Waxing Theological on Jesus and Apocalyptic
For this leap, I’ll use a 1992 article by David B. Batstone as a springboard:
In sum, apocalyptic was a dynamic medium of spiritual power and life in the social world of Jesus…It offered a way of looking at the world that rejected the dominant powers as the ultimate point of reference for the world and posited another horizon where justice may reign. (395)
Let’s start by understanding that “apocalyptic” does not mean some cataclysmic end of the world, necessarily. It simply comes from a Greek word (ἀποκαλύπτω) which means ‘to uncover.’ Apocalyptic, then, has to do with uncovering, or revealing.
For me, Jesus is most definitely an apocalyptic figure. Foremost is the fact that he is God, revealed in human form to us. That’s a huge, stunning revelation/uncovering. Second, Jesus reveals the Kingdom of God to us. The Kingdom of God is where I want to live (both in reality and for the rest of this post).
When Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God, essentially, we see the world as we knew it coming to an end (there’s your Apocalypse!). As Batstone puts it, no longer are the earthly powers the ultimate point of reference. Mighty “your majesties” and rich folk no longer make the world go ‘round. Rather, in the Kingdom of God the poor become rich, and the servant becomes master.
This is an empowering thought. Social significance in the Kingdom of God has no regard for political or financial might. Rather, it is an assessment of one’s heart that forms the basis for worth. The dominant power is now God, whose system of justice is hitherto foreign to humanity.
Jesus, I think, represents the overturning of social hierarchies that had long dominated humanity. Believers are encouraged to forfeit their possessions, to serve their masters even if they are wicked, and to obey the commands of God even to the point of death.
For all of this, Jesus is our exemplar. He is both revolutionary and docile. He is both the friendly Jesus, and the fiery, apocalyptic Jesus.
I’m wondering: “Is this our call?”
Related Articles (beware tangents)
- Article of the Week (1 of 2): “Jesus, Apocalyptic, and World Transformation” by David B. Batstone
- Waxing Theological on Jesus’ Self-Understanding
- Article of the Week (2 of 2): “Jesus, Apocalyptic, and World Transformation” by David B. Batstone
- Christian Life: Experiential vs. Theological
- The Epistles of John (Part 7): 1 John 2:3–6
February 9th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
“I’m wondering: “Is this our call?””
Definitely, except…
“Foremost is the fact that he is God, revealed in human form to us.”
I suggest that the New Testament writers claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was a perfectly normal human who exemplified and enacted the values and principles required of creatures by their Creator and that he was ‘anointed’ with plenipotentiary powers to speak and act in the name of God.
I suggest that, having created mankind in his own image, God is not likely to find the necessity of becoming the image of himself. To do so would be an admission that it was he who had failed in his work of Creation.
I suggest that the New Testament was written to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the man appointed by God to rule the world in righeousness. It was not written to prove the doctrines imposed on scripture by the Graeco-Roman church fathers, nor was it written to prove that he was in any sense equal to God, except as it pleased God to make him so.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Just wondering how you got that nice Greek font to show up in your post.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Hey Paul,
For the Greek, I am using a Greek unicode keyboard layout on the mac known as “SophoKeys” (very clever!). The font, I believe, is Palatino Linotype.
Hope that helps!
February 11th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Vynette,
I appreciate your comment, though I ultimately disagree. I find the notion that the NT authors did not consider him to be God a difficult idea to swallow.
For example, Colossians 1:13 and following certainly make the “Son” sound equal to God. John 8 has several statements in which Jesus equates himself with God. I would also equate the Word of John 1 with Jesus. Philippians 2:5–11 is another place where Jesus seems to be God.
In short, I do not think that the notion that Jesus was God was an invention of the “Graeco-Roman church fathers.” I think that notion goes back AT LEAST to Paul.
I also think that the use of the word KYRIOS (Greek for “Lord”) is a definite signal that this man was equated with Yahweh as KYRIOS was the Septuagint’s typical translation of the tetragrammaton.
Just some thoughts, Vynette…thanks again for your comment!
February 12th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Stephen, obviously, the reasonable limitation of blog comments prevents me from adequately addressing all the points you raised in your answer.
However, allow me to respond briefly…
Aside from the long-standing scholarly debates about whether John’s opening statement should read ‘the Word was God’ or ‘the Word was divine’, to use John 1:1 as a proof of the ‘divinity’ of Jesus is to overlook the similar words in 1 John 1:1 where the ‘Word’ is identified as the Word of Eternal Life.
The implications are self-evident - it is the ‘word of eternal life’ that existed from the beginning, not Jesus himself.
Jesus is the personification of God’s ‘Word of Eternal Life,’ existing from the beginning, in precisely the same fashion as Solomon was regarded as the personification of God’s ‘Wisdom’, existing from the beginning. (Proverbs 8)
Solomon himself was not pre-existent…neither was Jesus.
Certain arguments that Paul addressed to the Phillippians in the second letter were a warning to them to guard against self -righteousness and works glorifying themselves. In these arguments ‘proof’ is found for Jesus’ pre-existence and ‘divinity’. Shorn of Paul’s qualifying statements, verses 5-8 appear to support the accepted teaching. Paul leaves no doubt, however, as to when Jesus existed in the ‘form of God’ for he continues in verse 9:
“Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name…”
It was after Jesus became “obedient unto death, yes, the death of the cross”. Jesus existed in the ‘form of God’ after the crucifixion.
It was as a man that Jesus emptied himself and took on the form of a servant. (See also John 5:27, Ps.71:16)
Paul’s arguments in Colossians 1 are set within the framework of the New Creation brought into being by the crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus is the firstborn of the New Creation - the Kingdom of God. He is the first born from the dead, the first of many brethren to follow.
For evidence that the Divine Name appeared in the earliest LXX MSS see the article by George Howard, “The Tetragram and the New Testament” in the Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977) pgs. 63-83.
Howard says: “Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the Early church, it is reasonable to believe that the NT writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text…Somehow around beginning of the second century the use of surrogates must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments… In many passages where the persons of God and Christ were clearly distinguishable, the removal of the Tetragram must have created considerable ambiguity.”
“…This removal of the Tetragram, in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ.’ ”
Regards
February 13th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Vynette,
-Thanks for another enlightening comment. I shall touch on a few items.
-First, I do not believe that Jesus the man pre-existed. Rather, Jesus the man began to exist when Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. Prior to this, however, Jesus’ did exist as the Son/Word. When he became man, he “emptied” himself, of his divine attributes, taking on full humanity (though still being fully divine…logical? not really. mysterious? yes.).
-There are a few items you touched on with which I am totally unfamiliar. (a) The idea that Solomon pre-existed as Wisdom and that Prov. 8 shows this is quite new to me. (b) The translation of John 1:1 (theos en ho logos) as “the Word was divine” is a new idea to me. I personally think that’s a poor translation given the rest of the passage.
-I definitely equate the “Word of Eternal Life” in 1 John 1:1 with the Word of John 1. I’m not seeing how this is a problem for my belief that Jesus is God incarnate.
-Thanks for pointing out the George Howard article. I took the time to read it. Howard’s evidence that the tetragram was used in Greek MSS is altogether convincing. I admit that this is a new discovery for me. However, it is not entirely troubling. Yes, it certainly changes the way we look at Psalm 110:1 and its usage in the NT. However, Howard’s discussion of the use of the tetragram and kyrios in Philo is of interest. It would seem that the tetragram was used in biblical quotations. However, outside of these quotations, Philo has no problem using kyrios to mean the Lord God. I would think that Greek-speaking communities wouldn’t say “adonai” when coming across the tetragram, but rather “kyrios.” How then do we tell when kyrios means “Lord God” and when kyrios means something else?
-Finally, and I can’t believe I forgot this verse in my original comment, what to do with Titus 2:13 — “…waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (ESV).
-Thanks a bunch for your comments, Vynette!
February 13th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Stephen, it seems we’ll have to agree to disagree about the ‘divinity’ of Jesus. However, I would like to expound a little on Titus 2:13.
I’ll use the YLT translation “waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” as it provides a clearer understanding of this interesting passage.
The Old Testament contains numerous references to the ‘glory cloud,’ later referred to as the ‘Shekinah.’ It was the manifestion of God’s presence in Israel.
“And Moses went up into the mount, and the cloud covered the mount.
And the glory of YHVH abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.
And the appearance of the glory of YHVH was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.
And Moses entered into the midst of the cloud, and went up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.” (Ex. 24:15-18)
See also Exodus 14:19, 25:8, 40:34; l Kings 8:10, ll Chron 7:1 and the book of Ezekiel which contains interesting passages about the movements of this ‘glory cloud.’
New Testament commentators have not given the ‘Shekinah’ concept the attention it deserves seeing that it plays such a major role in the Old Testament.
“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like a Son of man CAME WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN (Dan. 7:13-14).
There are obvious allusions to the Shekinah in these NT passages:
“…a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold a voice out of the cloud, saying…” (Matt. 17: 5, cf. Mark 9:7, Luke 9:34)
“And when He had spoken these things, while they beheld, He was taken up; and A CLOUD received Him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9).
“And they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN with power and great glory” (Mat. 24:30).
“Hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven” (Mat. 26:64).
“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, voice to him from the excellent glory, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the holy mount” (II Pet. 1:16-18). Compare this with Moses at Sinai.
Thus the “glory of our great God” in Titus 2:13 is separate and distinct from” Saviour Jesus Christ.” It refers to the ‘glory cloud’ accompanying his return. In my view of course.
Regards
February 14th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Vynette,
-Interesting stuff on the Shekinah. A comparison of the Shekinah tradition and the use of cloud imagery in NT would be quite interesting.
-However, I just want to respond to the translation of Titus 2:13, as I feel it is the most important chunk in this whole thing. The Greek reads: ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ και σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. It seems to me that if “great God” and “our Savior Jesus Christ” were distinct from each other, we would have the definite article τοῦ repeated before σωτῆρος (Savior). Rather, it seems to me that these genitives are all connected to “glory” and are all describing the same thing—i.e., “the great God and Savior” who is also known as “Jesus Christ.”
Thanks again for your comments!