tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post4630747652055704982..comments2024-03-28T22:55:23.525-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: Geza Vermes-Part IIEdgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-82417939395920906462008-03-20T20:46:00.000-07:002008-03-20T20:46:00.000-07:00Hi Jason,This is really going to be my final word ...Hi Jason,<BR/><BR/>This is really going to be my final word on the subject. I had time to compose a reply tonight but I'll address some of your other posts instead of offering more replies to this topic.<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/>[Jason]<BR/>Hi Edgar,<BR/><BR/>I am considering the possibility that "making himself equal to God" = "being disobedient to God" in John 5:18, and how this might bear on the interpretation of John 5:19-30. I am having difficulty, however, squaring this interpretation with the related accusations in John 10:33 and 19:7. At this point, it still seems to me that when all of these verses are read together in their respective contexts, that Jesus' Jewish opponents were operating off of the assumption that Jesus was claiming to be the natural Son of God, and that Jesus failed to make it clear to them that He was claiming to be the Son of God in a purely metaphorical sense. (While I admit that their reaction to his words in John 5:19-30 was not recorded, I have difficulty - in view of the details of the similar incident in John 10:28-39 - imagining them responding: "Oh, so you aren't claiming equality with God after all...."<BR/><BR/>[Edgar]<BR/>In John 5:17-19, what makes the Jews conclude that Jesus is making himself equal to God is his use of the expression "my Father" (hO PATHR MOU) in the context of a dispute about working on the Sabbath, wherein Jesus claims that he has the prerogative to work on the Sabbath as his Father works on the seventh day. One is reminded of the famous statement by Philo that it is God's nature to work just as it is the nature of fire to burn. Hence, think of the associations that Jesus must have evoked in the minds of those who heard him when he uttered the words found in John 5:17. My point is that it is not necessary to interpret the dominical words of Jesus as an allusion to his status as a "natural son" of God. Regarding the conjunction of John 5:19-30 and 10:28-39, I never said that the Jewish opponents of Jesus might not construe his words as blasphemy. The question is, was he attempting to give them more fuel for the fire or was he trying to let them know his subordinate position in relation to the Father? <BR/><BR/>It is interesting that the Jews were interested in whether Jesus was the Messiah, according to John 10:24. What made them accuse him of blasphemy in John 10:33 was undoubtedly the utterance found in John 10:30. But Larry Hurtado has argued that John 10:33 should be understood as "you are trying to make yourself a god" rather than make yourself "God." The Greek construction of this verse is hOTI SU ANQRWPOS WN POIEIS SEAUTON QEON. Also note Jesus' response in John 10:34-36. Although a number of translations render John 19:7, "the Son of God," the Greek reads: hOTI hUION QEOU hEAUTON EPOIHSEN.<BR/><BR/>[Jason]<BR/>A few clarifications:<BR/><BR/>1) By "making" in John 5:18 I understand "declaring" as in John 19:7 (see NRSV) or Matt. 12:33. I don't think anyone would seriously entertain the notion that it might be possible for someone to actually "make" themselves equal to God.<BR/><BR/>[Edgar]<BR/>I have no problem understanding POIEW (in this context) as a reference to the act of declaring something to be the case. We must not forget, however, that Jesus is being accused of making himself equal to God or declaring that he is God's equal; a notion which if true would warrant the charge of blasphemy in light of what Moses wrote in Genesis 3:1-5. Compare Philippians 2:6ff about the preexistent Christ: he did not seek to be equal with God.<BR/><BR/>[Jason]<BR/>2) It was not my purpose here to argue that John 5:19-30 unambigously affirms a necessary unity of operation of the Son with the Father, but only that it is all too easy to take the passage in that manner if one is predisposed to doing so. I am operating here off of the understanding that John 5:17,18 shows that Jesus' opponents would have been so inclined to do so, and that, therefore, it is difficult to take John 5:19-30 as representing a attempt on the part of Jesus to 'correct' their interpretation of His words in John 5:17.<BR/><BR/>[Edgar]<BR/>One's presuppositions may possibly affect the way that one reads the account in John 5:19-30. I have already quoted the Catholic scholars Raymond E Brown and John McKenzie, who both argue that Jesus sought to correct those who accused him of blasphemy. Paul Anderson also writes that John 5:19 is a "subordinationist passage" that demonstrates the Son's total dependence on the Father. There are a number of verses in John 5:19ff that also support the notion that the Son is absolutely dependent on the Father in that he totally depends on the Father to grant him life in himself or to give him the power of judging. The Son's declaration in John 5:30 is clear. He can do nothing on his own authority (TEV); he only does that which God tells him to do. The Son does not what he wills but what his Father wills.<BR/><BR/>You might also find an article by Jerome Neyrey worth reading. Although he argues that the Johannine Gospel teaches that the Son is equal to God the Father, he nevertheless contends that "the Fourth Gospel rejects the assertion that Jesus 'makes himself' anything." See Neyrey, "I Said You Are Gods": Psalm 82:6 and John 10, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 108, No. 4. (Winter, 1989), pp. 647-663. In particular, see page 653 (footnote 33) and pages 660-663. <BR/><BR/>[Jason]<BR/>3) I am not implying that Luke 3:38 teaches that Adam is the natural son of God. My point is that Luke 3 provides a 'legal' not a 'biological' genealogy. Matt. 1 and Gen. 5 on the other hand are 'biological' genealogies. Thus, just as Matt. 1 purposely avoids saying that Joseph begat Jesus, so also Gen. 5 purposely avoids saying that God begat Adam.<BR/><BR/>[Edgar]<BR/>We agree that Luke provides a legal genealogy. But you seem to have evaded the simple point I wanted to make by citing Luke 3:38, namely, that Adam is called the "son of God" in a metaphorical (not legal) sense. I never suggested that God literally begat Adam. God created Adam, yet Adam is called God's son. Moreover, you failed to comment on the angels being called (metaphorical) sons of God. They too are creatures.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-74746578185273979162008-03-18T21:12:00.000-07:002008-03-18T21:12:00.000-07:00Hi Edgar,I am considering the possibility that "ma...Hi Edgar,<BR/><BR/>I am considering the possibility that "making himself equal to God" = "being disobedient to God" in John 5:18, and how this might bear on the interpretation of John 5:19-30. I am having difficulty, however, squaring this interpretation with the related accusations in John 10:33 and 19:7. At this point, it still seems to me that when all of these verses are read together in their respective contexts, that Jesus' Jewish opponents were operating off of the assumption that Jesus was claiming to be the natural Son of God, and that Jesus failed to make it clear to them that He was claiming to be the Son of God in a purely metaphorical sense. (While I admit that their reaction to his words in John 5:19-30 was not recorded, I have difficulty - in view of the details of the similar incident in John 10:28-39 - imagining them responding: "Oh, so you aren't claiming equality with God after all...."<BR/><BR/>A few clarifications:<BR/><BR/>1) By "making" in John 5:18 I understand "declaring" as in John 19:7 (see NRSV) or Matt. 12:33. I don't think anyone would seriously entertain the notion that it might be possible for someone to actually "make" themselves equal to God. <BR/><BR/>2) It was not my purpose here to argue that John 5:19-30 unambigously affirms a necessary unity of operation of the Son with the Father, but only that it is all too easy to take the passage in that manner if one is predisposed to doing so. I am operating here off of the understanding that John 5:17,18 shows that Jesus' opponents would have been so inclined to do so, and that, therefore, it is difficult to take John 5:19-30 as representing a attempt on the part of Jesus to 'correct' their interpretation of His words in John 5:17.<BR/><BR/>3) I am not implying that Luke 3:38 teaches that Adam is the natural son of God. My point is that Luke 3 provides a 'legal' not a 'biological' genealogy. Matt. 1 and Gen. 5 on the other hand are 'biological' genealogies. Thus, just as Matt. 1 purposely avoids saying that Joseph begat Jesus, so also Gen. 5 purposely avoids saying that God begat Adam.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10947621792992424355noreply@blogger.com