Thanks to Jonathan for putting me onto Richard Bauckham's chapter, "Biblical Theology and the Problem of Monotheism" in the collection, Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation.
The first part of the chapter deals with monotheism and the OT and interacts significantly with the work of Bauckham's colleague at St. Andrews, Nathan MacDonald. Bauckham is largely supportive of MacDonald's claims that the word monotheism is problematic in relation to Deuteronomy given the heavy Enlightenment baggage it brings with it. Similarly, the OT does not deny the existence of other gods.
However, Bauckham spends some time arguing in contrast to MacDonald that YHWH was put in a superior category to all other gods, not simply superior for Israel. YHWH is the only god who might appropriately be called the God. Assuming that Bauckham has read MacDonald correctly, I agree substantially with his critique here.
In the next section, Bauckham branches out to the rest of the OT (MacDonald's work is primarily with Deuteronomy) and addresses questions like when in its development Israel reached this point. I hope to go back and finish this section, but I feel like it is somewhat tangential to my purposes, which is to get to Bauckham's thought on the NT on this subject.
And here let me vent one of my pet peeves with a host of scholars "evangelical' and "liberal" alike. I'm not venting so much toward Bauckham here--he's writing a piece on biblical theology so it is perfectly acceptable for him to explore the OT in the way he does. But I want to vent on a fallacy I was also prone to when I entered seminary, one I see pop up from time to time among scholars who should know better.
Here it is: the original meaning of the Old Testament is almost completely irrelevant to the original meaning of the New Testament. Hebrew, for example, is almost completely irrelevant when interpreting the book of Hebrews because its author apparently knew almost no Hebrew. This is a kind of reverse anachronistic fallacy, to bring the original, contextual meaning of an OT passage into discussion of how a NT author understood that passage.
What is important for understanding Paul or some other NT author's use of the OT is how they are likely to have understood various OT passages in their day. The Hebrew original or the Ancient Near Eastern context is, for the most part, completely irrelevant in NT interpretation. There, I said it.
The critique is potentially extended beyond historical anachronism to a kind of literary contextual "anachronism" as well. Although I largely support Hays' "echo" movement, it seems often to border on this fallacy because it assumes that NT authors paid more attention to OT contexts than, I think, they actually did for the most part. It is not safe to assume that a NT author was mindful of an OT literary context any more than is required to make sense of the train of thought of a NT passage.
This is the rule: Infer no more OT context into your reading of a NT passage than is necessary for it to make sense.
So let's look at my real interest, Bauckham's thoughts on the NT and monotheism.
First, let me agree with this comment by Bauckham: "there is no good evidence for the idea that non-monotheistic forms of Israelite religion survived through the Second Temple period to be available to the early Christians" (218).
Romans 3:28-40
"Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes... since God is one."
Bauckham concludes that for Paul, Israel's election is paradigmatic for the whole world rather than exclusive (220). This seems to be the case. God's oneness implies that God is God of the whole world and not just of the Jews.
1 Corinthians 8:1-6
"For us there is one God, the Father ... and one Lord, Jesus Christ..."
This is an important verse for Bauckham, and it shows up in several of his works on this topic. His thesis is that Paul has taken the Shema and shuffled its words around to present a Christian version of the Shema. In it the identity of the one God comes to include Jesus within it.
Take the Shema in the LXX: "The Lord our God, the Lord, is one."
Here's Paul's shuffle: one God our, one Lord (YHWH)
I must confess that I don't find Bauckham's argument very convincing. If anything, the plain sense of "There is one God for us, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus" seems to distinguish Jesus from the one God. I am reminded of Ephesians 4:5: "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God..." Does this mean to include one faith and one baptism within the identity of the one God?
By faith I believe Jesus was God, but these aren't the verses I would normally use to argue for it! They seem straightforwardly to distinguish Jesus as Lord from the one God.
Bauckham seems to me (and N. T. Wright) to be classic examples of scholars who are ingeniously able to make sophisticated arguments for claims that a simpleton like me looks at and says, "But he says one Lord as something different from one God." If Paul was really making such an intricate claim... then why didn't he make that claim explicitly. Does a person really have to be that smart to figure out what Paul is saying?
When I first started reading Climax of the Covenant almost 15 years ago, my first thought was, Wow, Wright knows so much and sees so many connections between things. I now think many of those connections are the product of an ingenious mind set to work on polyvalent texts in ways Paul himself would find fascinating... and completely news to him!
Bauckham's problem with the most straightforward reading of 1 Cor. 8:6 is this: "If Paul were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing, not christological monotheism, but outright ditheism" (224).
My response: apparently not. Apparently not because Paul clearly maintains monotheism in this chapter and considers Jesus to be Lord as something different.
Bauckham claims, "the term 'Lord', applied here to Jesus as the 'one Lord', is taken from the Shema itself." Now this is an interesting claim and one that is worth thinking about. It seems beyond question that Paul would know that the Greek kyrios was a translation of YHWH, the name of God. Surely Paul knows that at times he uses OT kyrios passages in relation to Jesus that translate YHWH. This is a helpful contribution Bauckham often makes.
However, I wonder if Bauckham is failing to make some important distinctions in Paul's use of the word Lord. Psalm 110:1, once again, makes a clear distinction between God the Father as Lord (the translation of YHWH) and the Messiah as Lord: "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand.'" In my opinion, Paul's use of the word kyrios does not consistently use OT YHWH quotes either of God the Father or Jesus. It seems inescapable to me that Paul often paid little attention to the underlying Hebrew in his use of the word.
I have similar questions about Bauckham's claim that to use protological language unavoidably places Jesus within God's "identity." Bauckham: "it was unthinkable that any being other than God could even assist God" (224). "No more unequivocal way of including Jesus in the unique divine identity is conceivable, within the framework of Second Temple Jewish monotheism."
But how does this work? Does Paul think that, because Jesus is now in the identity of God, he must have always been, including in the process of creation? If so, then Jesus does not become included in the divine identity. He must have always been.
By contrast, if Jesus becomes included within the divine identity at the point of his exaltation, then he cannot suddenly become the past agent of creation. Either he had already been there or not.
These are questions of ontology, questions that Bauckham claims his "inclusion in the divine identity" approach works around. Perhaps a sophisticated modern theologian can come up with some way for this to work. But I suspect Paul the ancient would have picked either option a or b. And if so, then Bauckham's new option fades away as we return to the two options we had before.
Either Paul and other New Testament authors began with a sense of Jesus as having pre-existed before he came to earth or language of this sort was metaphorical at first and only came to be understood literally later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hi Ken,
Interesting stuff. I've a great interest in these questions and would appreciate your thoughts. As I've studied the various interpretations of the development of NT Christology one thing that should be obvious, but is sometimes obscured by the nitty-gritty arguments, is that our conception of what constitutes monotheism in the NT period will essentially determine what we do with the christological texts.
E.g., as we move from the OT to the NT to the post-NT period, we can historically trace the conceptual development within Judaism from henotheism to monotheism to monism. This monism is a later rabbinic development - in reaction to the post-70 experience, during which boundaries were drawn tighter and earlier diversity anathematized - certain streams of apocalyptic thought were perceived to threaten God's unity (e.g., such as what became known as the two-power heresy). My concern with the Dunn-type line of understanding is that it retrojects back this later form of monism as normative for the NT period (most often as presuppositions, e.g., see the import of Partings 2nd ed., xxvi-xxvii). Thus, Paul can't really be seen to be saying that Christ is somehow intrinsic to God's own identity (as Bauckham puts it). That would constitute ditheism, so it cannot, by Dunn's definition of monotheism, be correct.
The logic of this, within monism, is that incorporating Christ within the Shema does not make sense unless you are collapsing their identities into one another, for how can two be one monad? Thus, as Dunn says, the one Lord must be being distinguished from the one God. It’s not that this isn’t true (they’re not being collapsed into one another) but that it’s not the whole picture. I think Dunn’s position on monotheism/monism in the NT period leads him to misunderstand what Paul was doing here. Monotheism was a doctrine which distinguished the “one” (God of Israel) over against the “many” (pagan gods and lords); monotheism was not about analysing the inner-being of the one God as a monad. All the "God is one" texts even show this (e.g., Rom 3:20 - the “one” God of all people groups, it’s just not about God's internal being). The question of God’s inner-being just doesn’t seem to have been an issue until the Christian understanding of Christ and other apocalypticists started sayings things which brought the question into play.
When this is historically taken on board, then I think that what Bauckham is trying to say can be more readily understood. As Second Temple Jews were more concerned with who God is, with his identity - not about conferring ontic estimations such as that he was a monad - then it was possible for the early Christians to now say that their God should be identified with reference to Jesus (leaving the Spirit out of the discussion for now). Before Christ, it was as the God of Israel, the eternal Creator and Ruler of all; after Christ, it was as the Father who raised the Son from the dead. The identification of who their God is, has changed in the light of the Christ-event.
Thus, with respect to 1 Cor. 8, it is precisely by saying that Jesus is intrinsic (not an addition) to God’s identity that allows monotheism (not monism) to be retained. Hence the Shema can be glossed with both Father and Son. This is further reinforced by the addition of the prepositions, “from”, “for”, and “through” (Rom 11:36). Splitting them among Father and Son ensures that God’s oneness (there is only one God, not two) is preserved. This is especially evident from the use of dia, which asserts the creative action of the Son. So the Son is intrinsic to who God is, and always was. It is the historical revelation of the Son which casts new light on who their God always was. Thus, Father and Son are not collapsed into one another, but are distinguished, but within the mystery of the one God’s being, not as the one God having one Lord added. This is ditheism, as Bauckham rightly objects. Hence Paul’s usual use of theos for the Father and kurios for the Son thus allows him to distinguish between them without collapsing them into one another, yet also then allows him to avoid ditheism – as in the Christianized Shema, in which they are both held together. I’ll come to the other YHWH texts which reinforce this below.
Historically, what Bauckham argues is that Christ was raised from the dead and exalted to God’s right hand over all things. This is the historical experience. This role/status that Christ received was not something that any ordinary man or messiah figure could have. As such, the logic goes that if he is now participating in these exclusively divine prerogatives/status then he must always have done so, for the adoption/apotheosis option must be rejected within a Jewish monotheistic matrix. It is their understanding of who Christ is now by what he does that led to an epistemological shift in their perception of who he must always have been. I wonder if part of your problem with Bauckham is that he’s not always entirely clear about the difference in his thesis between the historical unfolding of events for the early Christians (temporal sequence) and their perception of what it means (logical sequence)? I.e., it looks like Jesus is being “added” historically (temporal sequence), but it is actually a recognition of who he is always was (i.e., logical sequence --> the incarnate one – the person that they knew, Jesus messiah, was actually eternally Son).
However, Bauckham’s entire line of interpretation seems patently false if we start from monism rather than from monotheism. Monism precludes this: thus, 1 Cor 8 either seems like an addition of one Lord (ditheism), or must entail a denial of Christ’s divinity to ensure God’s oneness (just a man with a derivative role in exercising God’s sovereignty). Bauckham’s argument is rather that the texts suggests a greater perception and further identification of who God is in the light of Christ. We know and identify God by his character and his acts in history, in the Christ-event he has identified himself fully. He is not a new or two Gods (by adding a second figure), but it is a new perception on our part of who he is (the God known and revealed in the face of Jesus and by his Spirit).
The fact that Paul uses YHWH texts and applies them to Jesus should reinforce all of this or else Paul’s attribution of them to Christ seems frankly blasphemous. The weakness of Dunn’s analysis of these texts is very apparent as it’s difficult to avoid their import; it doesn’t just ascribe a derivative lordship, but connotes that the one historically known and experienced as Jesus, the incarnate Son, is the one known in times past as YHWH of the OT. Bauckham’s thesis assumes the progressive revelation of who God is through time, which is partly why I pointed you to this monotheism essay. God in himself might not change, but our understanding/perception and knowledge of him do. So, especially with the Christ-event, as our beloved Hebrews says (1:1-4).
YHWH texts and messianic ‘lord’: I can’t help feeling that this is a bit of a non-issue, for the different uses of ‘Lord’ are held together in the one person of the incarnate Son as the helpful and convenient linguistic nexus of two different conceptual ideas. While connoting divinity, YHWH texts are very important, but Jesus is still also the messianic lord with a role in salvation-history to perform (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:23-28).
I can't help wondering if a Dunnian influence makes it more difficult to get to grips with Bauckham’s thesis. I’ll really look forward to hearing your thoughts on all this ;-) Sorry it’s so long!
Great response... in fact, if you don't mind, I'd like to make it a guest post. That way we can give it the prominence it deserves. Just tell me if you don't want me to and I'll delete it as a post.
Hi Ken,
Thanks so much for taking the time to post my comments and interact with them. I'm just about to leave town for a few days, but I've a number of thoughts on what you've said and would love to carry on the conversation as soon as I'm back.
Great! I've been busy with other things, but I hope to review Bauckham's Throne article tomorrow.
I can't agree that outside sources are not useful in understanding "things as they are". You cannot defend "biblical theology" baseed on itself. That presupposes that the bible is inspired as the evangelical or fundamentalist would understand that word. That understanding is not understood within a context but a defense of or reaction to a "liberal" understanding of disciplines outside the text (just as all of us do to "defend" our stance to "truth" as we know it). The text cannot validate itself, nor can Judiasm. Judiasm is itself an ethnic understanding of "god". That does not mean that Judiasm does not have something to teach us about values, wisdom, etc. But, it does mean that it is not the absolute standard of standing for "truth".
Truth is value clarification, not a text. As Christians, our value is God, as illustrated in Christ's life. But, that does not preclude other religious traditions from thier value of God. Our understanding of "god" is still within our own tradition. That does not prove the "truthfulness" of the claims.
Faith is by definition not "provable". Therefore, it behooves all of us to engage in values clarification in understanding ourselves and others. Injustice is done whenever a value is invalidated. And since values are individually determined and committed to, then, "injustice" happens a lot, because of politics and the highest value of the organization, government or group.
Individuals made in God's image should know and understand that the highest value is God, but is most fully understood and represented by man. That is why the Scriptures commend us that if do it to the least of these, we have done it to God...But, it also means that God's will is not understood directly, but indirectly. And our character reveals how much we understand of God's character.
Post a Comment