Читать книгу The Son of God - Charles Lee Irons - Страница 11

Dustin R. Smith

I wish to applaud Lee Irons for his stimulating presentation of Jesus as the divine Son of God. His engagement with both ancient and modern sources is both noteworthy and commendable. I particularly value his eager honesty which comes out when he openly wrestles with how some of the more difficult evidence should be understood. His arguments demonstrate that he has pondered these issues over an extended period of time while at the same time assessing their implications. His case aims to illustrate that Jesus is the divine Son of God, one who eternally preexisted with the Father. At the incarnation, the Son of God took up man’s nature, becoming both divine and human. After his earthly ministry, God exalted him to his right hand and bestowed upon him divine honor. Irons additionally intends to demonstrate that this very position is taught within the New Testament.

Irons’s presentation, in my opinion, suffers from a variety of flaws. Unfortunately, the space allotted to me will only allow me to respond to a selection of my concerns. Nevertheless, I intend to raise objections regarding what seems to me to be some of the most pressing areas of contention. My hope is that through gentle dialogue and questioning, Irons and I can find some common ground in our attempts to engage the biblical data seriously as believing Christians.

My initial concern is the language which Irons regularly employs regarding the “divinity” and “deity” of Jesus. He begins his presentation in an attempt to define these terms, citing an example from the Latin historian Livy as evidence of what he does not intend. Irons fails to clearly articulate what these terms do in fact mean, leaving me somewhat bewildered. He states that Jesus is “eternally divine” and that he “belongs on the divine side of the Creator-creature distinction.” It is difficult to define a term when you use the word within its definition. I am unable to agree or disagree with whether Jesus is “divine” or “deity” if there is no consensus on what these terms, slippery as they can be, clearly mean or entail. I suggest that we jettison these two words, both because of the obscurity that comes from defining them and because they are absent from modern English translations of the Bible.51

This leads to my next point of apprehension. By arguing that Jesus Christ is “eternal” and that he belongs on the Creator side of the spectrum, Irons is essentially saying that Jesus has always existed. A significant corollary to his point would be an insistence that Jesus was never brought into existence, since he does not belong to the category of “created creatures.” I find these claims to be significantly at odds with the biblical data. For one, Jesus is certainly not alive and active anywhere within the pages of the Hebrew Bible.52 In fact, there is a scholarly consensus that the title “Son of God” is used in three different ways within the Hebrew Bible (referring to the Davidic king, the people of God, and the heavenly hosts), but never in a manner which refers to a preexisting personal being alongside the Father.53 Furthermore, Yahweh is routinely described as the one who has no equal (2 Sam 7:22; 1 Chr 17:20; Jer 10:6, 7), with no other besides him (Deut 4:35, 39; Isa 45:5, 6, 21, 22; 46:9; Joel 2:27). I am curious how it could be that the Son of God literally preexisted alongside God the Father when the biblical authors repeatedly acknowledge God by saying, “You alone are Yahweh” (2 Kgs 19:19; Neh 9:6; Pss 83:18; 86:10; Isa 37:20), “there is no one like you” (Exod 8:10; 9:14; 1 Sam 2:2; Ps 86:8). This unique God, Yahweh, is one and the same as the Father, whom Jesus identifies as the only true God (John 17:3). What about Isa 44:24, which plainly indicates that Yahweh, the sole creator, was all alone at creation, by Himself?

I additionally wish to question why Irons ignored the massive birth narratives and genealogies in Matthew and Luke, both of which, it seems to me, clearly indicate that Jesus was brought into existence in the womb of Mary (Matt 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). If the Bible’s two birth narratives feature the miraculous birth of Jesus by highlighting his coming into existence, in what sense can we rationally speak of Jesus as “eternal?” If Jesus is indeed brought into existence, this actually puts him on the creature side of the Creator-creature distinction. I look forward to Irons’s interaction on these important points.

Irons’s presentation raises another issue concerning monotheism. If Jesus is on the divine side of the Creator-creature distinction, then how many persons are in that group? In other words, how many are on the divine side of this split? Isn’t the Son of God numerically distinct from the Father, whom Irons (correctly) identifies as Yahweh? Does this not make two, one who is Yahweh and one who is the son of Yahweh? This certainly calls monotheism into question. If there are only two on this side, is this even Trinitarianism anymore? It sounds more like binitarianism. Perhaps some clarification will shed some light on my puzzlement.

Another concern I wish to raise regards his argument that the title Son of God applied to Jesus means something “far more” than an indicator of messianism. In fact, Irons is convinced that this title is indicative of Jesus’ “divine Sonship” (I confess that I am still unsure what “divine” means). I respectfully suggest that these conclusions go beyond the available evidence. The authors of the New Testament (and the historical Jesus himself) were influenced by Jewish literature and traditions wherein “Son of God” was used in a variety of ways. Within the Hebrew Bible, Pss 2:7, 89:26–27, and 2 Sam 7:14 lay the foundation for messianic interpretations regarding God’s Son.54 In fact, the context of 2 Sam 7:14 equates the Son of David with the Son of God, leading to subsequent Jewish readings which do the same (4QFlor). Luke 1:32 calls Jesus the Son of the Most High while at the same time calling David his father (i.e., Son of David). Even Paul argues in his description of the gospel that Jesus is both a descendant of David and God’s Son (Rom 1:1–4). Irons argues that the “Messiah Son of God” is not the same as the “Messiah Son of David.” Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 can be detected as influential within the New Testament (Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5), suggesting that these understandings of messianism are the most appropriate contexts for interpreting Jesus’ sonship. N. T. Wright’s admission is most helpful at this point: “We must stress that in the first century the regular Jewish meaning of this title [‘son of God’] had nothing to do with an incipient trinitarianism; it referred to the king as Israel’s representative.”55

Irons asserts that Jesus never spoke of God as “our Father” in a way which might include him with his disciples. This is a debatable conclusion, particularly in light of the Lord’s Prayer (“Our Father,” Matt. 6:9). Additionally, John 20:17 recalls Jesus saying, “I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’” It seems that Jesus is not only including himself with the disciples in defining the Father, but also mentioning that they all share the same God! These texts further weaken Irons’s case for defining “Son of God” as he does.

I disagree with Irons’s assertion that Jesus’ claim to be Son of God “could not have been a mere messianic claim” since it brought forth the claim of blasphemy. This seems to me to be a failure to understand how the Jews interpreted Jesus and his claims, particularly within the Gospel of John, where Jesus could have been understood as a rebellious son taking prerogatives which are not rightfully his. One example Irons supplies is John 5:18 where Jesus calls God his own Father, making himself equal to God. It needs to be stated that within first century Judaism, a claim to sonship implied obedience and dependence, not equality (Deut 21:18; Sir 3.6–16; Philo, Conf. 63; Dec. 118). In other words, for a son to claim equality with one’s father in a manner which laid claim to the father’s unique prerogatives (thus dishonoring the father) would make the son into a rebellious son.56 If the Johannine ‘Jews’ understood Jesus as a rebellious son, who illegitimately claimed the right to break the Sabbath and give life, then they would have interpreted Jesus’ claim to messianship as a false claim. In their eyes, Jesus was a false Messiah. In order to counter this claim, Jesus stated, “the son can do nothing of himself, unless it is something he sees the Father doing” (John 5:19, 30). In other words, Jesus responded to this misunderstanding (a prevalent motif in the Fourth Gospel) by claiming to be an obedient son rather than a rebellious son.57 Along similar lines, Irons notes the episode where Jesus forgave sins as one which elicited the charge of blasphemy. The story continues to note that “God has given such authority to men” (Matt 9:8), a statement with which Jesus agrees (Matt 9:6). God has authorized Jesus to forgive sins (see John 20:23, where the disciples are similarly authorized). My question to Irons would be, how is Jesus authorized (by God) to forgive sins if he already possessed that right as the divine Creator?

I also object to Irons’s argument that, “If Jesus is a mere creature, how could he know the Father perfectly?” First of all, this is setting up a straw man and knocking it down. I do not think that the Bible described Jesus as a mere creature. He is the sinless, miraculously begotten, messianic king of the coming kingdom of God, who died for the sins of humanity. Secondly, the Bible never claims that a creature is unable to fully understand God. His argument seems confused as he admits that Jesus is ignorant of the eschatological day and hour (Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32). How can Jesus know the Father perfectly and at the same time be unaware of certain facts?58 Are these texts really teaching that Jesus is ontologically divine, coequal with the Father? I suggest that they are not. In order for coequality with the Father to logically stand, the Son must likewise be omniscient, which he clearly isn’t.

Another problem appears when Irons writes that “the Sonship of Christ is not something that began at some point in his earthly existence but in fact goes back to his preincarnate state.” I desire that Luke 1:35 get a fresh look, a text which highlights the spirit’s miracle as the precise reason for the begotten child being called the Son of God. Irons continues by citing John 1:1–3 as proof that the Word was a “divine being distinct from God.” In addition to again raising the question of monotheism, this definition of the Word goes beyond anything taught within the Hebrew Bible, where God’s davar is never described as a separate divine being.59 Irons brings a straightforward reading to the “came or descended from heaven” references, a reading which ignores the Jewish idiom (Jas 1:17; 3:15, 17), misses that Jesus’ “flesh” is what descended (John 6:51), and fails to grasp the figurative nature of the dialogue which is pervasive. Jesus unquestionably was sent from God (John 7:29), but so was John the Baptist (John 1:6). I invite Irons to interact with the argument which I detailed regarding John 8:58 and 17:5 in my response to Dixon, particularly where I demonstrated that Jews often spoke of preexistence within God’s plan. It is certainly true that Jesus was consecrated before his birth (John 10:36), but is this really so different than the beginning of Jeremiah’s commissioning (Jer 1:5)?

Irons further argues that John 16:28 is indicative of three phases of Jesus’ existence. However, this suggestion fails to take seriously the chiastic structure of the verse:

I came forth from the Father (A)

and have come into the world (B)

I am leaving the world again (B1)

and going to the Father (A1)

This seems, rather than teaching three phases, to indicate two phases. At the end of this section, he suggests that these disputed passages in John’s Gospel need to be interpreted as “straightforward vignettes.” Yet I feel the need to ask, “straightforward to whom?” To us as twenty-first century Westerners, who are nearly two millennia detached from the culture, context, idioms, and customs of the first-century-Jewish world? Does not Jesus characteristically speak in metaphor, parable, and typology within the Fourth Gospel? I respectfully suggest that the Judaism out of which the Fourth Gospel was composed needs to be accounted for before we assume that such statements need to be read with such wooden literalism.

Irons objects to a theology of two stages of Christology which eliminates preexistence. He argues this reconstruction would result in a human being exalted to a position of honor which is inconsistent with his “ontological nature.” In other words, Irons assumes that Jesus has to be ontologically divine in order to make sense of his exaltation. In response, I wish to bring to the discussion texts within Judaism where human figures are described as greatly exalted (without any reservation given by the authors). The Testament of Abraham depicts a glorified human figure (revealed to be Adam) seated upon a golden throne overseeing the judgment of souls (T. Abr. 11.4–12). The same document depicts Abel, a human judge, exalted to a position of enthronement after his death (T. Ab. 12.4–11; 13.1–4). Fourth Ezra has Ezra receiving the promise of exaltation to live with God’s son (4 Ezra 14.9). The second-century-BCE document, the Exagōgē of Ezekiel the Tragedian, drawing on the vision of the throne chariot in Ezek 1, portrays Moses as a man seated upon a heavenly throne ruling and governing humanity (Ezek. Trag. 68–86). Some of the speculation about the location of the elusive Elijah crystallized in Sirach, who describes him as exalted (“taken up”) without dying (Sir 48:9–10). Similarly, the book of 1 Enoch testifies about the speculation of the figure by the same name who was promoted to heaven apart from death (1 Enoch 12.4). Are Adam, Abel, Ezra, Moses, and Enoch being given divine honors representing their ontological nature? I would be eager to hear how Irons feels about these passages, about which James Dunn summarizes, “this raises the possibility that even within the monotheistic Judaism of the first century that thought of a great human figure being exalted to heavenly status, and thus receiving honor due to such a one, was not so far from being admissible.”60 Irons is making a rather bold claim to assert that the (omnipotent) Father is unable to exalt a human being.