Candidates for Jewish Worship

I am working through a section of a chapter that first presents various proposals for entities the Jews might have worshiped in some way in addition to or subordinate to God. My earlier delineation of categories is here.

Category 1: Were other beings worshiped alongside YHWH?

• Two powers in heaven (Segal)
• Elohim, the Great Angel (Barker)
• Divine consort, etc (Hayman)

Category 2: A subordinate entity worshiped in harmony with the worship of YHWH

• Yahoel (Capes, Apocalypse of Abraham)
• Metatron/Enoch (3 Enoch)
• Son of Man (Bauckham - "exception that proves the rule," 1 Enoch)
• Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian (Schenck, in a derivative way)
• Adam (Fletcher-Louis, Life of Adam and Eve)

Category 3: How early did Christians begin to worship Jesus?

• Very early (Hurtado, Bauckham, current majority)
• Late first century (Dunn, Casey)

Category 4: Degree of continuity with Judaism

• High continuity (Bauckham)
• Early, distinct innovation (Hurtado)
• Significant discontinuity that developed over time (Dunn, Casey)
• Blasphemy (Segal)

I (Still) Believe: Richard Bauckham

Many thanks to John Byron for having Zondervan send me a copy of a new book called, I (Still) Believe. You can pre-order it right now for its September arrival. Because I don't want to be too far into it when it is fully live, I'm only going to sprinkle reviews these next few weeks in the interstices of my schedule.

1. It's a great idea for a book and perhaps quite important, because these are not just evangelical scholars. In fact only three or four might fit easily in that category. They are all prime time scholars who have wielded the sword of the historical-critical method during their careers with world-class excellence. They were scholars in the modernist phase of biblical studies AND they remained people of faith. They have been through the fires of historical study AND they have kept the faith. This is a book of their testimonies, varied as they be.

2. There are 18 testimonies in all, and in alphabetical order, Richard Bauckham comes first. I only want to whet your appetite so you will buy this book, but Bauckham is clearly a genius. He has never thought of himself as a conservative although he is a hero to conservatives. Like N. T. Wright, as a scholar he has always thought of himself as only following normal historical method. And, as a historian, he has never found anything in his conclusions that contradicted his faith.

In that, Bauckham reminds me of something I have heard my colleague Bart Bruehler say repeatedly. Bart has just never been troubled by anything he has studied about the Bible, even though he is fully aware of the history of interpretation and biblical criticism. Indeed, given an allowance for God's involvement in the world, Bart has never seen any contradiction between the historical method and faith... and neither have I.

Bauckham knows just about everything about everything. His doctorate is from Cambridge in history. He taught theology for several years at Manchester. Then he ended his career teaching New Testament at St. Andrews. He reads science. He reads philosophy. He reads literature. He reads everything.

"I couldn't have remained a Christian without being sure that Christianity made intellectual sense in such fields" (20).

3. Here are just a couple more statements to whet your appetite:

• "I would find it more difficult to believe in God if I did not believe that God became incarnate as the man Jesus" (24).
• "I have always loved God... I can't account for it, except (of course) by the grace of God" (23).
• "Nietzsche... is a powerful antidote to the superficiality of the 'new atheists'" (23).
• "The Bible... is normative but not sufficient for theology" (22).
• "I did develop [in my youth] a strong commitment to reading Scripture as the word of God, which I have never lost, though I no longer find it necessary to say that, to be the word of God in human words, it needs to be inerrant. (I would now say that the Bible is trustworthy for the purposes for which God has given it.)" (18).

4. In a Schenck post-note, Bauckham is popular for a number of reasons. He is part of the "early high Christology club," which means that he thinks the early Christians worshiped Jesus as fully divine almost from the very beginning. Also, the older he has gotten, the more he has come to accept early Christian traditions about authorship and other views such as 1) that the titles on the Gospels are original and 2) that the Gospels were originally written for all Christians rather than for specific communities.

But he has not come to these conclusions because he feels that they are necessary for faith. Indeed, there are others in this book with faith who would disagree with every one of those conclusions. Bauckham has come to these conclusions by simply applying the historical-critical method to the texts.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Richard Bauckham, mainstream scholar with faith!

John and Anti-Judaism 4

Reading through Terence Donaldson's Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament.  For previous summaries:

Introduction
Matthew and Anti-Judaism
Luke-Acts and Anti-Judaism

Now chapter 4, John.  Of all the books of the New Testament, John is the one most open to charges of antisemitism and anti-Judaism.  "The Jews" in John are often synonymous with "the world" in John, which is diametrically opposed to God.  The term is used some 70 times in John.  They want to kill Jesus, and their father is the devil.  Clearly it was easy enough at least for later readers to see in these words a completely negative designation of Jews not only as a religion (anti-Judaism) but as a race (antisemitism).  As Gregory Baum once put it, "many generations of John's readers have perceived the Gospel as encouraging them to look with contempt on the Jewish people" (81).

There are some potentially mediating factors.  The word sometimes has a neutral sense (about a dozen times).  Sometimes the word means "Judean" rather than Jew.  In a number of the most pejorative instances, "the Jews" seem to be the religious authorities in Jerusalem.

The relationship to Gentiles is not straightforward.  The word Gentile never appears in John.  Almost all of those who follow Jesus in John are themselves Jews.  Still, John explains things that a Jew would know, implying that it is written so that Gentiles could read it.  The majority position on the "sheep not of this fold" verse is that it refers to Gentiles.

I posted yesterday matters relating to the possible history of John both as a document and as a community.  These sorts of issues potentially impact the way we understand John's use of language like "the Jews."  For example, if the scholarly consensus is correct, then John's community at some point was forced out of mainstream Jewish synagogues.  So Baum once argued that "the Gospel needs to be read as a response to a painful exclusion rather than as an attempt to force and hasten a separation" (84).

Donaldson concludes the chapter thinking about John rhetorically.  He believes that 20:31 most likely should be rendered, "these are written so that you might continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ" and thus that John addressed an internal community (contra Bauckham).  As such, we have an inner-Jewish debate rather than an externally driven anti-Judaism.

It would be fun to explore further, but this is where our discussion of Donaldson's chapter ends.

Hebrews in Bullets

I told my students I might find myself unable not to go ahead and boil the first four chapters of Hebrews into bullets, especially since the first test is Tuesday.

Schenck thoughts on Hebrews 1-4:

Introduction (1:1-4)

• contrast between former age and current age in verses 1-2.
• contrast between the many and the one
• "in these last days" an allusion to Jeremiah and the age of the new covenant
• Son at beginning and end of creation in 1:2 (but is language of agency in creation literal or figurative for Christ as God's wisdom?)
• "reflection of glory," "image of substance" probable allusion to Wisdom 7:26
• timing of becoming greater than angels in 1:4 is time of Christ's exaltation to God's right hand (had been lower than them--2:9)

Christ versus Angels (1:5-14)

• Inherited name of 1:4 probably Son, because that's what Hebrews goes on to discuss, a royal title, "Son of God"
• Timing of Jesus most literally receiving the name, "Son," is at the time of exaltation, at the point of enthronement
• 1:6 probably refers to the exaltation as well, not Jesus' birth or parousia
• 1:7 is in a contrasting relationship with 1:8-12. The main points are 1) that angels' role is transitory; Jesus' is permanent and 2) angels are servants; Christ is king ("God")
• Angels were old age/old covenant ministers (1:14)

Take Heed (2:1-4)

• Exhortations in Hebrews are the logical consequences of the exposition, so these verses are a logical inference from 1:5-14).
• Point here: You better watch out! Those who disobeyed the word spoken through angels (Law) got it; those who neglect Christ's word--watch out!
• Lesser to greater argument (qal wahomer)--throughout Hebrews
• Law spoken through angels (compare Acts 7 and Galatians)
• Author puts himself as a second tier Christian in 2:3--heard from those who heard Jesus. This verse alone makes it very unlikely that Paul wrote Hebrews (style and thought would also be different from Paul)
• Audience experienced charismatic events at founding (2:4)

Humanity's Problem/Jesus' Solution (2:5-18)

• First thought at 2:5 is that the author is talking about Christ rather than angels as the one who will rule in the coming world.
• But 2:6-8 then talks about humanity. Sounds like humanity was supposed to rule the world. Schenck thinks something like the thinking of Rom. 3:23 stands in the background here--humanity was intended for glory, but we do not see humanity with glory because all have sinned and are lacking the glory of God.
• No evidence the author thinks of "Son of Man" as a Christological title in 2:6.
• Hebrews has a tendency to distance the biblical text from its human authors. "Someone, somewhere" has said (2:6). It's not that Hebrews doesn't know. It's that it emphasizes God and the Holy Spirit (and Christ) as the inspired speakers of Scripture.
• Jesus mentioned for the first time by name at 2:9. The word order builds to his name, first recapitulating the human situation (made lower than the angels for a little while)
• Jesus tastes death for all to lead many sons to glory, as the original intent was (2:9-10)
• 2:10 distinguishes God as agent of creation from Jesus, supporting the idea that 1:3 is figurative when it speaks of Jesus as agent of creation.
• Perfection in relation to Jesus has to do with completeness in relation to his salvific task (2:10).
• Rest of the chapter emphasizes the solidarity of Christ with humanity--he is just like us (except without sin).
• Devil as the one holding the power of death; death as the obstacle to glory.
• 2:17-18 may be key verses of the sermon. First time high priest is mentioned.

Christ versus Moses (3:1-6)

• May begin the argument proper of the letter (3:1-10:18). Consideration of Jesus as high priest begins, although it is frequently interrupted by exhortation. The thread, however, goes 3:1-6; 4:14-5:10; 7:1-10:18.
• Comparison of Jesus' faithfulness to Moses' faithfulness to our need for faithfulness the key theme of chapter 3, along with the implied contrast between how much worse it will be if we neglect Jesus than it was for those who did not heed Moses.
• House used in two ways in this section, of a household and of a house building.
• God as creator again distinguished from Jesus, again supporting the idea that 1:3 is figurative when it calls Jesus the agent of creation.
• Moses is a servant; Christ is a Son.
• We only remain part of Christ's household if we hold fast in faith. This is one of two signature ideas in Hebrews--it is essential to hold fast to the end in order to be saved.

The Wilderness Generation (3:7-19)

• Switch back to exhortation--holds attention; what follows is an implication of the contrast of Christ with Moses in 3:1-6. If what follows happened to those who disregarded Moses, then what will happen to those who disregard Christ?
• NT generally does not stick close to the original meanings of OT passages. One must not therefore bring any more of the OT context into one's interpretation than is demanded by the context of the NT passage (at least when aiming at the original meaning of the NT passage).
• The point of the comparison is well captured by the perfect tense of 3:14--"We have become (and remain) partakers of the Christ if indeed we hold fast." The ongoing state of being a partaker is contingent on holding fast. The wilderness generation did not hold fast and so didn't enter Canaan. Their corpses fell in the desert because of their disbelief.

Entering Rest (4:1-11)

• So there remains a "rest" for the people of God just as Canaan was initially a possibility for the wilderness generation. The parallel demands that we take this rest ultimately in relation to final salvation.
• The author wants the audience to contrast with the wilderness generation. They did not enter; they can if they remain faithful. They did not have faith.
• The catchword method of midrash used--Psalm 40 speaks of entering God's rest. Genesis 2 speaks of God resting. The two passages are brought together by the catchword (gezerah shewa). Obviously this is taking these texts out of context, but it's not a problem for ancient Jewish exegesis.
• Although the ultimate rest is at final salvation, we also, in another sense, enter God's rest every day, "Today." Every today we must make a decision for faith and endurance or we will fall like the wilderness generation. The rest is thus both present and future.

The Sword of the Word (4:12-13)

• The word is neither Christ nor the Bible here. It is God's will in action, in accordance with much Jewish background literature. Possible allusion to Wisdom 18 where God's word leaps from heaven with a sword to judge the Egyptians' firstborn.
• The focus in these verses remains on God's judgment to those who do not remain faithful. God sees everything and will judge those who do not hold fast in faith.
• The mention of soul and spirit may speak a tripartite division of the human person for the author of Hebrews--very rare in the New Testament. 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is probably the only other place with that conception (so Christians shouldn't consider it a "biblical" view of a person--it is just one picture, incarnated in just one ancient psychology).

Davids on Bauckham on 2 Peter

Came across this statement by Peter H. Davids in his 2 Peter commentary in the new Pillar series, writing about Richard Bauckham's understanding of 2 Peter as a testament. I cannot think of any basis on which to disagree with Davids:

"While Bauckham believes that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical, he also believes that it is written in a testamental form and that the genre would have been recognized by any contemporary reader as being written in the spirit of Peter rather than having been written by Peter. Thus, he argues, the document was neither intended to deceive nor did it in fact deceive its first readers. They would have thought of it as being about Peter rather than by Peter. Bauckham may be right or wrong on this, but the position he holds is fully compatible with evangelical affirmations about the trustworthiness of the canonical Scriptures in all that they truly affirm (versus what we may misread them as affirming)" (130 n.20).

Calvin excerpt and a spiraling stream of thoughts

I'm behind on Calvin, but read this today:

"Here we must more carefully attend to those subtleties with which superstition disports itself. Indeed, it does not so decline to other gods as seemingly to desert the highest God, or to reduce him to the level of the rest. But while it concedes to him the supreme place, it surrounds him with a throng of lesser gods, among whom it parcels out his functions. The glory of his divinity is so rent asunder (although stealthily and craftily) that his whole glory does not remain with him alone. Thus, in the past, men, Jews as well as heathen, put a vast throng of gods under the father and ruler of the gods. Each of these gods according to his rank held in common with the highest god the government of heaven and earth."

"the distinction between latria and dulia, as they called them, was invented in order that divine honors might seem to be transferred with impunity to angels and the dead. For it is obvious that the honor the papists give to the saints really does not differ from the honoring of God."

P.S. The distinction between latria and dulia has to do with the Catholic distinction between the worship appropriate to God alone and the kind of lower reverence appropriate saints and such.

This discussion really reminded me of Bauckham and the sharp divide he places between God and other heavenly beings. The religious traditions of scholars do affect their biblical interpretation. So I wondered if Bauckham was much of an Anglican and if this section of the Institutes has had any significant impact on him.

I know he did use to teach theology and now that he's emeritus at St. Andrews he's at Ridley at Cambridge, an Anglican theological training college.

That of course made me think of how Calvinist the 39 articles are and the strange fact that the Westminster Confession is Anglican, that John Knox took it back to Scotland where it became ground zero for Presbyterianism.

Then I thought of N. T. Wright's strange view of faith as a "badge of covenant membership," not as what gets you in or justifies you. Sure seems Calvinist to me--faith does not get you in but is a sign that you're in.

So then there's a discussion I had with Bounds yesterday I think. Apparently Anglicanism was heavily Calvinist at the beginning until some Arminian influence came in the mid-1600's. Wesley came at the right time for this trend to influence him. Unfortunately, that trajectory apparently went heavily Deist, to where those Anglicans who take doctrine seriously today tend to be the Calvinist trajectory.

I'm sure I'm perverting the Bound discussion... I take responsibility. Is this right?

There, now free to carry the spiraling stream of consciousness where you will...

Romans 10

Same drill. At least 100 word response to something in the post, then 2 further comments in relation to something someone else has commented. Worth up to 10 points of a 30 point total.
__________
9:30-33 "What therefore will we say? [We say] 1) that Gentiles who were not pursuing righteousness took hold of righteousness, even a righteousness on the basis of faith (ἐκ πίστεως), and 2) Israel, who was pursuing a Law of righteousness did not attain to the Law?

Why? Because [they pursued it] not on the basis of faith but as on the basis of works. They stumbled on the stone of stumbling, as it has been written, "Behold, I am placing in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of tripping, and the one who has faith on him will not be ashamed.
In my opinion, this passage establishes that when Paul uses the phrase "on the basis of faith," he is thinking of human faith primarily (rather than Jesus' faith). Faith in the verses above even refers to faith on Christ, even though in chapter 4 faith is mostly directed toward the God who raises the dead (e.g., 4:17).

The faith that (most of) Israel has not had is thus faith oriented around Jesus. Dunn's hypothesis that "works" here primarily refers to works of Jewish Law that most distinguished Jew from Gentile could work, although Paul could also simply have works in the absence of Christ in view.

The mention of a "righteousness on the basis of faith" perhaps argues for a double entendre back in 3:21, where Paul speaks of a "righteousness of God apart from works of Law." In other words, this righteousness would refer both to God's saving righteousness and the righteousness accredited to a believer on the basis of faith.

10:2-3 For I witness to them that they have a zeal but not according to knowledge, for not knowing the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own [righteousness], they were not subjected to the righteousness of God.
These two verses seem proof positive (against N. T. Wright) that Paul can use the phrase "righteousness of God" in relation to human righteousness. These may very well be double entendres, also referring to God's saving righteousness, but a reference to the human righteousness accredited on the basis of faith seems necessary from the train of thought.

I wonder if Paul thought of himself in the past when he wrote 10:1. Certainly he had a zeal at that time (cf. Phil. 3:6). His zeal was not according to knowledge.

As a point of application, it seems all too easy to be zealous over the wrong causes or even to be too zealous for something that is not as important as we make it out to be. This has seemed especially true with regard to religion throughout history.

10:4 For Christ is the goal of the Law leading to righteousness to everyone who has faith.
This statement seems similar to Galatians 3:23-25: "For before faith came we were being gaurded under Law, being imprisoned for the faith about to be revealed, with the result that the Law has become our paedogogue unto Christ, in order that we might be justified on the basis of faith."

It is common among certain interpreters to read this verse to say that Christ fulfilled the Law for us, that Christ is the end of the Law. But this is not Paul's meaning. Paul is simply saying again what he has said before, that the Law was intended to point us toward Christ by showing us our inability to be righteous in our own power, by our own works.

10:9-11 ... if you confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord" and have faith in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart it is faithed leading to righteousness and with the mouth it is confessed leading to salvation, for the Scripture says, Everyone "who has faith in him will not be ashamed."
Here Paul gives us the content of faith, what we believe. We believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, as in Romans 4:24. Sanders is wrong to think that this sort of content of faith is unusual for Paul. It is the default content of faith.

To confess Jesus as Lord is to recognize that God raised him from the dead and enthroned him at His right hand as cosmic king. To confess him as Lord is to confess our allegiance to him as Lord, not a mere confession of words.

Such faith in God's doings and in Christ as the one to whom God is doing it and through whom He is doing it, effects coming salvation, when believers will escape the wrath of God.

10:13 For "everyone whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
This quote is fascinating because the verse Paul is quoting, Joel 2:32, clearly refers to YHWH--whoever calls on the name of YHWH will be saved. Richard Bauckham and others have argued that it is very likely that Paul would have known that YHWH was the LORD that stood beyond this text. Is Paul therefore equating Jesus with YHWH? Bauckham would say so.

One more to come...

Ephesians 4

Same drill. If you're in the class, 100 word initial response, 2 more substantial responses to other comments that ensue. Outsiders are also welcome to participate. Happy Thanksgiving!
_______
4:1 Therefore, I urge you, I the prisoner in the Lord, to walk worthily of the call with which you were called,
Here seems to begin a new major unit in Ephesians. The idea of living worthily also appears in Philippians 1:27. The idea of calling reappears, as we saw so strongly in Ephesians 1.

4:2-3 ... with all humility and meekness, with patience, being patient with one another in love, being diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the common bond of peace:
The importance of unity will now appear in its strongest form. Presumably the original nature of the unity in mind was the unity between Jew and Gentile, but certainly the idea applies as forcefully as ever in the fragmentation of the modern church. We may disagree on things like doctrine and even to an extent on practice, but we are to be at peace with each other. Humility, meekness, patience, love, peace--these are obvious fundamentals of Christian faith... and just as obviously missing in the church today.

4:4-6 ... one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all things, who is over all things and through all things and in all things.
The "body" here is much broader than in 1 Corinthians, where the body of Christ and the body as the temple of the Spirit is localized to the Corinthian congregation. But Ephesians now sees the entirety of Christendom as one body with one Spirit enlivening it.

We might today extend the image over time to say that the entire "communion of the saints" across the ages, all who have been filled with the Holy Spirit and thus who have been children of God, are the body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the life force within that body.

Ephesians, as 1 Corinthians 8:6, distinguishes Jesus the one Lord from the one God and Father of all things. We are thus on a trajectory to the later Trinity but apparently not there yet. I'm sure Bauckham has an ingenious explanation for how this verse can fit with his thesis.

The content of the one faith is not unpacked here. 1:15 could speak of the audience's faith in the Lord Jesus, but the expression is a little odd. It could refer to the faith they have through the Lord Jesus or the faith they have as they are in the Lord Jesus. Certainly the Pauline letters as a whole lead us to see this as a faith toward God, particularly for what He has done in Christ.

The one baptism probably refers to water baptism. It does not preclude the Spirit baptism of Acts, since Ephesians is probably only thinking about one water baptism. Of course this verse also should not be taken as an argument against ever being baptized a second time. These sorts of later debates are completely foreign to Ephesians.

4:7 And to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of the gift of the Christ.
This sense of the Messiah measuring out various giftings or gracings continues through 4:16. The style and vocabulary in this and the next paragraph is very unusual for Paul, one of the primary arguments that Ephesians was written by a secretary or heir of Paul. It differs even from that of Colossians, which has several parallels to this section (cmp. Eph. 4:16 to Col. 2:19).

I personally think that at the very least we need to think of a Pauline secretary having more to do with the composition of Ephesians than Paul, likely using Colossians as a starting point. If Paul were in serious hardship at the time or somewhat inaccessible in prison, such a process would be perfectly understandable. I also do not think it hinders the authority or truthfulness of Ephesians to picture a Pauline heir representing his message to a later generation, presuming that no deception was involved. Each will have to decide.

In any case, it is deeply ironic to me that John McRay, emeritus professor at Wheaton, uses Ephesians as the starting point for understanding Paul's theology. Ephesians may be, as I think Snodgrass implies, the most influential lens through which Paul has been read in Christian history (cf. 17). Perhaps you could therefore make a case for reading Paul's other letters in that way. From the standpoint of what those other letters actually meant originally, however, to read the rest of Paul through the lens of Ephesians is to skew your understanding of those earlier letters ever so slightly.

4:8-10 Therefore it says, "Having ascended to the height he took captive captivity, he gave gifts to mortals." And what is the "He ascended," except that he also descended to the lower parts of the earth? The one who descended himself is also the one who ascended above all the heavens so that he might fill all things.
This statement is not about the incarnation, but about Christ's death and resurrection. "He descended to the dead. On the third day he ascended into heaven and is seated on the right hand of God the Father Almighty."

4:11-12 And he himself gave on the one hand apostles, and then prophets, and then evangelists, and then pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the holy ones for the work of ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ,
This is not a formula or a prescription for how we should structure the church today. This is simply the way it played out in the early church. If we go with the criterion of Acts 1, even Paul himself was not an apostle. If we go with Paul's apparent criteria (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:1), an apostle needed to see the risen Lord and receive a commission to go preach the gospel from him. Paul, however, views himself as "untimely born" as an apostle even some 3 years after the resurrection. That would seem to close the book on there having been any apostles since that time.

The early church had prophets, and 1 Corinthians 14 presumes that they were still around in the local church. Matthew 7:21-23 seems to be a thinly veiled critique of prophets in Matthew's day, but there is no place in the NT where the door is closed on such prophets in the church (No, 1 Cor. 13:8 doesn't count). I will say, however, that Ephesians probably does see the foundational prophets as past tense. So we would say that no prophet today has the authority of a New Testament author.

We notice that the function of these individuals is not to glorify themselves but to equip the "saints," the common Christian made holy by the Spirit within them. Everyone apparently is to do the work of the ministry. These individuals do not build up themselves but the body of Christ.

4:13-14 ... until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of maturity of the fullness of the Christ, so that we are no longer babies, driven and tossed by every wind of teaching with the cunning of mortals with trickery for the trickery of error,
These verses are about the church growing up even more than we as individuals growing up. Each image has to do with a full grown person who can tell the difference between sound teaching and erroneous teaching.

4:15-16 ... but that, speaking the truth in love, we might grow into him in all things, who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, being joined and held together through every ligament of the support according to the working in the measure of each part for the increase of the body, it makes itself increase for its own edification in love.
This verse is very similar to Colossians 2:19. Christ as the head here is the nourisher of the body. It is a quite fantastic image. We should probably keep the nature of headship language here in mind when we get to 5:23.

Speaking the truth in love in context here seems to connect to true teaching in the previous verses, which probably as much involved teaching on living as teaching on belief. Certainly we should tell our spouse how they look "with love" too. But Ephesians seems rather to have in mind addressing those whose are inappropriate in practice with love. Applying this verse today requires great caution, for we are probably far less "right" than we think about our own understandings. The verses that follow perhaps push us toward seeing sexual immorality as what is primarily in view.

4:17-19 Therefore, I say this and witness in the Lord [that you are] no longer to walk as the Gentiles walk in the foolishness of their mind, since they have been darkened in thought, alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, through the hardness of their heart, who, having lost their feeling, they have delivered themselves to sensuality leading to the working of every uncleanness in covetousness.
Even though the audience used to be Gentile, it is no longer like the Gentiles. The foolishness Ephesians seems to have primarily in mind is that of sexual immorality. The other stock foolishness of the Gentiles from a Jewish perspective was that of idolatry, but I don't see that here.

4:20-24 But you did not learn the Christ in this way, if indeed you heard him and were taught in him, just as truth is in Jesus, for you--in terms of [your] previous conduct--to put off in terms of the desires of deceit, the old person that is being destroyed, and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind and to put on the new person that was created according to God in righteousness and the holiness of the truth.
This is similar to Colossians 3:10 and Romans 6:6. Ephesians sees a person becoming righteous and holy in life living because we are a new person. We don't live the way we used to.

Monday Editorial: The Postmodern Biblical Consultant

I'm in the final stages of a piece I'm writing on Hebrews and the worship of Jesus. In the process of writing, I've engaged heavily with Richard Bauckham's impressive interpretive construct of how Jesus' enthronement at the time of his exaltation to God's right hand connects to his inclusion within the divine identity since eternity past. Bauckham's exegetical conclusions are so different from mine that it has been difficult for me to get inside his head.

But I think I have and, as you might expect, his interpretation is ingenious. Jesus inherits the name, YHWH, at his enthronement, but Jesus has been included within the identity of the one God since eternity past. The early Christians would have recognized this fact as soon as they understood Jesus to be on God's divine throne a la Psalm 110:1. Only the one God can be on that throne, so Jesus must be included in the identity of the one God. He therefore must have been involved with creation as part of the one God and he must be worthy of the worship of the one God.

As I said, I find this ingenious. It applies all Bauckham's exhaustive knowledge of second temple Jewish literature to the particulars of the New Testament text and comes up with an interpretation that sees the later Christian affirmations of Nicaea and Chalcedon about Jesus already there in a nutshell in the NT, "the earliest christology was in nuce the highest christology," as Bauckham says repeatedly in the string of works he's written related to this topic.

This ought to be great, right? He's done what Christian Bible scholars are supposed to do, right? He's found a way to configure the biblical evidence in its historical context so that an interpretation of the original meaning fits with later Christian faith. I don't think he would put it that way, but we should expect it to work out that way, right?

This post really isn't about Bauckham. It relates to my sense that theological hermeneutics can't quite seem to admit to itself that it is a form of reader response. In his piece on biblical monotheism, Bauckham suggests at one point, in so many words, that when we can't know for sure what a historical conclusion should be, why not assume it fits with the conclusion most convenient for faith. Again, he doesn't quite put it that way, but that's what I take him to be saying.

The problem here for me is that, in my experience, there often is a distinction between the eyes of later faith and the original, historical eyes. The way the NT interprets the OT is a case in point, and it is both predictable and amusing that some of the key hermeneutical players have devoted some energy to the NT's interpretation of the OT. Why? Because this is a point of "naughty data" that truly threatens to deconstruct the paradigm.

Kevin Vanhoozer wants to see the authoritative meaning of the biblical text as the original meaning, yet see the significance of the text as something that can vary. I would say that theological hermeneutics often goes further to change the meaning of the text by reading it against the context of the later church. I don't have a problem with this way of reading the text. What I have a problem with is what I see as the frequent slight of hand to argue that this reader response approach is really the same as an original meaning approach that gives the benefit of the doubt to Christian faith.

Perhaps I have misread what theological hermeneuticians are really trying to do. But it seems to me that the theological hermeneutic approach is a bit like having someone from your team referee the game. It's like letting the people who stand to gain from the bailout decide how to dispense the money from the bailout. It's like chairing the rank improvement committee when you're up for rank improvement. It's like having all your friends on the jury and being able to change the judge if you don't like what he or she decides.

It seems to me there is an inherent conflict of interest in the current, very popular postmodern drive to wed theology back to Bible.

My thoughts here will not be popular, and they won't open up for me an opportunity to write one of the many new commentaries that are now coming out from the standpoint of a theological hermeneutic. But after much reflection I believe that the wedge between biblical interpreter and theological appropriator should be retained, like the division of powers in the United States government. It is not that the same person can't perform both roles, it's that there is an inherent conflict of interest between the two approaches to the text.

What I want to suggest is that it is ultimately unhealthy to go completely in the way of theological hermeneutics as it currently seems to be practiced. Its current approach, as I read it, seems to be that, since the original meaning is uncertain, why not go with whatever option fits best with Christian faith. Yet this approach seems to me only a sophisticated version of the older fundamentalism. A postmodern reading of the biblical text doesn't need to be tied to the original meaning at all.

I think another, more healthy postmodern approach to biblical interpretation would see a biblical interpreter as a consultant for many readers across the spectrum. For the original meaning part of the consultation, I might suggest several possible ways of reading the biblical text depending on varying assumptions. If you believe in the possibility of miracles, here are some possible meanings the gospel texts might have had. If you don't, here are some possible meanings the gospel texts might have had. If you are interested in the original meaning of the text, here are the most likely options. If you are interested in reading these words in the light of later Christian faith, here are some possible resonances.

To let the text be the text, and not let it become a slave to theology, this is how I believe it must be. Otherwise we are only playing games with the biblical text, never truly listening to it. Of course this does shift the onus of Christian faith to the theologian. The ministerial and Christian curriculum of the postmodern age will end up having more theology than Bible or, contrariwise, the Bible taught will focus on theological readings and/or appropriations, rather than the original meaning.

We'll still want some biblical consultants around to keep theology honest and to give it historical depth. And while I'm arguing for the old division of powers here, I'm not at all suggesting that the same person can't both consult and theologically appropriate. I'm arguing for maintaining the firm distinction rather than blurring it in the manner of contemporary theological hermeneutics.

Angelic Refusal Tradition???

It's always funny when you have assumed something for a while and then actually investigate it and find out it is based on pretty flimsy evidence. Such it is with the so called "refusal tradition" of Jewish apocalyptic. Richard Bauckham's 1981 article in NTS, "The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity" seems to be the real fountainhead of this idea in recent years.

The idea is that the Jewish apocalyptic tradition put a strong emphasis on angels refusing worship from those to whom they appear. In the book of Revelation, for example, the angel of chapter 19 refuses the worship of John. The idea makes enough sense, since Jews believed in "one God," surely angels would refuse worship.

But when you look into Bauckham's "best shot," the texts that have angels refusing worship, the actual results are very scanty. There is a tradition of angels appearing to people and of people being afraid, and of the angels allaying fear. But there are very few instances of angels telling the people to whom they appear not to worship them.

So Bauckham really only has the Ascension of Isaiah and Revelation to point to in all Jewish literature through the first century AD--and these are both Christian texts! Sure, Tobit and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah have angel incidences where fear is allayed, but no refusal of worship.

The conclusion I am coming to the more I look at the work of Bauckham and Hurtado, in dialog with the sources, is that they draw somewhat artifical lines around the sources. The result is a partial truth, but a somewhat skewed one as well... in my opinion.

Defining First Century Jewish Monotheism

After years of some general hunches and vague feelings, I believe I am finally ready to formulate a positioned statement on what I think Jewish monotheism was at the time of Christ. This should appear in print with refinement and extensive footnotes in one or two places next year.

A word of preface is in order. The very term monotheism is a product of the Enlightenment and, as we will see, tends to smuggle in anachronistic notions into the discussion. Ancient Judaism was clearly a religion of "one God," but this notion must be defined on their terms, not on modern philosophical or theological terms.

First, Jewish monotheism at the time of Christ was, first and foremost, a statement of God's sovereign power. Power, more than any other thing, was the defining characteristic of a god in the ancient world. (Immortality was the other) The notion that the divine is transcendent, ontologically distinct and unknowable from human categories, is largely anachronistic for the ancient world. Only Philo seems to approach such a view. We should more think in terms of a scale of being, with gods on the top.

So for some Jews at the time of Christ, monotheism might more aptly be described as "monarchism," the idea that there is one sovereign God who is more powerful than any other god or spiritual power. God is the King who reigns supreme over all the other gods.

Artapanus perhaps represents the last outpost of first century monotheism in that he does not seem to deny the existence of other gods or to condemn the other nations from worshipping them. But he presumably would not worship them himself and his God is of course the "master of the universe."

Other Jews took a more adversarial position between the one God and these other spiritual powers. The War Scroll at Qumran looks to a final battle between the sons of darkness and the sons of light. And it uses the word gods in reference to the spiritual forces among the sons of darkness. God will of course defeat them, an aspect of God's sovereignty that Richard Bauckham aptly calls "eschatological monotheism."

God is thus unique not least because He is the most powerful, the supreme deity. One expression of this unique sovereignty is His role as creator, which Richard Bauckham aptly calls "creational monotheism." But God's unique role of creator is really an expression of his sovereignty.

Here it's important to recognize that the Jews of this time had no sense of creation out of nothing, an idea that didn't seem to emerge until the late second century AD. We should think of creation at this time more in terms of giving order to chaos and formlessness than the generation of material.

Presumably, however, God as sole creator means that He created all parent beings. Certainly he created the human parents. But he also created all the angels, some of whom rebelled, whether the watchers at the time of the Flood in the Enoch tradition or Satan with the creation of Adam in the Life of Adam and Eve. Their rebellion was subsequent to their creation.

The second key aspect of monotheism corresponded to God's supreme sovereignty, namely, his exclusive rights to human worship. Again, there were apparently those like Artapanus that did not have a problem with other nations worshipping other (inferior) gods. Meanwhile, they served the "one supreme God" and their "one God." They "had no other gods before Him." Perhaps many of the anonymous and silent Diaspora Jews scattered throughout the world had such a view.

But by far the vast majority of the Jewish literature we have from this period sees YHWH as the sole legitimate God and thus the only God that should be worshipped. Bauckham calls this "cultic monotheism" and Larry Hurtado and others put a big premium on this element in the equation.

In my opinion, however, the way Bauckham and others treat worship in this period is slightly anachronistic in the same way that thinking of God's transcendence often is. To give worship is to honor and reverence a superior power. Since God is the superior power and the legitimate power, He is obviously in a category all its own when it comes to worship.

It is also true that there is a strong tradition within Jewish apocalyptic in which angels refuse worship in deference to the one God. In the words of Hebrews, angels are "ministering spirits." They are servants. You do not worship servants.

Where the line gets blurry is when we are talking about kings of various types. An earthly king is a "son of God," a divine son, not least because a king exerts over humans a power and authority analogous to the sovereignty of God over the cosmos. Indeed, the king mediates God's sovereignty. One can thus "bow the knee" or "worship" a human king as long as this reverence is properly subordinated to the glory of God the Father.

God made Moses "like a god to Pharaoh"--he gave him Godlike power and authority. Satan is told to "worship" Adam in the garden in the Life of Adam and Eve because Adam is his superior and an image of God, while Satan is merely a servant of God. And of course Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian is worshipped on a heavenly throne in a way analogous, but almost certainly subordinate to the worship of Moses' God. The fact that this is a dream does not obviate the basic dynamic of this uncomfortable example.

Things get even blurrier when the "royal" figure is a heavenly being. The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch is a heavenly king. He is thus worthy of "worship" as long as such worship is clearly subordinated to and a function of the glory of God. Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham similarly occupies an ambiguous space between being a subject of God and participating in God's throne.

In my opinion, Bauckham is "making up the rules" when he assumes that participation in creation and God's throne were absolutely off limits as a function of monotheism. What ancient evidence is there for this other than his definitions? Certainly many if not most ancient Jews might agree with him. But on what basis can he imply that an ancient Jew who did not agree with these parameters was thereby disloyal to the idea of "one God"? As Hurtado has argued, we must let them set the parameters for what we allow under the heading of "monotheism."

We might finally mention the matter of sacrifice. It seems doubtful that--perhaps except for some Diaspora Jews on the fridge of what we call Judaism at the time--Jews offered sacrifices to other gods. As far as I can tell, even in those instances where veneration is given to "royal" subordinates of God, they are never given sacrifice.

And why would they? The purpose of sacrifice was to secure the favor of God, including the deflection of God's wrath. Since YHWH was the ultimate sovereign in question even in those instances where other "royal" figures were in play, He would clearly be the one who needed propitiated.

"Cultic monotheism" would thus seem to apply most properly, then, to the fact that no other being was the proper recipient of sacrifice. On this score, therefore, I would suggest that Hurtado is the one who "makes up the rules" as to where non-sacrificial "cultic veneration" could or could not apply to figures other than the one God.

Ancient Jewish "monotheism" was thus primarily a matter of God's superior, sovereign power and rule, a power and position captured most clearly in his role as sole creator. Accordingly, He was the only God appropriate to worship. However, kings and heavenly beings that participate in His throne might also be said worthy of a reverence or "worship" as long as it is clearly subordinated to Him. Few Jews, of course, had any notion of such a being. Those that did were by far the exception rather than the rule.

Dunn's Partings 9: "One God, One Lord"

Chapter 10 of James D. G. Dunn's, The Partings of the Ways is "One God, One Lord," and it asks whether or not Paul's writings have yet departed from mainstream Judaism. Dunn's answer is "no." Throughout the chapter he concludes repeatedly that "nothing of what has been covered above seems to have caused any question or concern among Paul's Jewish contemporaries" in relation to the issue of monotheism (170). In a comment reminiscent of Hurtado--while ironically differing from him on the issue--Dunn suggests that "Had Paul's christology been equally, or more contentious [as his understanding of the Jewish Law] at this time for his fellow Jews, we would surely have heard of it from Paul's own letters."

1. Resurrection
The belief of Paul and the earliest Christians that Jesus rose from the dead, that he was exalted to heaven, did not threaten monotheism. A unique and remarkable belief about a person who had just been alive, yes. But squarely within Judaism.

2. Exaltation to divine functions
Here Dunn disagrees with what would become Bauckham's position. The fact that Jesus participates in the judgment is quite remarkable, but it does not threaten Jewish monotheism for Jesus judges as God's representative.

Jesus' resurrection, his ascension, his apotheosis/transformation, these are remarkable things to attribute that someone who was recently alive. But we find Jewish precendents for them. Peter facilitates the giving of the Spirit, and no one thinks he threatens monotheism.

So to extend Dunn, I don't find Bauckham's assumption that Jesus must be included within the divinity because Jesus is on a throne persuasive. I think he fails to demonstrate that this must be the case. He mostly assumes it must be. His valiant attempts to work around Ezekiel the Tragedian and the Parables of Enoch are unpersuasive to me.

3. Jesus as Lord
This sentence sums up Dunn on this issue, and I find it hard to disagree: "Paul in fact calls Jesus 'Lord' as much as a means of distinguishing Jesus from God as of identifying him with God" (250).

"The LORD said to my Lord," says Psalm 110:1. Hebrews 1:6: "Therefore God, his God anointed him." And the timing of the acquiring of the name LORD is at the point of resurrection/exaltation. Bauckham in my opinion largely ignores this dynamic.

4. Jesus as Last Adam
I hink most will agree that Paul's Adam Christology did not impinge on monotheism. However, Dunn tries to make it undo the pre-existence of Christ in the Philippian "hymn." Few will go with him here.

As I've said here before, the Philippian hymn is the one place in Paul's writings that is very difficult not to see an affirmation of Christ's pre-existence. Its uniqueness, in that regard, is suspicious. But Dunn's understanding of the hymn seems problematic--that the form of God is Christ's Adamic state in the image of God, but that unlike Adam Christ did not try to seize equality with God.

Dunn also notes the key passage in the Life of Adam and Eve where God commands the angels to "worship" Adam. Dunn would not see the worship of Jesus in Paul as any more of a departure from Jewish monotheism than this.

5. Jesus as wisdom
Dunn makes an excellent case, I think, in this section that a Jew reading passages like Colossians 1:15ff would hear an implicit comparison of Christ to God's wisdom. The strength of his argument is that he so much as asks us to picture how a Jew with no prior knowledge of Christ would understand such passages. I think he is absolutely right in his answer to this question. However, the retort asks, But these would be individuals who knew a little something about Christ beforehand?

6. Jesus and the Spirit
Dunn here shows the striking way in which Paul glides from virtually equating the Spirit with the risen Christ to distinguishing the two. "Jesus and the Spirit were seen to overlap in function, but not wholly to coincide" (266). This stretches mainstream Jewish categories, but Dunn thinks it still stands within Judaism.

7. Jesus as God
Since Dunn does not think Paul wrote Titus, the only place he really considers as a possible flat out reference to Jesus as God is Romans 9:5. But the punctuation is at issue and Dunn favors as more likely the reading that separates, "God be blessed forever" from Jesus. One's answer here will largely turn on one's assessment of Paul's broader categories.

Dunn also addresses Hurtado's argument that the cultic devotion to Jesus in Paul already marks a significant mutation of Jewish monotheism. Dunn does recognize its significance: "These are indeed remarkable and we should not allow our familiarity with them to dull the astonishing character of such language spoken of one who had so recently lived on earth" (269).

But Dunn considers such imagery "a development only begun." In other words, it would lead eventually to something beyond Jewish monotheism. Just not yet in Paul. The hymns Hurtado cites are about Christ rather than to Christ. And despite invocations of Jesus, prayer is more often in Paul to God through Christ.

I might close by saying that I think it is a mistake to assume that the Christian understanding of Christ's divinity stands or falls on the interpretation of Paul. I think people like Bauckham, Hurtado, Wright, Witherington, etc. find themselves strongly driven to see as much of a later Christology in Paul as they can make the evidence fit without soiling their academic conscience. They are good Protestants.

But Roman Catholic scholars often have exactly the same impulse, it seems to me. Can't we have as much faith that God was unfolding these things in the early church as much as we Christians have faith that the New Testament unfolds things not yet on the Old Testament page?

Just a thought...

With some regret I need to move on from Dunn's Partings. I may only do one or two more chapters in Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ as well for now. Too many things to write these next couple of months...

Friday Review: Bauckham's "Throne of God"

Today I want to reflect on a paper Richard Bauckham gave at a conference in St. Andrews in 1998: "The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus." It is now a chapter in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, edited by Carey Newman, James Davila, and Gladys Lewis.

Let me just say that St. Andrews knows to put on conferences. I don't know any place that does a better job--especially in the light of the location. I was actually present when Bauckham gave this paper (10 years ago next weekend), although I will confess to having a problem sticking with most papers of this sort if I don't have a paper copy in front of me. So I sadly admit that reading this chapter was like hearing it for the first time--except of course that it is quite typical of the other things on monotheism by Bauckham I have interacted with here.

Bauckham's thesis is now very clear to me:

1. YHWH was distinguished from all other supposed gods as a) in a completely different category, even if they might be spiritual forces of some kind, b) this uniqueness had to do with YHWH being the sole Ruler of all things and c) YHWH being the sole Creator of all things and thus d) YHWH alone being the object of worship by all things.

This is a summary out of my head rather than the precise wording of this chapter, but these things for Bauckham constitute the "unique identity of the one God."

2. Among "intermediary figures," we can distinguish figures like wisdom and the logos that are included within God's unique identity and other figures such as exalted patriarchs and angels who were never included within that identity.

3. The exaltation to God's right hand that the early Christians understood through Psalm 110:1, because it associated Christ with God's throne, would have immediately implied to the early Christians, says Bauckham, that Jesus was included within God's unique identity. That would thus mean that he was involved with creation and the rule of all things and could receive the worship afforded the one God.

This train of thought is logical enough, but seems to me to assume too many "musts" based on ideological constructs like "God's unique identity" (which as Bauckham acknowledges is not an expression we actually find in any of these texts).

With regard to the throne of God, the focus of this chapter, Bauckham argues that "the throne of God in the highest heaven became a key symbol of monotheism... While a few traces of other enthroned figures associated with God's rule can be found, the subordination of such figures to God's rule is almost always stressed, while the overwhelming trend of the literature is towards emptying heaven of all thrones except God's" (53).

I can go for that--except I question the word monotheism. As he makes clear in his treatment of MacDonald we mentioned earlier, the word is not a biblical word. It is an Enlightenment word. I would prefer to say that the throne of God in the highest heaven reflects the sole rulership of God over every other being and power among all things.

Let me also say that "the subordination of such figures to God's rule" also jumps out at me given comments in the NT like 1 Cor. 15:28: "When he has done this [put everything under Christ], then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all" and Philippians 2:11, "And every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." These verses clearly subordinate the rulership of Christ to that of God the Father.

As an aside, these verses are "pre-orthodox." They do not yet reflect the full Christian understanding of the persons of the Trinity and their interrelationships. My purposes here are not to deny the orthodox Christian understanding but to ask where Paul was in the flow of revelation given his Jewish/Greco Roman context. Although it is debated among Christians currently, I am quite willing to affirm by faith the orthodox understanding that there is no subordination among the persons of the Godhead. Orthodoxy has generally understood passages like 1 Corinthians 15:28 in the light of Christ's humanity rather than his divinity, a distinction of course that I suspect Paul would not yet be able to understand.

Perhaps the most interesting part of Bauckham's paper are his discussions of three possible exceptions to his claim that only God can be on the throne.

1. Wisdom on the Throne
Here Bauckham looks at 1 Enoch 84 (from the Dream Visions) and Wisdom 9. Bauckham is right to see these as completely coherent with "monotheism." These are clearly personifications of God's wisdom.

The alternative to Bauckham sees the path to protological language about Christ through the path of wisdom and word. Psalm 110:1 places Christ at God's right hand--"wisdom" is at God's right hand--Christ embodies the meaning, the logos, of creation and is the instrument of new creation--equation of Christ with God's wisdom and logos. Philippians 2 remains the strongest argument against this perspective, in my opinion.

2. Moses on the Throne
Bauckham here treats Ezekiel the Tragedian's (ca. 200BC) placement of Moses on God's throne over all things. His reading seems plausible enough to me. Exegesis of Exodus, influenced by Genesis, leads to this image. The key passage is Exodus 7:1, where God tells Moses, "I will make you god to Pharaoh." Thus the metaphor of Moses on God's throne is God making Moses god to the universe. But it is not really God's throne but an image relating to Moses in relation to the Egyptians.

This picture does not violate "monotheism" because Moses is clearly subordinated to God's rule and in fact rules for God. His placement on God's throne makes us a little uncomfortable, but it is within the parameters of God's sole rule. I like Bauckham's interpretation, but Ezekiel T still puts Moses relative to God's rule on the throne of all things.

3. Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch
By far the most interesting parallel is the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch. The Son of Man is seated on the divine throne over all things and judges the world. "All those who dwell on the earth will fall and worship before him" (48.5). Bauckham says this is the "exception which proves the rule" (60).

But the problem is that this is Bauckham's rule. How is it not rather the "evidence that undermines his paradigm"? I don't think anyone questions that the Son of Man here is subordinated to the Ancient of Days. But apparently it was okay for such a figure to mediate God's rule.

Further, worship itself is an ambiguous concept. It was appropriate to "bow the knee" to a king, which is one of the words for worship. It is not clear to me that Bauckham or Hurtado have in any way demonstrated that Jewish thought could not accommodate "bowing the knee" to a ruler of all things who was clearly subordinated to the Ruler of all things.

Bauckham has called an exception one of the clearest parallels to the NT in Jewish literature on this topic. I'm a little puzzled that Bauckham distances Matthew 25 from these passages in the Parables. It reminds me of Simon Gathercole's distancing of Sirach and wisdom passages from Matthew. In both cases I suspect that interpreter bias is the ultimate cause rather than an inductive reading of the evidence.

Guest Post by Jonathan: A Response on Bauckham and Dunn

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!

Friday Review: Bauckham's "Biblical Theology and ... Monotheism

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.

Richard Bauckham on Monotheism

I'm writing a little piece on Jewish monotheism and so am trying to organize in my mind a host of materials on the subject. Today I thought I would try to get some of my thoughts on Richard Bauckham's work on the subject down on screen.

Bauckham's work on this topic is great because he has left us with a great paper trail that can function as a kind of archaeological dig in which to trace the development of his ideas. If anyone is looking for a topic for a masters thesis in biblical studies, as soon as his summative work on this subject comes out (we've been waiting for 10 years), the circle will be complete. Perhaps it's not in exactly the form he'd planned initially, but alas, we're glad to get it finally.

Here is the paper trail as best I can tell:

"The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity," New Testament Studies 27 (1980-81).

"Jesus, Worship of," Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3 article (1993).

God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Didsbury Lectures, given in 1996, published by Paternoster in 1998, by Eerdmans in 1999). This is the best single resource available at present.

"The Worship of Jesus in Philippians 2:9-11," in Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (1998).

"The Throne of God and the Worship of God," in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (given as a paper in 1998, published by Brill in 1999)

"Monotheism and Christology in the Gospel of John," in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, Eerdmans, 2002.

"Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1," in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (2004)

"Paul's Christology of Divine Identity"

"The Divinity of Jesus," The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, forthcoming from Eerdmans, 2008.

Jesus and the God of Israel, forthcoming book that I think will sum up these different articles and papers in one place.

Here's a very brief summary of the first chapter of God Crucified.

1. There are two main approaches to the question of monotheism and Judaism at the time of Christ:

• The first sees monotheism as an essential characteristic of Judaism of the time.
• The second sees Judaism as blurry at the time, with various angels, exalted patriarchs and such as sharing in God's divinity to varying degrees.

Bauckham comes out squarely in the camp of the first, as the remaining points of the chapter will make clear. I think that Bauckham is largely correct on this score.

2. Bauckham argues that Jews made a strict distinction between God and the creation, with God's unique identity consisting in two aspects:

• God as sole creator. Bauckham argues strongly that Jewish texts did not allow for any other angel or exalted being to take part in the creation.
• God as sole ruler. Bauckham argues strongly that only God could rule and sit on His throne. Angels and exalted figures did not rule for God. God ruled and they served.

I have more questions about Bauckham's construct here and want to read the texts he mentions more carefully. Certainly Yahweh is creator over and against the gods of the other nations. Is there really care on the part of Jewish authors to make sure angels aren't thought to have a role in creation?

I'm also unclear about the hard exclusion of angels from participating in God's rule. Would not the royal traditions of the OT imply that the messiah would participate in God's rule?

3. Bauckham's attempt to move beyond the distinction between "functional" and "ontic" Christologies. A functional Christology would consider language of Christ's divinity as a matter of him functioning in ways that divinity functions. An ontic Christology would argue that Christ's divinity is a matter of him having a divine nature.

Clearly Christianity came to view Christ's divinity as a matter of his nature. It is less clear, however, that the New Testament was already thinking in such categories. Bauckham suggests a new way of thinking about Christ's divinity that thinks of Christ as becoming part of God's unique identity, understood more in terms of what God does rather than what God is.

I have generally found the way Bauckham describes this concept as ambiguous, but that's because Bauckham is half theologian :) (I have the same reaction to Barth). Surprise, surprise, Bauckham had been reading Hans Frei's The Identity of Jesus Christ.

4. Bauckham divides Jewish intermediary figures into two categories:

• angels and exalted patriarchs--these Bauckham excludes from divine roles in creation or rule
• personifications of divine attributes--figures like God's wisdom and word are part of God's identity, and so can participate in God's creation and rule, but they are part of God's identity.

5. The inclusion of Christ within God's identity is

• pre-NT and already has the highest Christology of the NT, since Christ participates in the essential, unique aspects of God's divinity
• unprecedented within Judaism, although anticipated by figures like wisdom and word

6. Update:
Since God Crucified, Bauckham has spoken of three dimensions of Jewish monotheism (slight shift from the "creation" and "rule" aspects that imply "sole worship" or monolatry):

• creational monotheism--God as sole creator
• eschatological monotheism--God will be the final ruler of all
• cultic monotheism--God alone is worthy of worship

7. Pre-evaluation
I wonder if some of these distinctions Bauckham makes are somewhat artificially imposed on Jewish literature. It is quite possible that he is thinking more deeply than I have as yet caught on to.

A particular question I have relates to Bauckham's ideas on Jesus inheriting the divine name YHWH. In the Philippian hymn and in Hebrews 1, Jesus receives these divine names at the point of his exaltation to God's right hand, incorporation into God's eschatological monotheism. Bauckham sees no way then that Jesus cannot then also be included within God's creational monotheism, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

I am sure that this means something coherent in Bauckham's mind, and I will continue to pursue it. My Dunnian realism, however, leaves me wondering what it could mean in the real world for the real Jesus and ex-Pharisee Paul rather than the esoteric halls of post-liberal theology.

Hebrews Sundays: 1:5-14 Explanatory Notes

The first four verses of Hebrews ended with the statement that Christ "sat down on the right hand of Majesty in the heights, having become as much greater than the angels as the name he has inherited is greater than them."

1. Timing
This mention of the angels provides a convenient segway into a chain of quotations that demonstrate the superiority of Christ to the angels in 1:5-14. 1:3-4 straightforwardly point to the timing of Christ's superiority--it is after he is exalted to God's right hand. Christ sat at God's right hand, thereby becoming greater than the angels.

Hebrews 2 will give us further background to this setting because it indicates that Christ became lower than the angels for a little while in his earthly life. We should thus read the chain of quotes in relation to the exalted, post-resurrection Christ. The burden of proof is squarely on anyone who would suggest otherwise.

2. Structure
There is a straightforward structure to this "catena" or chain of quotes:

a. The first and last quotes form what is called an inclusio--they are both introduced with the same words--"To which of the angels has He said at any time" (1:5, 13). That signals the beginning and ending to the chain.

b. Verse 7 forms an "on the one hand" (μεν)-"on the other hand (δε) relation with 8-12. This makes it unlikely that the chain is shaped in the shape of some chiasm (e.g., Meier, A, B, C, C, B, A). Further, we should thus look for the point of contrast with verse 7 to know the main reason the author uses the specific quotes of 8-12.

3. Meaning
Verse 5--"For to which of the angels has He said at any time, 'You are my Son; today I have given you birth' and "I will be a Father to him, and he will be a Son?'"

These OT passages, Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7:14, were passages that we find the Dead Sea Scrolls use in relation to the Messiah. In their OT contexts they of course referred to the early king. Here, however, they are used in relation to the exalted Christ, who is enthroned at the point of his exaltation to God's right hand. This is the timing also of Acts 13:33 and Romans 1:3.

God has never made the angels king, but He has just made Jesus king, Christ, Son of God.

This leads us to the question of the name Christ has inherited. Given the context, we are immediately pushed to think that the name is Son. The word "for" in 1:5 seems to be substantiating and/or explaining what 1:4 has just said, and 1:4 has just said Jesus was given a name more excellent than them.

On the other hand, Richard Bauckham argues vigorously that the name must be Yahweh, or Lord. After all, this is in fact God's specific name. The reasoning fits well with our ways of thinking. Son is a category, not a name. The proper name of God is Yahweh and so this is the name the Father would pass on to His Son.

And the translation of Yahweh into Greek is Lord, which appears later in the passage. Further, it seems very likely that the "name above all names" Philippians 2 is Yahweh or Lord, so we have evidence of a tradition.

Bauckham (who literally was red in the face in Scotland trying to push this point) is brilliant, but I haven't conceded his point because the logic seems conspicuously modern to me. Further, it is not the direction the context seems to be pushing since 1) the verse immediately following 1:4 uses the word Son and 2) nothing is made of the word Lord beyond the fact that it is in one of the quotes. I would actually argue that 8:2 uses Lord of God the Father rather than God the Son.

In any case, Son is a royal title, so perhaps we should not push too big a distinction between the "divine titles" of this chain of quotations: Son, God, and Lord.

Verse 6--"And again, whenever He leads His firstborn Son into the civilized world he says, 'And let all the angels of God worship him.'"

This verse connects to the previous one in structure--"To which (5a)... and (5b)... and again (6)."

It is easy for us to read this verse in relation to Christ's birth, but this is apparently not what the author was thinking. The context does not place Christ above the angels in his earthly life but in his exalted state after the resurrection. On earth he becomes "lower than the angels."

The "whenever" could lead a person to see this verse in relation to the second coming, especially if you relocate the word again--"whenever He leads His firstborn Son into the world again."

But given the contextual setting (and given the use of this word, "civilized world," in 2:5), we should take this verse in relation to Christ's arrival in heaven after his resurrection. Notice that the civilized world has been relocated now in heaven rather than on earth, perhaps in the light of Jerusalem's destruction.

The picture is again an enthronement, and the word "worship" here is a word used of the proper due given to a king. It is not a word restricted to the worship of a conventional god.

The picture is thus a celebration of the arrival of the king into his throneroom, and all the subjects of the kingdom in the room (the angels) bow.

Verse 7--"And to the angels, on the one hand, he says, 'The One who makes His angels winds and His ministers a flame of fire."

They are servants of God in the creation--runners, servants in the kingdom. The chain ends with an apt recapitulation of this idea--"Are they not all ministering spirits send for those about to inherit salvation."

Verses 8-9--"But to the Son, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever and the staff of straightness is the staff of your kingdom. You loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. On account of this, God--your God--has anointed you with an oil of exaltation in the presence of your companions."

This is Psalm 45, a wedding psalm originally addressed to a human king. The word God here thus highlights the fact once again that Jesus is king, just as the title Son of God does. It was originally in the OT, of course, a somewhat metaphorical address, as the psalm goes on to distinguish the human king as God from the king's God, the literal God. The imagery of anointing evokes a sense of kingship also, as well as the title Christ.

But the points of contrast with verse 7 have to do with the Son's permanence and royalty. The angels are like winds and flames--constantly changing. The Son's throne is forever and ever. Similarly, they are ministers, servants. Christ is king.

Verses 10-12--"and 'You at the beginning, Lord, founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you remain, and they all as a garment will become old, and as a wrap you will wrap them up, as a garment they will even be changed. But you are the same and your years will not fail."

This is another reference to Christ in relation to creation. My same thoughts on high metaphor apply here. But the point of contrast is again that the angels are transitory like winds and flames--indeed like the creation. But Christ the Lord will remain forever, even after the creation is destroyed. The destruction of the cosmos anticipates the mention of its removal in chapter 12.

Verse 13--"But to which of the angels has He said at any time, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'"

Thus the chain comes to a full circle. We know from 1 Corinthians 15 that Psalm 2 (1:5) and Psalm 110:1 (1:14) were connected in Pauline circles. So the author of Hebrews similarly connects them. We end with a clear reference to the exaltation, but it has been in mind throughout.

Verse 14--"Are they not all ministering spirits sent to minister to those about to inherit salvation?"

This verse squarely locates the earthly function of the angels during the old age. Their role may linger until the creation is removed, but at some point they will only worship God and the Son, their task on earth being done. We remember that 2:2 associates them with the giving of the Law, again reminding us of their old covenant role.

We are left wondering why the author spends so much time here contrasting Christ with the angels. Certainly an easy answer is the fact that the angels delivered the law. In that sense it is perfectly appropriate to contrast the two as mediators of the two covenants.

Did the audience have an overly inflated view of angels? Did they worship angels? Did they think Christ was just an angel? It is usually at this point that Colossians 2 is brought into discussion or the Dead Sea document that refers to an angel Melchizedek.

We cannot say too certainly one way or another. If anything, it would fit best if the audience associated the angels with heavenly atonement, as we find in the Testament of Levi and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.