Which begs a question if Jesus was god. Why was Satan tempting God to begin with? Why would God need God to save God from anything?DD,
I'm afraid you are missing the rhetoric here. The point of all of Jesus' replies (and OT quotations) is to show why he should not follow the Tempter's suggestion. Iow, Jesus would have "put the Lord to the test" had he thrown himself from the temple pinnacle (see the context of Deuteronomy 6:16 and parallels: "putting Yhwh to the test" is requiring a miracle from him). There is no point in having Jesus break from his reply pattern to answer, this time, "Hey, buddy, you should not put me to the test: you know I'm God, after all."
Why was it blasphemy for Jesus to say he was God's Son?
by jwfacts 24 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
5go
-
Leolaia
I want to do a thread on this subject eventually. But I am persuaded by James VanderKam that John construes the charge of blasphemy in Antiochene terms, i.e. that Jesus was viewed by the Temple authorities as a sort of Antiochus redivivus who was thought to imitate the blasphemy of Antiochus IV Epiphanes two centuries earlier, whereas Jesus presents himself as the opposite of Antiochus (as an anti-antichrist, so to speak) -- as the only one sent by God to do his will.
The connection between Jesus and Antiochus Epiphanes is most overt in ch. 10. Jesus is at the Temple during the Feast of Dedication, i.e. Hannukah, a holiday that celebrates the victory of the Maccabees over Antiochus' forces. Antiochus, as you may recall, attacked Jerusalem and pillaged the Temple, eventually defiling it by installing the abomination of desolation (a pagan altar on which pigs were sacrificed), and then rededicating the Temple to Zeus Olympios (cf. 1 Maccabees 1:54, 2 Maccabees 6:2). He also claimed to be God manifest (hence his title "Epiphanes"). So Jesus is at the Temple at a time of the year when thoughts are turned to the blasphemy of Antiochus. Not only is he at the Temple, but he stands upon the Portico of Solomon -- the only part of the Temple complex that, according to tradition, survived the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The desolation of the Temple by Antiochus was seen by the Jews as one of several desolations going back to Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of the city (cf. Daniel 9). So Jesus is at the right time and at the right place for him to assume the role of the blasphemer who threatens to destroy the Temple. Jesus already made declarations about restoring the Temple after its destruction (John 2:19-22), although the text presents the Jews as misunderstanding the symbolism he was using.
It is from this location at the Temple, on the occasion of the rededication of the Temple after its defilement by the blasphemer Antiochus, that Jesus then proclaims himself as the shepherd who gives his sheep eternal life (10:27), and no one could steal the sheep from neither him nor the Father because "the Father and I are one" (10:30). As it turns out, the lectionary reading on the sabbath before Hannukah in the second year of the triennial lectionary cycle has Leviticus 24:1-25:13 for the Torah portion and Ezekiel 34:1-31 for the haftarah portion. The latter text condemns the religious leaders of Israel as derelict shepherds who are replaced by a new shepherd, "my servant David", who would be put in charge of the sheep, and who "will pasture them and be their shepherd...And you, my sheep, are the flock I shall pasture, and I am your God" (34:23-31). In light of the haftarah reading, Jesus would make himself the shepherd sent by God to rule over Israel, who would pasture the sheep together with God. He thus claims a similar unique relationship with God, that "the Father is in me and I am in the Father" (10:38, 14:11), in other words, "it is the Father living in me, who is doing this work" (14:10), i.e. God is manifest in Jesus (just as Antiochus Epiphanes is God manifest). The Torah portion of the lectionary reading instructs the Israelites what to do in the case of blasphemy: "The one who blasphemes the name of Yahweh must die; the whole community must stone him" (Leviticus 24:16). And so the "Jews fetched stones to stone him", because, in their words, "You are only a man and you make yourself God" (10:31-33). This parallels the situation in ch. 5, where Jesus called God his Father "making himself equal to God" (5:18). As it turns out, these statements are strikingly similar to statements made about Antiochus Epiphanes in 2 Maccabees, who was characterized as a "blasphemer" (blasphémos) in 9:28:
2 Maccabees 9:12: "And when he [Antiochus Epiphanes] could not endure his own stench, he uttered these words, 'It is right to be subject to God (dikaion hupotassesthai tó theó); no mere mortal should think that he is equal to God (mé thnéton onta isothea phronein)' "
John 5:18: "For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath (elue to sabbaton), but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God (ison heauton poión tó theó)".
John 10:33: "The Jews answered him: 'We are not stoning you for any of these [miracles], but for blasphemy (blasphémias) because you, a mere man (anthrópos), make yourself God (poieis seauton theon)' ".
It is also worth noting the contrast between Jesus in John and Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel. In the case of the latter, Antiochus will "do things according to his own will" (poiései kata to theléma autou) and hence "exalts and magnifies himself above every god and speaks pompous words against the God of gods" (11:36-37). That is how the Jews in the Johannine narrative view Jesus, as a blasphemer who exalts himself and claims equality with God. Jesus, on the other hand, says that "I seek not to do my own will" (zétó to theléma to emon), and that "I have not come down from heaven to do my own will (poió to theléma to emon), but the will of the one who sent me" (John 5:30, 6:38; cf. 4:34).
-
Narkissos
Wow. Thanks Leolaia, this is a very interesting reference network.
-
jwfacts
Thanks. The answer seems to depend largely on a person's perspective.
-
Deputy Dog
Nark
Who was he "requiring a miracle from" in verse 3?
Mat 4:3
And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."Also the fact that Jesus was doing miracles, had He not been God, He would be guilty of breaking the very command that you speak of.
IOW If He wasn't God he was sinning by tempting God, or, as I believe, the Pharisees knew only God could perform miracles, thus by his actions he was claiming Deity, which would be a form of blasphemy were he simply a man. They said he did them by the power of Satan.
-
Narkissos
DD,
Your dogmatic obsession bars you from understanding a simple narrative and its rhetoric.
I'm not discussing whether absolutely, or only for Matthew, Jesus is God or not.
I just said that the point of Jesus' answer in v. 7 is to tell the Tempter that HE (Jesus) would not throw himself from the temple because THAT would be "tempting God".
Of course the text is full of wordplays on "tempting" (peirazô ktl.). You can read it with the (imo foreign) idea that Jesus ultimately IS the God who should not be tempted, which adds a measure of irony (and obscurity) to the text but is by no means required by it (even though it cannot be ruled out either).
-
Deputy Dog
Nark
Your dogmatic obsession
My "dogmatic obsession"?
Of course the text is full of wordplays on "tempting" ( peirazô ktl. ).You can read it with the (imo foreign) idea that Jesus IS the God who should not be tempted, which adds a measure of irony to the text but is not required by it (even though it is not ruled out either).
Is that not the purpose of the "wordplays"? You do believe they are purposely put there, don't you? If you consider my other point (which was my main point), that Jesus' actions (acting as God) spoke louder than His words, in the context of the John passage I wouldn't call it a big leap.
-
Chap
If Jesus who came to exclusively do his Father's will (be in agreement with him) jumped off the mountain at the command of Satan, he would no longer be in agreement with God the Father because he would have bowed to Satan, the Prince of this world. Satan would have then rightly claimed Jesus as his son/slave.
-
hmike
Mat 4:3 And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."
Isn't the emphasis here on "If..."? Isn't Satan challenging Jesus' understanding of his identity? God had just said, "You are my Son." Satan is saying, "Prove it on MY terms." Later on, Jesus multiplied the loaves—not to feed himself.
-
quietlyleaving
jwfacts
Thanks. The answer seems to depend largely on a person's perspective.
I agree. The texts are fascinating when we can free them from the usual angle and then to glimpse them in other more modern even politcial writings. I'm studying Rousseau at the moment in my course.
The way I see it is that Jesus represents ordinary people challenging the strangelhold of religious and political authority to liberate people' thinking investing them with confidence in their own reasoning power and ability.
So to the religious leaders and to people ensnared by that sort of thinking it was blasphemy for Jesus to say he was the son of God and perhaps, for many people, it was much too fearful a thing to envisage the freedom and equality Jesus seemed to allude to.
Thats my take for now