Near Emmaus

Tag Archives: Early Christianity


by 14 Comments

James D.G. Dunn: Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence. Part One

In Jimmy Dunn’s provocative book Did the First Christians Worship Jesus: The New Testament Evidence, the introduction starts with “The question”.

He starts by talking about how attributing divine sonship to Jesus has been a stumbling block for dialogue, not only between Christians and Jews, but also Muslims and Christians. What Christians normally call “Trinitarianism”, is in the eyes of outsiders Tritheism. Thus, making dialogue nearly impossible with other Monotheistic religions.

Because of this, he suggests that it would be helpful for us to look back to the beginning of the process that resulted in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity and to moreover clarify what is behind the very confession of Jesus as the Son of God in Trinitarianism.

He seems to suggest in this introduction that Christians in the second through fourth centuries used Greek philosophical thought improperly and moreover anachronistically onto the first century text

He then asks the question, “Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?” After asking this, he then provides the answer that creedal Christians ought to give, citing Paul in Philippians 2:6-11, John the Revelator in 5:11-12, and the Gospel of John in 20:28. He then turns to passages that seem to argue the contrary, namely Matt 4:10/Luke 4:8 in which Jesus says to “Worship the Lord your God and serve only him” Dunn says, “The question unavoidably arises, Would Jesus have similarly rebuked those who sought to worship him?” He draws on another passage, Mark 10:17-18, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” Dunn continues and says “Again an unavoidable question arises: Would Jesus himself have welcomed his being confessed as equal with God?” Lastly, Dunn poses another question, this time from St. Paul himself. Dunn continues, “a noticeable feature in his [Paul] letters is his regular reference to Jesus as Lord, where, as we shall see, the title most obviously avers a divine status for Jesus; yet in several passages Paul also speaks of God as ‘the God…of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is the God of Jesus, even of Jesus as Lord.”

Dunn contends, as obvious from his previous publication for a very thick unity and diversity within the canon of Scripture. He argues that the very novel question regarding Jesus worship might not be nice and neat as we wish it were, but that the answer to the question might be messy, not straightforward, and require us to dwell in mystery.

Dunn leaves us with five questions, which will be the focus of inquiry in this book. The first question I will leave you with, and then post the subsequent question(s) in the next post, which will be the topic of discussion in the following post and so on. For the first question, he says: “We need to consider whether ‘worship’ was given only to God (or gods). We must attempt to define what worship is and whether it is the fact that worship is offered to God (or a god) that in effect defines him (or her) as ‘God’/‘god’”

Peace,

Daniel.

Source: Dunn, James D. G. Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence. Louisville, KY.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.

About these ads


by 3 Comments

Blogging the Book of Isaiah: Anti-Temple Cult Rhetoric in 1.11-17

The Prophet Isaiah

In Is. 1.11-17 the whole Levitical system seems to be rejected by the prophet. The word of YHWH God says that he is fed up with burnt offerings. The blood of bulls, lambs and goats does not please him. In fact, the whole process is a trampling of the temple courts. The various festivals and assemblies fair no better.

It appears to me that contextually (both literarily and historically) God is not against the temple cult, per se. If Israel reforms their ethical behavior, acknowledging the part of the covenant that demands they care for the downcast, the temple cult will retain its function. It is rejected at this point because animal sacrifice does not cover their blatant rejection of covenant ethics.

While no particular passage from the Pauline corpus or the Book of Hebrews comes to mind at the immediate moment (though I am sure the principles are there whether or not Isaiah is cited specifically) it would seem that this is the tradition within which they wrote. The Essene sect did the same thing denouncing the temple cult as corrupt. So we see the Christian sect was not the first Jewish sect to see the temple as worth discarding when it was not functioning properly (something the prophecies of Jesus emphasized as well).

If YHWH (through the prophet) expected the temple cult to regain its status once the nation reformed what is the justification for early Christianity’s disregard for the temple. I know early in the history of the church those in Jerusalem seem to have been temple loyalist though Christians (at least we get this impression from portions of the Book of Acts), yet the Pauline churches obviously felt no such obligation (being mostly Gentiles?).

It would seem to me that the early church walks in the Isaianic tradition not merely in the area of ethical disobedience canceling out the temple cult aspect of the covenant, but disobedience pure and simple. If the early church saw Jesus as a prophetic Messiah condemning the temple as corrupt, who was vindicated first by his resurrection from the dead, and second in the destruction of the temple by Rome, there was no reason to expect temple restoration, at least not without the Messiah present.

I am not sure that I am arguing for anything or asking any particular question. I am just thinking aloud. If you have thoughts on how this passage may have impacted the anti-temple cult posture of many in the early church please comment.


by 8 Comments

Wednesdays with Wright: Short Book Review of Jesus and the Victory of God

Jesus and the Victory of God by N.T. Wright

N.T. Wright. (1996) Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, V. 2. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. (Amazon.com)

In the summer of 2005 I finished The New Testament and the People of God around the same time that I received an acceptance call from Western Seminary letting me know that I had been admitted into their MA in Biblical Studies program. I was excited because (1) I had found in N.T. Wright a scholar who was making sense of so many of my questions concerning Christianity and (2) I was going to begin my own academic journey. I vowed I would finish the second volume of the series, Jesus and the Victory of God, before classes began. That did not happen.

Over five years later it is finished. I read the last several pages yesterday. I have become familiar with the content of this book over the years via articles and lectures from Wright, but my actual consumption of this book lasted a very long time. In fact, since I began the book I have lived in San Francisco, twice; Napa once; and Portland, OR, once. I have completed a MA degree and began a Th.M. (which is half way finished). I began dating and got engaged to my now wife whom I married over a year ago. I have read thousands upon thousands of pages. So take this review as you will. It is my attempt to remember the longest reading journey of my short life!

The book begins by going back to the older Quest for the Historical Jesus to examine the successes and failures of these programs as well as the current atmosphere surrounding historical Jesus studies. It is from here that Wright elected to explore who Jesus was not simply through words, but by looking at his symbolic actions as related to the symbolism of Second Temple Judaism, his stories and riddles, and his seemingly aware effort of fulfilling a sort of divine vocation.

This leads Wright to examine Jesus as a prophet asking what challenges, invitations, and promises (threats?) he issued on behalf of Israel’s god. What stories did he tell about Israel’s god becoming King of the world. How did Jesus read Scripture and how did he act in that story of exile?

Wright examines what it would mean for Jesus to see himself as a Messiah (reminding us this does not mean, necessarily, a divine figure or the Second Person of the Trinity, but the annointed decedent of King David). Jesus’ sayings and actions indicate that he was a Messianic contender that would have been right at home in the Judaism of his time, yet who redefined almost every expectation of who the Messiah was to be.

Wright then explores why Jesus was crucified and whether or not Jesus seemed driven to die. The answer appears to be “yes”, though maybe not as many Christians today would speak of it. More like the Maccabean martyrs who knew that dying on behalf of the nation may avert the coming judgment of YHWH upon Israel. This section is helpful in understanding how the early church may have developed post-resurrection atonement theories that still find grounding in the pre-resurrection words and actions of Jesus.

The final chapter explores language used to refer to the “return of the king”. Wright postulates that most “return” language is not aimed at Jesus’ second parousia as much as it is Jesus enacting the tradition that YHWH would return to Zion. Jesus saw himself as somehow “embodying” this return of YHWH. While this understanding is no where near the full grown Creedal doctrines of the Trinity and Christ, it does provide a narrative base upon which later Christians had to ponder what it meant for God to be at work in the world through Christ.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I recommend most anything written by Wright. While there are times where I struggle with his reading of various passages as it relates to what the Evangelist say about Jesus, it should be agreed that Wright provides one of the strongest, conservative reconstructions of the historical Jesus. Of course, this may lead to a critique in itself since Wright seems to be sold of the historical faithfulness of the canonical gospels, though I personally do not have a problem with this presupposition.