New Testament Christology: A Note on the Development of a Problematic Tradition
The Christology (the nature and doctrine of Christ) of Jesus in the New Testament can be found in its formative development especially in the Synoptic tradition. A case in point here is taken from the Gospel of Luke (23: 34) where, the now crucified Jesus looks down from the cross and said: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
The problem could be raised by any general reader of the three Gospels by realizing that if Jesus himself repeatedly forgave sins (as he does though out the Synoptics only as the word “forgive” does not occur in John), then why did he ask his father / God to forgive them (Luke 23: 34) from the cross?
A solution to the above question can be found in the verses of the paralytic man where Jesus healing is preceded with vocal forgiveness Luke 5: 18 -26 (= Matt. 9: 2 – 8 = Mk. 2: 3 – 12) at which time Jesus proclaims: “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins, (he said to the paralyzed man) I say to you, Arise and take up your bed and go home.” (Luke 5:24).
When these two verses are consider together, one finds a Jesus who, when suspended between heaven and earth, looses all his power to forgive sins and, hence, must ask his father to do the forgiving.
Thus, one is faced with an odd Christology where a limited Jesus functions move like a tragic figure in a Classical Greek play than a Christological deity.
BTW
Several years ago I debated J. P. Holding on a number of problematic Biblical texts (of which this was one) with most ending up on his Tekton Apologetic website and given superficial explanations.
Holding’s explanations to solve the above problem is that God is the patron, Jesus is the broker and the believer is the client are the result of a simplistic and confused methodology. Had Mr. Holding bothered to check the definitions of his terms in such standard references as Black’s Law Dictionary, 8 edition, he would have found that the terms patron and client are the same thing. Thus, in Black’s we find patron defined as: 1. “A regular customer or client of a business.”
Moreover, if Jesus is indeed the broker of divine forgiveness, than why was the Temple sacrificial system still valid; a system Jesus both defended and participated in?
In the final analysis, the limited Christology of Luke as displayed in Luke 23: 34 remains highly problematic despite the meager and confused explanation given by J. P. Holding.
The problem could be raised by any general reader of the three Gospels by realizing that if Jesus himself repeatedly forgave sins (as he does though out the Synoptics only as the word “forgive” does not occur in John), then why did he ask his father / God to forgive them (Luke 23: 34) from the cross?
A solution to the above question can be found in the verses of the paralytic man where Jesus healing is preceded with vocal forgiveness Luke 5: 18 -26 (= Matt. 9: 2 – 8 = Mk. 2: 3 – 12) at which time Jesus proclaims: “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins, (he said to the paralyzed man) I say to you, Arise and take up your bed and go home.” (Luke 5:24).
When these two verses are consider together, one finds a Jesus who, when suspended between heaven and earth, looses all his power to forgive sins and, hence, must ask his father to do the forgiving.
Thus, one is faced with an odd Christology where a limited Jesus functions move like a tragic figure in a Classical Greek play than a Christological deity.
BTW
Several years ago I debated J. P. Holding on a number of problematic Biblical texts (of which this was one) with most ending up on his Tekton Apologetic website and given superficial explanations.
Holding’s explanations to solve the above problem is that God is the patron, Jesus is the broker and the believer is the client are the result of a simplistic and confused methodology. Had Mr. Holding bothered to check the definitions of his terms in such standard references as Black’s Law Dictionary, 8 edition, he would have found that the terms patron and client are the same thing. Thus, in Black’s we find patron defined as: 1. “A regular customer or client of a business.”
Moreover, if Jesus is indeed the broker of divine forgiveness, than why was the Temple sacrificial system still valid; a system Jesus both defended and participated in?
In the final analysis, the limited Christology of Luke as displayed in Luke 23: 34 remains highly problematic despite the meager and confused explanation given by J. P. Holding.
6 comments:
Harry,
Interesting post. I was curious to know what you made of Paul's Christology and how that related to the synoptic Christology? You mentioned that the Synoptic tradition represented the formative stage of Christian thinking on the matter. I tend to agree with that; but do you think Paul's Christology (often seen as a higher Christology) was also formative (i.e. not as developed)?
Thanks for the reply.
Paul, for me and a number of other Biblical scholars, is the real founder of Christianity. Paul and the pseudo-Pauline letters (such as the Pastoral letters, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians) form the theological frame work for all further Christology. Paul (unlike Jesus and his disciples) formed a bridge between Judaism and the vast gentile world to the west and its real seat of power: Rome.
Remember, Paul most surely never saw or heard the historical Jesus teach. The vision he had on the Damascus road is recounted in Acts three times with inconsistencies in each retelling. However, Paul’s conflict with Peter and the Jesus sect better known as the Judaizers is strongly confronted in both his letters to the Corinthians and Galatians.
As for as the Synoptic Gospels go, pick up any of the many Gospel tracts you might find left by evangelical Christians in ATMs, restrooms, and any waiting rooms such as at airports and you find that in order to get a so-called plan of salvation, they MUST rely on Paul’s formulation of Christology almost exclusively. In fact, as we move from Paul’s earliest work (1 Thessalonians) to his last treatise (Romans) we are confronted with an increasingly advance concept of soleriology (the doctrine of salvation). Thus, most Gospel tracts can use Paul’s letter to the Romans alone in what evangelicals call the “Romans’ Road of Salvation”.
Now, contrast this to the Synoptic Gospels. I have NEVER come across a Gospel tract which can create a plan of salvation from anything Jesus or his disciples said. Fact is, unlike Paul as a man of faith, every time Jesus talks about punishment in Hell, it is referenced to works and not faith. This is understandable since both Jesus and his disciples are Jewish and for the most part followed Torah.
Fact is, that since all of Paul’s letters per-date the Gospels, his formulation of Christology was (in all likelihood) the reason the teachings of Jesus were finally codified in the Synoptic tradition.
The problem with orthodoxy is that it uses later Church Council creedal formulations to cause the reader of the four Gospels to understand them though “doctrinally correct glasses” which keeps the believer correct / orthodox in his or her doctrine. In fact, though the Gospels are set in a historical context, they are not history, but theology in their presentation of Jesus. It is usually only though allegory and parables that the life of Jesus is given and, in turn, demands interpretation. By contrast, Paul’s letters formulate a Jesus who can be finally understood as a universal Christ as Paul is one of the first Christian apologists to present Jesus via Greek philosophy much as the late Gospel of John does.
JPH has responded:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/forgiveair.html
I would agree - this is a subtlety, but you are trying to manufacture a contradiction that is not there.
You are quibbling over the terms he uses, but this is evasive since his point stands.
And apart from his harmonization, you must admit when you say, "then why did he ask his father / God to forgive them" you are not exposing a contradiction, but merely a lack of knowledge as to why Jesus acted that way on that occasion.
Spongjohn: I am finishing a full response to both you and the new flawed post you cite by Bob Holding at his Tekton website. I will hopefully post my reply tomorrow.
Jesus is fulfilling the final verse of Isaiah 53 on the cross.
I am finishing a new post which will discuss J.P. Holdings flawed argumentation.
I’ll post this as a main topic for discussion at the end of the week.
Post a Comment