[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[Plotinus]

Hmm, and the alternative is that a certain amount of evil is necessary for the ultimate good... which is somewhat horrifying, as it implies something analogous to a utility monster.

I don't think it's quite the same thing as a utility monster - rather, it would mean simply that, for some reason, the world is better with all the suffering it contains. This is possible but it hardly seems probable. This is why, although the problem of evil is not a knock-down refutation of theism (it could be better to have all the suffering), it seems to me a pretty good reason to be dubious of theism if you don't have good other grounds for thinking it to be true.

@Plotinus, the exact phrase "Son of God" is only used once in the OT and is in Daniel which random pointed out, but most of the time the term was used was as a mock to mock Jesus based on what he had said. "If you are the Son of God the he should do what they asked of him which was totally not God had planned for him. His enemies knew what he had said about himself and used those words to either mock or to indict him. The resurrection showed he was the Son of God.

I don't entirely agree with this. First, you're right that "son of God" is frequently used in the Gospels by Jesus' enemies - but they're not generally quoting Jesus' words back at him. In fact it's the enemies who are presented as applying the title "son of God" to him - Jesus is almost never presented as using that title. For example, in Matthew 2 the devil twice challenges Jesus to prove that he is the son of God, but Jesus hasn't made any such claim.

Second, this idea of enemies mocking the righteous man for being "son of God" and attacking him for it is straight from the wisdom literature that I quoted in my previous post, notably Wisdom of Solomon 2, where the "ungodly" talk about the righteous man in exactly the same way. So this was a standard literary motif which didn't have anything to do with "claims" made by Jesus or anyone else - it was a standard way of describing how enemies might mock a righteous person. Again, it doesn't have any metaphysical overtones. The righteous man in Wisdom of Solomon 2 isn't supposed to be "the son of God" in the Christian sense of the term, he's just a righteous man.

Third, I'm fairly sure (but I may be wrong) that the notion that Jesus' resurrection showed him to be son of God is not a New Testament idea. Matthew 27:54 suggests that it was Jesus' death, not his resurrection, that did this. John 20:31 suggests that it was Jesus' entire career that showed him to be son of God. Romans 1:4 suggests that Jesus' resurrection actually made him to be son of God rather than simply demonstrated it. And so on.

Don't forget the voice out of the clouds when Jesus was baptised saying "You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased". This is a direct quote of Psalm 2 which is a Messianic Psalm.

Yes, Mark 1:11 is a quotation from Psalm 2, but that's not a messianic psalm, it's a royal one. It portrays the coronation of the king. The theme is picked up again later, in Mark 11:9-10, where the crowd welcomes Jesus by quoting Psalm 118:26. Psalm 118 was probably originally sung while the king processed through the Temple. So the use of these Psalms in reference to Jesus is presumably meant to indicate that he is the true King of Israel and true heir of David (who, in New Testament times, was believed to have actually written those psalms). They have a royal connotation rather than a metaphysical one.

Jesus also did things that only God could do, such as forgive sins, heal the sick and raise the dead. He not only said he was God, but he also showed he was God by his actions.

This is something people often say but I'm afraid I've always thought it a very weak argument. Other characters in the Bible heal the sick and raise the dead. As for the forgiveness of sins, I don't know of any good evidence that Jews at that time did think that only God could do that (at least in the sense that they thought it was blasphemous to tell someone that their sins were forgiven). In the story in question, Jesus seems to challenge the scribes' claim that only God could forgive sins by pointing out that it's perfectly easy to tell someone that their sins are forgiven, and that it's harder to cure the sick, which he then goes on to do. He links his ability to forgive sins to his title of "son of man", not "son of God". So I would say that the evidence that Jesus either claimed to be divine or acted as if he were divine is pretty thin at best.

 

[Mouthwash]

I don't think it's quite the same thing as a utility monster - rather, it would mean simply that, for some reason, the world is better with all the suffering it contains. This is possible but it hardly seems probable. This is why, although the problem of evil is not a knock-down refutation of theism (it could be better to have all the suffering), it seems to me a pretty good reason to be dubious of theism if you don't have good other grounds for thinking it to be true.

Well, you can't have heroes without evil. Take a hypothetical universe where nothing goes badly at all. What if a little bit of evil was capable of creating a very noble and great hero? According to certain ethical theories the overall state of the world is improved from that. So in God's effort to create the greatest good, he needs to create a world full of evil first.

In that sense, it seems just like a utility monster.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd never noticed the whole Son of Man thing before.
Ezekial 32 seems to have him called "son of man" too! This implies that Jesus is directly contradicting what they're thinking in their hearts (which, I'll grant, is probably why they're wrong. Very few neurons there)

 

[Plotinus]

Well, you can't have heroes without evil. Take a hypothetical universe where nothing goes badly at all. What if a little bit of evil was capable of creating a very noble and great hero? According to certain ethical theories the overall state of the world is improved from that. So in God's effort to create the greatest good, he needs to create a world full of evil first.

In that sense, it seems just like a utility monster.

That still doesn't sound like the utility monster to me, but perhaps you're interpreting that phrase differently. My understanding is that a "utility monster" is a being that derives far more utility from any given good than anyone else does. If it existed, utilitarian principles would imply that all goods should be given to it. But that would be obviously unjust, hence utilitarian principles must be wrong. So it's meant as a reductio of utilitarianism. The form of theodicy we're talking about doesn't necessarily rest on utilitarianism or anything like it.

I'd never noticed the whole Son of Man thing before.
Ezekial 32 seems to have him called "son of man" too! This implies that Jesus is directly contradicting what they're thinking in their hearts (which, I'll grant, is probably why they're wrong. Very few neurons there)

Yes, "son of man" is used constantly in the book of Ezekiel, in reference to Ezekiel himself. There it basically means "mortal man". Some of the uses of the title in the Gospels seem to have a similar meaning, stressing the humility and weakness of Jesus. In Daniel, though, it has a very different meaning, referring to a heavenly figure of some kind, and some of the Gospel uses (and both of the uses of it in the NT outside the Gospels, in Acts and Revelation) seem to refer to it. Basically the title seems to have multiple meanings and uses in the Gospels and it's never clear really what it means or why it's used, or which of these uses go back to Jesus himself or what he meant by it (if anything).

 

[Mouthwash]

That still doesn't sound like the utility monster to me, but perhaps you're interpreting that phrase differently. My understanding is that a "utility monster" is a being that derives far more utility from any given good than anyone else does. If it existed, utilitarian principles would imply that all goods should be given to it. But that would be obviously unjust, hence utilitarian principles must be wrong. So it's meant as a reductio of utilitarianism. The form of theodicy we're talking about doesn't necessarily rest on utilitarianism or anything like it.

No, I meant that like the utility monster hogs utility, the 'greatest good' hogs goodness.

 

[The Strategos]

You're just incorrect.
Luke 3:21-22
Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.

I think Luke is actually doing a very interesting and unique (to the Gospels) play on the voice from heaven. Consider:

Luke 3:21-22: The very brief baptism account which seems to only serve as a vehicle for the voice of heaven declaring Jesus as the Son of God
Luke 3:23-38: After the voice Luke immediately launches into the weirdly placed genealogy of Jesus which uniquely traces it all the way back to Adam, the Son of God (Luke 3:38)
Luke 4:1-13: The temptation of Jesus which in both Matthew and Mark are immediately placed after the baptism, here gets separated from that event by Adam, the Son of God.

It seems to me that Luke is using the voice from heaven and uniquely placed genealogy to highlight the fact that Jesus is the second Adam and that the temptation of Jesus is meant to hearken back to Adam and Eve's temptation in the Garden of Eden. His point being that Adam, in the best possible situation to succeed, fails; Jesus, in the worst possible situation to succeed, succeeds.

This is something people often say but I'm afraid I've always thought it a very weak argument. Other characters in the Bible heal the sick and raise the dead. As for the forgiveness of sins, I don't know of any good evidence that Jews at that time did think that only God could do that (at least in the sense that they thought it was blasphemous to tell someone that their sins were forgiven).

While I agree with your underlying point, I think it underestimates the argument to just point out other Old Testament figures who do one or the other. The uniqueness of Jesus is not that he is the only one who did miracles, forgave sins (acting like a priest), or received worship (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:52; acting like a king) but that he is the only one who combined these aspects. Elijah raised the dead but did not forgive sins or act like a king; David was both a prophet and a king but did no miracles nor priestly function; etc. I think by looking at the issue in that way you see the best Old Testament parallel is not some other character who raised the dead or healed the sick, but Moses who DID combine kingly, priestly, and prophetic functions.

I think seeing these things as supporting the understanding of Jesus as the second lawgiver/second Moses is a better response to the argument and as a bonus fits with 1st and 2nd century Christian works which make such a big deal of Jesus as teacher and illuminator.

Yes, "son of man" is used constantly in the book of Ezekiel, in reference to Ezekiel himself. There it basically means "mortal man". Some of the uses of the title in the Gospels seem to have a similar meaning, stressing the humility and weakness of Jesus. In Daniel, though, it has a very different meaning, referring to a heavenly figure of some kind, and some of the Gospel uses (and both of the uses of it in the NT outside the Gospels, in Acts and Revelation) seem to refer to it. Basically the title seems to have multiple meanings and uses in the Gospels and it's never clear really what it means or why it's used, or which of these uses go back to Jesus himself or what he meant by it (if anything).

I tend to think that since, if anything can be known about Jesus it is that he was an apocalyptic preacher, Daniel 7 should be the default understanding of Jesus' claim to the title unless context dictates otherwise. That said, I think I have good reason to disagree with the bolded part of the quote. I don't think Son of Man in Daniel 7 is a heavenly figure at all!

13 “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

15 “As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious, and the visions of my head alarmed me. 16 I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of the things. 17 ‘These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.’

27 And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his/their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him/them.’

So my understanding is that Daniel 7:17-27 are the interpretation of the vision seen earlier in Daniel 7. Twice in that interpretation the person/group given an everlasting kingdom are the people of God. In the vision the only figure that gets an everlasting kingdom is the Son of Man. So it seems to me that the Son of Man in Daniel is the personification of the people of God and Jesus claiming that title is meant to stake his claim to be the representative leader, the example par excellence, of the people of God.

 

[Agent327]

While I agree with your underlying point, I think it underestimates the argument to just point out other Old Testament figures who do one or the other. The uniqueness of Jesus is not that he is the only one who did miracles, forgave sins (acting like a priest), or received worship (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:52; acting like a king) but that he is the only one who combined these aspects. Elijah raised the dead but did not forgive sins or act like a king; David was both a prophet and a king but did no miracles nor priestly function; etc. I think by looking at the issue in that way you see the best Old Testament parallel is not some other character who raised the dead or healed the sick, but Moses who DID combine kingly, priestly, and prophetic functions.

I think seeing these things as supporting the understanding of Jesus as the second lawgiver/second Moses is a better response to the argument and as a bonus fits with 1st and 2nd century Christian works which make such a big deal of Jesus as teacher and illuminator.

So your argument runs to the point that the evangelists try their best to make Jesus the second Moses. And yet the same NT has Jesus saying he has come to fulfill the Law (not to make a new one, as the Christian interpretation would have it).

I tend to think that since, if anything can be known about Jesus it is that he was an apocalyptic preacher, Daniel 7 should be the default understanding of Jesus' claim to the title unless context dictates otherwise. That said, I think I have good reason to disagree with the bolded part of the quote. I don't think Son of Man in Daniel 7 is a heavenly figure at all!

So my understanding is that Daniel 7:17-27 are the interpretation of the vision seen earlier in Daniel 7. Twice in that interpretation the person/group given an everlasting kingdom are the people of God. In the vision the only figure that gets an everlasting kingdom is the Son of Man. So it seems to me that the Son of Man in Daniel is the personification of the people of God and Jesus claiming that title is meant to stake his claim to be the representative leader, the example par excellence, of the people of God.

The only problem with this is, as Plotinus pointed out, that Jesus himself makes no such claim.

 

[The Strategos]

So your argument runs to the point that the evangelists try their best to make Jesus the second Moses. And yet the same NT has Jesus saying he has come to fulfill the Law (not to make a new one, as the Christian interpretation would have it).

Yes, it is a fairly common position that the synoptic gospels portray Jesus as a second Moses. I think I am on firm ground in saying you can hardly read a scholarly book about the gospels written in the last ten or twenty years that doesn't have the gospel writers as seeing Jesus as second Moses/ending a "New Exodus".

You see it in the rest of the New Testament as well, for example in the sermons of Peter (Acts 3) and Stephen (Acts 7); or in the book of Hebrews.

The only problem with this is, as Plotinus pointed out, that Jesus himself makes no such claim.

I am assuming that you are saying that Jesus makes no claim to be the Son of Man from Daniel 7 (if this is not what you are saying forgive me for misunderstanding you). However, every gospel records him as taking on that mantle. Here are two examples:

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

...Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”

And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?”

Son of Man coming on clouds of heaven is slam dunk Daniel 7.


In addition to clear references you have the more speculative allusions, such as Luke 1:33 where the angel talks about Jesus reigning over an everlasting kingdom which could be a reference to the Son of Man who reigns over an everlasting kingdom.

 

[_random_]

I think Luke is actually doing a very interesting and unique (to the Gospels) play on the voice from heaven. Consider:

Luke 3:21-22: The very brief baptism account which seems to only serve as a vehicle for the voice of heaven declaring Jesus as the Son of God
Luke 3:23-38: After the voice Luke immediately launches into the weirdly placed genealogy of Jesus which uniquely traces it all the way back to Adam, the Son of God (Luke 3:38)
Luke 4:1-13: The temptation of Jesus which in both Matthew and Mark are immediately placed after the baptism, here gets separated from that event by Adam, the Son of God.

It seems to me that Luke is using the voice from heaven and uniquely placed genealogy to highlight the fact that Jesus is the second Adam and that the temptation of Jesus is meant to hearken back to Adam and Eve's temptation in the Garden of Eden. His point being that Adam, in the best possible situation to succeed, fails; Jesus, in the worst possible situation to succeed, succeeds.

That is interesting! Do you think Luke is deliberately echoing 1 Corinthians 15 in this depiction? Of all the Gospel writers, Luke seems to be the most blatantly Pauline, as he focuses so much on Paul in Acts, but then there's dispute over whether the depiction of Paul is 100% in line with Paul's actual writings, so the level of familiarity there is contentious. Still, it'd make sense that there's some influence on display there.

 

[timtofly]

According to what is written in Scripture, a human without disobedience to God, was considered God on earth. The problem is arguing from a position there is no God. If a human gives up their free will to that of God, what difference does it make, unless there is a God? Those who wrote the Bible accepted there was a God. My question would be, if Jesus was obedient to God, without fault would he not have to convince those around him, he was not God?

God promised the Jews, he would come to earth in human form. If Jesus did not accomplish that, then we have yet to see that happen.

Any doctrine is just a way to logically phrase what has already happened.

 

[Plotinus]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking. But I really don't think it's true that "God promised the Jews he would come to earth in a human form". That's a Christian re-reading of the Hebrew Bible, which doesn't say any such thing. Go and ask a rabbi whether he thinks God ever made such a promise or whether it has yet to be fulfilled.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well naturally I'd be interested in hearing that, once you've worked out the explanation.

I've thought it through more, and I've changed my mind. It's a mess of anthropic reasoning that doesn't really pan out. It does imply the existence of a higher power, but doesn't have a lot to do with God.

 

[Plotinus]

Even proving the existence of a higher power would be pretty impressive.

One of the common criticisms of Aquinas' arguments for God is that they don't prove God, just something. Which seems to me rather a weak criticism, given that it would still be quite a discovery to show that there must exist a First Cause, Necessary Being, or whatever, even if you can't prove that it has the traditional omni-properties.

 

[timtofly]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking. But I really don't think it's true that "God promised the Jews he would come to earth in a human form". That's a Christian re-reading of the Hebrew Bible, which doesn't say any such thing. Go and ask a rabbi whether he thinks God ever made such a promise or whether it has yet to be fulfilled.

Would you not consider the Apostle Paul a learned scholar on what Jewish Rabbi's taught? He was not influenced by a Christian re-reading of the Hebrew Bible. The point on emphasizing the humanity of Jesus in the synoptic gospels was to point out God's humanity in Jesus. It was not that the gospel writers were justifying some human was God, but that God was a human in the body of Jesus. God was the "Son of Man".

 

[Plotinus]

Would you not consider the Apostle Paul a learned scholar on what Jewish Rabbi's taught? He was not influenced by a Christian re-reading of the Hebrew Bible.

Sure (although "rabbi" is rather anachronistic for Paul's time), but I don't think that Paul ever claims that "God promised the Jews he would come to earth in a human form".

The point on emphasizing the humanity of Jesus in the synoptic gospels was to point out God's humanity in Jesus. It was not that the gospel writers were justifying some human was God, but that God was a human in the body of Jesus. God was the "Son of Man".

Again I think this is an anachronistic way of reading the Gospels. The Synoptics don't present "God as human" at all. They certainly don't have a notion of "God's humanity", which is arguably heretical by later standards anyway! The claimed aim of the Gospels is to present Jesus as the Messiah, which is not the same thing.

 

[Arakhor]

As I understand the Nicene Creed, Jesus was both fully human and full divine, given that God the Son is of the same essence as God the Father.

(I'm not actually a Trinitarian, but of all the differences in standard theology with what I believe, I think that's easily the easiest to handwave.)

 

[Plotinus]

More or less, yes. More exactly, the Nicene Creed states that the Son is fully divine. It is less clear that Jesus=the Son or that Jesus/the Son is fully human, though I think that it's fair to say these things are implied. It was the Chalcedonian Definition that set this stuff out more clearly, in particular the formula that Christ is one person with two natures. (Sadly they forgot to say what "person" or "nature" mean, but you can't have everything.)

 

[_random_]

Have you read "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis" by Lynn White? I had it assigned for class, and while I feel the interpretation of Genesis he presents as normative in the West is pretty flawed from any number of perspectives, the basic historical analysis seems sound. But then I don't know a ton about the actual history he's discussing. Do you have any opinion of his thesis either way?

 

[Plotinus]

I'm afraid I don't really know either way. I don't know enough about how Genesis has been read to say whether the interpretation he gives of it has been as normative as he claims (or indeed whether it's defensible merely as a reading). I would say that his claim that, apart from Francis of Assisi, Christianity has always held human beings to be utterly distinct from other creatures founders to some extent upon the massive influence of Aristotelianism, which holds that animals and plants also have souls, though not of the same kind, and that man is merely a "rational animal". Also, he talks about Irenaeus and Tertullian casting Christ as the archetype of Adam, which is true - but the book of Colossians makes Christ the archetype of the whole of the universe. The book of Revelation talks about a new heaven and a new earth, which suggests that salvation is cosmic, not merely human. So there's always been a strain within Christianity of seeing the fate of humanity as entirely bound up with the fate of the universe as a whole, not as standing apart from it. I think that means that things are a bit more complex than he allows - though that doesn't mean his claims aren't on the right track for the most part.

 

[_random_]

So do you think he's accurate in assessing Francis as completely deviating from normal Catholic teaching in that regard? And if so, why has Francis become such a widely venerated figure within the Catholic Church?