The purpose of this post is not to discuss the meaning of Jesus’ parable, but pose a series of questions regarding its derivation.  I will not defend that this is a parable other than to note the context of Luke 15-16 as but one, and preceding this parable is a succession of three other parables.

Is there Scripture prior to Jesus’ words that teach the poor who are not wicked (apparently) go to Abraham’s bosom upon death?

Is there Scripture prior to the New Testament that teach torment in fire for the wicked as a departed soul/spirit?

If the answer to the above two questions is no, did any sect of the Jews in Jesus’ time maintain the opinion that these things were true regardless of the scriptural silence?

If yes, from where was that opinion derived?

If the opinion was derived from a pagan source rather than God’s inspired word, are we to take Jesus’ use of this language to affirm that pagan religions taught a truth God did not reveal?

If his language came from pagan religions that had truth God did not reveal and certain Jews rightly adopted this, what other truths can we find among their teachings and how can we determine, as certain early Jews apparently did, which of their teachings are true?

The following is a prior post I forgot to submit when moving to Wordpress:

More and more I hear of individuals properly rejecting unchristian teachings as the Trinity and Modalism, for which I rejoice before God.  But I am greatly concerned that many take this rejection to the opposite extreme, also denying Jesus’ preexistence. One such individual is the yet to be identified “Servetus the Evangelical.”  Apparently someone of reputation, he has come to properly reject the doctrine of the Trinity, but in doing so he has also rejected the true nature and identity of Jesus Christ (listen to him discuss this).

Maintaining this rejection of the real Jesus Christ requires a number of exegetical leaps with passages as Colossians 1:15-17 and John’s prologue, leaps that I can only say confound me.  Yet consider one of the most unambiguous passages on Jesus’ preexistence:

“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. – John 17:5 New American Standard Bible

Jesus here claims to have had glory with God “before the world was.”  This could not refer to Jesus as an idea or concept, as the “Biblical Unitarian” may claim, because the idea of him did not have more glory than he himself.  Jesus was not asking to return the state of being an idea so to have the glory of an idea, but he was asking to be returned to heaven to the state he had prior to becoming human (John 1:14).  Of course God chose to exalt him beyond his prior state (Phi. 2:5-11), but the point is that Jesus must have existed alongside of God as a real person to have had this glory, to have been “with” him.

Over the next week or two I am planning to break God and Christ into numerous web pages, dividing it topically and/or per the discussion of specific passages.  I believe the book stands well above the content previously published on this website, though it lacks the benefit of easy referral that the site had allowed.  When cited, for example, on web forms, those referred are left to search for the specific chapter and page, an endeavor many may prove unwilling to undertake.  By breaking the book down in this manner it will be possible to link the discussion of a specific topics or verse.

I am still hoping to integrate the blog into the site’s design, but this has proven more challenging that anticipated.  I have not given up on this, but it will come when it comes rather than being a top priority.

I have been reading Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament Christology of Divine Identity. Within this material, as far as I have progressed through it, Bauckham presents a number of points worthy of consideration, yet I have noted a tendency for him to be almost dismissive of evidence contrary to his position.

One clear example of Bauckham’s dismissiveness is when discussing the angel Yahoel (Jaoel).  From the Apocalypse of Abraham (a monotheistic Jewish text, contemporary to the apostles from the mid-late first century AD), this angel has God’s ‘ineffable Name dwelling in him.’  This is at the least an allusion to Exodus 23:21 where the angel is said to have God’s name in him, though Buackham goes a step further, suggesting the text “is clearly intended to represent him [Yahoel] as the angel of Exodus 23:21″ (Bauckham, 224).

The name Yahoel is a combination of YHWH (Jehovah) and EL (God), with scholars such as Hurtado and McGrath, among others, recognizing this as God’s name within this angel.   Bauckham rejects this, arguing for a meaning parallel to Elijah, meaning ‘YHWH is God’ (ibid., 226).  In support of this he cites Sefar ha-Razim where an angel by this name is cited, having a relatively low rank.  Yet this source is from the late third or early fourth century, too far removed to carry certain weight.

Bauckham seems to largely overturn his own case from Sefar ha-Razim.  Far from a low ranking angel in the Apocalypse of Abraham, “there are also indications that he leads or supervises the worship of God in heaven (12:4; 17:2-6; 18:11),” (ibid., 225) while also “the author of the Apocalypse of Abraham… has concluded that the angel in question is the heavenly high priest” (ibid.).   Yet most damaging to Bauckham’s claims (a fact he mentions but fails to engage) is that God’s name is also called Yahoel within this text:

“Eli, that is, My God-
Eternal, might holy Sabaoth,
very glorious El, El, El, El, Jaoel!”

There is good likelihood that Yahoel was used in place of the divine name, viewed as too sacred have written entirely (G.H. Box, The Apocalypse of Abraham [New York, The Macmillan Company, 1919]).   This being the case, Bauckham’s objection that Yahoel is used “rather than yhwh itself” is without merit (Bauckham, 225-6).  That the name is shared by God and the angel does not identify the angel as Jehovah God himself, a point that Bauckham seems to miss.  The angel is God’s agent, given the name and appointed to a certain task as God’s representative.

If this angel is viewed as the same one in Exodus 23:21, the notion that the angel of Jehovah is Jehovah ontologically can be dismissed within this first century Jewish interpretation.  If Yahoel is not the angel of Exodus 23:21, that the indwelling of God’s name is done for another to use his name as their own demonstrates the same point.

The christological implications of this are significant, which Bauckham seeks to avoid.  This early Jewish monothesitic outlook would find Jesus-indwelt with the divine name-identifiable with Jehovah without equating the two ontologically.   Many, as Bauckham, suggest kurios, when in application to Christ, often serves to identify him with Jehovah ontologically.  Yet if the name of God has been given to him (Phi. 2:9-11), it would serve to do no more than identify Jesus as Jehovah’s agent, the one indwelt with the name and given divine authority and prerogatives.  Indeed, this would serve as evidence that Jesus is not Jehovah ontologically.

Last night I was finally able to install Wordpress on the server and do so much sooner than I anticipated.  Over the coming days I will be working on the design so to conform it best as possible to the existing website.  If anyone happens to be an expert at PHP and would care to volunteer some time for integrating the web design, please contact me.  Otherwise, I will make it correspond as closely as possible.

I have just finished reading James McGrath’s Only True God, wherein he considers early monotheism in light of second temple Jewish literature and the Bible.  While McGrath does not mantain a high view of scripture and argues that theology should change and develop with time, his observations are meaningful and significant for the formation of a biblical theology proper and Christology in agreement with the earliest Christians.

McGrath reviews exalted men and angels as divine agents and explores how these could carry divine prerogatives, titles and even God’s very name without confusing them with God himself.  McGrath further considers how early Jews did not find this in conflict with the uniqueness of God and the implications of this for early Christians in their view of Christ.  While McGrath expressly states that it is not his intention to argue against the Trinitarian view of God, the result of his case is impotency for the majority of Trinitarian proof texts.

While McGrath’s consideration of worship is certainly of interest, in my opinion it is not as strong as other portions of this work.  Arguing that sacrificial worship was generally viewed as what was due to God alone, it would have been beneficial to include greater depth when covering other aspects of worship, such as prayer, especially in light of New Testament texts cited of Jesus in this regard.

Somewhat surprising was McGrath’s acceptance of “I am” as a name for God as used by Jesus in John’s Gospel.  While demonstrating that this has no more force than the presentation of Jesus as God’s agent, that he failed to consider the grammatical and contextual issues surrounding Jesus’ and even God’s Old Testament use of “I am” is surprising.

In spite of these brief criticisms McGrath’s work is worthy of consideration and a valuable resource, especially if one is looking to newly or further understand agency.  The presentation is relatively short, coming in under 150 pages, yet within this McGrath has managed to pack a great deal of useful information.