Customer Reviews

God Crucified : Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Bauckham offers a new proposal for understanding Christology in its Jewish context; one in which the earliest N.T. Christology "includes" Jesus in the identity of God. He contends that, while this was a radically novel & unprecedented development, it was in no way a repudiation of the strict Jewish monotheistic faith.

He disagrees that second temple Jewish inter- mediary figures provide the proper category to understand Christian Christological conception. Such a category would make Jesus a second, lesser, demigod. His basic argument is, that too little attention has been given, in current discussion, to "who" God is, and that once we understand how second temple Judaism understood the identity of God, the N.T. Christological monotheism can be seen as compatible with strict Jewish Monotheistic thought.

Basically, he says, God is identified as Creator and Ruler, both of which are aspects of his absolute supremacy over all things. While there are other characteristics of God, these are ones that most readily distinguish God's absolute and unique identity. Since God alone is Supreme, exclusive worship is directed to him, and no other.

Primarily through an examination of Psalm 110:1 and Isaiah 40-55, and their reading as reflected in various N.T. passages, Bauckham argues that Jesus is portrayed as participating in the very functions of God that constitute his unique identity, and therefore shares in the identity of God--again, not as a second God alongside of God, but the identity of the one unique God.

Some concerns with this proposal would include: 1) He does acknowledge contrary evidence (e.g., some intermediary figures, as angels, do participate in the rule of God and receive homage), but dismisses it because it is not "typical" in the sources. 2) In his treatment of intermediary figures (i.e. principal angels and exalted humans), he argeus that the sources that portray them as exalted next to God also, in most contexts, make it clear they are only servants and are not included in the divine identity. Yet, most of the key N.T. passages (even I Cor. 8:6, which he cites as the earliest text that includes Jesus in the identity of God and uses to illustate the point), clearly distinguish between the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, Jesus Christ. However, rather than focus on this distinction, Bauckham points out that in the original O.T. passage (the Shema), both the word "God" and "Lord" refer to the one unique divine identity; therefore, he argues, by application of the word "Lord" to Jesus in this context, Paul is thereby including him in the identity of God.

The last half of the book works the identity in reverse: if Jesus is included in the identity of God, then God is now to be identified via the humiliation, suffering, etc. of Jesus. God's heart is opened to the world--this is the one true God, and no other.

In this brief book, Bauckham attempts to prove that the earliest Church identified Jesus as the God of the Old Testament. To prove this, the author looks at how the Old Testament spoke of God (what terms were used, what wording was customary, etc.) and showed that the early Church (most of whom were Jewish converts--Paul was a rabbi) used the same termonology when writing about Jesus. He also looks at differences between Jewish/Second Temple Period references to God as opposed to angels (or any being that is less than God, but more than man) and shows that these types of references were not used when writing about Jesus.

There is an argument that the author too quickly dismisses many Scriptural passages that run counter to his argument. While this may be true, I don't think it was within the author's scope to fully treat each Biblical passage. This book is quite short, making it necessary for Bauckham to "get to the point" quickly. Furthermore, the book is intended to have people read the New Testament from a different perspective. In these things, Bauckham succeeded. It is an interesting read and I recommend it.

At a time when I was questioning how to understand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and, by extension, the deity of Christ, this little book gave me the answers I was looking for in a simple and non-technical way. The author has made this book accessible to a wide audience, it's short and the arguments are easily understood. I highly recommned this book.

As others have stated, now that I understand his basic arguments, I hope for a larger and more comprehensive discussion from this author on this subject. I think he is on to something very important here for Christian theology, Christology, and Christian apologetics.

this is one of the simplest accounts of christology that i've ever read...
bauckham argues that the first Christians, without anything by way of mental tension, simply included Jesus within the identity of God. or, maybe better still, the identity of God is revealed to us via Jesus' activity on the cross (readers familiar with the theology of jurgen moltmann will be on familiar ground).
to me, the most rewarding thing about a christology such as this is the way it confronts the existential dilemma of modern man. i came away from this book with a new appreciation for the love that is God. needless to say, if bauckham is correct, the implications for theology are drastic (and refreshing). its certainly food for thought.
one drawback is how brief this book is. i found myself wishing it to be another one of those modern day 700 pagers. bauckham said that this is just an intro, and that he later hopes to write more fully on this issue. i, for one, can't wait. his approach is brilliant, and his finding a christology basically equal to Nicene christology via a return to Jewish thought categories is refreshing. i highly recommend it.

This was my first reading of Bauckham, but I found him to be both scholarly and yet easily understandable. Not too long or too detailed, still carries enough meat that most any level of reader will gain new insights.

Richard Bauckham has taken a stand somewhat unusual to most presentations of the deity of Christ, as he himself admits. Bauckham argues that, based on 2nd temple Jews beliefs, early Christians were not so much interested in the functional or ontological relationship of Christ to God but rather, the identity of God and how Christ fits in with it. However, I feel, as another reviewer did below, that Bauckham too easily and quickly dismissed any evidence that seemed to go against his theory.

For instance, he dismisses the 'intermediary' figures in the scriptures that speak of angels and exalted humans as serving in the role of God. This is a big dismissal because if it can be shown that Jews understood angelic beings and exalted humans (ie. Kings) were referred to as god(s), a serious question oversets the meaning of the scriptures that refer to Jesus as god. Bauckham, recognizing this, argues that even though there are scriptures that state angelic authority or that humans are referred to as gods, we should dismiss them due to their relatively small quantity. The careful reader will proceed with caution under such a recommendation.

Bauckham did not really prove why we would be inclined to treat as lesser the scriptures that go against his theory, nor did he present an overwhelming amount of evidence for his theory. In fact, I found his scriptural evidence and arguments quite insufficient.

For instance, he states that angels, particularly the archangel Michael, did not have any authority over other angels. He states this in spite of (and in acknowledgement of) 1 Enoch 9:1; 10:1-11; 20:1-8; 40:3-10; 54:6; 71:8-9; Tob 12:15; Rev 8:2. He also dismisses scholars like A.F. Segal, Hurtado, Hayman and Barker who recognize angelic authority in the scriptures. And he does this with no evidence provided as to why we should not accept the scriptures that speak of such. In addition, he explicitly states that Michael has no authority over any other angels but never mentions to his readers the account in Rev 12:7-"And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled."

There is no doubt that the dragon, Satan, is depicted as having authority over the other fallen angels, as is testified elsewhere in the scriptures (Matt 12:24). So we see a comparison between the dragon and his "angels" and "Michael and his angels." It seems most reasonable that Michael has authority over these angels. And few would argue Jesus doesn't have authority over angels based on Matt 24:31, which uses wording similar to Rev 12. In addition, Michael is said to be the "Great prince" of God's people at Daniel 12:1. The reader is thus forced to choose between Bauckham's opinion or the scriptures and, ultimately, Jesus' own words at John 10:34-36 where he confirms the function of god being placed on humans.

Bauckham then states, "What Jewish monotheism could not accommodate were precisely...divinity by delegation participation." (pg 27-28) Even though he offered no proof of such, Bauckham may be on to something here based on Jesus' words at John 10. Jesus asked the religious leaders "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said: "You are gods"'? If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do You say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God's Son?"

Note what is happening here and what Bauckham doesn't consider in his discussion. Jesus defends his position by confirming others are called "gods" by Almighty God. Did the religious leaders have an attitude like what Bauckham states they did (about not allowing "divinity by delegation")? Perhaps! But here is the point Bauckham missed. Jesus addresses their potential attitude by reminding them that the scriptures could not be "nullified"! So maybe the Jewish religious leaders did want to dismiss intermediary agents, even as Bauckham asks us to do, but Jesus reminded them that the scriptures did refer to others in that position (put there by none other than Almighty God) and that these scriptures that state such could not be nullified.

The writer of Hebrews may have also used the intermediary application of "God" at Hebrews 1:8 when he applied Psalm 45:6, originally applied to king Solomon, to Jesus Christ. That Bauckham would dismiss both Jesus' words and the application at Hebrews is, in my opinion, unfortunate. Despite Bauckham's arbitrary dismissal of the scriptures that show the opposite of his theory, Jesus uses one of these very scriptures to highlight delegated authority.

Bauckham then undertakes the argument that Jesus' participating in creation and receiving worship is proof that he should be identified as Almighty God. One cannot obviously address such arguments in a review limited to only 1000 words but I will say this. When we consider the whole of the scriptures and who they say Jesus is, we must study both the verses that seem to imply Jesus is God and the hundreds of verses that imply he is not. If we limit our study to a few verses we might very well conclude Peter and Judas are Satan the Devil. (John 6:70, Matt 16:23)

It should be stated that Bauckham admits this small book is not thorough and that he is working on a larger volume. I hope he will keep these comments and honest differences of opinion in mind as he proceeds. For a more in-depth look at the identity of Jesus, see the book, "Jesus-God or the Son of God?", available here at Amazon.com.

Regrettably, this book simply fails to prove its central thesis: that from earliest times, Jesus was simply included within the unique identity of God. First, Bauckham is absolutely incorrect that Jewish monotheism was in any sense "strict" in Jesus' day. As is becoming increasingly clear, the type of monotheism he thinks Jews followed in the first century does not even begin to come about till the 3rd century. Even scholars as conservative as N T Wright acknowledge this.

Second, he dismisses the Enoch literature too easily, as well as large amounts of the Pseudepigrapha. Clearly, Jews were capable of thinking of of more than one divine figure along with God. Even a simple reading of I Enoch will reveal that.

Third, he dismisses other evidence that, according to his criteria, would make other patriarchs like Moses be included in God's unique identity. As can be easily seen from Larry Hurtado's One God, One Lord, Jews could conceive of exalted figures exercising divine prerogatives--without monotheism having to be rethought! If the exercise of divine prerogatives=divinity, Jewish literature abounds with Trinities.

Fourth, he underestimates the *earliest* Christology: Jesus was a man accredited by God. Christ is clearly subordinated--both functionally and ontologically--to God; Bauckham ignores the Pauline evidence for this. Paul continually speaks of "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"; that God worked "through" Jesus; that there is "one God and one Lord". But this he ignores because a few passages in the NT seem to indicate otherwise. In other words, the rabbit he pulls out of the hat is one he had to put in there in the first place.

In my opinion, his thesis fails on every single point by making gross generalizations and by ignoring massive amounts of evidence, dismissing anything that counters his argument as irrelevant. This is not good scholarship; this is making texts say what he wants them to say.

This is hardly to deny the Trinity; nor is it to say that there is not other evidence for it (see Neil Richardson's brilliant "Paul's Language about God"). (After all, as Anselm said, for Christ to redeem humankind from sin, he had to be God.) Rather, it is merely to say that THIS book proves absolutely nothing, other than the author is desperately grabbing at anything that will prove his point.