Jesus is the God of Israel
A Case for an Early High Christology
I want to make one of my papers I wrote in seminary more broadly available. It’s not high quality enough to be published in a journal, but I think the arguments are sound and rebuff certain recent claims to the effect that Jesus was not viewed as God in the Synoptics and Acts. I hope this is helpful to you!
“Who do you say that I am?” This question is the hinge-point of Matthew’s Gospel, and also the hinge upon which many Christology debates turn. New Testament scholars are divided about the presentation of Jesus in the New Testament. Is he identified as the God of Israel, as Richard Bauckham seems to suggest? Or is he a “man attested by God”, as Daniel Kirk argues?
In this paper, I will argue that Jesus is indeed identified as the God of Israel in the Synoptics, Acts, and Pauline literature. More specifically, I will attempt to fortify the thesis of Early-High Christology scholars by showing that Jesus shares specific predications that could only properly to the God of Israel. The paper will proceed as follows. First, I will summarize the arguments for the inclusion of Jesus into the identity of the God of Israel (YHWH). Second, I will articulate some contemporary critiques of the thesis. Third, responding to the stated critiques, I will argue that Jesus shares the following unique predications of Israel’s God: Jesus is the sovereign as the origin and telos of all things, exercises eschatological determination of people’s destinies, is the bridegroom of the covenant people, acts in response to prayer and controls the human heart, and receives the glory and worship which God gives to no other. Finally, I will conclude by correlating these considerations with the arguments already put forth for an early high Christology, arguing that the holistic picture of the Synoptics, Acts, and Pauline literature is clear: Jesus is no less than Israel’s God in person.
1. Arguments for an Early High Christology
In 1988, Larry W. Hurtado published One God, One Lord. In this seminal book, he argues that Jesus is given a “transcendent status” which is reflected in a Christian “binitarian” pattern of devotion. While acknowledging the exaltation of other intermediaries, Hurtado outlines six features of the early Christian “mutation” of such devotion: hymnic practices, prayer and related practices, the use of the name of Christ, the Lord’s supper, the confession of faith in Jesus, and prophetic pronouncements of the risen Christ.[1] These features point to a kind of “binitarianism” as they go beyond the exaltation of a mediating figure; they include the worship of Jesus into the worship of the one God. Nevertheless, Hurtado maintains that Jesus, while pre-existent, is nevertheless God’s chief agent and not (contra N.T. Wright) the return of YHWH in person.[2]
Bauckham takes this thesis further, arguing that Jesus in fact shares the identity of the one God such that God must be spoken of and defined with respect to Jesus. According to Bauckham, the God of Jewish monotheism was identified as the one who exercises “unique sovereignty over all things”, bears the name of YHWH exclusively, is the unique creator of all things, and is the recipient of unique worship.[3] Bauckham finds support for the attribution of these features to Jesus throughout the New Testament. In Mark 14:61-14, Bauckham argues that Jesus’s association with the son of man figure in Daniel 7:13-14 connotes the reception of unique divine worship reserved for YHWH alone.[4] Furthermore, Paul ascribes this unique sovereignty to Jesus in texts like Philippians 2:6-11, or Romans 10:13. David Capes extends this thesis, arguing that where the referent of κυριος in texts like Romans 10:9-13 or Deuteronomy 6:4 referred to YHWH, Paul applies such texts to Jesus.[5] Furthermore, Chris Tilling argues that Paul’s presentation of Jesus so closely mirrors the way the Old Testament relates the Israelite’s presentation to YHWH that the Christ-relation communicates divine identity. In other words, Jesus is to the believer what YHWH is to the Israelite. There is a pattern of “God-relation data”, unique to God alone, that predicates Christ’s relationship to the believer in the Pauline literature.[6]
Richard Hays further argues that there are “figural” allusions to YHWH in the narrative structure of the gospel accounts. In Luke’s Gospel, Hays points out that Jesus’s opponents are ”put to shame” in language that echoes Isaiah 45:16’s shaming of God’s enemies (Luke 13:17 cf Isaiah 45:16).[7] Jesus is the one who “desires to gather Israel under his wings”, and is the ”one who redeems Israel.”[8] In Mark, Jesus “opens the ears of the deaf” and makes the blind to see, like YHWH in Isaiah 35:5-6; further, he comes looking for figs on the vine tree and is disappointed as YHWH is in Isaiah 5.[9] Throughout these two books, Hays traces various ways the narrative life of Jesus overlay and overlap with the presentation of YHWH in the OT. Nina Henrichs-Tarasenkova argues similarly that the presentation of Jesus in Acts corresponds to the narrative patterns of YHWH returning to the temple and receiving worship as the Lord of Joel’s prophecy, even identifying the Spirit of YHWH as the Spirit of Jesus.[10]
We can summarize the case for an early high Christology along these lines. First, Christ is the object of a pattern of devotion that belongs to YHWH alone, thus including Jesus within the divine identity of YHWH. Second, Jesus exercises certain divine attributes true of YHWH alone, like “divine sovereignty” and creation. Third, Jesus is made the object of certain YHWH-texts, standing in for YHWH as the referent of those texts. Fourth, the relation of Christ to believers significantly mirrors the relation of YHWH to Israelites, such that Christ is to the church what YHWH is to Israel. Finally, there are narrative correspondences or overlays such that the story of YHWH’s coming to Israel unfolds in Jesus’s life and work.
2. Some Recent Criticisms
While the case above is, to my lights, forceful and strong, nevertheless many scholars take issue with key claims made by the early high Christology camp. First, Joshua Jipp (though in the early high Christology camp) points out that Bauckham’s categories “fail to account for impressive analogies in Jewish literature where other figures do actually engage in cosmic rule, share God’s throne, and receive worship.”[11] Thus, in Genesis 1-2, humans are made in the image of God to exercise dominion as God’s representatives; they are vice-regents who mediate God’s sovereign rule to creation. Daniel Kirk argues that Israel shares God’s rule by embodying God to the nations and even functions as a kind of “theophany” of God that makes God visible to the nations. He argues that Bauckham misreads Ezekiel the Tragedian, in which Moses is portrayed as God in order to communicate sharing in the divine rule. In the Qumran scrolls (4Q374 2 II, 6), Moses stands before Pharoah as God, such that Moses’ shining face “is an embodiment of God’s own shining face for the blessing of Israel.”[12] Thus, Bauckham fails to take into account “idealized human figures” that do, after all, share divine prerogatives. Thus, Kirk has (rightly) shown that Bauckham’s category of “divine sovereignty” is not specified to such a degree that it rules out human beings sharing in that sovereignty.
Further, Gaston and Perry have recently argued that Jesus is not identified as the Lord of the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:6. According to them (following James Dunn), it would be a rejection of monotheism in favor of ditheism to include Jesus into the Shema. We should thus understand the κυριος term of 1 Corinthians 8:6 not as a proxy for the Lord of Deuteronomy 6:4, but as a name for Jesus as God’s highest servant.[13] The logic of the text, they claim, requires that the “one God” and “one Lord” be distinct, and thus cannot be a support for a Christological monotheism (one plus one equals two, after all!). Indeed, they argue that Paul taught unitarianism, which they call “monotheism simpliciter.” Similarly, James Dunn argues for an “Adam Christology” at work in Philippians 2:5-11, such that Jesus is the new Adam who doesn’t reach for equality with God, but humbly succeeds where Adam fails.[14]
Finally, some argue that figural readings of the New Testament Synoptic-Acts accounts are, in fact, over reading. Melanie Howard registers the concern that Hays doesn’t provide specific criteria for “figural reading”, and so such readings may be reduced to similarities in “figures” and “images” only.[15] Kirk argues that the distinction preserved between God and Jesus in Mark’s narrative tell against an identification of Jesus as God; he is identified with God as an “idealized human being.”[16]
3. Unique predications of YHWH made of Jesus
In my estimation, the critiques above—while not ultimately successful—do helpfully uncover a need for the refinement of the relevant categories. As such, I will argue that Jesus receives certain predicates that mark out YHWH alone. First, Jesus does not simply share God’s sovereignty, but shares particular-to-YHWH aspects of that sovereignty: he is the one through whom all things were created, and for whom all things exist. Second, Jesus does not merely share in eschatological judgment (even humans will judge angels), but has the right to pronounce the verdict of that judgment and execute the sentence upon human beings. Third, God’s relation to Israel unfolds in Christ’s relation to the church in the metaphors of bridegroom to bride and divine presence to temple. Fourth, Jesus acts in response to prayer and even controls people’s hearts, empowering his people for service. And fifth, Jesus receives the highest forms of worship reserved for God alone.
3.1 The Origin and End of Creation
The Lord Jesus, unlike any mediatory figure, is said to be both the one “through whom all things were made” and “for whom all things were made.” In Colossians 1:15-20, Paul writes that Jesus is the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (the firstborn over all creation) because “in him all things were made” (ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα). In other words, it’s not the case that Jesus was the first and greatest creation, but rather that he is the firstborn in light of his relation to creation: all things were made through him, therefore he has absolute rights over all creation just as the firstborn of a family had the rights to an inheritance. Paul further specifies the nature of the “all things” which were created through Jesus: all things in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible, thrones or dominions.
Dunn argues that this text should primarily be understood against the backdrop of the Jewish concept of “Wisdom.” Thus, it’s not (strictly speaking) that all things were created through Jesus of Nazareth who walked in first century Palestine, but rather through the Divine Wisdom which is now most clearly and fully seen expressed and embodied in Jesus.[17] But that doesn’t seem to fit the fact that the hymn is about, concretely, the one who was the “firstborn from the dead.” (πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν). Verse 18 clearly talks about something that happened to Jesus in history (namely, he was raised); thus, it’s unlikely that verse 15 is “really” about Divine Wisdom and using Jesus as a cipher or proxy for that Wisdom that was embodied in his life.
Given that this texts speaks of Jesus of Nazareth, what follows? Isaiah 44:24 states that YHWH alone (אָנֹכִ֤י יְהוָה֙ – an emphatic, translated in the LXX with the adjective μονος) stretched out the heavens and the earth. He had no help in creating things. In Nehemiah 9:6, the people of Israel confess that YHWH alone is YHWH, correlating that claim to his act of creating all things. This is an instance of what Bauckham calls “creational monotheism”, in which God’s sole creation of all things is the basis of his Lordship over all things.[18] This creational monotheism is exemplified in 1 Corinthians 8:6, in which all things are said to be made through Jesus. Here, again, it will not work to simply use “Jesus” as a proxy for Wisdom, as Paul’s argument rests on the claim that one God and one Lord stand over and against the gods and lords of the pagan pantheon. In other words, it is the concrete historical Lord that features in Paul’s claim. Colossians 1:15-20 states that all things were created unto Jesus (εις αυτον). He is the goal of all things. This is the very same language used of God in Romans 11:36 (“all things are unto him”) and the very same concept in Isaiah (God is the “first” and “last”).
That Jesus features in a hymn of praise to him as the Creator of all things is highly significant. First, as Charles Talbert argues, it means that Jesus was worshipped as the one in whom all things were created in the early Christian community.[19] Second, this can only mean that Jesus was included in the divine identity in those same communities, as God alone was said to be the Creator. Furthermore, there simply is no precedent for all creation being directed towards a creature. Even in Ezekiel the Tragedian’s account, it is not the case that everything in creation is said to be “for Moses.” Furthermore, though Moses is seated in the throne of God, he is not said to have been included in the work of creation.
3.2 Jesus is the judge of people’s eternal destinies
Kirk has helpfully pointed out the claim of “God’s unique sovereignty” needs refinement. I suggest that God’s unique sovereignty is exercised, at least in part, through his sole right to pronounce a verdict upon human beings and execute the sentence. The Lord is the one said to “execute judgment” (Isaiah 66:16), judging the world with righteousness (Ps. 9:8); final judgment is to be left to God, who will avenge all wrongs (Rom. 14:19-20). In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus himself is the one who judges the nations. And the text, while preserving the distinction between Jesus and his Father, nevertheless assigns to Jesus a function normally reserved for YHWH.
The whole Old Testament theme of the “day of the Lord” has been transposed onto the day of the Lord Jesus. There are at least 15 instances where Paul speaks of the day of the Lord in terms of the return of Christ to establish God’s kingdom eternally.[20] The prerogatives which fell on YHWH now fall upon Jesus, who is the cosmic judge coming to set the world right.
3.3 God and Israel, Christ and the Church
The relationship between Christ and the church is cast in the very same terms God was said to relate to his people. The Lord is Israel’s “husband” (Isaiah 54:5, Hosea 2:7), promising to rejoice over Israel “as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride.” (Isaiah 62:4-5) Jeremiah chapters 2-3 present Israel’s abandonment of God in terms of a bride who is unfaithful to her husband. Ezekiel 16 and the first two chapters of Hosea similarly portray Israel’s relationship to God as that of an unfaithful bride.
In the new covenant, Christ has taken up YHWH’s relationship to the covenant people. Christ is the bridegroom, and the church is the Bride (Ephesians 5:22-33). Jesus is cast as the bridegroom of his people in Mark 2:19, Matthew 9:15, and Luke 5:34; thus, the synoptics have the “same sight” of Jesus as he stands in the place of YHWH’s relationship to Israel. And though Jesus is distinguished from the Father (Matthew 22:1-14), he is nevertheless the covenantal husband of his people. To my knowledge, while the inauguration of a King may be presented in wedding imagery (Psalm 45), there is no precedent for portraying the Messiah or a mere creature as the covenantal husband of YHWH’s people.
3.4 Jesus engages in divine action in response to prayer
Furthermore, the prayer narratives frame Jesus as the Lord of the Old Testament. In Acts 9:4, Jesus uses a double repetition in calling Saul for conversion (“Saul, Saul!”). The double repetition echoes God’s call of Moses in Exodus 3:4, to which Moses responds “here I am.” In the same chapter, Jesus calls Ananias for service and Ananias responds, “here I am.” This narrative pattern, present also in YHWH’s calling of Samuel, is a calling-narrative in which YHWH appoints someone for service. Jesus is playing the role of YHWH.
In 2 Corinthians 12:8-10, Paul makes an appeal to Jesus as “the Lord”, asking Jesus to remove the “thorn” that causes him trouble. Jesus chooses not to, saying “my power is made perfect in weakness.” In this prayer, the Lord Jesus is portrayed as the one who receives Paul’s prayer and even gives his own power as that which is made perfect in Paul’s weakness. Once again, there is no example of an intermediary who gives “power” in answer to prayer. Similarly, in Colossians 1:29, Paul writes that he struggles with all the energy that Christ powerfully works within him. Christ is empowering the agency of Paul, working internally in Paul’s own agency to produce his purposes.
3.5 Jesus receives the highest forms of worship
Finally, I argue that Jesus receives not just “worship” in an undefined sense, but receives the unique glory, worship, and honor due to God alone. That there is such a glory is evident in Isaiah 42:8: “I am the Lord, that is my name. I give my glory to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” There is therefore a kind of glory, linked to a kind of praise, fitted for God alone.
First, the identification of Jesus with the “son of man” figure of Daniel 7:13-14 cannot be reduced to a description of an “idealized human” as Kirk argues. In the LXX text of Daniel 7:13-14, all the nations render cultic worship (λατρευω) to God. Λατρευω is used exclusively to describe worship rendered to deity.[21] In Mark 14:61-64, Jesus correlates three features that imply his deity: being seated at the right hand of God, coming on the clouds, and receiving worship. Kirk rightly argues that the first two of these features, by themselves, don’t necessarily connote deity. However, it is the constellation of these features that elicits the charge of “blasphemy”. “Coming on the clouds” is normally an action taken by God, and both the Aramaic and Greek forms of the word “worship” are exclusively used of divine worship.[22] The high priest takes Jesus to be, in some way, usurping God’s unique glory and authority by claiming to be the divine son of man who will “come with the clouds” and be “seated at God’s right hand.” Jesus, in other words, is claiming—especially in his implicit claim to worship—to share the unique glory and praise of the God who shares that unique glory and praise with no one.
Second, Jesus is to be esteemed as the one to whom humans live their lives. He is the object, goal, and gain of life. In Matthew 10:37-38, Jesus teaches that he is to be loved more than any family as the uppermost in our affections. Luke 14:26 puts the matter in stronger terms: “if anyone does not hate his father and mother and wife and children—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” While Jesus is not literally commanding hatred for one’s family (e.g. Matthew 15), he is relativizing love for others below love for himself in the affections of the disciples. Once again, no intermediary or other figure in second temple Jewish literature commands the affections of God’s people for themselves in this way. Similarly, Paul teaches that believers “live to the Lord [Jesus]” (Rom. 14:8), such that Christ himself is our gain and telos (Philippians 3:8).
Third, Jesus is the object of a sacrificial meal. Consider the following text:
“14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15 I am speaking as to sensible people; you judge what I am saying. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share from the one bread. 18 Consider Israel according to the flesh: are not the ones who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? 19 Therefore, what am I saying? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but that the things which they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to become sharers with demons. 21 You are not able to drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You are not able to share the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or are we attempting to provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than he is, are we?”[23]
The context in 1 Corinthians 10 concerns whether Christians should eat meat sacrificed to idols. One reason Paul gives against eating such meat (when it is revealed that the meat was offered to idols) is that partaking of meat is, at least in the mind of the Corinthians who make the offering of the meat known, participating in idolatrous worship. That is, if one “shares the table of the Lord”, then sharing the table of demons is a matter of idolatry. That only makes sense if the sacrificial meal of the Eucharist is a mode of worship offered to Jesus. And just as a sacrificial meal of the surrounding cults indicated worship to those demons, so a sacrificial meal in Jesus’ name (in which his body and blood are participated in) indicates the worship of Jesus.
Fourth, the deeds of Israel’s God in Israel’s past and future are attributed to Jesus by Paul and Acts. One mode of praising God consisted in picking him out as the God of a particular history. Namely, the God of Israel was the “God who saved Israel from Egypt.” That refrain becomes a way of distinguishing the true God (he acted in history thusly) from false gods.[24] Yet the very key narratives that identify YHWH as Israel’s God are applied to Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 10:9, Christ himself is said to be the one “put to the test” by the wilderness generation. Christ is the one said to have sent the “serpents” of Numbers 21:16, where the Lord (YHWH) is the clear actor in the OT text. In Acts, Jesus is said to have chosen Paul as “his chosen instrument.” Consider Acts 9:15 alongside the relevant OT passages that are echoed:
εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος· πορεύου, ὅτι σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς ἐστίν μοι οὗτος τοῦ βαστάσαι τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐνώπιον ἐθνῶν τε καὶ βασιλέων υἱῶν τε Ἰσραήλ (Acts 9:15)
7 καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου τὸ ἅγιον γνωσθήσεται ἐν μέσῳ λαοῦ μου Ἰσραήλ, καὶ οὐ βεβηλωθήσεται τὸ ὄνομά μου τὸ ἅγιον οὐκέτι· καὶ γνώσονται τὰ ἔθνη ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος, ἅγιος ἐν Ἰσραήλ (Ezekiel 39:7 LXX)
διότι ἀπʼ ἀνατολῶν ἡλίου καὶ ἕως δυσμῶν τὸ ὄνομά μου δεδόξασται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, καὶ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ θυμίαμα προσάγεται τῷ ὀνόματὶ μου καὶ θυσία καθαρά· διότι μέγα τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (Malachi 1:11 LXX)
I have emboldened the conceptual parallels present in these texts. In Acts 9:15, Jesus (as the Lord) chooses Paul to bring his name before the nations and before the sons of Israel. This alludes to Ezekiel 39, in which God’s name is to be no longer dishonored in Israel’s midst, as well as Malachi 1:11, in which God’s name will be “great among the nations.” Jesus is therefore being portrayed as the Lord of Ezekiel 39 and Malachi 1 who exalts his own name before Israel and the nations. This action of ordering worship towards himself befits YHWH alone.
Finally, it seems to me that Jesus is indeed included in the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:6. The logic of the text seems to require this:
4 Περὶ τῆς βρώσεως οὖν τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων,* οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς. 5 καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς,* ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, 6 °ἀλλʼ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς διʼ αὐτοῦ (1 Corinthians 8:6)
In response to the inquiry of whether one can eat food offered to idols, Paul writes that “we know that there is no idol in the world (that exists) and that there is no God except one (οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς)”. The connective γαρ in verse 5 functions to undergird the logic of verse 4 with verses 5-6. In other words, verses 5 and following, if they are related to the claim that “there is no God but one”, are meant to support that claim.
Paul continues, saying “if indeed there are those spoken of as gods” (λεγόμενοι θεοὶ), just as (ὥσπερ) there are many θεοι and many κυριοι. The “just as” clause, then, confirms the hypothetical (“if indeed there are those spoken of as gods”). In other words, Paul is using the term κυριοι to confirm that there are those spoken of as θεοι. Contra Kirk, the use of the term κυριος cannot be a non-deity-denoting usage per the demands of the context: Paul is using the term to support the contention that there are those worshipped as gods, represented by the various “idols” of the nations. Thus, when Paul speaks of the “one God” (εἷς θεὸς) and “one Lord” (εἷς κύριος), we are to understand this claim in the context of Paul’s argument that there is “no God but one.” He is indeed, then, finding within the identity of the “one God” of Israel one God (the Father) and one Lord (Jesus Christ).[25] This contention is supported by the observations concerning the Lord’s table above; 1 Corinthians 8 is situated within the broader discussion of chapters 8-10, and so if Jesus is YHWH in 1 Corinthians 10 then he is certainly YHWH in 1 Corinthians 8.
Furthermore, it is not a concession to “ditheism” or the affirmation of two gods to admit that the one God the Father and the one Lord Jesus Christ are distinct and not identical. The affirmation of their distinctiveness, for Paul, is made right alongside the affirmation that there is “no God but one”, such that he sees the worship of the Father and the Lord as the worship of the one God. It is fitting to call this a “Christological monotheism.” Jesus is therefore accorded the highest form of worship by being included within the definitional prayer of the Jewish faith.
4. Synthesizing the Picture
When we correlate the features outlined above with the features already argued for by those in the early high Christology club, a stunning picture emerges.
First, per Bauckham, Jesus is explicitly identified as YHWH in several texts in which “Jesus” has been made the referent of the divine name. Second, Jesus is accorded a roll as the agent through whom God made all things—the same God who “alone” stretched out the heavens and the earth. Third, Jesus is the telos of the created order, and thus the one for whom our bodies were made and all things in creation were made. He is the one whom human beings must love above all other human beings, such that their love for even their dearest family members are relativized. This cannot be said of any intermediary figure, nor did any intermediary figure make such a demand. Fourth, Jesus assumes the role of God in determining the eternal destines of human beings. Fifth, Jesus assumes the relationship of God to Israel in his own relationship to the church, indicating that Jesus is to the church what God was to and for Israel. Sixth, Jesus engages in special divine action in response to prayer. He receives Stephen’s prayer, is the One who assuages Paul’s sufferings and perfects his power in Paul’s weakness, working his own power in Paul’s human agency, and opens hearts. Seventh, Jesus is accorded the highest forms of worship, for he is given the right to the worship rightly due deity alone, praised as the object of worship in a sacrificial meal, and accorded the acts and deeds of YHWH in Israel’s history (past and future).
These features help understand the picture of Jesus in individual books of the New Testament. In Matthew’s Gospel, when we pair the demand to love Jesus above all else with the climactic “son of man” texts as well as the figural allusions and “I am with you-Immanuel” inclusio Hays outlines, the picture of Jesus as the God of Israel becomes much clearer than if we were to look at any of these elements by themselves. The constellation of these elements, appropriated to an individual, transcends anything that would be appropriate to an intermediary or idealized human. In Luke-Acts, if we pair Jesus’s right to answer prayer together with both his fulfillment of OT YHWH texts (in which YHWH’s name is carried to Israel and the nations) and the demand to “hate” all other family, the texts together present a strong picture of someone who is more than an idealized human or even generically divine.
Further, Paul’s clear identification of Jesus as YHWH should exert some suggestive influence over how we read the Synoptic gospels. Presumably, Paul’s message matched the message of the apostles per 1 Corinthians 15:3-11. Paul writes “whether it was I or they, so we preached and so you believed”—having just referenced “Cephas” and the twelve. The Corinthian correspondence indicates that they at least knew Peter, for some boasted that they “belonged to Cephas” in the first chapter. Thus, if Paul preached the deity of Christ but the apostles did not, the Corinthians would have instantly been able to falsify Paul’s claim to a unity of message with the twelve. That provides evidence that Paul would have ensured his claim matched the claims of the apostles (which is what he claims in Galatians 1-2). And insofar as the Synoptic Gospels derive from the kerygma of the twelve apostles, we should see the Christology that the twelve would have subscribed to (assuming they preached the same things to the Corinthians) as plausibly influencing the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels. The message of the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, and Paul is therefore clear: Jesus, in no uncertain terms, is Israel’s God in person, distinct from the Father who sent him and yet one with him in worship, praise, honor, and glory.
Bauckham, R. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. https://books.google.com/books?id=IqDTA9UTbSwC.
Bauckham, Richard. “The Shema and 1 Corinthians 8.6 Again.” In One God, One People, One Future: Essays in Honour of N.T. Wright, 86–111. London, 2018.
Capes, D.B., and C. Evans. The Divine Christ (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology): Paul, the Lord Jesus, and the Scriptures of Israel. Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology. Baker Publishing Group, 2018. https://books.google.com/books?id=QmAyDwAAQBAJ.
Charles H. Talbert. Ephesians and Colossians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.
Dunn, J.D.G. Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, 2010. https://books.google.com/books?id=5t2-LzwM-wAC.
———. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. https://books.google.com/books?id=j3F0oypUqZoC.
Gaston, Thomas, and Andrew Perry. “Christological Monotheism: 1 Cor 8.6 and the Shema.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 39, no. 2 (2017): 176–96. https://doi.org/10.1163/18712207-12341353.
Hays, Richard. Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016.
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2016.
Henrichs Tarasenkova, Nina. Luke’s Christology of Divine Identity. Library of New Testament Studies ; 542. London, UK ; Bloomsbury T & T Clark, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2016.
Howard, Melanie A. “Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness.” Biblical Interpretation 24, no. 3 (June 2016): 428–30.
Hurtado, Larry. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015.
Jenson, Robert. Systematic Theology: The Triune God. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, n.d.
Jipp, Joshua W. The Messianic Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020.
Kirk, J. R. Daniel. A Man Attested by God : The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016.
Tilling, Chris. Paul’s Divine Christology. Eerdman’s edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015.
Vander Hart, Mark D. “The Transition of the Old Testament Day of the Lord into the New Testament Day of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 9, no. 1 (1993): 3–25.
Zehnder, Markus. “Why the Danielic ‘son of Man’ Is a Divine Being.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24, no. 3 (2014): 331–47.
[1] Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015) 105-120.
[2] Hurtado 157-158
[3] R. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), https://books.google.com/books?id=IqDTA9UTbSwC 6-30.
[4] Bauckham 182-232
[5] D.B. Capes and C. Evans, The Divine Christ (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology): Paul, the Lord Jesus, and the Scriptures of Israel, Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology (Baker Publishing Group, 2018), https://books.google.com/books?id=QmAyDwAAQBAJ.
[6] Chris Tilling, Paul’s Divine Christology, Eerdman’s edition. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015) 73-74.
[7] Indeed, with the exact locution πάντες οἱ ἀντικείμενοι αὐτῷ being used in both texts; the only times this exact locution are used, in fact, are in these two verses
[8] Richard Hays, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016) 68-72.
[9] Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2016) 74-75.
[10] Nina Henrichs Tarasenkova, Luke’s Christology of Divine Identity, Library of New Testament Studies ; 542 (London, UK ; Bloomsbury T & T Clark, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2016) 172-189.
[11] Joshua W. Jipp, The Messianic Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020) 593-594.
[12] J. R. Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God : The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016) 78-86.
[13] Thomas Gaston and Andrew Perry, “Christological Monotheism: 1 Cor 8.6 and the Shema,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 39, no. 2 (2017): 176–96, https://doi.org/10.1163/18712207-12341353.
[14] J.D.G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence (Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, 2010), https://books.google.com/books?id=5t2-LzwM-wAC.
[15] Melanie A. Howard, “Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness.,” Biblical Interpretation 24, no. 3 (June 2016): 428–30.
[16] Kirk, A Man Attested by God : The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels 494-495.
[17] J.D.G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), https://books.google.com/books?id=j3F0oypUqZoC 92-98.
[18] Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity 194-195.
[19] Charles H. Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007).
[20] Mark D Vander Hart, “The Transition of the Old Testament Day of the Lord into the New Testament Day of the Lord Jesus Christ,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 9, no. 1 (1993): 3–25.
[21] See Mt 4:10; Lk 4:8 (c.f. Dt 6:13); 1:74; Ac 7:7 (cp. Ex 3:12); 24:14; 27:23; Hb 9:14; Rv 7:15; 22:3
[22] Markus Zehnder, “Why the Danielic ‘son of Man’ Is a Divine Being,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24, no. 3 (2014): 331–47. Zehnder notes that “pelach” is taken by some in verse 27 to refer to the “saints”, thus giving the only exception to the rule stated. This is unlikely, however, since the Hebrew uses the third person singular as the one to whom “pelach” is given.
[23] W. Hall Harris III et al., eds., The Lexham English Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), 1 Co 10:14–22.
[24] See Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology: The Triune God, vol. 1 (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, n.d.).
[25] Richard Bauckham, “The Shema and 1 Corinthians 8.6 Again,” in One God, One People, One Future: Essays in Honour of N.T. Wright (London, 2018), 86–111.