Spectacularly point-missing. The post was about reading Mark by itself, and assuming only things that first century Jews would assume about God, e.g. he knows all, he can't die.
i) Is Dale really that simple-minded? Yes, God is omniscient and immortal.
But let's take a comparison: can a man get from L.A. to Seattle in two hours? Well, a man can't walk from L.A to Seattle in two hours. He can't run that fast. A man qua man can't traverse that distance in two hours. But a man can fly a plane from L. A. to Seattle in two hours.
God qua God can't die. God qua God can't be ignorant. But Mark presents both the humanity and divinity of Christ. The Son qua God can't die, but the Son qua Incarnate can die. The Son qua God can't be ignorant, but the Son qua Incarnate can be ignorant.
ii) It's because Mark makes some statements about Jesus that are incompatible with divinity that we affirm the humanity of Christ. Conversely, it's because Mark makes some statements about Jesus that are incompatible with humanity that we affirm the divinity of Christ.
For Dale to say Christ can't be God because God can't die or be ignorant misses the point. Yes, we know that. And it's because Mark makes statements about Jesus that are inconsistent if Jesus is only human or only divine that we believe Jesus to be both human and divine.
BTW, since Tuggy is an open theist, he doesn't believe God knows the future.
To *argue against* Chalcedonian christology would, of course, require a lot more than a quick overview of Mark. We don't bring in later catholic two-natures theory in expounding Mark's meaning, because, that whole theoretical project just anywhere to be found there. You gents just don't want to take time to understand Mark in his own terms - you want to do systematic theology and polemical apologetics. But, first things first.
i) Except that Dale doesn't take the time to understand Mark on his own terms. Take major commentaries on Mark by R. T. France and Robert Stein. Notice how they exegete the deity of Christ in Mark from Mk 1:1-4. They make the effort to understand Mark on his own terms, using grammatico-historical exegesis. Or consider the way Sigurd Grindheim exegetes the deity of Christ in Mark in his grammatico-historical monograph: Christology in the Synoptic Gospels, chap. 2. Grindheim takes the time to understand Mark on his own terms, using contextual and intertextual clues.
ii) I didn't resort to systematic theology or Chalcedonian Christology in my response to Dale.
Yes, I referred to the two natures of Christ, but that's just a case of using extrabiblical terminology to summarize Scripture. It's not as if Dale limits himself to Biblical terminology when he talks about "humanitarian unitarianism."
Mark treats Jesus as simultaneously human and divine.
By the way, even as late as Irenaeus, it seems that many catholics happily accepted that Jesus didn't know the day or hour (full stop). http://trinities.org/blog/archives/4365
A red herring.
Tempting God to sin is not the same as putting God to the test (i.e. try his patience). Surely you don't want to say that 1st c. Jews thought God could be tempted to sin. (How could all all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-around perfect being be motivated to sin?) But this is what the reader assumes Satan to be doing to Jesus in Mark 1.
i) Once again, is Dale really that simple-minded? He fails to draw an elementary distinction between subjective and objective temptation. Can God feel temptation? No. Can an external agent try to tempt God? Yes.
Even if Jesus was merely God, that's perfectly consistent with Satan trying to tempt him. Because that's something Satan does with God, not something that motivates God. It comes from the outside, not the inside.
ii) Furthermore, since Jesus isn't merely God, because Jesus is also a man, it's possible for Jesus to feel human temptations.
iii) Finally, to feel tempted is not inherently sinful.
"The Son qua God can't die, but the Son qua Incarnate can die."
ReplyDeleteYe olde qua-move. Sigh. Just pushes the bump (contradiction) under the carpet. It would seem that what can die as/because it is X, can die (full stop). So, he can and he can't. :-( We should be afraid to foist that kind of view onto Mark.
"It's because Mark makes some statements about Jesus that are incompatible with divinity that we affirm the humanity of Christ. Conversely, it's because Mark makes some statements about Jesus that are incompatible with humanity that we affirm the divinity of Christ."
Right. So, one and the same Jesus has divinity, and properties incompatible with divinity. (Ditto with humanity.) D'oh!
You might try positing two different subjects in Christ, one which, e.g. is omniscient, the other not. But that seems a disastrous read of the gospels, I think you'll agree. Another option would be to say the features are, respectively, omniscient-as-divine and omniscient-as-human - Jesus has the first, lacks the second. Such features, one may think, are not obviously contrary. But those are wierd features, and besides, why don't they entail plain old omniscience and non-omniscience (in this one subject who's both divine and human)?
Unless you can spell out how it helps, I'm afraid the qua-dodge is just a dodge. If you're going to say it's a holy mystery, just go straight for that - bite the bullet without delay. Problem is, though, you now have to insist that what seems a self-contradictory reading of Mark is overall the best one.
"using extrabiblical terminology to summarize Scripture"
Yes, in your view, Chalcedonian language "summarizes" points not grapsed for hundreds of years by mainstream Christians. Looks anachronistic. (This is why the point about Irenaeus and others is relevant.) As a Protestant, you would be more wary of such errors.
"Can an external agent try to tempt God?"
Thanks - I see you concede my point that the reader of Mark reasonably assumes that Satan is tempting Jesus to sin, as in the other gospels.
Now, is Satan that dumb - to try to tempt a being to sin, who he ought to know, can't possibly have a motive to sin? That'd be like trying to find the corner of a perfect sphere, or trying to find the fourth side of a triangle. It's conceivable, to be sure, but strange to think about a foe who is supposed to be a fearsome adversary. In your view, does Satan somehow fail to see that Jesus is God (making his temping activity pointless), or does he fail to know that God can't sin (making Satan an idiot)?
I agree that it is not a sin to feel temptation. And yes, it seems important that Jesus was tempted. He is, on that score, a hero of the faith, and is celebrated as such in the NT.
http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/Jesus_was_Tempted_issue_64.pdf
God bless,
Dale