From a scriptural perspective, I would submit that it is hard to
substantiate how much Jesus knew about his preexistence, especially before he was baptized and anointed with holy spirit. And I would concede that one could account for Jesus' language recorded by Luke in other ways than by appealing to his preexistence. However, his statement in Luke 2:49-50
appears unusual within this context: Jesus' words indicate that
he feels a certain sense of vocation. Moreover, his parents not only
expressed shock over his words--they genuinely did not comprehend his
locution (καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐ συνῆκαν τὸ ῥῆμα ὃ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς). While I acknowledge that
other factors might explain the response of Mary and Joseph, it
seems likely to me from a scriptural perspective that Jesus
remembered something about his preexistence before Jehovah God anointed him with
holy spirit and power (Acts 10:38). I would humbly posit that it appears untenable
to imagine Jesus' forgetting everything about his preexistence when he became human. If he did not recall anything whatsoever about his
previous existence, then I wonder how Jesus of Nazareth could have been
the same person as the heavenly Logos of God.
I. Howard Marshall has much to say about the account in Luke 2:49-50ff.
You can find his comments here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=rKqiibViFowC&pg=PA126&dq=gospel+of+luke+2:49&sig=ACfU3U1jVCJd5f-kPpR1p1IWgdHpZftSGQ#PPA129,M1
One thing that bears quoting from Marshall's commentary are these words:
"They are perplexed at the revelation of what divine Sonship implies,
and for the moment they cannot take it in. There is a secret regarding
Jesus' relation to the Father which not even they can fully understand
(Lagrange, 97)."
Albert Barnes makes a similar observation concerning Luke 2:49:
"Some think that this should be translated 'in my Father's house' — that
is, in the temple. Jesus reminded them [his parents] here that he came
down from heaven; that he had a higher Father than an earthly parent;
and that, even in early life, it was proper that he should be engaged in
the work for which he came. He did not enter, indeed, upon his public
work for eighteen years after this; yet still the work of God was his
work, and always, even in childhood, it was proper for him to be engaged
in the great business for which he came down from heaven."
See his comments regarding Luke 2:50.
Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Luke 2:49-50 and Jesus' Recollection of His Preexistence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
1 Chronicles 28
Luke 1:27
Luke 1:32
Luke 2:4
Luke 18:38
Luke 20:41,42
Luke 20:44
https://bible.org/seriespage/q-what-was-david-s-role-building-temple
Many point to Luke 13:34 / Matthew 23:37 as an early (perhaps Q, which would make it probably pre Markan) example of belief in Jesus's pre-existence in the gospel material, and as an allusion to a description of wisdom in Ben Sirach.
It could be that Jesus didn't have memories of his pre-existence as a child, but had knowledge of it through his parents telling him.
The question of Jesus being the same person as the Logos is a difficult one, just as a thought experiment, lets say someone goes through amnesia, and then suddenly returns to his own self a year later, would it be correct to say that this was the same person through the amnesia? i.e. could he correctly ask "what was I doing during that time?" (btw, this is one reason I like the Pannenbergian/Hegelian metaphysics, and Alaistar Machintyre's concept of person, since they allow retrospective determination).
Luke 2:11
https://biblehub.com/text/luke/16-27.htm
Luke 24:49 CF Luke 1:32
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/153371626.pdf
Duncan, when we think about David and Jesus, there is also Romans 1:3-4.
Thanks for the links above.
Roman: that's a good possibility as well, that Jesus might have learned about his preexistence through his parents although the thing that's often confused me is why they did not comprehend his utterance about the temple. Maybe they did not connect his preexistence with his use of the term, "Father"? Going back to some of the scriptures that Duncan cited, did Mary not comprehend that God was Jesus' Father in a special way different from other Israelites?
I like the idea of retrospective determination but let me add that four main theories of the self are a) there is no substantial self; b) the self is identical with the soul; c) the self is identical with our physical bodies; d) the self is determined by our memories. In other words, if an experience happens to a person at T1 and he genuinely recalls that experience at T2 (etc.), then he is the same person. However, the memory theory is notoriously circular and problematic for other reasons. Memory also does not seem to be transitive as Thomas Reid noted. So we do often say that the person who experienced amnesia, but recovered, is the same person. And what about the person who has dementia or other problems that affect his/her memory?
I guess my point about Jesus was that what if someone lived in this world for 80 years, having all kind of experiences, but then died and was resurrected into the new earth, but did not remember a thing about life in this world. Now I'm not talking about someone who suffered a severe handicap in this system but a person who lived a "normal" existence. Yet the person is raised to life but doesn't remember a thing about this life. Would he/she be the same as the person who lived and died?
Each author has his own account of things and the account in Luke has its own story to tell. The references I gave make it quite clear. Note that Jesus is repeatedly asked a question about being a descendant of David that I think he never actually answers?
As you know, I do not subscribe to the common theory of the chronological order that the gospels were written.
The whole understanding of "son of God" is also highly questionable when one assumes that the the texts were written in Greek with Hellenistic culture prominent. In a Hebraic sense - son of God can mean a wise king, but Paul does not see it that way.
Romans 1:3-4 does not seem to have anything to do with pre existence. Son of God seems to be a post resurrection appointment in this instance?
I'm going to comment briefly since it's late here: I see the Gospels as a product of divine guidance, not simply human writings. But that being said, yes Luke has a unique narrative but I think the book still identifies Jesus as a descendant of David from the very outset.
Son of God has more than one meaning in Hebrew and Greek. Yet Jesus is clearly the unique Son of God, according to the Gospels.
The UN answered question - Luke 20:44
I think you have probably read the apendixis of Ethelbert William Bullinger. Just how messed up the conclusions become when one tries too hard to smash the gospels together.
They all have there own stories. They are not just narrative. One has to understand each one before attempting any kind of cross reference. Lazarus is a good example of ignorance. We have two of them but only one is focussed on.
Luke's account tells us that David is The son of David. Not a son of David. Which father's house?
I did not post Romans 1:3-4 to prove preexistence, but rather to show how Christ could be son of David in one sense but Lord of David in another sense. Luke-Acts (Acts) calls Jesus, "judge of the living and the dead." That would seem to include David.
Granted, the question is never answered in Luke, but does that mean Luke does not report that Jesus is the Son of God and the Lord? Christ is born of a virgin by holy spirit and declared to be Son of the Most High as you cited. So, why think that Luke's Gospel does not recognize that Jesus is the Son of God and the Lord, unless you have another point in mind. Also, Matthew 22:45 reports the same question and leaves it unanswered too.
I agree with you about Bullinger and I've acknowledged that each Gospel is unique, especially the Gospel of John. Not trying to be argumetative but I wouldn't say the Gospels are "just narrative," but they're certainly narratives or written narrativally.
Yes, we have to understand each Gospel on its own merits; nevertheless, there's a reason three of the Gospels are called Synoptic. In the case of Lazarus, one is apparently a chracter in a parable (illustration). I'm not sure how far we can press likenesses or distinctions between these two.
You said Luke tells us that "David is The son of David." I assume you meant Jesus is the Son of David; here again, there may be significance to calling Jesus "The Son/son of David," but maybe not. In other words, he could be both "the" and "a" son of David. Greek articles have many different functions.
Which father's house? Why God's house since he was in the temple. Despite David's contributions to the temple and Solomon's, why would he have meant David when he spoke of his Father's house? The temple was considered God's house, not any human's.
Looking a little closer at Luke, where does he ever call Jesus, the Son of David in the Gospel account? Secondly, I find that Jesus is most often identified as the Son of Man in Luke more so than the Son of God although I believe he's both.
John Nolland discusses four translational possibilities for ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναί με. He brings in Luke 3:22 in order to show what Luke affirms about Jesus' relationship with God.
He cites a number of passages that would support the temple being God the Father's house, if Luke has the temple in mind.
I see what you mean about "in mind" - https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/father%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Chouse%E2%80%9D-or-%E2%80%9Cbusiness%E2%80%9D-luke-2-49
Lazarus = Eliazar = God has helped
Compare Luke 20:41-21:4 with Matthew 21:9. So why would there be any confusion?
I think when have had chronology issues with other accounts but Luke 3:22 comes after and nowhere does it state that the crowds heard the words, in any of the gospels. So would he hear what he already knew & what would be the point of recording it?
Writers have produced a copious amount of literature on the rich man and Lazarus. It's a good point about the meaning of his name. Also see https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/rich-man-and-lazarus-the-parable-and-the-parallels/80A8F0AC88675FFE049E9A908A1A391A
and I like NT Wright's reading of the parable, though I don't fully agree with him either.
The crowds might not have heard the words of Luke 3:22, but I think Luke (or God) wanted people to know that the Son of Man/David is also the Son of God. The current JW understanding of Luke 3:22 and the parallel accounts is that Christ became more fully aware of the fact that he was God's Son, but he also became Son in a new sense at his baptism. Other texts indicate that the announcement was important.
Compare Gen 22:2.
I don't think there was necessarily confusion, but Jesus was known to make many aporetic statements.
Compare also Judges 11:34 LXX. However, this is why context is so important. Both Eve and Jehovah are called helper in the Tanakh. Obviously in different ways they're helpers.
"the one whom he loved" but he was not his only, was he?
See Genesis Rabbah 55:7.
In the case of Isaac, monogenes could not mean the only son. There is plenty of debate about the meaning of the word, but howevewr we understand it, the word must be construed contextually. In the case of Jephthah, his daughter appeared to be his only child: the same word occurs in the two accounts but maybe with a slightly different sense in each case. Jesus is not the only Son of God either but he's unique.
Gen 2:22 is an integral part of the context. Matthew stresses the point in the first verse of his gospel. It's all there and that is also why I am convinced that John 8:58 are the words of the father, not the son.
https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004413733/BP000017.xml
Okay I will admit that I'm lost in this discussion, and not sure how it got here :-)
I thought we were discussing Luke and the terms he uses. Above, you mention Matthew, then John 8:58. I'm also not sure how those words get imputed to the Father rather than to the Son. But I must turn attention to other matters for now.
The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”
Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
John 12:49
Am I the first to mention Matthew here?
Romans mentioned a verse from Matthew first, but the reason I made the last statement about Matthew (although you had mentioned Matt 21:9) is because I viewed our conversation as separate from what Roman wrote. Also, one of the main points of the blog entry was Luke's Christology respecting Jesus' preexistence. But it's all good :-)
The link to John 8:58 is Isaiah 43:10. Coming back to Luke, is there any verse that points to preexistence?
Brown, Raymond Edward in the birth of the Messiah says that there is no evidence of a preexistence in Luke. Pg 432?
NT scholars point to more than one verse in Isaiah to compare with John 8:58. A couple are Isaiah 44:6, 8; 46:9. Not that I agree with their assumptions but why limit our comparison to 43:10? The consensus is also that Luke never touches on Jesus' preexistence. I certainly agree that Luke offers no explicit statement concerning preexistence.
Maybe one can draw inferences from parts of Luke, but he never outright says that Christ was preexistent.
50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.
I don't think it matters whether one translates as "I am" or "I have been". The father is Jesus witness.
7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil.
Post a Comment