The ascension of King David to heaven

by Leolaia 26 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Yerusalyim....I like your description of how orthodox christology arose....it really gets the essence of it, but it also oversimplifies the situation a lot. There were many shades of adoptionism and different ideas about Jesus' divinity. Adoptionists disagreed on when they believed Jesus was annointed as the Son of God (whether at his baptism, resurrection, or conception and birth) and whether the annointing merely gave him kingship and Lordship or whether it also made him divine. Those who believed that Jesus was divine may have regarded his deity as the result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at Jesus' annointing, or they may have regarded him as one of the angelic "sons of God," the incarnation of heavenly wisdom, God in the flesh, etc. Docetism had various subtypes, such as illusionist view that claimed that Jesus' body was spiritual and not of the flesh and the possessionist view which claimed that Christ never had his own body but descended and possessed the man Jesus at his baptism and left him during the crucifixion. The latter view, attributed to Cerinthus and also attested in the Gospel of Peter, is an example of a christology that is both adoptionist and docetist/gnostic.

    The earlier adoptionist idea (especially popular among the Ebionites and other Jewish Christians) was that Jesus was annointed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism -- an act that made him the Davidic Messiah (Annointed) and Son of God, understanding the title "Son of God" as a title of Jesus' kingship bestowed at his baptismal annointing (Psalm 2:6-7). While it is not clear whether Jesus actually claimed to be the Messiah (and many doubt this), two of the most certain things Jesus is known to have said -- calling God "Abba" or "Father" and focusing on the "Kingdom of God" as the central theme of his teaching -- surely contributed to this belief. This is the concept in the Gospel of Mark, especially the baptism narrative in 1:9-11 and ratified in God's declaration during the Transfiguration in 9:7. Jesus' kingly entrance into Jerusalem in 11:1-11 follows, Jesus cites his baptism as the source of his authority (11:28-30), he is questioned by the Roman authorities on being "King of the Jews" in 15:2-5, and finally at the moment of his death even the Gentiles acknowledge him as the Son of God (15:39). Apostle Paul, in his earlier writings, also had an adoptionist christology but one that viewed Jesus' Sonship and Lordship as resulting from his resurrection. This view is most clearly stated in Romans 1:3-4: By his "human nature" Jesus was "a descendent of David" but he was "proclaimed Son of God in all his power through his resurrection from the dead" and it was at that point when "the Spirit of Holiness was in him." Luke's Peter in Acts 2:32-36 also expresses the same primitive christology: "God raised this man to life ... raised to the heights by God's right hand, he has received from the Father the Holy Spirit ... and God has thus made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ." A third view is expressed in Luke and Matthew which pushes Jesus' annointing all the way to the other extreme -- the Holy Spirit came upon him at his conception (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35), so that Luke says that "the child will be holy and will be called Son of God" and Matthew has King Herod referring the Jesus as "the infant king of the Jews" (2:2) and the Magi bowing before the infant King (2:11). Matthew and Luke present a one-stage adoptionist theory, so that Jesus throughout his entire life and resurrection was the annointed Messiah, while Mark and early Paul present a two-stage adoptionist theory -- of Jesus living part of his life before being annointed by the Holy Spirit and part of his life afterward.

    The question of deity arises when the Holy Spirit is no longer viewed as mere unction but the indwelling of divine nature and then the indwelling of God himself. The earliest adoptionist views were probably functionalist -- that is, they claimed that Jesus accepted the role of Messiah and Lord but did not necessarily become divine through his annointing. The view of a divine indwelling and the presence of Deity in Jesus led to three-stage adoptionist theories and two-stage non-adoptionist theories that both focused on the sending of Deity or a divine Revealer into the world. This in turn contributed to speculations about preexistence. The view of Cerinthus summarized above is an example of a three-part christology: (1) Jesus lives as a man (2) Christ descends on him like a dove at his baptism and functions as a divine Revealer (3) Christ leaves him as Jesus dies on the cross. This gnostic belief, seemingly distant from anything in orthodox Christianity, is strikingly similar to the proto-orthodox adoptionist view in the second-century Shepherd of Hermas (written by a pastor in the Roman church) which also attests a possessionist christology. The three-part christology of Hermas however focuses on the "Beloved Son's" preexistence: (1) the Holy Spirit, or "the Beloved Son", was pre-existent from eternity (2) Jesus was later born and lived a righteous human life (3) the Holy Spirit found him blameless and descended on him and brought him into a state of blessedness.

    "The preexistent Holy Spirit, which created the whole creation, God caused to live in the flesh that he wished. This flesh, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit lived, served the Spirit well, living in holiness and purity, without defiling the Spirit in any way. So, because it had lived honorably and chastely, and had worked with the Spirit and had cooperated with it in everything, conducting itself with strength and bravery, he chose it as a partner with the Holy Spirit, for the conduct of this flesh pleased the Lord, because while possessing the Holy Spirit it was not defiled upon the earth. So he took the Son and the glorious angels as counselors, in order that this flesh also, having served the Spirit blamelessly, might have some place to live and not appear to have lost its reward of its service." (Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 5.6.5-7)

    This shows that even in early orthodoxy were possessionist views to be found and Christians of the Western churches drew on some of the same concepts as the gnostics in the Eastern churches. It was then a short step from belief in the indwelling of deity in Jesus to the idea that Jesus himself was Deity incarnate. The orthodox belief in the Deity of Christ, so prevalent in the Western churches, may also have something to do with the fact that Gentile converts had little background or motivation to view Jesus' Sonship in a Davidic Messianic sense but instead were influenced by the secular concept of the emperor as "Son of God" in a deified sense. At the same time, among Jewish Christians, the use of the term "Son of God" in the Tanakh to refer to angels probably contributed in another approach to Jesus' divinity: viewing Jesus as "a righteous angel," as Simon Peter in the Gospel of Thomas confesses him to be (GThom 13:3). The popularity of this notion in early Christianity is evident from the strenuous attempts in Hebrews 1 to refute it. An even earlier precursor to this belief was the idea, probably held by some when Jesus was alive, that he was Elijah who came back down from heaven to teach them (Matthew 16:14), in fulfillment of Malachi 3:23. In both cases Jesus was thought of as sent from heaven, not born of woman on earth. The Gospel of Thomas and later gnostic works also see Jesus as the Divine Revealer from the "kingdom of heaven" who invites his disciples to join him when he returns to his realm. There is a strong Jewish element in gnosticism and a number of scholars have pointed out that this concept (also found in later Jewish merkabah mysticism) lies in earlier Jewish apocalyptic and mystical works that relate the revelation of secrets by an angel (cf. Daniel 9:20-27, 3 Baruch, 3 Enoch, also cf. 3 Enoch 43:3 which also mentions the heavenly origin of the human soul and the ascent to heaven of the "saved"). A further influence is the idea of preexistent Wisdom or Logos, which as God's thought was the agent of Creation and special revelation to Israel (cf. Proverbs 8:22-31; Sirach 24:1-12; Wisdom 7:24-30; Philo, On Creation).

    Paul, the more liberal of the apostles and most intimately involved with the Gentiles (who were more inclined to view "Son of God" as a divine rather than royal epithet), gradually leaned more and more towards asserting Jesus Christ's Deity. Paul's later declaration of the Son's Deity, preexistence, and Creatorship (cf. Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15-17, 2:9) had to be reconciled with Paul's acceptance of his humanity (cf. Romans 1:3, 9:5; Colossians 1:20), and so Paul's three-part christology in Philippians 2 introduces the kenotic doctrine that Jesus was God before his incarnation and he resumed his Deity following his resurrection, but during his earthly life he "emptied" himself of his divinity so that he was only man and not God. This idea is consistent with Paul's earlier teaching that Jesus received the Holy Spirit at his resurrection (instead of at some point during his life). John, on the other hand, has no kenotic concept of Jesus and merely says that the preexistent Word was "made flesh" and has him asserting both his Deity and his unworldly origin in his earthly ministry (cf. John 5:18, 6:42, 62, 7:28, 33; 8:23, 58), e.g. "I am from above ... I am not of this world" (8:23) and "I have come down from heaven" (6:42). This claim is made despite repeatedly mentioning Jesus' mother (John 2:3-5, 6:42, 19:25-27; see especially 6:42), and again mentioning Jesus' birth (John 18:37), but John 1:13 also says that Jesus was "born not out of human stock ... but of God himself," which leaves in rather vague territory the issue of Jesus' own human nature -- though John takes pains in 20:24-29 to refute the illusionist theory of docetism. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around A.D. 115-117 and exceedingly preoccupied with the illusionist docetism, clearly asserted both Jesus' humanity and Deity:

    "There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, both from Mary and from God" (IgEphesians 7:2)
    "Jesus Christ ... was of the family of David, who was the son of Mary, who really was born, who both ate and drank, who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate, who really was crucified and died" (IgTrallians 9:1)

    Here there is no trace of either Ebionite, Pauline, or Hermas-type adoptionism, kenosis, or docetism. But Ignatius' push towards fully confessing Jesus as God skirted around another big problem: the monotheism of traditional Judaism. Ignatius' solution was a sort of primitive monarchistic modalism. This is the idea that the Christ and God are basically the same Person. Thus he writes: "Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God..." (IgEph 1:1). Ignatius furthermore became the first known person in Christian history to claim that Jesus raised himself from the dead instead of saying that God raised him: "He truly suffered just as he truly raised himself -- not, as certain unbelievers say, that he suffered in appearance only" (IgSmyrnaeans 2:1). Ignatius' modalist views would have been heretical only a century later.

    Leolaia

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Pete....I'm going to reply to your post in a new thread on Peter since it's already off-topic....

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    If i could add to your scholarly comment leolaia I'd stir in the mix, traces of an early Jewish layer that's called the "Son of Man" Gospel by some. There in apparently the jesus character denied his being a son of David (a largely meaningless title by then as tribal divisions were largely ceremonial and the geneologies were burned by Herod 1, the title was symbolically a "call to arms" and used by a number of would be saviors) but identified himself as the heaven sent 'Son of Man' of Daniel and other apocalyptic works. The Jewish masses in this protogospel called Urmark by some, insisted upon calling him the son of David to his frustration. (Mark 12 :35-37) The political fever for liberation from Rome was too strong to resist and his later disciples made forever firm the identification as 'David's promised son". Even assimilated to the body of legend his strong arming his way into the temple and holding it for 3 days. ( a great military feat given the thousands of Jewish and Roman temple guards protecting the largest finacial institution in Palestine) Something that was attempted a couple times by Zealot military Messiahs. Perhaps this is why his closest disciples bore zealot titles.

    LT.. to answer you, yes of course there is some history is the tales, that is what makes them so interesting, trying to uncover it is like detective work on a 2000 year old murder. Various authors and scholars applying their particular specialties have created a body of evidence that is begging for a unified reconstruction. The small historical value may not be in the core theme as much as the circustantial details.
    It is my position that given the nature of the stories, (mythical,contradictory,apologetic) none of it should stand without critical analysis.

    Leolaia probably hates me by now as i keep rambling on and muddying up her consise comments.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Pete:

    It is my position that given the nature of the stories, (mythical,contradictory,apologetic) none of it should stand without critical analysis.

    I agree, though it's easy to miss the whole point, when delving into it at that level.

    Leolaia probably hates me by now as i keep rambling on and muddying up her consise comments.

    Naaah. She seems pretty tolerant, and I think she'll keep you in check, with new threads

    I'm loving reading the depth of research that has gone into this. I'm especially enjoying the comments of you three (Leolaia, Narkissos, peacefulpete), on this subject, of biblical authenticity.

    I genuinely hope you keep on presenting your opinions here, and don't run out of steam.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Sorry I have been out one day.

    About the relationship of GJohn with Gnosticism, the main flaw of Koester's analysis IMO is actually taking later clear-cut Gnostic Christian works as the Gnostic paradigm for reconstructing the content of GJohn's source and then evaluating how GJohn supposedly departs from such a source. The later Gnostic works such as the Nag Hammadi Apocalypses of James obviously react to the previous impact of some form of "Great Church" soteriology, which is hardly the case of any supposed source for GJohn. This (Koester?s) model, in turn, tends (still IMO) to obscure the very movement of GJohn?s logic, or initiatic pedagogy, which doesn?t bring in proto-orthodox Christian thinking (involving futuristic eschatology, for example) as the ultimate word to ?correct? any protognostic thought, but to the contrary uses it as a penultimate word, i.e. as the very starting point (common, popular or outward understanding) from which GJohn leads the reader into a ?higher? understanding.

    Examples:

    Common understanding, John 11:23f: Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day."

    Specifically johannine understanding, John 11:25f: Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.

    Common understanding, John 14:3: In my Father's house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also.

    Specifically Johannine understanding, John 14:23: Jesus answered him, "Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.?

    This pattern doesn?t exclude even later additions meant as ?ultimate words? to give the whole Johannine system an ?orthodox? ring, such as John 5:28f (unnecessary to expose the Johannine understanding which was already given in v. 21-25), or the recurring phrase ?I will raise X up in the last day? in chapter 6. The characteristic of those is that they appear as unneeded additions, as the specific Johannine logic stands perfectly (and even better) without them. In my view, one has to distinguish between the two kinds of apparently ?orthodox? references.

    On the Petrine issue, I tend to see it as a very late fabrication, building on ?Cephas? tradition and many others. The articles by Ernst Barnikol and Frank McGuire on http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/ are interesting on this subject. But we may come back to this in the next thread.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    It is generally believed that the historical Jesus did not have an apocalyptic orientation and that an expectation of Jesus returning as an apocalyptic Son of Man arose mainly in the community of his followers, especially in Syria. It may have been the case that some of Jesus' own disciples, during his ministry, had apocalyptic expectations -- such as the Zealots who desired a material restoration of Jewish sovereignty. Three main factors fed into this eschatology: (1) The circumlocution "Son of Man," which Jesus used to refer to himself in the humblest of terms (this is the non-technical sense of the term and one that accorded with Jesus' emphasis on humility) was successively interpreted by its technical apocalyptic sense -- as the messianic figure who according to Daniel and 1 Enoch would bring to an end current governments and judge humankind on the Day of Judgement; (2) The expression Jesus used to spiritually refer to the new relationship God would enter with people in social equity and justice, the "Kingdom of God", was interpreted to mean a literal messianic kingdom (which may have been the misinterpretation the Roman authorities had when they crucified Jesus as a self-styled "King of the Jews"); (3) Jesus' message to his followers that the Kingdom was already in their midst was then subtly shifted into a statement on the imminence and suddenness of the Kingdom, and the rapidly deteriorating political conditions in Judea in the 50s and 60s intensified the hope for divine deliverance.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    On the issue of Gnostic sources, the Apocryphon of James is far more primitive than, say, the Dialogue of the Savior which embeds many of the same logia in more theologically-elaborate interpretations. It is far closer in content to the Gospel of Thomas, and I am persuaded by the seemingly more original forms of the sayings in John, but I agree that John has a higher level of theology that the reversals don't necessarily contribute to. Koester agrees that some of the passages you pointed to are "later additions":

    "The verses John 5:27b-29; 6:39b, 40b, 44b, which present a realistic view of the resurrection on the last day, also belong to these redactional passages. John 5:24-27a has stated unequivocally that those who believe in Jesus have eternal life and will not come into the judgment, and that now is the hour "that the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." John 5:28-29 qualifies this statement through the introduction of a more traditional view of eschatology. The brief clause, "but I shall raise him on the last day," interpolated in John 6:39, 40, and 44, reveals the same traditional eschatological orientation. (Koester 1990, 248)

    The more original eschatological outlook, in fact, is that same as the Gospel of Thomas 51: "His disciples said to him, 'When will the respose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?' He said to them, 'What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it.' " I earlier commented on the possibility that the eschatological redaction may be associated with the eschatological coloring of 1 John (cf. 1 John 2:18; 4:3, 17) and the more eschatologically-minded John the Presbyter, who may have had some role in the later redaction of GJohn.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    I've never been much impressed with what is "generally believed" as you know by know. Especially since the present orthodoxy (Jesus Seminar for example) seems almost condescending to the Mythicist scholarship. The question goes to the core of whether we see an origin to the jesus legend in jewish messiahism, Jewish apocalypticim and mysticism or Pagan mystery cult. These schools of thought agree on much but differ upon dates. The source we choose has much to do with the dating of eschatological elements and the texts they are found in. All three arenas contributed to the puzzle but which exact order the pieces fell into place is very difficult to say. No simple answer is probably right. The clash and rivalry between Xtian sects as you have pointed out illustrates the complexity of the process of adopting and modifying that eventuated with a few standardized Christologies.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Leolaia,

    Sorry I misread your references to the Apocryphon of James (NH 1/1) into the Apocalypses (NH 5/3-4). My objections remain basically unchanged though: the Apocryphon of James may correct the Johannine tradition from the viewpoint of later Gnosis as well.

    I cannot help thinking, however, that you too are construing a historical Jesus according to your heart (who doesn't?)... Apocalypticism, in the first century, pervaded all Jewish schools with the possible (and relative) exception of the Sadducees: it was associated with the ritual thinking of Qumran as with the ethics of the Pharisees. How could Jesus escape this? His preaching may have had eschatological and political overtones, which would better explain his fate than "misunderstandings" (such as are suggested in the Gospels, especially Luke, with the obvious intention to make the Jesus' movement more acceptable to the Romans). The fact that James was seen as the natural heir of the Jesus' movement at least proves that it remained within the borders of identitarian Judaism, as could be accepted by the Pharisees on one side and the Essenes on the other side (even if one doesn't accept altogether Eisenman's peremptory assertion, "what James was Jesus was"). The fact neither the Pharisees nor the Essenes appear in the early Passion narratives seems to confirm that. Your point on the "Son of Man" sayings may be strong, but I'm not so much convinced as to the attribution of a "non-eschatological, inward Kingdom of God" concept to the historical Jesus. This sounds rather to me as later spiritualisation, perhaps not free from political interests.

  • AREYYAHWEH
    AREYYAHWEH

    hello,

    anything under the son right? Well here we are, exciting to be living on the seventh day (7000yrs.) of creation right? Or 3rd day since jah ascended to the father. I'm david, this is my first visit to this forum, stumbled into you sort of speak. Research on king david.

    I agree with you. IF you ever want to discuss biblical topics, my email is [email protected] anytime!!! Never knew much about the jahovah's witness's but, recently realized after john 3:3 happened to me, there may be no difference mainly. It's all in the name (Jah)ovah's witness. Hope you'll reply.

    david

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit