resurrection as his definitive work: "From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised" (Matthew 16:21).% The message of a crucified God was scandalous to Jews and foolishness to the Hellenistic world, yet it took center stage in the preaching of the apostles (1 Corinthians 1:1&25). For Paul this message was the creed of first generation Christians "For I handed over to you as of first importance See also Matthew 1722-23.20.17-19, as well as paralIels in Luke (9:22: 944; 18:31- 33) and Mark (831; 932 1e.3-34). John records Jesus pointing to his own death in a different manner, using language such as the destroying of his temple (219). the coming of his hour @4; 7:W, %a, 1223; 133; 17:l). the lifting up of the Sa of man (514; 8:28; 1232-34). the glorification of the Son of man (7:39; 1223; 13:31), the giving of his flesh (6:51), and the laying down of his entire being (lQ11,15,18). what I also received, that Christ died on behalf of our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 1554). Nils Dahl has made this important observation about Jesus' death: The end of Jesus' life stands at the heart of the gospel; this historical Jesus, like the kerygmatic Christ, is the crucified Messiah. There is no gap between the historical Jesus and the preaching of the church; rather, there exists a close and inseparable connection." The connection is the death of Jesus. This tradition which Paul received contains the phrase ETL Xprmk C~GBavcv Grip sBv t+mpr~Bv +v ("that Christ died on behalf of our sins"). This pre-Pauline formula reflects an early and nevertheless complex understanding of Christ's death as substitutionary atonement. Rather than understanding the death of Jesus as having to do primarily with Christ's humanity, it is apparent that many early Christians viewed Jesus' death as the ultimate revelation of his divinity. While it was certainly noble martyrdom, it was primarily understood and proclaimed as universal atonement.= The interpretation of Jesus' death as universal atonement is visible in synoptic Gospel texts that use the language or imagery of both Passover (Exodus 12 and 24) and the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16).29 The theme of atonement is presented already in Matthew's baptismal narrative with Jesus' words to John the Baptist. "It is necessary for us to fuIjll all righteousness" (3:15).w This statement is probably a reflection of Isaiah 5311, "By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities."" This theme is made explicit when Matthew explains Jesus' healing5 in terms of atonement with a quotation that calls to mind all of Isaiah 53: "This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, 'He took our infirmities and bore our diseases"' (Matthew 817 quoting Isaiah 534). Both Matthew and z7 Nils Alstrup Dahl. Iesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Ulristological Doctrine, ed. Donald H. Juel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 44. Peter J. Saer traces the theme of a noble death in Luke's passion narrative; The Lukan Passion d the Praiseworthy Death (Shefield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, mS). " See John Kleinig. Leuiiicus, Concordia Commentary (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004). 30 David P. Scaer, Discourses in Matthew: leas Teaches Ule Church (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004), 245-263. 31 Pilate's wife wen refers to JBU~ as the "righteous man" in Matthew's passion narrative (2739). Confronting Curtent Christological Controversy 13 Mark include important testimony of Jesus himself to his atoning work: "The Son of man came not to be served, but to serve and give his entire being as a ransom [botva~ jv Jruxiv ahto6 A6tpovl in the place of many [&mi aoMr3v; that is, the masses of humanity]" (Matthew 20:28; see also Mark 10:45). Luke lacks this explicit statement, yet he uses Exodus- Passover imagery in his interpretation of Jesus' death as the eschatological release from captivity. This is signaled already in Jesus' programmatic sermon in Nazareth (note the use of E+EOLV and &+Ccw~ in Luke 4:1&19), and reinforced in his transfiguration account (note the use of jv i