The Sunday lectionary reading for the Trinity 9 in Year A is Matt 14.13–21. We have now moved beyond the third section of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew, on the kingdom of heaven in chapter 13, and are immersed once more in Jesus’ ministry and engagement with those around him, which extends to the end of chapter 17, before we reach the fourth section of teaching in chapter 18.
Here, as elsewhere, Matthew is much more compressed in his account that either Mark or Luke. There is a wealth of textual and emotional detail to consider here, and it is a good example of how concise the biblical texts often are, and therefore how carefully and patiently we need to ponder them.
The passage immediately preceding this episode, in all three Synoptic gospels, is the feast at which Herod Antipas presents John the Baptist’s head on a platter to his wife’s daughter. There is some irony in this juxtaposition; as R T France puts it (NICNT, p 558): ‘We move from Antipas’ lavish but degenerate feast to one with a simpler menu but a more wholesome atmosphere.’ In preaching, it would be interesting to reflect on the kind of feast offered by Jesus as a contrast to other feasts that are available.
In Mark and Luke, Antipas’ feast fills the gap between the disciples being sent out on mission and returning, whilst John fills this time by describing Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem. But Matthew has told us about the mission earlier, in chapter 10, and so his focus here is solely on Jesus’ response to the news of John the Baptist’s grisly execution. There is a triple emphasis on Jesus action; he ‘withdrew’, ‘by himself’, and ‘to a lonely place’ (eremos, solitary, lonely, deserted). In Mark, this respite is partly for the disciple’s sake, as they take time out to recover from the exertions of ministry. But here, surely, there is a hint of Jesus’ reaction to the death of his relation and his predecessor. ‘Withdrawal’ is a favourite motif of Matthew; the magi withdraw from returning to Herod the Great in Matt 2.12; Joseph withdraws first to Egypt and then to Galilee in Matt 2.14, 22; and Jesus withdraws to Galilee, out of the territory of Herod Antipas, when John is first arrested in Matt 4.12. He surely sees the danger in open confrontation with political power, and knows that the moment for that has not yet come—but he also surely sees in John’s death an anticipation of his own destiny.
We might assume that Jesus really is on his own. But you need a crew to sail a boat, and the other gospels imply that the twelve disciples are with him.
Despite the emotional news about John, despite his own need for rest and his own concern for the disciples, when Jesus sees the crowd he has compassion on them, as he has before (Matt 9.36) and will have again (Matt 15.32, the feeding of the four thousand). The verb splanchnizomai (related to the origins of our word ‘spleen’) suggests being moved in one’s guts or stomach, believed in the ancient world to be the seat of the emotions. When Paul uses the related noun in Phil 1.8, the AV translates it ‘I yearn for you with the bowels of Christ’. It suggests a deep, spontaneous response, and for Jesus this overrules any sense of self-interest; he immediately shelves his own plans in favour of the needs of the crowds. In Mark 6.34 his response to these ‘lost sheep’ is to teach them; here in Matthew he heals the sick; the gospels all testify that he did both, and the accounts reflect the gospel writers’ different concerns.
Despite the traditional site of Tabgha, just west of Capernaum, marked by the Church of the Loaves and Fishes, the location is more likely to be east of the Jordan river near Bethsaida as Luke 9.10 informs us. There is a nice ‘undesigned coincidence‘ here, pointing to historical reliability: the account of the Fourth Gospel does not mention the location, but does mention that Jesus asked Greek-speaking Philip for information (John 6.5); and earlier in the gospel we learned that Philip was from the Greek-speaking region of Bethsaida (John 1.44). (There is a question of how the crowd, on foot, crossed the Jordan river; but we do not have enough archaeological detail to know whether there was a bridge or ford at the time.)
Although Matthew is more abbreviated than all the other gospels, so that we have no detail here of the money that would be needed (Mark 6.37), the discussion with Philip (John 6.5), or the little boy bringing his picnic (John 6.9—isn’t it interesting that the so-called spiritual gospel very often has the life-like vivid details that make the narratives seem so real?!), the main elements of the story are remarkably consistent across all four gospels.
For the disciples, there comes a point where their responsibilities end, ministry is finished, and the people need to be despatched so that they can have their own time. ‘Send the crowds away…’ But Jesus not only sees his ministry continuing, he invites the disciples to be involved in it and take responsibility, and sees it extending to provide for physical needs of the crowd and not merely the spiritual.
There doesn’t appear to be anything symbolic about the ‘five loaves and two fish’; this is just the number they had. Once more, the Fourth Gospel provides the detail that they were ‘barley’ loaves, the regular fare of the lower end of society (beware projecting our ideas of comparative poverty on a very different economy). The loaf would be something like our modern-day pitta breads, and assumed to be food for one. So whilst this offering is more than enough for one person, it would not even do for the Twelve, let alone the five thousand. Some years ago, William Barclay popularised the idea that there was nothing miraculous here in the multiplication of the loaves and fish, but that when the crowd saw the generosity of the boy, they were moved to share what they had in fact themselves brought—’the biggest miracle of all [is] one which changed not loaves and fishes, but men and women’. But this idea has no support whatsoever in the text itself, and is driven by a sceptical materialism.
It is entirely characteristic of Jesus that his miraculous power makes use of what is already there. Rather than produce food from nothing, he makes use of the loaves and the fish, just as at Cana he does not produce wine from nowhere but turns water into wine. Jesus’ miracles are consistently supernatural, working with and beyond nature, rather than antinatural. Jesus is no conjurer of magic tricks.
Matthew does not include Mark’s detail of the almost regimental organisation of the people, as they sit in ‘hundreds and fifties’ (Mark 6.40), nor the detail of the ‘green grass’ indicating that this was early in the year (Mark 6.39). But his abbreviated account does put Jesus centre stage and clearly in command. He commands the disciples, directs the people, and takes control.
Much has been made of the four-fold action of Jesus in ‘taking, blessing, breaking and giving’, and there are some very clear parallels between this narrative and Matthew’s narrative of the Last Supper—apart from the repeat of the four-fold actions, both take place in the evening, with people sitting (though is Jesus sitting here?), and there is an emphasis on ‘all’ eating. But three things need also to be noted.
First, all these are natural actions that we might expect; how else could the people be organised and eat other than sitting down? And the actions of Jesus are what any first century Jew would do.
Secondly, there is no doubt, reading in context as a narrative about observant Jews, that the ‘blessing’ is of God and not of the bread. This is confirmed by the interchangeable use in the gospels, in this account and in the Last Supper, of the verbs eucharisteo (‘to thank’) and eulogeo (‘to bless’). The blessing is of God (in Jewish liturgy the Berakhah) for providing food to nourish us, and this Jewish use of ‘blessing’ has been resurrected in contemporary Anglican liturgies (‘Let us bless the Lord’). It sounds odd, because it is really the equivalent of what we would now express as ‘praising’ or ‘thanking’ God.
Thirdly, the primary allusions here are not to later, ritualised church practice, but to previous episodes in Scripture. Crossing the water, arriving in a wilderness, organising the people into companies, sharing bread, having more than enough, gathering what is left—all these remind us of the provision of manna in the desert under the leadership of Moses. There are also strong parallels with the prophetic actions of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.42–44, when a large group are fed with a few barley loaves. Both here and in the Last Supper we see Jesus, in Jewish context and using Jewish customs, anticipating the heavenly banquet in parallel with his teaching about the kingdom of heaven, feeding the people with both words and bread.
There is no obvious precedent or symbolism in the number ‘five thousand’; the number is memorable enough in English because of the alliteration of the ‘Feeding of the Five Fousand’. Matthew alone notes that this number referred to the men alone, not counting ‘women and children’ who presumably were there also. There is, however, symbolic significance to the twelve baskets of surplus food, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel, though that is no reason to think this was imagined rather than actual. Jesus will provide for all of Israel, though his feast will also include many others, as we have already been informed (Matt 8.11).
It is tempting, particular in the first half of this passage, to read this in an anthropocentric way, that is, to read it as an example for us. We are not to be self-centred, limited and pre-occupied as the disciples are, but we are to be, like Jesus, compassionate, boundless, and generous beyond measure to those around us, to the lost sheep that cross our paths day in and day out. But the problem with this is, apart from making us rather than Jesus the centre of the story, we will experience a ‘hardening of the oughteries’ where our reading and preaching focus on what we and others ought to do, and it will lead to exhaustion and despair rather than grace and hope.
But the second half pulls us back to where our focus should be—on the person of Jesus at the centre of the narrative. He is the one who graciously meets our needs rather than focussing on his own; he is the one who empties himself, making himself a compassionate servant who brings insight and healing. He is the host at the messianic feast, where all are invited to eat and be satisfied.
If we do bring ourselves into the picture, it is only to ask: how will we respond to such a one, when he invites us to leave everything to ‘come, follow me’?
For further reflection on how to read and interpret the Bible well, you might be interested in my Grove booklet How to Interpret the Bible: Four Essential Questions.
Our videos are on a summer break, and will return for September.
NOTE: I am giving notice that from 16th August I will no longer allow anonymous comments. All are welcome to publish under pseudonyms if you wish, but you will need to make yourself known to me from then if you wish to continue commenting.
On the subject of “blessing”, the Latin word for to bless, “benedicere”, literally means “to speak well of”, and this fits with the “Benedictus qui venit” (“Blessed is he who comes”) in the Eucharist and the “Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel” (“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel”) in the Daily Office. But when we talk of ourselves being blessed (usually by God) we mean something different; there doesn’t seem to be another word for this in English (or in Latin) – how about Greek or Hebrew?
Well the general verb used for blessed is like ‘eulogy’ in English – εὐλογέω, He blessed – which is equivalent to your Latin ‘benedicere’… to speak well of. The way it is used biblically, implies it is indicating something deeper than simply speaking well of… and involves bestowing blessing.
But for the state of having been blessed, there is also μακάριος which can convey or imply receipt of blessing… good grace and state of well-being/happiness. A good state to be in, arising from the gift of God.
Advisory – my Greek is rudimentary. I studied Ancient Greek for four years when I was young, but I am not a NT scholar – there are others here who are (especially Ian of course). I defer to them. I like to try to read the NT in Greek, but get tripped up a lot because not that good, and NT and Ancient vary, so like many people I lean on Interlinears. They are so helpful. For example: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/interlinear
My Hebrew is a one-year basic course with CMJ, so not going to dare offer any comment on that!
Dear Susannah –
Where did you study for your Classics degree (presumably) ?
So far, so good, for England Ladies in the FIFA World Cup ! 🙂
I went to the best university (not in England) 🙂
Dear Susannah;
You are not by chance alluding to the University of Heidelberg, are you ?
🙂
No dear Pellegrino… though Heidelberg would have been prestigious and a privilege. I studied in Scotland.
With regard to Football, I am a lifelong Arsenal supporter. Do you have a team? Did you play? What position?
Are there any other footie supporters who post here? (Sorry to be a bit social, but I find people interesting, and sometimes just theology gets a bit blah blah blah (as Greta would say).
@ Susannah C
Arsenal … argh!
You have a problem, Happy Jack? Please tell me you are not a supporter of that other (unmentionable) North London team?
@ Susannah
Most certainly not!
HJ moved to south east Essex in the 1960s and was a fervent West Ham supporter – until he watched Manchester United tare them apart – Best, Charlton and Law. His loyalties were then divided.
He lived in Manchester for 3 years in the 1970s and has supported them (and West Ham) ever since.
Oh dear, oh dear!
My wife supports West Ham.
Oh well…
Thank you for Declan Rice 😉
Are there any other Peterhead supporters here?
Any chance we could NOT use the comments section as a personal message board…?
‘ Ian
Apologies … but it’s what builds a sense of community.
Dear Susanna –
Only Leicester City F.C. for me – for better or for worse.
Come on, the Foxes !
God bless. :0
Re: England. More goals needed!
As a goalie myself (okay, only North London Women’s League) I’m pleased to see Mary Earps has kept clean sheets so far.
Dear “Legendino” (Susannah);
I am a football fan; I am a soccer fan!
Like me, I knew you once played soccer, Susannah.
What do you think of this music : ” Soccer Fan – Real Sounds of Africa”. Give it a go :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6xkheBCi9M
God bless.
Thank you for that song. Brightened up the morning! God’s grace be with you through this day. My daughter is a missionary and children’s worker in Africa and reports loads of Arsenal supporters. Football is THE great world game.
With reference to William Barclay: in his prime, a first class lecturer and communicator (not least on national television). In terms of his NT input, his illustrations can be second to none !
However what of his exegetical understanding? As has already been pointed out, there is more than a hint of rationalism in his whole approach. In my version of his conclusion to this passage* cited above, he concludes thus: “It does not matter how we understand this miracle. One thing is sure – when Christ is there the weary find rest and the weary soul is fed.”But nowhere does he affirm why we can rely upon assurance in this ‘one thing’ but not in the miracle itself?
In a similar fashion re his treatment of ‘walking on water[Matthew 14: 22 – 32] he concludes: “It does not matter how we take this incident; it is in any event far more than the story of what Jesus once did in a storm in far – off Palestine; it is the sign and the symbol of what he always does for his people, when the wind is contrary , and when we are in danger of being overwhelmed by the storms of *the storms of life*”(my asterisks).Note how history and physicality are here subsumed in a figure of speech ( “a storm” transforms into “storms”)!
Barclay once had the reputation as an “evangelical ” scholar in some quarters. However in his whole approach I see shades of his rationalistic presuppositions in current debates on biblical issues; not least among those who cling to the “e” epithet.
{“The Daily Study Bible” -1960}*
I understood Barclay typically rejected the miraculous, though I may be wrong.
To PC1 –
William Barclay believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, so I think that still qualifies him as a :
A Good ‘un !
cf. Romans 10:9
@ PC1
He did.
HJ owes a debt to the writings of William Barclay. HJ stumbled across his 17 volume guide to the New Testament at a jumble sale. “Cheap as chips”, as they say. Reading these reignited his Christian faith after 20+ years of being something of a “prodigal son.” HJ didn’t buy into all he wrote and was able to sift through the writing. Some of his expressed ideas were worthy of thought.
Not entirely clear where Barclay stood on the Divinity of Christ and on the Resurrection.
To Happy Jack :
” Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus with God.”
Professor William Barclay, “A Spiritual Autobiography”, page 50.
Ah, Happy Jack; here you are.
In answer to another of one of your multitudinous points and questions :
I believe in the Jesus Who is presented in the book of Acts – without course your typical post New Testament, anachronic retrojection of Greek philosophical speculations into an Apostolic, first century, Christian context. By the way, the way, the ‘New Jerusalem Bible’ completely disagrees with your interpretation of Acts 20:28.
With reference to William Barclay: in his prime, a first class lecturer and communicator (not least on national television). In terms of his NT input, his illustrations can be second to none !
However what of his exegetical understanding? As has already been pointed out, there is more than a hint of rationalism in his whole approach. In my version of his conclusion to this passage* cited above, he concludes thus: “It does not matter how we understand this miracle. One thing is sure – when Christ is there the weary find rest and the weary soul is fed.”But nowhere does he affirm why we can rely upon assurance in this ‘one thing’ but not in the miracle itself?
In a similar fashion re his treatment of ‘walking on water[Matthew 14: 22 – 32] he concludes: “It does not matter how we take this incident; it is in any event far more than the story of what Jesus once did in a storm in far – off Palestine; it is the sign and the symbol of what he always does for his people, when the wind is contrary , and when we are in danger of being overwhelmed by the storms of *the storms of life*”(my asterisks).Note how history and physicality are here subsumed in a figure of speech ( “a storm” transforms into “storms”)!
Barclay once had the reputation as an “evangelical ” scholar in some quarters. However in his whole approach I see shades of his rationalistic presuppositions in current debates on biblical issues; not least among those who cling to the “e” epithet.
{“The Daily Study Bible” -1960}*
PS This is a general reply; not primarily for Steve V!
@ Steve V
HJ is no expert, but understands the word “blessed” Jesus uses in the Sermon on the Mount is from the Greek word makarios, which means to be happy or blissful. It’s equivalent Hebrew word esher which indicates a state of happiness.
The other Greek word in the New Testament which is translated as “blessing” is eulogeo, used to kneel or to give praise. It is similar to the meaning of the Hebrew baruch. This comes from the word berech, which means “a knee”. So, we bless/praise/kneel before God for all the blessings He gives us.
Luke uses the word eucharisteo – “he gave thanks” – in the narrative of feeding of the five thousand. The root word of eucharisteo is charis, meaning “grace”, but it also holds its derivative the Greek word chara, meaning “joy.” Jesus took the bread knew it to be a joyful gift and gave thanks to God.
Spot on. In the accounts of the feeding of the 5,000 (the only miracle recording in all four gospels) and the last supper, the gospels use eulogeo and eucharisteo interchangeably. In Jewish context, there is simply no doubt that this is thanking/blessing God, and certainly not ‘blessing’ the bread in any sense, that is, pronouncing the beracha.
@ Ian
Hence Happy Jack’s name!
Then there’s the Hebrew word Todah which means responding to God in praise through thanking Him for all that He has done; the offering of thanks or sacrifice of thanksgiving; presentation of songs of thanksgiving. and praise for God’s mighty acts; and thanksgiving in song.
A “todah” sacrifice would be offered by someone whose life had been delivered from great peril. The redeemed person would show his gratitude to God by gathering his closest friends and family for a “todah” sacrificial meal accompanied by prayers and songs of thanksgiving.
In Jesus’ day the Greek word that would best translate the Hebrew “todah” was eucharistia – “thanksgiving”. From the earliest Christian sources we learn that the celebration of the Lord’s meal was known by Christians as the “Eucharist”. The “Didache”, a text whose ritual elements were probably set down no later than A.D. 50, uses “eucharistia” in its account of the bread and wine offered at their meetings.
Philo, a first-century Jew, describes the Passover as a festival of thanksgiving: “And this festival is instituted in remembrance of, and as giving thanks [eucharistia] for, their great migration which they made from Egypt.”
(Philo, The Special Laws, II, 145. The Works of Philo, trans. by C.D. Young (Peabody, MA,1993), 582) Philo focuses on two key reasons for the Passover: remembrance and thanksgiving (Ex. 12:14, 13:3). The Passover is Israel’s corporate “todah” meal.
Is it a coincidence that in Luke’s Gospel, following the feeding of the five thousand, immediately we have Peter recognising Christ as the Messiah (Luke 9: 18-20), Jesus predicting His death (Luke 9: 21-27), and the Transfiguration (Luke 9: 28-36), where Moses and Elijah discussed Jesus’ “departure” (exodus)?
In John’s Gospel too, after this miracle, we have Jesus’ encounter with the same crowd and He gives the “Bread of Life” discourse. In this He links their questions about manna in the wilderness, bread from heaven, with His own body and blood which He is to sacrifice and which must be eaten and drunk for eternal life. (John 9: 25-59)
This all connects with the Last Supper – a meal of remembrance and thanksgiving.
Thank you Ian, for another wonderful study of God’s Word.
Just a couple of comments:
First, you note the four actions of Jesus in this miracle of feeding. Might we add a fifth: that is, the taking up of the broken pieces? In John 10:18, Jesus explains that he has the power to lay down his life and to “take it up again.” Of course, the language of brokenness is also suggestive in this same connection.
Second, in connection with parables in general and especially in the feeding miracles, I have always been impressed with the views of George McDonald. He reminds us that here Jesus is doing in an instant only what the Father has been doing all along at a slower pace, season following season. Our bread and fish are always received from the hand of God. One instance is no greater miracle than the other, if seen by the eyes of faith.
Colin –
I do distinctly remember sitting in a Methodist Church in London and hearing that very same interpretation of the feeding of the five thousand, that William Barclay gave. I think Barclay made a very good revision of his New Testament translation, though.
I like your observation about the broken pieces being taken up into twelve baskets. Baskets of unleavened bread feature a lot in temple worship. Also, just checked, baskets are mentioned ten times in the gospels ref. this miracle.
Elbert :
Amen !
Both miracles are effected by exactly the same Divine power :
” Fellow Israelites, listen to this : Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through him, in the midst of you, as you yourselves know.”
Acts 2:22.
@ Pellegrino
“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
Acts 2:36
“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
(Acts 2: 36)
This ‘Lord’ designation bookends the sermon in Acts. Jesus is the ‘Lord’ of Joel 2 who provides salvation to those who call on His name (Acts 2:21).
“And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved”
(Joel 2: 32)
Peter is saying that Jesus is ‘Lord’ – not only the promised Messiah but also that He is Divine. The word for ‘Lord’ (Greek: kuvrio) is the same word that is used to translate Yahweh in the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, including the Septuagint of the Joel text. The ‘Yahweh’ of Joel 2 and Jesus of Nazareth are for Peter, identical.
Not only is Jesus a man and the instrument of Yahweh’s eschatological salvation, Jesus is also Yahweh Himself who accomplishes redemption.
Dear Happy Jack;
(1). Any man superior in rank to any other man, and also supernatural angels, can be a ‘Lord’/’lord’ (Gk. Kurios) without them being the ONLY TRUE GOD, Whom Jesus said was the FATHER, alone (John 17:1-3). Our Only true God’s (cf. John 20:17) personal name in the Old Testament, (by near universal, scholastic opinion) was ‘Yahweh’.
(2). The Roman Catholic Bibles : ‘The New Jerusalem Bible’, and ‘The New American Bible’, along with the esteemed ‘NET Bible’ – plus various Bible commentaries – completely disagree with your attempt to identify ‘Yahweh’ in Joel 2:32 (mentioned in Acts 2:21), with Jesus who is mentioned in Acts 2:22. These Bibles see no such identification, and thus there are no footnotes in support of your speculation. Indeed, Jesus is not even mentioned as “lord”, in Peter’s preaching until Acts 2:34, in which Jesus is identifiable as the second ‘lord’ (Hebrew “adoni” = lord, or master = a non-Deity title) of Psalm 110:1, with the first LORD being “Yahweh” = our supreme, and only Father God.
Thus the Psalm 110:1, via the Hebrew Masoretic Text, effectively reads :
” THE LORD [Yahweh = Father (Isa. 63:16; et al) = the ONLY TRUE GOD = John 17:1-3] said to my lord [Hebrew : “adoni” = a non-Deity title = master, lord], sit at My right hand [= a place of honour for a vice-regent or God’s ‘delegated Agent’, and second in authority, under Yahweh God, Himself; cf. 1 Cor. 15:28].”
That this interpretation is correct, is confirmed by Peter’s statement in Acts 2:36 :
“GOD [Yahweh = the personal O.T. name of the Father] has MADE him [Jesus] [Messianic] lord [ = ‘adoni’ of Psalm 110:1] and Messiah.”
If Jesus was already ‘God’, throughout his life, then he could not be made into ‘God’, at Acts 2:36. The ‘lord’/’Lord’ of Acts 2:36 is not talking about being ‘Yahweh God’, but about God’s Messianic ‘lord’/’Lord’ (cf. Rev. 11:15; 12:10).
(3). The preaching of Acts 2, et al, envisages Jesus being an exalted, and glorified man (and literal ‘Son of God’, being directly fathered by God, via the virgin Mary), who perfectly fulfilled God’s original intention for mankind – as outlined in Psalm 8:3-8. Thus Jesus is now crowned with glory and honour, out ranking angels, and is made ruler of the world, until God crushes all his enemies under his feet (cf. I Cor. 15:26-28).
You may not like it, Happy Jack, but that seems to be the simply comprehensible, Apostolic kerygma displayed in the ‘Acts of the Apostles’.
As HJ said, the use of the word “Lord” is used by Jews for God as they believe there is a danger of blasphemy if “Yahweh” is used.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
The prophetic Scriptures further testify that Yahweh alone created the universe and that He is the One who is sustaining it:
“Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,’” (Isaiah 44:24)
For St Paul the one Lord God of all is both the Father and the Son together:
“So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” (1 Corinthians 8: 4-6)
What Paul is doing here is to take the creed of Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Shema, and including Jesus within the identity of the one Lord God of Israel. For Paul, the one true God is at least two Persons, namely the Father and Jesus Christ his Son.
It is clear that Paul and the early Church believed that Jesus is Yahweh. When Paul calls Jesus Lord he means it in the sense that Christ is Yahweh/God.
Thomas’ declared Jesus to be, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost carried that idea: “Let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:36). Peter later declared this in the house of Cornelius, stating that Jesus is “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36).
The declaration “Jesus is Lord” indicates that Jesus is God. Jesus holds “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). He is “Lord of the Sabbath” (Luke 6:5); “our only Sovereign and Lord” (Jude 1:4); and “the Lord of lords.” (Revelation 17:14)
Who do you say Jesus is?
To : Happy Jack :
Where the Bible speaks, I speak.
Where the Bible is silent, I am silent.
Who did the apostle Peter say Jesus was ? :
” You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16).
Who did the Gospel writer, John, say Jesus was ? :
” Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (John 20:31).
Who did Jesus say He was, when people thought He was claiming to be God ?
” I am the Son of God”. (John 10:33).
What did the Johannine Epistle writer think were the most important Christian confessions ?
” Whoever believes that Jesus is the Messiah is born of God; ” (1 John
5:1a);
“Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.” (1 John 4:15).
Amen ! Praise God ! Hallelu-YAH !
There’s none so blind ….
@ Pellegrino
So who is Jesus:
– a pre-existing ‘god’;
– a created angel: or
– Yahweh’s adopted natural “son”?
Don’t be shy; do tell.
–
To Happy Jack :
“Yahweh” is the personal name of “the Father” –
” You, Yahweh, are our Father” (Isa. 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10; et al) – New Jerusalem Bible.
” Yahweh is our God, Yahweh ONLY”. (Deut. 6:4; NJB)
John 17:1-3 – Where Jesus says that the FATHER is :
” the ONLY true God”.
The Apostle Paul says that for us [i.e. Christians] there is :
“One God, the Father” (1 Cor.8:6; Eph. 4:6 cf. 1 Cor. 15:28)… NOT “One God, the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit”.
The Father is ‘El Shaddai’ and Gk. ‘Pantokrator’ (Rev. 19:4-6) – the Almighty. Hallelu-YAH. There is only One God – the Father (see John 17:1-3), and only one lord Messiah ; see Rev. 11:15-17.
God bless.
So how come, in Revelation, the titles of Jesus and God as ‘Alpha and Omega, first and last, beginning and end’, converge, so that they cannot be separated? How come there is ‘one’ on the throne, but the lamb is on the throne as well? How come Rev 11.15 uses a singular verb ‘he shall reign’ for the two figures of ‘our Lord and his Christ’?
This is exactly the same as what Paul is doing in 1 Cor 8: keeping the figures distinct, but also seeing them as a unity.
Your suggestion converges and confuses them.
@ Pellegrino
But you’ve still not answered HJ’s simple question:
So who is Jesus:
– a pre-existing ‘god’;
– a created angel: or
– Yahweh’s adopted natural “son”?
Don’t be shy; do tell.
Dear Happy Jack;
In response to some more of your points :
(1). Yes – our Father God, “Yahweh”, created everything – as Jesus states in Mark 10:6; and the Father, as Jesus states, is “the ONLY true God (John 17:1-3).
(2). The ‘Encyclopaedia Judaica’ fully accepts that’s God’s name was most probably pronounced “Yahweh”. “Yahweh” is our Father God’s personal name. “LORD” is merely a title.
(3). For the apostle Paul, the FATHER is :
“THE GOD of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3);
And for Christians, there is only one God – the Father. (1 Cor. 8:6). Compare this with John 20:17, where Jesus tells his disciples that their God, and his God, is the FATHER (cf. Rev. 1:6; Rev. 3:2; Rev. 3:12).
As world-leading Christologists (like James D.G. Dunn) state, Paul uses the title ‘Lord’ for Jesus, NOT to identify Jesus with God – but to distinguish Jesus from God. These leading Pauline scholars (like Dunn) completely reject the speculative claim (made in some ultra-Traditionalist quarters) that Paul has supposedly, “split the Jewish Shema”.
(4). John 20:28 has to understood within the the context of Jesus’ words to Thomas (et al) in John 14:3-11. To see and know Jesus as the Son of God, is to spiritually see and know the FATHER – Who is the ONLY true God (cf. John 17:1-3; John 20:17; John 20:31; Rev. 3:2, 12).
(5). 1 Cor. 8:6 with respect to the Messianic Lord Jesus (as distinct from the Father, is who always “the LORD GOD” ( Rev. 19:6 – Gk. “Kurios ho Theos” – a specific Scriptural title which is never given to Jesus), could legitimately be translated :
” on account of whom [i.e. Jesus] are all things”; (1 Cor.8:6)
or, “for the sake of whom [Jesus] are all things”; (1 Cor. 8:6)
or, “because of whom [Jesus] are all things” (1 Cor. 8:6);
(in perfect fulfilment of Psalm 8:3-8, via the sinless Son of God).
The corresponding Greek is : ” di’ hou ta panta” (1 Cor. 8:6).
Of course, Christians exist through Jesus, as the verse goes on to state : “and we [Christians] through him” (1 Cor. 8:6).
6. Please do not mix up, Happy Jack, the two distinct biblical categories :
There is only ONE LORD GOD (Gk “Kurios ho Theos) = the FATHER;
And there is only one “lord Messiah” = Jesus ; see Luke 2:11, and Luke 2:26.
This crucial above distinction is rooted in New Testament’s multi-quoted, Old Testament verse of Psalm 110:1 (“YAHWEH [the Father, declared to my lord” (Heb. lord= adoni = a non-Deity title).
There is one God (the Father); – John 17:1-3;
and one, Messianic Son of God. (cf. John 4:25-26; John 10:33-36; John 20:31);
Don’t forget, Happy Jack –
and God bless.
@ Pelligrino
Yes, yes … Happy Jack disagrees with your reading of Scripture. This we know. What is not know is:
Who do you say iesus is:
– a pre-existing ‘god’;
– a created angel: or
– Yahweh’s adopted natural “son”?
Stop diverting and avoiding.
Do tell.
Dear IAN;
In response to your points.
(1). Yes – there was a complete working unity between the God and His Son – they were united in purpose and agreement, and worked hand in glove. That same very same unity of between God and His Son was also predicated of believers, in John 17:11. Consequently, the unity between the Father and the Son had Scripturally nothing to do with unity of “Greek philosophical essence”, which may thereby make (to modify 1 Cor. 8:6) :
” Yet for us [Christians] there is but one God, the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit…”
For Paul, as for Jesus, there is only one true God (John 17:1-3) – Who is the Father. This basic Scriptural fact is repeated throughout the book of Revelation where there is always a clear demarcation between the Father, Who is “Lord God” (“Kurios ho Theos”) and “the Lord God Almighty” (“Kurios ho Theos ho Pantokrator”), and Jesus – who is never described as “God”, in the book of Revelation, or “God the Son”, but rather, as “the Lamb”; “Christ”; “the Son of God”; and in his capacity as God’s Messiah – “Lord of lords”, and “King of kings”.
It is the Father that Jesus exclusively calls “My God” (Rev. 3:2; 3:12), and it is the Father (“ho Panto-krator) whom others exclusively call “our God” (Rev. 4:11; 5:10; 7:3; 7:10; 7:12; 12:10; 19:1; 19:5; 19:6; cf. John 20:17).
(2). In Rev. 11:15, “Lord” refers to the Father. The Messiah Jesus gains His Divinely, delegated authority to temporarily rule from the Father (Rev. 2:27); cf. 1 Cor. 15:25-28; so the singular pronoun ‘He’ in Rev. 11:15, ultimately has reference to Father. This is proved in the next verses (Rev. 11:16-19), where it is the Almighty God alone (not the Messiah) who is exclusively worshipped (note ‘The Emphasised Bible’ translates ‘prosekunesan’ at Rev. 5:14 as ” did homage” ; cf. 1 Chron. 29:20; ASV).
(3). The ‘Alpha and the Omega’ title in Rev. 22:13 may have reference (as it does in Rev. 1:8 and 21:6) to God. 22:10-15 may be the continuing words of the angel, with 22:12 being a reference to Almighty God : “Who is to come” ; cf. Rev. 1:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8. The “Translator’s New Testament” effectively concedes that it is not certain that the ‘Alpha and Omega’ of Rev. 22:13, refers to Jesus.
4. Jesus is seated at the right hand of God (Acts 2:33).
Rev. 3:21 probably means :
” I [Jesus] will permit him who is victorious to take his seat beside me on my throne, just as I have been victorious and taken my seat beside my Father on His throne.” (Goodspeed Translation; cf. The Amplified Bible).
Rev. 22:1 may thus be elliptical expression for “the throne of God and [the throne of] the Lamb”. The identity of the ‘He’ in 22:4, becomes clearer as the passage proceeds into verse 22:5, and most probably refers to God – especially as people have hitherto not seen God’s face (Rev. 22:4; cf. Exodus 33:20-23).
@ Pellegrino
In Revelation 1:7, John describes Jesus as “coming on the clouds”. This phrase is an allegorical term that refers to judgement elsewhere in scripture (Jeremiah 4:13). It is only God who judges; God is the only one uniquely described as coming on the clouds.
In Revelation 1:8, Christ describes himself as “The Alpha and the Omega”. Christ is saying that He is the beginning and the end of all things. This unique title has only been ever attributed to God. Isaiah 44:6 says “Thus says the LORD, Israel’s King and redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; there is no God but me.”
In his letter to the lukewarm Laodicean church, Jesus identified Himself as the “the beginning of the creation of God.” (Rev. 3:14; Rev. 22:13). The pre-incarnate Word affirmed His active role in the creation process. (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15, 18; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:2)
The term “beginning” is a rendition of the Greek arche. In this context it denotes the cause or source by which something was begun Some cultists (the ancient Arians and modern Jehovah Witnesses) misappropriate this text to suggest that Christ did not exist eternally, but was created by God as the “first” of his creations.
[Even you ‘pal’ William Barclay declared that Jesus “was the moving cause of all creation.” He was the one who “began the process of creation and who initiated the work of creation.”]
Rev 1: 12-13, use some imaginative language to describe Jesus. One of the things listed is seven golden lamp stands. Elsewhere in scripture this same imagery is used to describe something particular. Zechariah 4:10, for example, described the seven golden lamps in this way: “These seven facets are the eyes of the LORD that range over the whole earth.” The lamp stands allegorically describe God’s omniscience. Therefore John invokes the language from Zechariah to describe Christ as omniscient. Only God is omniscient (Hebrews 4:13). Similarly, Jesus Christ is described as universal (seven) power (horns) and universal knowledge (eyes). The number seven is oftentimes used in scripture to describe perfection. The seven lamp stands are poetic language to say that Jesus is perfectly present at every moment.
Rev 1: 14, describes Christ’s hair as “white as snow” or wool and His eyes like a “flame”. The books of the prophets use this same language. Daniel 7:9 says, “As I watched, thrones were set up and the Ancient One took his throne. His clothing was snow bright, and the hair on his head as white as wool; His throne was flames of fire, with wheels of burning fire.” The language alludes to the “Ancient of Days” (an image of God the Father). old
The only way you can “square the circle” – Christ is Divine, as is the Father and the Holy Spirit – is by the old heresy of “modalism” and its recent manifestation “Oneness” theology, or ‘Oneness Christology’. God does not exist in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons, but only one. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three individual Persons but simply three modes of revelation: sometimes God reveals Himself as the Father, other times as the Son, and still other times as the Holy Spirit.
Mind you, Happy Jack still waits patiently for the answer to his question:
Who do you say Jesus is?
“when the crowd saw the generosity of the boy, they were moved to share what they had in fact themselves brought—’the biggest miracle of all [is] one which changed not loaves and fishes, but men and women’. But this idea has no support whatsoever in the text itself, and is driven by a sceptical materialism.”
Barclay’s interpretation is pretty standard in every book I’ve read or every interpretation I’ve heard in Anglican circles other than conservative evangelical ones. Barclay himself was an evangelical – albeit a liberal one, who believed in evolution and universalism.
It may be correct to say that the idea has no support in the text itself but it has no denial in the text itself either. One of the overriding miracles and meta narratives of the NT is the change of heart and mind that Christ brings to women and men. So my view is both/and rather than either/or. Christ worked a miracle with the loaves and fishes but at the same time it is stupid to assume that nobody else had brought anything at all with them. And I imagine that in the presence of Christ they were changed and were more willing to share.
So my view is both/and rather than either/or. Christ worked a miracle with the loaves and fishes but at the same time it is stupid to assume that nobody else had brought anything at all with them.
So can I just check this means that you do think that if one had added up all the food people brought with them, and all the food that was eaten, and weighed the two amounts, that the latter would have been greater than the former?
That is: you do agree that this is a reliable, accurate record of an occasion on which the natural, physical laws of the universe were broken? Either the law of conversion of mass was broken, and mass aired from nowhere; or the second law of thermodynamics was broken and unorganised energy or mass spontaneously organised itself into the form of bread and fish?
I’m perfectly happy for you to think that people shared their secret stashes of food as well as the physical laws of the universe being broken, but can you just state in straight, non-equivocal terms that you think those laws were broken?
Quite, Andrew. Personally I think it’s a bit risky to rule out any human participation in a miracle. I assure readers that I believe in the supernatural and God’s power and grace to work miracles. Doesn’t mean that excludes human participation and collaboration sometimes. We just don’t know!
The wonder is: it happened. And all the people were fed. (And they were probably hungry!)
As the old saying goes: ‘God works in mysterious ways.’
On Barclay, he was my number one ‘go to’ when I first became an active Christian. I found his studies both informative and endearing.
The wonder is: it happened. And all the people were fed.</i
People being fed isn’t a wonder, unless you live in a Communist country.
? So you’re saying the feeding of the 5000 wasn’t a wonder??
So you’re saying the feeding of the 5000 wasn’t a wonder
Not if they all just got out food they’d brought with them and ate that, no. What would be wondrous about that?
S
Read Boule de Suif
Did I say that?
The miracle happened: that is a wonder.
For all I know people may also have participated in it.
God probably like involving people to participate in the wonderful moments. It would be a bit of a strange attitude to say “Hey! Pow! Look at Me! I’m the greatest!”
Much more like our humble-hearted God to say, “Hey, dear ones: shall we do a miracle together?”
But I really don’t mind either way. The people got fed. And I fully believe the miraculous was at work – whether direct… Zap!… to the food, or through touching the hearts of people. Both ways would be lovely, and a mixture of the two would be too.
But from the narrative, clearly the power and the compassion of God were at work.
And that is wonder enough for me.
Chill.
Read Boule de Suif
Nothing wondrous in that either.
The miracle happened: that is a wonder.
If the miracle happened, that is indeed a wonder.
But if all that happened was that people shared food they had brig with them, then the miracle didn’t happen and there was nothing wondrous about that afternoon at all.
That’s all.
You don’t have to persuade me.
I have made a principle of never seeking signs and wonders, but it doesn’t mean they don’t happen.
God is supernatural.
Andrew – may I draw your attention to John 6:60 and John 6:66? This is the conclusion of the loaves and fishes. Up to this point (taking John’s sequence) Jesus had been revealing himself to larger and larger circles. Then, after the feeding of the 5000, when they were curious and pressed him for more information, he told them what it was really all about – and their reaction was to desert him in droves.
I don’t see anywhere in the New Testament where miracles produce faith; they do confirm faith that is already there (e.g. Matthew 11:4).
I suppose there’s nothing in the narrative to suggest that the participants weren’t pulling out – and sharing – the occasional bottle of tomato ketchup to go with the bread and fish that Jesus was distribution (although I doubt if any of the faithful would want to adulterate food brought down from heaven by The Lord in this way). But the end of John 6 strongly indicates that while the crowd were curious, the miracle hadn’t produced real faith – so the nice cosy warm feeling that the crowd were moved to a higher and holier state of mind doesn’t seem to be substantiated by the text – quite the opposite.
Goodness Jock…what on earth do you think Jesus was doing making gallons and gallons of wine then.
He actually seemed rather irritated and only did that because of his mother’s concerns!
@ PC1
Hmm …
“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.” (John 2: 4)
Irritated? Aren’t you projecting “tone” onto His words?
Jesus uses the term “woman” for his mother, a reference to Mary as the prophetic “woman” of Genesis 3:15 and Jer. 31:22, the mother of the Messiah, who along with her “seed” would crush the head of Satan (Gen. 3:15) and inaugurate the New Covenant. (Jer. 31:31-34)
There’s little doubt that on the surface this appears to be a rebuke. This phrase is a Hebrew transliterated into Greek. It’s used in multiple texts in the Old Testament and always indicating a disagreement or rebuke (see Judg. 11:12; 2 Sam. 16:10, 19:22; 2 Kings 3:13; 2 Chron. 35:21). It’s also the same expression used by the demons of Gadara in Matthew 8:28-29.
However, as some scholars point out, what seems to be a refusal on the surface is actually a refusal “with a purpose in mind.” (See Fr. William Leonard, A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, p. 984.)
There’s another well known refusal “with a purpose in mind” in Matthew 15:22-28, where Jesus rebukes a Canaanite woman three times as she comes to ask him to heal her demon-possessed daughter. Jesus’ initial refusals to that woman and to his mother serve to underscore the essential nature of her intercession in the matter. The woman’s daughter is healed, but not until she has persisted in her intercession. Likewise, Jesus performs his first miracle, brings the apostles to faith, and launches his ministry, due to Mary’s intercession.
Plus, Jesus in effect is saying, “Why are you interceding with me? It is not yet the hour of my saving death.” Mary’s intercession draws all its power from the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus’ “hour” does not make Mary’s intercession improper; on the contrary, it is the very basis for Mary’s intercession. She is aware of Jesus’ mission and how it will culminate.
Through Mary’s intercession, Jesus performs his first sign, manifests his glory as the Messiah, the anointed one of God, and brings the apostles to faith (John 2:11).
Both Mary and the Canaanite woman teach us by example the truth: it has pleased God to involve our cooperation in his work of salvation.
Andrew – I wonder what William Barclay made of the water-to-wine miracle? Did he imagine that the magic water came from the urinals; having passed through the human body once, would still have a reasonably high alcohol content and that Jesus was simply serving up recycled wine?
I’d take the miracle at face value – Jesus really did turn water (i.e. H2O) into alcohol (i.e. C2H6O) and produced a good Brunello di Montalcino and was brightening up a wedding that was otherwise in danger of going horribly wrong. In so doing, he revealed himself to a small circle (for example – his mother knew exactly where the wine had come from).
The water-to-wine miracle occurs at the beginning of a sequence which culminates (in John’s gospel) with the loaves-and-fishes of John 6. Jesus reveals himself to larger and larger circles, who take an interests, but ultimately, when he explains what it is really all about (end of John 6), they turn away and decline to follow.
The miracles do confirm faith and give faith a reason for those who already have faith (for example, with the water-to-wine, Mary), but I don’t see them engendering faith in those who don’t already have it – instead they seem to have the function of rendering unbelief inexcusable.
Anyway, that’s my (pessimistic) take on the miracles.
And what does your Salvation Army past say about the massive quantity of fine alcoholic wine….
I worked with a Salvation Army meeting and captain in a covenant when I was a Vicar in London. Hugely enjoyable and productive time.
Andrew – ha! That is (of course) the weak point. It does get justified in a half-hearted way. I’d say, however, that even though it may seem like a distortion of Scripture, the Salvation Army were right! In my grandfather’s village, it was the Salvation Army who encouraged the fishermen to stand up to the fish merchants and not accept rum as part-payment for their fish – with huge benefits for the village.
Yes – I can well believe that you had enjoyable and productive relations with the Salvation Army. I remember my Salvation Army friend from my time in Cork – who was very careful to work in co-operation with the Catholic church to reach the areas where there was real need (and they saw that he was doing good work there). We could all learn something positive from their attitude.
@ Jock
He turned water into grape juice …….. it was non-alcoholic.
Happy Jack – yeah, right. I suppose you’re going to tell us that it was a Salvation Army wedding!
@ Jock
Why not? A proto-Salvation Army wedding ….
I think miracles do produce faith. The ultimate miracle, the resurrection, certainly produces faith. Perhaps ‘produce’ is the wrong word, ‘leads to’ may be better. It seems to be more about the reaction to any given miracle. The Jewish leaders were witnesses of miracles by Jesus, yet most dismissed them as either ‘magic’ or works of the devil. But others came to believe. The impression given by Acts is that people were lead to believe after witnessing the Apostles’ miracles. Indeed what is the point of a sign if it doesnt lead to faith in its source?
I would also add I dont think the apostles or the early disciples would likely have continued in their faith in Jesus if miracle-working had not been part of Jesus’ day to day ministry which they witnessed. He would have just been a good teacher.
PC1 – you may be right. On the other hand, take the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-40. On reading Isaiah, he wasn’t asking Philip ‘oh I’m totally bamboozled – what does this mean?’ He’s asking Philip ‘who is this man?’ (About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?)
So the germ of faith – or at least the willingness to believe, wanting to believe, was already there before Philip told him about Jesus and about the miracle of the resurrection – and the miracle confirmed his faith (or gave him a solid reason for the faith he had).
I don’t think that miracles produce faith ‘out of nothing’ – miracles are for those who are asking, seeking, knocking.
Miracles are exterior proofs of God’s action – indirect “proofs” that God is acting or revealing Himself. They don’t directly prove the truth of what God has revealed or compel assent to God’s word. Miracles may point a man to God’s action and even intellectually dispose him to faith, but the grace of faith is still necessary for him to believe.
This explains why people witnessed the miracles of Jesus and yet did not believe. It remains possible for one to reject the grace of faith, notwithstanding the rational force of miracles and arguments based upon them.
Andrew
I for one have little or no quarrel with the sentiments expressed in the first three sentences of your final paragraph. However regarding your final sentence where you *imagine* that there were those whose “hearts and minds were changed” in this context ?Possibly this was the case. But all of this is highly subjective. Moreover, it fits neatly with the secular presupposition that “heart and mind” (including the heart and mind of the “changed”) is the locus for determining the mind and will of the Almighty; or if not the locus per se then certainly on a par with the teaching of Scripture.
Colin I’m sorry but I don’t quite understand what you are saying here.
I can’t think of way of getting into the scenario expressed in the miracle other than imagination. Can you?
Maybe what I need to say is: I believe that in the presence of Christ women and men were changed and were more willing to share.
Hi Andrew,
So, perhaps Jesus went down to the cellar, found a secret stash of wine the host had hidden from the guests and broke it open. The host then had to call it a miracle to cover his stingy nature?
I believe that in the presence of Christ women and men were changed and were more willing to share.
On what evidence do you believe that?
After all plenty of people came into presence of Christ and we’re not changed at all.
Excuse me? You don’t think any men and women were changed by being in Christ’s presence? If you don’t believe that, then what’s the good news?
You don’t think any men and women were changed by being in Christ’s presence?
That’s not what I wrote. Read it again, carefully.
If you don’t believe that, then what’s the good news?
The Good News is that God has provided a way for us to be saved from the consequences of our sins.
The evidence is from scripture, tradition, and reason and experience. Isn’t that enough, even for you?
The evidence is from scripture, tradition, and reason and experience. Isn’t that enough, even for you?
But we’ve established there’s no evidence from scripture. There’s no tradition of that either, not from before the twentieth century. You can’t have evidence from experience as weren’t there; and reason can only work from evidence, it can’t provide evidence from nothing.
So as you have no evidence from scripture, tradition, reason or experience, on what evidence do you believe that?
Goodness I don’t recall anyone ever establishing there was no evidence from scripture. There is lots.
Tradition: Have you read the Didache or any early Church history?
Reason: if Christ was God incarnate, which he was, then it stands to reason that people would be changed in his presence.
Experience: people experience the presence of Christ you know? Say in the Eucharist? Or in Church?
So I’m sorry but I don’t recognise what you are saying.
Goodness I don’t recall anyone ever establishing there was no evidence from scripture. There is lots.
No, there is zero evidence in scripture for this ‘people were moved to share the food that they had previously been keeping hidden’ theory. That’s what you say you believe happened; I’m asking on what evidence you believe that happened.
Tradition: Have you read the Didache or any early Church history?
Does it mention the people taking out and sharing their hidden food?
Reason: if Christ was God incarnate, which he was, then it stands to reason that people would be changed in his presence.
If. Reason can’t itself provide any evidence for anything; it can only tell you that if such-and-such, then such-and-such follows.
Experience: people experience the presence of Christ you know?
And in the gospels some people experience the presence of Jesus and are changed; and some experience the presence of Jesus and aren’t changed at all. So there’s no evidence that any given person who experienced the presence of Jesus must have been changed, unless we are told they were changed.
So I’m sorry but I don’t recognise what you are saying
It’s a simple question: you say you believe that while Jesus was miraculously multiplying loaves and fishes, people in the crowd were taking out and sharing food that they had brought with them but kept hidden, and I’m asking, on what evidence do you believe that is what really happened on that afternoon?
To be clear: I am not asking for evidence that some people who encountered Jesus were changed. We can take that as read.
I am asking you for what evidence you have to believe that this specific thing actually happened. Given that you say you believe it happened, you must have some evidence on which you base your belief; what is it?
I’ve been very clear about what I believe happened. It’s all written above.
I believe that in the presence of Christ women and men were changed and were more willing to share.
As you yourself say, we can take it as read that some women and men were changed in the presence of Christ. If we can take it as read, then we agree. Being changed means that our attitudes and hearts and minds were changed.
I’m not going over any of this again. Everything I need to say is written in my comments above, including my reply to Colin.
I’ve been very clear about what I believe happened.
Yes you have. I’m asking what is the evidence that has persuaded you that what you believe happened is what actually happened.
You have no evidence. Fine.
You know how politics these days is all vibes? I reckon religion got there way ahead. There have been people trying to do theology with no evidence, just vibes, since the late nineteenth century.
So you didn’t actually read the first post I made on this thread?
“It may be correct to say that the idea has no support in the text itself but it has no denial in the text itself either. One of the overriding miracles and meta narratives of the NT is the change of heart and mind that Christ brings to women and men.”
So let’s see. 5000 people in the presence of Christ. You think it likely that only one of the 5000 had *anything* to eat?
Secondly, you have agreed that some of those people would be changed by being in the presence of Christ.
Join up the dots. It isn’t that hard….
So you didn’t actually read the first post I made on this thread?
I did.
“It may be correct to say that the idea has no support in the text itself but it has no denial in the text itself either.
‘There’s no evidence against X’ Is not evidence for X.
One of the overriding miracles and meta narratives of the NT is the change of heart and mind that Christ brings to women and men.”
True but again, that isn’t any evidence that any particular thing happened on this particular occasion.
So let’s see. 5000 people in the presence of Christ. You think it likely that only one of the 5000 had *anything* to eat?
I think that’s pure speculation, not evidence. Do you think that would stand up in court? If you argued that something must have happened because there’s no evidence against it and ‘How likely is it that …’?
Where’s your evidence?
Secondly, you have agreed that some of those people would be changed by being in the presence of Christ.
No, I haven’t. I’ve agreed that some people were changed by being in the presence of Christ. And also some people were in the presence of Christ and did not change. We have no evidence where those people on that particular day were changed or not.
Join up the dots.
Speculate, in other words? Because speciation is all you have, no evidence or logical reasoning.
Logical reasoning gets you so far.
Emotional intelligence is also needed.
Logical reasoning gets you so far.
Emotional intelligence is also needed.
You can just say, ‘Yes, I have no evidence.’
What you can say in this case – which is what I said in the beginning – is that there is no evidence either way…..but it reasonable to assume that….
What you can say in this case – which is what I said in the beginning – is that there is no evidence either way…..but it reasonable to assume that….
And you know what happens when you make an assumption, right? You make an ass out of you and umption.
(Plus you’re not even making a reasonable assumption, are you? You’re coming out with pure, unevidenced, totally baseless, speculation.)
“I think that’s pure speculation, not evidence. Do you think that would stand up in court? “
Do you think the Virgin birth would stand up in court based on the evidence we have?
Andrew,
It’s not primarily a question of “getting into the scenario expressed in the miracle other than imagination”. It is the more basic question of, say, in the case of the”5000″ – did it actually happen? Ian, in his leading article, says: “William Barclay popularised the idea that there was nothing miraculous here.” I’m not so sure I would go so far, but there was certainly more than a streak of rationalism in Barclay’s whole approach to the miraculous . At that time, his vaunted ‘liberal evangelicalism’ was more akin to a form of liberalism with pietistic leanings. I don’t deny what you say elsewhere about the evidence of scripture, reason, tradition and ,yes, even experience in our theological understanding. But the problem with the ‘evangelicalism’ of Barclay was a question of priority: which of these parameters took pride of place? In his case, one is left in doubt between an appeal to Scripture on the one hand and his affinity for the reasoning of the Enlightenment on the other.
Today, much of the evangelical world is caught in a vice-like grip between the place of Holy Writ and an overarching to desire to reach out to a world that not only rejects Christian truth , but even the rationality that Barclay saw as crucial. But if the*place* of Scripture is no longer the *priority* of Scripture, then what we proclaim is ultimately a mishmash of spurious ideas devoid of any real meaning and substance.
It’s not primarily a question of “getting into the scenario expressed in the miracle other than imagination”.
I’d be a bit worried about the word ‘scenario’, actually. It implies something made up or something hypothetical. The clear suggestion of using that word (rather than, say, ‘getting into the events described in the miracle’) is that the situation described in the gospel is not what actually happened.
This interpretation was first proposed by the 19th century German Protestant, scholar Heinrich Paulus. He is known as a rationalist who offered natural explanations for the biblical miracles of Jesus.
It was then popularised by Albert Schweitzer:
Since that which is produced by the laws of nature is really produced by God, the Biblical miracles consist merely in the fact that eye-witnesses report events of which they did not know the secondary causes. Their knowledge of the laws of nature was insufficient to enable them to understand what actually happened. For one who has discovered the secondary causes, the fact remains, as such, but not the miracle.
Schweitzer treated Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension in the same manner:
The lance-thrust, which we are to think of rather as a mere surface wound, served the purpose of a phlebotomy. The cool grave and the aromatic unguents continued the process of resuscitation, until finally the storm and the earthquake aroused Jesus to full consciousness. Fortunately the earthquake also had the effect of rolling away the stone from the mouth of the grave.
(see: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/chapter5.html)
Rationalists do not allow for any miraculous element.
Fortunately the earthquake also had the effect of rolling away the stone from the mouth of the grave.
Dear me, how is it possible to come up with a ‘natural’ explanation that’s far less likely than a simple miracle?
Happy Jack – thanks for pointing out that Albert Schweitzer was a heathen – I hadn’t read anything by him, but I’ll ignore his theological output from now on. He should have stuck to playing the organ – the CD I have of Schweitzer playing Bach on the organ is not at all bad.
@ Jock
Not sure he was a pagan – more of a deist … probably, if he’s possible to classify.
This from Wiki:
He was an interesting chap – Wiki has a couple of articles on him and his philosophical ideas about ethics. They are worth a read. Apparently, he was a Lutheran minister and Principal of the Theological College of Saint Thomas, in Strasbourg.
The Christ of History v The Christ of Faith is a theme that has history. It is far from new.
Albert Schweitzer, more from him:
“The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence.
He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.”
There is more, all centred on historical scepticism, the influence of the opinions of Schweitzer, Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann, Ernst Kasemann and on the Quest For the Historical Jesus, which progressed, through,
1 Christological Pluralism
a) Existential Christology (Tillich, Rahner, Loneran)
b) Historic-Sociological Christology (Pannenberg, Moltmanm, Vatican2)
2 Humanistic Christology (God is Dead, Kung et al)
to the parody of the *Jesus Seminar.*
The quest for the historical Jesus has been identified into 3 stages
1 19th Century Old Liberalism (Schleiermacher, Ritschi, Strauss, Harnack, Schweitzer) rationalism was dominant.
2 Second quest from approx. mid 20 century
3 third quest- The Jesus Seminar
into a parody of the “Jesus Seminar” which Habermas says was based on the genetic fallacy.
————————–
The Jesus Seminar was a consortium of scholars, comprising liberal Catholics and Protestants, Jews and atheists, established in 1985 to make pronouncements on the authenticity of the words and deeds of Christ. The aim was to promote anti-supernatural theology, under the director Robert Funk.
The method was to vote on the accuracy of Jesus sayings by using coloured beads and included fragmentary gospel of Peter and Q, gospel of Thomas and non-extant Secret Mark.
The conclusion of the seminar was that only fifteen sayings (2%) can be absolutely regarded as actual words of Jesus. About 82% of what the canonical Gospels ascribe to Jesus are not authentic.
COMMENT ; It has been asserted by some who comment on this site, something along those lines, that is, you can’t be certain Jesus said that, and how often have we read the word myth as a debunking gotcha.
Critique:
1 Gary Habermas;
a)”They are honest enough to state at the outset their aversion to the supernatural, including the deity and resurrection of Jesus, preferring to think that the modern scientific world view simply rules out such matters.”
b) “Another point of logic concerns the Seminar’s commission of the genetic fallacy which occurs when one challenges the origin of an idea with actually addressing its facticity, In other words, if it is thought that merely attributing a Gospel report to the authors’s style, or other ancient parallels. or to a pre -modern mindset, therebye explains it away, this is a logical mistake. THese charges do not preclude historicity”.
2 Logical fallacy, begging the question. the circular reasoning begins with a de-supernaturalized view of a first century religious figure and concludes at the same point, Geisler, N
—————————-
“During the earliest part of the nineteenth century, the dominating method of research in the quest was rationalism, and attempts were made to explain *rationally* the life of Christ.
“A major turning point came when D.F. Strauss’s The Life of Christ was published in 1835, for Strauss in pointing out the futility of the rationalistic approach argued that
–the miraculous in the gospels was to be understood as non-historical myths.
” The new approach in turn was succeeded by the Liberal interpretation of the life of Jesus, which minimized and neglected the miraculous dimension of the Gospels and viewed it as *husk* which had to be eliminated in order to concentrate on the teachings of Jesus” J.C. Stein
One reason for the demise of the first Quest (though it is clear that its influence is widespread today) is that through Schweitzer the Liberal Jesus never existed but was simply a creation of Liberal wishfulness.
More could be added, but I’ll leave it there.
Source: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell
@ Geoff
Thanks for that .. interesting history and, as you say, nothing new really. It all dates back to the first century.
There’s a reason why in Pope Pius X’s 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis described modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies.” It’s just got more “sophisticated.”
Happy Jack was unaware of the “Jesus Seminar.” Here’s what Wiki says about its “conclusions”:
HJ,
HJ,
Jesus Seminar conclusions;
1. The *old* Jesus and *old Christianity* are no longer relevant.
2. There is no agreement about who Jesus was: a cynic, a sage, a Jewish reformer, a feminist, a prophet-teacher, a radical social prophet, or an eschatological prophet.
3. Jesus did not rise from the dead. One member, Crossan, theorized that Jesus corpse was buried in a shallow grave, dug up and eaten by dogs.
4. The canonical Gospels are late and can not be trusted.
5. The authentic words of Jesus can be reconstructed from the so called “Q” document, the gospel of Thomas, Secret Mark and the gospel of Peter. Geisler, N
Geisler again:
1.”Truth is not determined by majority vote….
2.”Most of the proofs they offer…are uncompelling and are often non-existent except for quotations from one another and other liberal scholars.”
3. By positing and accepting late dates “they can create enough time between events and the recording for eyewitnesses to die off and mythology to develop around the founder of Christianity”
The Seminar meeting in California, comprised, 70 plus scholars, professors, a pastor, a filmmaker, three women, about half were graduates of Harvard, Claremont or Vanderbilt divinity schools.
One of the main purposes was to extensively promote in varied media channels to the lay and secular the debunking of Christian orthodoxy.
Key criticisms of the Seminar are based on its use of the methods of Strauss and Bultmann,
a)Craig Blomberg puts it this way: “The Jesus Seminar and its friends do not reflect any consensus of scholars, except for those on the *radical fringe* of the field. Its methodology is seriously flawed and its conclusions unnecessarily sceptical.
b) Stein says the problem is grounded in the critical definition of “historical.
“In critical circles, the term is generally understood as “the product of the historical-critical method.
“This method for many assumes a closed continuum of time and space in which divine intervention i.e. the miraculous can not intrude. Such a definition will, of course, always have a problem seeking to find continuity between the supernatural Christ and the Jesus of history, who by such a definition can not be supernatural.
“If *historical* means non-supernatural, there can never be a real continuity between the Jesus of historical research and the Christ of faith. It is becoming clear that this definition of *historical* must be challenged and even in Germany spokesmen are arising who speak of the need for the historical-critical method to assume openness to transcendence, i.e., openness to the possibility of the miraculous.
“Only in this way can there ever be hope of establishing continuity between the Jesus of historical research and the Christ of faith.”
Source : Josh McDowell, as above
Josh McDowell – ultra Conservative Evangelical and ultra Conservative politically. Aligned with the Moral Majority and other racially prejudiced organisations. At least he apologised for some of his racist remarks. Whether he stopped holding them is another matter.
Hardly an independent scholar capable of reaching a verdict on the Quest.
Much better criticism of the Quest came from Jimmy Dunn.
Also important to read Edward Schillebeeckx work on Jesus and Christ. Some of the finest work in the late 20th Century
@Andrew Godsall 3rd Aug,
It is notable that no substantive address has been made to all, or any, of the points collated from McDowell’s 700+ pages book other than the employment of an emphasized ad hom fallacy.
As the points remain germane and are not countered, they stand unopposed, uncorrected.
It is also to be noted that although the book is McDowell’s he is not the author of the quotations: the quotations are of other authors and further references could be provided.
The real issue is whether what has been written is correct, so far as the historical-critical method and the theme of Jesus of history v Jesus of faith and the anti -supernatural, closed material world system of Biblical theology and circular hermeneutics, beginning- and- end-points, inhabited by swathes of scholasticism and revisionists, is concerned.
That is the nub.
BTW how do you vote on the authenticity, the reality, in time, space and place of the deeds and words registered in the Bible?
There is something of a weighty clue in your comments on this article, and your understanding of what the Bible is.
It is notable that no substantive address has been made to all, or any, of the points collated from McDowell’s 700+ pages book other than the employment of an emphasized ad hom fallacy.
Andrew Godsall — like many of the woke — is very fond of the genetic fallacy (ie, to dismiss an idea based on its source rather than engaging with whether it is true or false) and also what one might call the ‘extreme genetic fallacy’ where an idea can be dismissed not just because of its source but because of people the sources may have been associated with, no matter how remotely.
I urge those reading Andrew Godsall’s contributions in future to be aware of this and the other logical fallacies often employed.
Oh the half dozen or so readers who have got this far are welcome to read the opinions of Josh McDowell. It’s simply important to be aware of the extreme conservative background he is writing from. Readers may also like to read the more scholarly informed opinions of biblical scholars like Jimmy Dunn and Tom Wright and others, and the major systematic work of Edward Schillebeeckx. Then they may decide for themselves having read more broadly on the subject of the Quest.
It’s simply important to be aware of the extreme conservative background he is writing from.
But it’s not. Whether someone is writing from an extreme conservative, extreme liberal, moderate or Martian background has absolutely no bearing on whether their arguments are valid or their conclusions sound.
In fact it’s exactly the opposite.
What it’s important to do is to approach every argument as if they know absolutely nothing about the person making it, and consider the argument entirely on its own merits.
I don’t trust Donald Trump to tell me that he won the election because he is biased. I trust those who are qualified by their ability to count and verify the votes cast.
I don’t trust some one who is highly experienced at driving a formula 1 racing car to land a lunar excursion module. I want someone with a specialised training in the Apollo space programme.
I don’t trust a nuclear scientist to tell me who wrote the letter to the Hebrews. I want a biblical scholar.
Background is crucial.
I don’t trust Donald Trump to tell me that he won the election because he is biased.
If Donald Trump tells you he won the election you should do exactly the same thing you would do if Joe Biden told you he won the election: disregard completely who it is telling you and ask them for their evidence and arguments and judge for yourself whether the claim is true.
@ Andrew Godsall.
It is clear in the iterations of your comments that there is no substantive answere to the points made, not by McDowell but by those cited.
If you find support from in your tecent reference FS with his heterodoxy verging on heresy (who is opposed by NT Wright) and you follow his rejection of the deity of Jesus, rejection that Jesus is supernaturally God incarnate, and rejection of the bodily resurrection of Jesus it is a reasonable inference or deduction to make that your position is of an anti -supernaturalist which has drawn the critiques of the people, scholars I’ve quoted.
BTW just how do you vote on the reality in time, space and place of the birth, life, works and miracles and words of Jesus registered and uncorrectable, in the Gospels?
In order to judge for myself I need the advice of someone who is qualified in the relevant field. In the case of an election I need a properly qualified returning officer, not just any old person who thinks they might know a thing or two.
In exactly the same way I need a suitably qualified biblical scholar to help advise me about the authorship of the letter to the Hebrews.
And a suitably qualified pilot to fly a LEM. Background and training of the person are crucial in each case.
In order to judge for myself I need the advice of someone who is qualified in the relevant field. In the case of an election I need a properly qualified returning officer, not just any old person who thinks they might know a thing or two.
You’re very into your credentialism. Just because someone has a certificate doesn’t mean they are always right. You need to — just like with anyone — forget who they are and judge their arguments and evidence on their own merits.
In exactly the same way I need a suitably qualified biblical scholar to help advise me about the authorship of the letter to the Hebrews.
In any case we know you’re being hypocritical here, because you are just as dismissive of ‘qualified’ scholars who disagree with you as you are anyone else who disagrees with you.
Your credentialism would be wrong even if it was consistent, but it’s not consistent, it’s just a way of avoiding engaging with the arguments of people you disagree with by claiming they are ‘unqualified’ so their ideas cannot be correct.
But in fact all you display is your own inability to refute their ideas.
The idea that the bible was found up a mountain with every word somehow infallible is not a credible idea.
Letters, for example, are the first or intermediate written explorations of a theme. Rarely are they the last word. They are part of a conversation. That’s true of the biblical letters. We are still having conversations on those very themes. So you can’t take them ‘literally’ without distorting their intent – which was the writer expressing an opinion and offering advice and wisdom. And advice and wisdom change under different circumstances.
I don’t claim that the bible is correct or incorrect anywhere. And I never will do. I don’t find those terms at all helpful when it comes to Holy Scripture. The New Testament is a mix of all kinds of genres of writing. It is impossible to generalise about such diversity. The gospels were not written to present a watertight history of what happened. They were written for the express purpose that people would believe the good news of Jesus Christ. So, they are sometimes being historical and sometimes being interpretative. Taken as a whole, the gospels are presenting us with an intertwined history and interpretation of history. And you have to view the miracles with that background. And it can be difficult to separate the interpretation and the history. That’s what makes study of them so fascinating. Hence we can talk of the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. The two are divinely intertwined.
You also have to add in to that mix what the early Christians thought. And that’s where other texts like the Didache – the teaching of the Apostles- and the writings of the early Church Fathers – are important.
And you have to note that things change. We no longer believe, for example, that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews.
But in all of this we need suitably qualified scholars to help us. Of course they will differ in their judgments. And of course not all of the judgments would stand scrutiny in a court of law. The virgin birth is one such. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t believable or a crucial tenet of the Christian faith. It means that we trust the salvation story because of the background of how it has come to us.
Just as we don’t trust what Donald Trump tells us about the election because we know the background of lies that it comes with.
Background is crucial.
The idea that the bible was found up a mountain with every word somehow infallible is not a credible idea.
Nobody has ever suggested that was what happened. Note, everyone, this is another one of Andrew Godsall’s tricks when he can’t actually come up with any arguments: he sets up a straw man version of his opponent’s position.
Of course, the very fact he has to resort to straw man arguments, genetic fallacies, ad hominem attacks and hypocritical credentialism, just makes his lack of any actual arguments even more obvious.
Well I think anyone can see that you only bothered to read the first sentence because you can’t actually engage with the arguments in the rest of the post.
Well I think anyone can see that you only bothered to read the first sentence because you can’t actually engage with the arguments in the rest of the post.
I can and have many times; but right now I thought it most important to point out all your fallacies and misdirections so that readers in the future are prepared to spot them.
To refute you point by point, as I usually do, would risk that vital information being lost in the noise of a huge comment.
Actually that’s another one to add to the list of Andrew Godsall’s strategies to try to disguise his inability to come up with any actual arguments: spam a vast cloud of irrelevant nonsense, like a jet fighter spewing chaff, in the hope of distracting attention from not answering the point at issue. Those who take up engaging with him must make sure not to fall for such tactics and instead keep asking straight questions until you either get straight answers or (more likely) it becomes obvious what he really thinks but is unwilling to put on record in public.
The vital information is that you see the whole of the bible as if it were one thing that you can treat in just one way. The bible is a unique library of different genres – some as simple as a letter to a fledgling church, and some as complex as a mythical meta narrative about the creation. To try and say that a miracle is simply real or imagined is to miss the complexity and importance of the episode in the history of salvation.
The background of the person telling us what something means is crucial.
“disguise his inability to come up with any actual arguments”
Just because you can’t be bothered to read my longer post doesn’t mean that others won’t read it.
Your only argument is that because it’s the bible it must be right. No nuance. No understanding of the genre. Just generalised nonsense.
The vital information is that you see the whole of the bible as if it were one thing that you can treat in just one way.
And that’s another straw man because, of course, I don’t see the Bible that way at all.
By the way, in English if you use the definite article for something that means it’s a proper noun, and therefore takes a capital letter. That’s why you write ‘a king has absolute power in his realm’ but ‘the King will be arriving shortly’. So your grammar is as bad as your logic.
To try and say that a miracle is simply real or imagined is to miss the complexity and importance of the episode in the history of salvation.
Of course if it was imagined then it has no importance at all in the history of salvation, because only things that actually happened are part of history — including the history of salvation.
The background of the person telling us what something means is crucial.
The background of the person making an argument is of no importance and should be entirely disregarded. All that matters is the validity of the argument and the soundness of its conclusions.
Your only argument is that because it’s the bible it must be right.
And that of course is not an argument I have ever made — another straw man.
And yet more terrible grammar.
Andrew Godsall – let’s take it back to the piece that Ian Paul posted, about the miracle of the loaves and fishes – and the take on this passage by William Barclay, for which you seemed to express support.
Even if we don’t accept that the bible was found up a mountain with every word infallible, it isn’t really admissible to rip the various bits and pieces in Scripture out of their context and give them a meaning which is alien to the context.
William Barclay’s ‘take’ on the loaves and fishes gives us a nice cosy saccharine gospel, which seriously overlooks one of the really important punchlines of the story (which I note that Ian Paul also seemed to omit in his piece) – that the culmination of the loaves and fishes, when the crowds pressed Jesus for further information and he explained the whole business to them, they left him in droves. (John 6:60, John 6:66). They didn’t like it. They absolutely were not behaving as a crowd who had been induced to learn how to be caring and sharing.
This does not look to me like an admissible way of reading Scripture. If you’re going to do that to it, you might as well declare that the whole thing is a load of rubbish and put it in the bin.
This does not look to me like an admissible way of reading Scripture. If you’re going to do that to it, you might as well declare that the whole thing is a load of rubbish and put it in the bin.
Indeed, and this has always been my point since my earliest interactions with Andrew Gosall. I have never claimed, and never would claim, that ‘because it’s the [B]ible it must be right’.
What I have always claimed, and still claim, is that the Andrew Godsall position of regarding the Bible as an unreliable work of ultimately fallible human authors, yet still claiming to be a Christian, is illogical and inconsistent and therefore necessarily false. If the Bible is unreliable, then there is no good evidence to be a Christian.
Of course we know from Andrew Godsall’s stated positions that Andrew Godsall is not a Christian, Andrew Godsall is a kind of cross between two non-Christian positions, a Deist and a Quaker. Andrew Godsall believes in a god who does not intervene in the natural world, but who can be known spiritually through some kind of inner sense. This is in fact a logically consistent position and totally compatible with Andrew Godsall’s view of the Bible, so if Andrew Godsall would just be honest and admit he isn’t a Christian then I would have no logical arguments against him.
@ Andrew Godsall,
1 From whence do you derive your Doctrine of God?
2 Is it from your Doctrine of scripture which is abstracted from your opening straw man fallacy and which is ultimately contradictory, confused and self refuting, it seems to me. The question of genres, themes and writers does not of itself traduce the authorial revelation of God.
But thanks for setting it out, even while it continues a trajectory of refusing to answer, it continues to make your position, theology and doctrine clear.
“If you’re going to do that to it, you might as well declare that the whole thing is a load of rubbish and put it in the bin.”
And this is what S, with their approach to the bible does. To claim that God made a puppet of a cat so that they spilled ink over manuscripts in order to protest against a possible error in copying is to make a mockery of any kind of biblical scholarship and declare that the bible is just a joke.
Jock – this isn’t the place for an extended conversation but do please ask Ian for my e mail address as you suggested you would. And before S chirps up with their usual response by all means reserve the right to publish anything once we have agreed that our conversation is complete.
I have offered this to S in the past but they have not taken this offer up. And as we know, they have something to hide and will not even disclose a proper e mail address to the host of this website so their days of commenting are now limited. A shame – because they have things to offer.
Geoff I’m struggling to get much from your word soup I’m afraid. But you ask about my doctrine of God, and I can’t do any better than the nicene creed. Here it is:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is,
seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
But you ask about my doctrine of God, and I can’t do any better than the nicene creed.
But the Nicene creed includes the virgin birth, and you don’t believe in the virgin birth. So if you say the Nicene creed is your doctrine if God you’re lying.
And this is what S, with their approach to the bible does. To claim that God made a puppet of a cat so that they spilled ink over manuscripts in order to protest against a possible error in copying is to make a mockery of any kind of biblical scholarship and declare that the bible is just a joke.
It’s not though. It’s the view of the Bible held by Christians throughout history. It’s the view of the Bible held by the Westminster Confession, by Calvin, by Origen.
And I fail to see what is ‘a mockery’ about the God who used ravens to feed Elijah using cats to guard the integrity of His Word.
(Of course the issue is that Andrew Godsall doesn’t think that God really did use ravens to feed Elijah, or cause an earthquake to free Paul and Silas, or kill Ananias and Sapphira, or create Y-chromosomes out of nothing in the womb of a virgin. Andrew Godsall finds the idea of a God who does such things distasteful. That’s why Andrew Godsall says that it’s ‘a mockery’.
But this God Andrew Godsall finds so distasteful — the God of the actual Bible, rather than the god Andrew Godsall has made up out of the shreds of the Bible that remain after Andrew Godsall has taken a razor to anything that doesn’t fit the way Andrew Godsall thinks God ought to be — is the actual, real, existing God of Christianity.)
“But the Nicene creed includes the virgin birth, and you don’t believe in the virgin birth. So if you say the Nicene creed is your doctrine if God you’re lying.”
S you repeating this lie over and over again doesn’t make it true.
I absolutely do believe in the virgin birth and you have zero evidence to say otherwise. It’s simply trolling. You do yourself no favour by lying over and over again.
“It’s the view of the Bible held by the Westminster Confession, by Calvin, by Origen.”
Possibly, but it’s an incorrect view and it isn’t one that is required for Anglicans.
@,Andrew Godsall
On what is the Creed based? It is not free floating but tethered is the historicity of scripture. Belief in the Creed is itself a refutation of your doctrine of scripture, as an unreliable solely human construct. Recitation of the creed would be little more than than faith in faith, a human constructed faith and limited in time space and place.
Do continue to refuse to answer questions. I rate your understanding and comprehension a lot higher than you do. Do I believe that you haven’t really understand my comments, categorising them as word soup? Facile and disengenous it may seem to be or tragically uninformed of the whole sweep of canonical Biblical theology?
“On what is the Creed based?”
The carefully worked out theology of the earliest centuries of Christian doctrine. Worth exploring in some detail
I absolutely do believe in the virgin birth and you have zero evidence to say otherwise.
You don’t believe that the genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes did not come from a human male.
You don’t believe that if we took a drop of Jesus’ blood, and of the blood of every other man alive in the world at that time, and sequenced their DNA, and put the results in a database, and searched for paternal matches, we would not find a single match.
And if you don’t believe those things then you don’t believe in the virgin birth, because that is what the virgin birth means.
And of course you have evidence?
But you don’t.
It’s a baseless claim.
Guys, these acrimonious exchanges are pointless. Can you do them elsewhere?
these acrimonious exchanges are pointless
I do think it’s important that false claims like ‘you ask about my doctrine of God, and I can’t do any better than the nicene creed’ are challenged. A large part — perhaps the main part — of why the Church of England has got itself into the mess it’s in is that it’s allowed people to get away with saying the same words but giving them different, sometimes opposite, meanings, without people being forced to be clear about what they actually believe; because the idea of asking someone what they actually believe is seen as hugely impolite, indeed totally beyond the pale. ‘This is the Church of England, ma’am; what you believe is private! Please keep it to yourself and allow others to do the same!’
But this has actually distracted from an important explicit admission that Andrew Godsall has finally made in https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/the-feeding-of-the-five-thousand-in-matthew-14/#comment-431803 — that Andrew Godsall thinks that the view of the Bible held by almost all Christians throughout history is ‘an incorrect view and it isn’t one that is required for Anglicans’; this despite that being the view implicit in the Articles and the Canons.
Yes, I agree that teasing things out is important. But too often these exchanges by-pass one another.
Please also note that very soon I will not accept anonymous comments.
“that Andrew Godsall thinks that the view of the Bible held by almost all Christians throughout history is ‘an incorrect view and it isn’t one that is required for Anglicans’;”
Again, without any evidence you completely misrepresent me. What I said was an incorrect view was this: ‘To claim that God made a puppet of a cat so that they spilled ink over manuscripts in order to protest against a possible error in copying is to make a mockery of any kind of biblical scholarship and declare that the bible is just a joke.’
That view is not at all what is said by the Articles or the Canons. It is certainly not Anglican and that is made explicit in the materials produced for LLF. Please do not continue to misrepresent me.
“because the idea of asking someone what they actually believe is seen as hugely impolite, indeed totally beyond the pale. ‘This is the Church of England, ma’am; what you believe is private! Please keep it to yourself and allow others to do the same!’ “
This is absolute nonsense. I was a Director of Ordinands and involved intensely in the selection of those who wished to train for ministry in the CofE. I asked very specific questions of candidates over a period of several months. Every DDO has to do that.
What I said was an incorrect view was this:
Which is nothing more than the standard view of the Bible held by most Christians throughout history (in the words of the Westminster Confession: ‘ The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.’ and ‘ The Old Testament […] and the New Testament […] being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.’) and the view which is implicit in the Articles and Canons.
I was a Director of Ordinands and involved intensely in the selection of those who wished to train for ministry in the CofE. I asked very specific questions of candidates over a period of several months.
Given that you think its fine for ordinands to use constructive ambiguity to allow then to dishonestly make a vow that they have no intention of keeping, that’s not actually very reassuring.
S. The Canons and Articles say absolutely nothing like this about the Holy Scriptures:
‘To claim that God made a puppet of a cat so that they spilled ink over manuscripts in order to protest against a possible error in copying is to make a mockery of any kind of biblical scholarship and declare that the bible is just a joke.’
The C of E says nothing at all about It is certainly not Anglican and that is made explicit in the materials produced for LLF. Though some people in the C of E will believe the principle of sola scriptura nowhere is it suggested that the C of E holds such a view. The Westminster Confession is not held by the C of E at all. You are simply incorrect to suggest it is.
You claimed that very specific questions about belief are not asked of people in the C of E. again you are quite incorrect. In my work I asked them regularly.
Greek X =1,000
Jesus is the 1,000
The ultimate hyperbole.
The captain of the X.
The master of the X-years.
He multiplied the 5 by Himself
= 5,000
…now to imagine up 2 fish.
Any ideas?
@ Steve
You omitted X-Box!
Get your head around this one:
“When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” And he said to them, “ Do you not yet understand?” (Mark 8:19-21)
Here are the numeric equations:
Feeds 5000 with
• 5 loaves
• 12 baskets left over
Feeds 4000 with
• 7 loaves
• 7 baskets left over
Was Jesus simply reassuring them that would not got hungry because they had no bread, or was it something more?
Thanks HJ, much appreciated. On thinking while working…
2 fish = Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the Word & Testimony. ???
I will have to think again about 4X, 7bread- 7 baskets
Hoping you have an answer!
Or perhaps he just had 2 fish to hand and that was what he worked from?!
Peter
PC1 – yep – he had two fish and this worked for him. I’m not sure about the barley loaves, though. Surely chips would have worked better.
@ Steve
HJ does – but he’ll leave you with it for a little while!
OK. I make a point of not reading other commentaries. I’ll try and come up with a steveism.
I give up! I digressed comparing Ahab’s Obadiah and Herod’s Chuza. Trying to see if Joanna’s helping the disciples had any parallel to The feeding of the prophets but that would make Jesus’ miracles a logistical one involving palace food from the banquet.
@ Steve
Ha! Too complicated ….
Here’s a couple of clues:
Consider the preceding account of Christ’s words to the Greek woman in Mark 7:24-30.
And then consider the significance of the numbers 12 and 7 in the Hebrew Testament.
HJ will post the answer tomorrow.
Hmm, Jews fed first =12, then everybody else 7.
Seven being the number of the Spirit going out into all the world. The horns/eyes of the Lamb.
But, fish feature twice but don’t get a mention in summary. Why?
Plus, I think Jesus is saying He is bread and rest (7).
@ Steve
Close …
The interpretive key, according to Scott Hahn, is the preceding story of Christ referring to “bread” being reserved only to the children of Israel (St Mark 7:24-30). The Gentile Syro-Phoenician woman says, “Yes Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the crumbs of the children.”
So the bread and baskets left over refers to bread for the nation of Israel and then bread for the Gentiles in their midst.
The first number is something God/Christ takes and the result is something yielded from the number:
• The number 12 almost always refers to the 12 tribes of Israel. It is the national number of the People of God.
• The number 7 can refer to the Sabbath (seventh day), holiness, or completion. It’s also the number of the universe since the 7th day brought completion and peace to the creative act of God …
Given the presence of the Syro-Phoenician woman, the number 7 here represents the seven Gentile nations that occupied the Promised Land during the time of Moses (see Deuteronomy 7:1). The Promised Land was occupied by the 12 Tribes of Israel and the competing 7 Nations of the Gentiles.
Here’s how it signifies redemptive history:
• Old Covenant: Christ first feeds people and yields the 12 baskets. This is God first establishing the People of Israel (12 tribes) in the Old Testament – now the 12 apostles.
• New Covenant: Christ thereafter (literally “after three days” see Mark 8:2) feeds people and yields the 7 baskets. This is God establishing the Church; the fulness of the Gentiles (7 nations) in covenant with God.
Christ is prompting His apostles to see that the Gentiles are going to be brought into the His Kingdom “after three days” (Mark 8:2) and fed with His bread.
Very good HJ, Not fishy at all!
YHWH
The proto hebrew letters were once pictographs (so I’ve read) which stand for HAND BEHOLD NAIL BEHOLD.
Jesus is the correct interpretation of The Name.
Jesus said “who do you say I AM”
I say, “You are my LORD and GOD” .
The Ark of the covenant is an oblong seat for two, a throne. The One, invited the Lamb to sit at His right hand side. The next thing we see is only the Lamb at the centre. He then invites anyone who overcomes to sit at His right hand side.
Jesus was
before the world began, the anointed, the messiah.
Jesus is
Lord, at God’s right hand.
Jesus will be
on the throne with His bride at his right hand.
The One seated on the throne holding the scroll is a picture of Christ before the foundation of the world holding his divine plan of salvation. The breaking of the seals are the trials of the saints throughout history. 1-3 =B.C.. 4= the time of Christ. 5-7 = A.D. to the end of time.
‘The proto hebrew letters were once pictographs (so I’ve read) which stand for HAND BEHOLD NAIL BEHOLD.’
Sorry, this is nonsense.
I look forward to HJ’s scholarly reply to this numerical conundrum. Will it take the form of one of his erudite quotes from a notable RC scholar, almost invariably presented previously on the now defunct ‘Cranmer’ blogsite as a rational and biblical response to those of evangelical persuasion who have yet to see the “light” ? Or are we in for something radically new?
@ Colin McCormack
Colin, your words are wounding! Happy Jack is rarely “scholarly” or “erudite”, as AC Cranmer frequently pointed out! From memory, the word most often used was “obtuse”.
The label “evangelical” is without meaning today as a way of categorising one’s faith. All Christians are called to evangelise. Unfortunately, there is now more than one gospel being preached.
And, just so you know, HJ has no beef with certain “evangelicals” – just those of a Calvinist persuasion who hold to double predestination, those who persist in identifying the antichrist with the bishop of Rome and the Catholic Church, and, most especially, those progressive-modernist evangelicals, both protestant and Catholic.
And, yes, the proposed solution is offered by one Scott Hahn. There’s rarely anything “radically new” from Happy Jack, just the occasional speculation that he throws out there.
Dear Jack,
Actually , I did value many of your contributions to Cranmer; not least because they did challenge the growing irrationallity that tended to emanate from what you call modernism. Moreover, in spite of my “wounding” remarks, I have already seen some invaluable insights from you on this site .(Yes, I can crawl when I need to – it’s the Anglican in me!)
But just one final point: while agreeing with your critique of the term evangelical, it is not for the reason that you give (“All Christians are called to evangelise”) . Rather, at the risk of oversimplification, its roots lie among other things in the issue of biblical authority.However in the present age, among many who claim to uphold this principle, more confusion can exist than in other Christian groups.
@ Colin McCormack
You have the advantage over HJ. Did you comment on Cranmer?
” … its (evangelical) roots lie among other things in the issue of biblical authority.”
Yes, the five solas of the Reformation … and the perspicacity of Scripture.
A Catholic doesn’t question the authority of Scripture. The issue between us is probably how the Sacred texts are understood and interpreted, and where, if anywhere, the final “authority” rests for deciding this. Also, there are the issues between “sola scriptura” and Sacred Tradition, and the part played in the “development of doctrine” through a deepening understanding of Scripture as a living text.
“However in the present age, among many who claim to uphold this principle, more confusion can exist than in other Christian groups.”
Perhaps because of what HJ has just written.
It also applies to the Catholic Church where many theologians, priests bishops and laity are questioning orthodox and centuries old teachings on faith and morals. This through a reinterpretation of Scripture and an undermining the Church’s magisterium. All not helped by our present pope who is ambiguous in many of his teachings and permits confusion.
Thanks, I thought it might be… 🙁
Now, now … you yourself nearly got there without any ‘Roman Catholic’ influence!
HJ – Re your ‘Roman Catholic influence’: so the ‘proposed solution’ was by Scott Hahn who, I believe’jumped horses” in theological terms some years ago as did the current editor of the American ‘Crisis’ magazine) . In my experience,particularly in the case of the latter, there was insufficient and inadequate training at the original “riding school”. Perhaps this is why this publication seems to have closed its doors to the non-Catholic public (no questions asked).
No doubt you will argue that Hahn’s remarks in this context were somewhat tongue-in -cheek.
However , regarding Matthew 14: 22 f: I would refer you to the “genuine article”; the Dominican theologian Pierre Benoit . Benoit’s exegesis not only incorporating other NT passages but references to Elisha [2Kings 42 – 24] and [Psalm 132:15 ” I will bless her(Zion) with abundant possessions, her poor will I satisfy with food.” Benoit truly gets to grips with the text and thereby enriches our understanding.
PS I am in no doubt that you are familiar with Father Benoit!
@ Colin McC
HJ rarely visits “Crisis” these days – too combative.
Hahn’s interpretation was serious, not tongue-in -cheek, so far as HJ is aware.
As for Pierre Benoit, HJ is not familiar with his writings. He has vague recollections of discussions from long ago about how to understand Scripture’s literal and topological sense, and how the inspired authors cooperated with God rather that have the text dictated. But that’s about it.
The Proto-Semitic alphabet does seem to have used pictograms, borrowed presumably from Egyptian hyroglyphs. For each consonant, a word was chosen starting with that letter, where the word is for something which can give a simple picture, distinguishable from others. It is very, very unclear why one can associate with one word, spelt with certain letters, with the originating words for the shapes of the letters. Since the Greek and then Roman alphabets are derived from the same source, is it legitimate to do this with words in English, e.g. ‘STEVE’ or perhaps ‘STEFEN’?
In fact, languages, particularly in the ancient world, were spoken and heard. The significance of the development of alphabetic systems is that such are a means for knowing the sound of a word (in comparison with ideographic scripts). Interestingly, there is a known Semitic language – Ugaritic – which was written using cuneiform. It used 30 signs, including signs representing a stop-plus-vowel (the stops in Hebrew are aleph and ayin).
The alphabet used for Hebrew for a long time is actually the Aramaic ‘square’ alphabet. There is an Old Hebrew alphabet which persisted up until the time of the Essenes – it was used for the The Name, for example. However, even that was itself derived from earlier versions.
If you look up these ancient scripts in Wikipedia (North Semitic, Phoenician, Paleo, you will find tables of the letters and the words thought to be the deriviation of the symbols (which vary). Looking at the source of the letters of The Name, we find:
Yōd: arm or hand
Hē: jubilation or window
Wāw: hook
So, the words you have for the second and third do not seem to correspond to what scholars consider to be the derivation. How does “Hand jubilation hook window” work for you?
I would also add the issue of matres lectiones (literally “mother of reading”). Starting at perhaps 1000BC, the writing of Hebrew started using letters (i.e. consonants) to represent vowels, in order to distinguish words for which the consonants alone are the same. A hē at the end of the word is one of these. In Biblical Hebrew a hē at the end of the word is most commonly such a use, to the extent that the Masorites in their pointing will add a dot in the letter when it is not such a use of hē. Which type is the final hē in The Name?
Thanks David,
I remembered it wrong. It was, I think, Behold Hand Behold Nail. It’s a shame it isnt true, it would have been interesting if it was.
…and I got that wrong too!!
enough already
As I visited the Church of the Loaves and Fishes in Tabgha some years ago, I was disappointed to read the scepticism here about the actual location of the miracle! :). I also visited the Wedding Church in Cana where I purchased a bottle of wine: as I discovered back in the UK, perhaps the worst wine I have tasted in my life. “You have saved the worst till now,” I ruefully reflected.
Many of Christ’s miracles in Galilee were of course foreshadowed by those two great northern prophets Elijah and Elisha: the cleansing of Namaan from leprosy, the raising of the Shunnamite’s son, the widow’s cruse, the floating axe head – and the feeding of 100 men with 20 loaves (2 Kings 4.42-44). I have long thought the miracles of Christ were intended to depict him as ‘one greater than Eijah’.
No doubt some disciple of Strauss would say the Gospel accounts are fictionalised accounts modelled on 1-2 Kings. As for William Barclay, he was not an original or profound thinker but rather a warm-hearted liberal expositor grounded in 19th century liberal thought such as you would find in Troeltsch and von Harnack. His easy style, good grasp of classical history and literature, philological notes and devotional style made him accessible to preachers and Bible readers, but for careful readers, there was on mistaking his actual rationalism and anti-supernaturalism. I do not know (or I am too lazy to check) whether he believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ but I am pretty sure he denied the virgin birth (virginal conception) as a fact of history.
Please note: the virgin birth is the doctrine that Christ had no human biological father but was conceived without sexual intercourse. I know that Andrew often insists in this blog that he “believes in the virgin birth” but cannot bring himself to state that he believes Jesus had no human biological father. This inconsistency is a mark of great confusion and suggests an inability or unwillingness to accept what miracles actually are theologically speaking: special divine acts of (re-)creation in the world. It is the same kind of rationalism which says that Jesus really “inspired” people to share their food (an idea of which the text says nothing at all) rather than outdoing Elisha manyfold. Good example and persuasion are doubtless important in ministry but something much more profound is going on here.
James;
The Virgin birth includes Mary being conceived through the supernatural power of the holy Spirit, without sexual intercourse. Therefore, God was literally, Jesus’ Father. The Roman Catholic Christologist, Raymond Brown, believed that both Matthew and Luke had a “Conception Christology”, rather than any literal, “Pre-existence Christology”
A few weeks ago a retired childrens nurse asked the Vicar if she could add her story to the Vicar’s sermon. As a younger nurse she recounted that she was tasked to accompany an African youngster to his home in Africa.
She had packed a small jar of sugar to aid the boy transition from a western sugar included diet to an African non sugar diet.
This transition took longer than expected and the jar of sugar never seemed to diminish but served its purpose until the transition was accomplished. It was not a miracle that had been requested. Just saying.
The feeding of the five thousand is not a case of either Moses and manna, or the Last Supper and early Christian rituals concerning the Eucharistic – but a case of both/and.
It’s no coincidence that in Luke’s Gospel, following the feeding of the five thousand, immediately we have Peter recognising Christ as the Messiah. (Luke 9: 18-20), Jesus predicting His death (Luke 9: 21-27), and the Transfiguration (Luke 9: 28-36) where Moses and Elijah discussed Jesus’ “departure” (His “exodus”)?
In John’s Gospel, after this miracle, we have Jesus’ encounter with the same crowd and He gives the “Bread of Life” discourse. In this He links their questions about Moses, manna in the wilderness, bread from heaven, with His own body and blood which He is to sacrifice and (literally) should be eaten and drunk for eternal life. (John 9: 25-59)
The parallel is clear. The Last Supper is a meal of sacrifice, thanksgiving and remembrance. Jesus is the ‘New Moses’ – and the ‘Promised Messiah’.
The feeding of the five thousand is a prologue to the institution of the Eucharist; a foreshadowing of its miraculous feeding.
The blessing, breaking, and giving of the bread to the disciples correspond to His actions at the Last Supper. Previously, these blessings and actions occurred at any Jewish meal, but now they become associated with the visible miracle that announces the arrival of the Messiah. Christ performs the miracle – the disciples distribute it.
Cardinal Ratzinger his book The Feast of Faith says: It is critical to understand the toda sacrifice to understand the Mass, i.e., the “ritualised church practice” of the very early Church as seen in the Didache and continued to this day.
The Hebrew word todah means “thanksgiving” and is an expression of praise. In Jesus’ day the Greek word was eucharistia. The “Todah sacrifice” was a thanksgiving sacrifice offered under the Mosaic law. (Lev 7:11) It was an animal sacrifice made to thank God for deliverance from suffering or evil. During a Todah sacrifice, a priest would sacrifice a lamb and consecrate/dedicate unleavened bread in the Temple by sprinkling it with the lamb’s blood. The meat and bread would then be brought home for a celebratory meal with family and friends.
There are many examples in the Old Testament of people offering Todah. The definitive is after David defeats the Canaanites and brings the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. This was the occasion of a great national Todah festival. All the elements of the Todah were present. David offered bread and wine along with the meat of the sacrifices (1 Chron. 16:3), and he had the Levites lead the people in psalms of thanksgiving. (1 Chron. 16:8-36)
At this pivotal point in Israel’s story, David not only changes the location of the Ark; he also transforms Israel’s liturgy. David gave the Levites a new mandate – their primary job was to “invoke, to thank, and to praise the Lord.” (1 Chron. 16:4) The Hebrew word for “invoke” is zakar, which literally means to remember – the noun form signifying “memorial” (zikkaron). One of the most important purposes of a Todah meal was to remember the saving deeds of the Lord. One of the functions of the Todah psalms is to recount the mighty deeds of God. (Ps. 22) The Levites were to give thanks and praise to God “continually”. (1 Chron. 16:37-40) Toda sacrifice – thanksgiving – becomes the heart of Jewish Worship.
An ancient saying of the Rabbis recorded in the Mishnah says: When the Messiah comes, all sacrifice will cease except for the Toda sacrifice. All hymns will cease except for the hymns of thanksgiving. When the Rabbis translated the Hebrew word Toda to Greek the word chosen was Eucharistia – a sacrifice of thanksgiving to God.
The importance of the Todah as a backdrop for Jesus and the Last Supper is clear. The Hebrew Todah was Eucharistia. At the Last Supper Jesus took the bread and wine and gave “thanks” (eucharistia) over them. (Luke 22:19 From the earliest Christian sources we learn that the celebration of the Lord’s meal (for Catholic’s the Mass), was known by Christians as the Eucharist.
The Last Supper celebrated in the upper room seems to be both a Passover and a Todah meal. The Passover has all the same elements found in the Todah: bread, wine, and sacrifice of a lamb, along with hymns and prayers. When Jesus takes the bread, breaks it, and declares thanksgiving (eucharistia), He is performing the key function of both the Todah and Passover – giving thanks for deliverance. He is not simply looking back at Israel’s history of salvation, but forward to His death and Resurrection.
In the Eucharist, Christians give thanks for God’s deliverance and remember how Jesus brought about the new exodus with His death and Resurrection. Jesus had told them, “Do this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19)
[See: Tim Gray: “From Jewish Passover to Christian Eucharist: The Story of the Todah.” ]
‘…where Moses and Elijah discussed Jesus’ “departure” (His “exodus”)?’
more like his exile me thinks.
Er, no. The word Luke uses is ‘exodus’. Literally.
ah, so it is, ‘exodon’.
Jack Some interesting points here. However “Todah sacrifice – thanksgiving becomes the heart of Jewish worship” ? It did continue in the temple until its destruction but any concept of sacrifice since then was no longer an integral part of Jewish thanksgiving. Linked to that, as far as I am aware, nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus give thanks “over the bread” (Gray). And nowhere does “the sacrifice of a lamb” form any part of a Pesach meal. Some may include a portion of lamb as part of the meal , but as a sacrifice? I don’t think so!
Finally, I would encourage you to read Hebrews 9: 23 f – especially vv 24 – 26.
Bendiciones!
@ Colin McCormack
Thank you for you constructive comments and suggestions.
Bear in mind the proposition that the Last Supper may have been both a Passover and a Todah meal, these being meals of sacrifice, thanksgiving and remembrance. The lamb on both occasions having already been sacrificed at the Temple.
Why would Jesus have to give thanks “over the bread”? It’s His words that count – “this is my body … this is my blood.”
During a Todah sacrifice, it is a priest in the Temple who sacrificed a lamb and sprinkled the unleavened bread. The meat and bread would then be brought home for a Todah celebratory meal where there would be thanksgiving prayers.
The Pesach Meal was held after nightfall on the first night of Passover. Once the Israelites were settled in Israel, and once a Temple was built in Jerusalem, the original sacrifice described in Exodus 12 changed. Israelites were expected to travel to Jerusalem to sacrifice a Passover lamb at the Temple, and then consume the Passover sacrifice once the sun had set. This is described as having taken place during the reigns of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah. (2 Chronicles 30 and 35)
A number of customs, recorded in later rabbinic literature, accumulated around the meal, which became highly ritualised and was called the Seder (Hebrew for “order”). Unleavened bread was broken, four cups wine were served (Christ did not drink the fourth cup, but more on that later), the diners reclined and hymns were sung. During the meal, the Exodus story was retold and the significance of the unleavened bread, bitter herbs and wine was explained.
The Passover meal was divided into four parts. First, the preliminary course consisted of a festival blessing spoken over the first cup of wine, followed by the serving of a dish of herbs. The second course included a recital of the Passover narrative and the “Little Hallel” (Psalm 113), followed by the drinking of the second cup of wine. The third course was the main meal, consisting of lamb and unleavened bread, after which was drunk the third cup of wine, known as the “cup of blessing.” The Passover climaxed with the singing of the “Great Hallel” (Psalms 114-118) and the drinking of the fourth cup of wine.
This pattern IS reflected in the Gospel narratives of the Last Supper. The cup blessed and distributed by Jesus is identified as the third cup in the Passover meal. Paul identifies this “cup of blessing” with the Eucharistic cup. (1 Cor. 10:16)
Now, here comes a break with the prescribed “order” of the meal. Instead of proceeding to the climax of the Passover, the drinking of the fourth cup, we read: “And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” (Mark 14:26) Why did Jesus “miss” the fourth cup? The fourth cup being “The Cup of Acceptance / Praise”.
The Eucharist was instituted at the third cup, “The Cup of Blessing / Thanksgiving”, recalling the promise, “I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment”. Paul explicitly calls the Eucharist “the Cup of Blessing (eulogia).” As Pope Benedict noted, “Thanking and blessing God reached its culmination in the berakah, which in Greek is eulogia or eucaristia: praising God becomes a blessing for those who bless him.”
Jesus in the preceding verse says: “Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.” (Mark 14:25)
Is the answer Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane: “And going a little farther, he fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but thou wilt.’” (Matt. 26:39) What cup was Jesus talking about? Some explain Jesus’ language by identifying it with “the cup of God’s wrath” in the prophets (Is. 51:17; Jer. 25:15). This connection seems less direct than does the primary link suggested by the Passover setting. Jesus’ resolution not to drink “the fruit of the vine” reappears in the scene at Golgotha right before he is crucified: “And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh; but he did not take it.” (Mark 15:23)
Our friend, Scott Hahn, offers the following exegesis:
The Last Supper and the Passover are one event. What’s finished? Not the work of salvation: Romans 4:25 says that Jesus “was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.” The Resurrection hasn’t happened yet, so that’s not finished. What’s finished is the long fore-shadowed Paschal Feast and Sacrifice. It’s all one thing. The Passover both celebrates God’s redemption of the Israelites from Egypt, and the coming Messiah. It both recalled a past event and prophesied a future one. So the Scriptures being fulfilled were all of the Passover Messianic Scriptures, particularly Exodus 6:6, and what’s finished is the ultimate Passover. On this Passover unlike any other, Jesus lifted the third cup which recalled the promise, “I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments.” (Exodus 6:6) And then He fulfilled His promise, the promise of the fourth cup, “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God.” (Exodus 6:7)
To conclude, Happy Jack has read Hebrews 9: 24-28.
Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated. Jesus is our High Priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the sacrifice that He offers is Himself. This is why He appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though He had been slain (Rev. 5:6). He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because He still needs to suffer but because He re-presents Himself to God appealing to the work of the Cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us.
The Catholic Mass, like the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, is a participation in this one heavenly offering. The risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers Himself to God as a living sacrifice. The Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24). It is precisely because the death of Christ was sufficient that the Mass is celebrated. It does not add to or take away from the work of Christ – it is the work of Christ.
At the Last Supper, Jesus said to his disciples, “Do this in memory of me.” In Greek, this statement reads, “Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin.”
There are two aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase touto poieite can be translated as “do this or as offer this”. In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites “you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs.” (Ex. 29:38) This use of poiein is translated as offer this or sacrifice this over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.
The second key aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word anamnesin. Every time this word appears it is within a sacrificial context (e.g., Numbers 10:10). It also can be translated as memorial offering or memorial sacrifice.
The Didache refers to the Eucharist as a thusia, the Greek term for sacrifice:
Happy Jack has provided a wonderful essay here. Really really helpful. I thank him.
@ Susannah
A little digital art from Happy Jack from 10 years ago where he did some meditative work on the Holy Shroud image.
https://httpwwwmreman.blogspot.com/2013/05/message-in-sand.html
S in a coment above asserts that Andrew Godsall does not believe in the virgin birth. AG replies vehemently that he does, but it is evident that he doesn’t because the actual substance of the doctrine is that Jesus had no human biological father but was conceived by the direct miraculous activity of the Holy Spirit, while Andrew believes a human male was involved.
He has had many, many opportunities to state whether Jesus had a human biological father and be bas always refused to answer. So the only conclusion we can make is that Andrew does believe Jesus had a human biological father.
And I believe that Jesus flesh was made entirely out of nothing and used Mary as a vessel to grow in. The Star of Bethlehem was Ezekiel’s vision of God returning as the last from exile. He stepped down from His throne into the new flesh. At his baptism This New Temple had the Prince, the Holy Spirit enter the east gate , His head, and remain. They worked as a pair throughout their ministry until The Spirit was given up and Left Jesus alone.
PS the Bible describes reality as people at the time understood it. I.e. a seed falls into good soil.
And I believe that Jesus flesh was made entirely out of nothing and used Mary as a vessel to grow in.
But then Mary wouldn’t have been Jesus’ mother, as she is explicitly stated to be in Matthew 1:16.
PS the Bible describes reality as people at the time understood it.
Yes, and we understand it differently now but the point is that the reality is the same.
S, Mary gave nurture to the embryo, gave birth and suckled Him. She was His mother. The first creation was made out of nothing, the second creation was made out of nothing too. Or, at a push, out of that which is unseen (God).
A friend asked me recently “what about pre Adamic peoples, are they saved?”
I replied that the Bible deals with history from Adam onwards. What happened ‘before’ is of no interest because the Bible says it is sufficient for salvation. I think we should only think in Biblical terms. The seed is life the soil is fertile. If one’s heart is fertile then the seed takes root.
As a normal modern, I think the earth is millions of years old and is round not flat. That half DNA from each makes one. ETC. but the Bible uses concepts that people at the time understood.
To say Mary put up half the collateral is wrong.
I found what HJ said about the cups interesting. I think the last cup will be drunk with us in the New Jerusalem. And perhaps, just perhaps, He is still only half the DNA, so to speak until the consummation. but there again I’m projecting modern ideas into a biblical world view.
I don’t mind sharing ideas with you, ‘cos your a gentleman scholar.
Mary gave nurture to the embryo, gave birth and suckled Him. She was His mother.
If your theory is true it would make Mary the surrogate, not Jesus’ biological mother.
“So the only conclusion…”
Not really, James.
Another conclusion might be that Andrew does not know for sure, and so he declines to be dogmatic about it.
The same could be said about the feeding of the five thousand. We just don’t know whether, besides miraculous activity, God chose to involve ordinary people by inciting them to share. Both things might have happened.
People are not obliged to submit to S’s incessant policing and interrogation.
In addition, uncertainty is an important aspect of Christian faith.
Another conclusion might be that Andrew does not know for sure, and so he declines to be dogmatic about it.
The question is what Andrew Godsall believes happened inside Mary’s womb. If Andrew Godsall thinks that maybe something miraculous happened, but maybe Jesus was conceived from a sperm and an egg in the normal way, then — by definition — Andrew Godsall does not believe in the virgin birth.
It doesn’t require absolute certainty, but it does require thinking that the miraculous explanation is more likely that any of the alternatives.
Susannah – ummm – no – *certainty* is the important aspect of the Christian faith; *uncertainty* has nothing to do with the Christian faith.
Believing in Him, means precisely, ‘I *know* that I am in Him and have passed from death to eternal life (where ‘eternal’ means eternal communion with God); equally, I know that I cannot prove this’. Believing in him (John 3:16) means knowing with certainty that He has done all the work on my behalf; I do not trust in Christ plus something else (where by ‘something else’ I mean something that I may have done to gain additional brownie points).
Andrew Godsall has stated that he believes in the virgin birth – which means knowing with certainty that this was how Jesus was conceived – and equally knowing that this cannot be proved. Any other meaning given to ‘believe’ in this context is mucking about with language and is exchanging the truth for a lie.
It is all right for people not to believe in the virgin birth (or ‘virginal conception’ as we’re told we have to call it). After all, Emil Brunner didn’t – and I found his book ‘The Mediator’ very inspirational. Everything was good, solid, straight-down-the-line stuff, which helped to clarify and formulate my thinking – until approximately page 335 – where he dropped a clanger, clarifying that he didn’t believe in the virgin birth (or virginal conception as we’re required to call it). I found it weird, but it doesn’t detract from the previous 334 pages that I had read. He didn’t go AWOL with his natural theology rubbish until later – several years after he had written ‘The Mediator’.
I do appreciate clarity of language; if someone doesn’t believe in miracles in the accepted sense then they should say so rather than try to re-define ‘miracle’ (so that getting people to share their lunch boxes gets re-classified as a ‘miracle’); if someone doesn’t believe in ‘virgin birth’ (or ‘virginal conception’ as we’re required to call it) then they should say so.
I’m not accusing AG of mucking about with language. All I’d say, though, is that I’m left somewhat confused about what the above exchanges are all about.
Importantly, though, Christian faith is all about certainty – complete certainty about things we can’t prove (i.e. having passed from death to eternal life).
‘virginal conception’ as we’re required to call it
Required by whom?
(Surely a virgin birth necessarily implies a virginal conception, given that conception must come chronologically before birth)
S – required by Ian. There was an exchange on an earlier thread to this effect.
anecdote
I met a plumber in a shop who had worked on my house. He explained that he had separated from his wife. I invited him round. I respected him as a good, straight up sort who knew his stuff.
After a glass of wine he suddenly started to recount how he helped Diana in the underpass that fateful day….
He left, and sometime later he died. His wife told me he was an alcoholic.
At the time it was inexplicable.
Much of what goes on here has the same vibe.
People hold all sorts of views here, I’m not ashamed to try out a few myself.
We are all a mixture of fallen nature and the new life.
I’m most wary of the dogmatic.
Steve, well there is one thing that you should be dogmatic about, which is that you have passed from death to eternal life – and that this is all of Him and none of you. About all other matters, I’d agree with you …
Jock, Yes and amen,
People come to faith and grow in knowledge and wisdom. Cherished weird beliefs can sometimes only be straightened out when exposed to real life challenges. I try to hold lightly my understanding on things that are not necessary to salvation because I know a lot of it is cerebral and not won by hard knocks.
“Importantly, though, Christian faith is all about certainty – complete certainty about things we can’t prove (i.e. having passed from death to eternal life).”
Thanks Jock.
I’d say Christianity is about Trust.
Trusting enough to give yourself.
Trusting God’s fidelity and tender love.
I find in prayer I am not always certain. But I trust that God hears me, even when I don’t feel God.
Trust seems to me to be the basis of marriage and relationships, and especially relationship with God.
Susannah, ‘If you love me, you will obey my commandments.’
Susannah: no, that is not correct. The Virgin Birth means Jesus had no human biological father. If Andrew Godsall is unsure about this, that means he doesn’t believe in the Virgin Birth (and if he says he does, while believing that Jesus probably or definitely had a human biological father, then he doesn’t understand the historical doctrine).
The VB is a miracle. A miracle is a special divine act in the world, discontinuous with our known laws of material cause and effect.
Andrew may clarify, if he wishes, whether he thinks Jesus had a human biological father. If he is uncertain about this, then by definition he doesn’t believe in the VB.
James – too many abbreviations. 4G, written by the BD has nothing about the VB.
Jock – John’s Gospel doesn’t even tell us the name of the mother of Christ. Do you think John didn’t know her name?
James – see comment below. John didn’t mention the virgin birth for a very good reason. We know from Isaiah and Matthew that the virgin birth is true, but we also know from John and Paul that it isn’t a central plank for asserting the divinity of Christ; it isn’t central for the Trinity; it isn’t central the the high Christology that John and Paul both argue for – they do it without reference to the virgin birth.
This is just nonsense. Please stop misrepresenting me. A virgin birth implies no biological father. How could it be otherwise? I refuse to state the obvious just to satisfy some anonymous troll.
‘I refuse to state the obvious’ If you keep refusing to explain what you mean, on the assumption that it is obvious, then the conversation will be futile.
Ian nobody needs to explain what is meant by a Virgin, unless they are talking to a 6 year old – but given that is the way S behaves then maybe you have a point…….
actually they do. Many people talk about the ‘virgin birth’ which is incorrect, since the birth itself technically ends virginity.
Jesus was virginally conceived. Given that you have been using the wrong term this whole discussion, I think my call for clarity is well founded.
Ian. then let’s be clear that the Creed says:
[Jesus Christ] who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
The fact that Mary was a Virgin when Jesus Christ was born means she had to have been a Virgin when Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirt, yes?
How would anyone claim that was ambiguous or unclear?
A virgin birth implies no biological father.
So did the genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes come from a living human man, or didn’t it?
Simple question. If it’s ‘obvious’ then you won’t mind answering.
The genetic material came from the Holy Spirit, as it says clearly in the Creeds, doesn’t it?
Andrew Godsall: just to be clear,
The Nicene Creed does not say “The genetic material came from the Holy Spirit”, it says
“He was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary”; while the Apostles Creed states ‘He was conceived from the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary”.
Do you unambiguously affirm that this means Jesus had no human biological father?
Your past failure to answer this simple question is the cause of uncertainty.
James. The Apostles and Nicene Creeds are clear that the Virgin Mary was partnered by the Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus Christ. The Creeds are therefore clear about the origin of any genetic materials involved. The Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit. What other conclusion can you draw?
Andrew – your statement is clear.
But may I gently point out, though, that there is an issue here, which is that some people (not you – but you can see it on this thread) do change meanings – taking something where the natural meaning would be clear and plain to a six year old to mean something else. You expressed sympathy towards William Barclay’s take on the loaves and fishes where he completely redefines everything – as far as he is concerned, there is no miraculous production of bread and fish – Jesus simply induced people to share their lunch boxes. He then *blatantly* redefines the term ‘miracle’, using it to describe the act of persuading people to share their lunch boxes.
As I pointed out below (discussion with James) I don’t see how Virgin Birth is central to anything at all – so I don’t really understand why S is getting his or her water heated so much on this issue. After all, John doesn’t mention it – he teaches an awful lot about Christology, the Trinity, etc …. none of his arguments are based on the Virgin Birth and he doesn’t even mention it (which shows just how peripheral the issue is to him). Same goes with Paul. As I pointed out below, I learned an awful lot from Brunner’s ‘The Mediator’ – and then on page 335 he dropped a clanger where he states quite clearly that he doesn’t believe in the Virgin Birth. It didn’t change the fact that his first 334 pages had nothing wrong with them and were highly inspirational – at least for me.
So I don’t see that the issue of VB in and of itself ranks highly on the Richter scale, but on the other hand it is of some importance if Isaiah’s prophecies are to be taken seriously (Isaiah 7:14); if it wasn’t a virginal conception, then the prophecies haven’t been fulfilled and we have to look elsewhere.
There is a prima facie case for pushing for clarity; you did express support for William Barclay’s take on the loaves and fishes where he re-defines the term ‘miracle’ (where I’d say that W.B. is diametrically wrong – the amazing thing is that, having seen the bread and fish miraculously produced, the crowds did not have a miraculous change of heart and mind, but instead they deserted Him)
“the amazing thing is that, having seen the bread and fish miraculously produced, the crowds did not have a miraculous change of heart and mind, but instead they deserted Him”
Jock you have said that several times. I don’t know where you are getting that from. John is clear that “14 After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.”
Where are you getting the desertion from?
Andrew – I get it from John 6:66.
We have the miracle of loaves and fishes at the beginning of John 6 and when the crowds see it they are very impressed, saying things like ‘Surely this is the Prophet’ and wanting to make him king by force.
But then, John 6:25-59, Jesus explains what it is really all about and what following him really means and, when they have finally got the point, we see the response in John 6:66 ‘many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.’
That is where I get it from – looking at the whole sequence – the miracle, the initial reaction (which you point to), the discourse where he explains what following him really means, their reaction to this.
I don’t think you can separate John 6:1-25 from John 6:26-70; I think you need John 6:26-70 to get a clear picture of the effect that the miracle of John 6:1-25 had on the hearts and minds of those following.
I’m sure there is some sort of connection between this and Hebrews 6:4. People see it, are profoundly touched by it, but ultimately turn away.
Hi Jock I think you need to reckon more with the fact that John is doing some heavy editing and sequencing different events together here. When John puts in things like ‘that evening’ or ‘the next day’ it isn’t meant literally. He is trying to making a rather different sequence to the Synoptics as well. Different audience, different slant on the events.
John doesn’t refer to the events as miracles but rather as signs – signs that reveal what he is about and point to the coming kingdom. In the Synoptics faith is required in order to ‘get’ the miracle. In John, people came to faith as a result of the signs they saw, but there were often controversies after the sign had been given.
Andrew – well, with John 6:15 – we’ve seen people on this blog who would like to take Jesus by force, forcing Our Lord into an eschatological return, making him King over Israel and Emperor of the World, sticking him in a nice cosy presidential office somewhere in Jerusalem – and getting him to rule the world for 1000 years. Are there supposed to be elections after that for a subsequent 1000 year term?
The sign of the loaves and fishes had certainly engendered enthusiasm and some sort of faith, but I’d say that for many of the followers it was actually a false faith, which was based on a total misconception over what it was all about.
I appreciate that composing the gospel, selecting the material for the gospel, putting it together was a hard task, but I think there is more to John’s sequencing than you seem prepared to admit; John 6 follows a logical structure and the author did indeed intend the readers to follow the progression.
Jock I agree that John is presenting something here that he wants his readers to grasp early on. The crowds hail him as a king and Jesus is aware of that but John also wants readers to know Jesus isn’t that kind of king. That is then echoed in the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The crowds hail as king – and John again tells us that was because they saw Jesus’ signs. But then they call for his death. We are powerfully reminded that each of us, as well as Peter, are betrayers. So I don’t think what you are saying is unique to the miracle of loaves and fishes. And that’s partly why I think Barclay and others who interpret the miracle in that way are on to something very important. Even though crowds – which includes us – can have our hearts and minds opened and believe one day, the very next day we turn away. This is crucial information for Christian living.
Andrew – thanks for bringing this back to the loaves and fishes – the business seemed to get side-tracked into the ‘virginal conception’.
I don’t think that these are people who believed one day and then fell away the next. Peter’s denial (under pressure) and restoration seem quite different. Instead, the crowds following Jesus believed in a very mistaken conception of what the Messiah was all about. Yes, they thought that Jesus might be the Messiah. Jesus came and performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes – and this sign confirmed their hope, that he was indeed the Messiah, because he had done for them exactly what God had done in the desert, when he provided manna from heaven. Therefore, this was a miracle that only God could do; Jesus had been sent by God.
But they had a completely mistaken idea of what the Messiah was all about and what the Messiah was supposed to do for them. They thought that the Messiah was supposed to come, reign as King over Israel and Emperor of the World for 1000 years, sitting in a nice posh presidential office in Jerusalem – and they even wanted to take him by force.
The discourse of the bread of life (second half of John 6) corrected this mistaken idea – Jesus wasn’t coming as King of Israel; trust in Him was something entirely different. So if you take the sequence of John 6 presented as a whole, I don’t see believers falling away; instead I see people who had a thoroughly mistaken idea of what it was all about falling away when they were presented with the truth (which is all the more striking when they had seen the loaves and fishes – the manna from heaven).
Andrew – on your final sentence ‘ we can ….. believe one day and turn away the next day’ isn’t part of my Christian experience – and it doesn’t seem to me to chime in with John’s teaching or Paul’s teaching either. Once we’re in Him, then we’re in Him.
Sure, there are times when Peter’s denial seems to be part of Christian life – and we seem to lack the ability to be the good and faithful servants that God is calling us to be. Paul’s ‘wretched man’ of Romans 7:14-25 is written in the present tense by a mature Christian (the apostle Paul – who wrote it at the time of writing his letter to the Romans – which is a very mature statement of faith) and, in Romans 7:25(a) he writes ‘Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!’, while lamenting the seriously crippling effects of the down-drag of the flesh and the sinful nature.
We’re not like yo-yo’s, in and then out, and indeed Hebrews 6:4 makes it clear that if the Lord has enlightened you to such an extend that you’ve seen and tasted that the Lord is good, then if you do turn away after this happens, there is absolutely no way back. (I do know such people).
I think it’s likely that the ‘turning away’ of the disciples John 6:66 refers to those who had a mistaken idea of what it was all about, who wanted to take Him by force and make him King over Israel – and then were no longer interested when they discovered he wasn’t going to do this – and (as he explained in the bread-of-life discourse).
I’d say that, despite what other comments have said about the dismal nature of this thread, it has been very useful for clarifying my own thinking with regard to John 6:15 when they came to take him by force to make him king – because it struck me very strongly that we see exactly the same heresy today – so thanks for the exchange.
Jock writes: “It is all right for people not to believe in the virgin birth (or ‘virginal conception’ as we’re told we have to call it).”
No, it isn’t, if they wish to be known as catholic Christians and not schismatics. Once the doctrine is affirmed by the Church Catholic in the Creeds (as it is), it is incumbent on catholic Christians to affirm it ex animo.
Protestant liberalism (common enough among Anglicans who like to wear vestments and swing thuribles) picks and chooses which parts of the Creeds it affirms. It may even sing the Creeds – but doubts central Christological affirmations that were clear enough to everyone in the 4th century (the divinity of Christ, his virginal conception by the Holy Spirit, his bodily resurrection, his ascension and return in glory). Liberals may use the language but evacuate it of its natural meaning.
James – well, I believe the Virgin Birth myself. I suppose you’re right – it is not ‘all right’ for a Christian to not believe in it, since Matthew is very clear about it – and, as he points out, the prophet Isaiah is quite clear about it. On the other hand, I don’t consider Brunner (The Mediator) to be a ‘liberal’ (in fact, that book seems to be a rejection of liberalism – as the labels were used back in the 1920’s when he wrote it) and I certainly wouldn’t classify him as ‘schismatic’. (Although I did find his rejection of the virgin birth rather odd and I did feel he had dropped a clanger when he mentioned it in his book).
Matthew’s gospel is explicit about it, referring back to Isaiah 7:14 and this (and only this) is what makes Brunner’s position inadmissible. Luke, at a stretch (with a very creative manipulation of grammar) doesn’t have to be explicitly expounding this. The other two gospels don’t mention it – neither does the apostle Paul, not even when he is laying the basis for Christology.
I don’t see any of the authors of the epistles writing about the virgin birth and insisting on its importance for the divinity of Christ; they use other arguments for the divinity of Christ. As far as I’m concerned, it’s necessary, as a box-ticking exercise to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, but I don’t see how it is central to any Christological affirmations.
Jock, all truth hangs together. I could live in my house adequately enough with a few broken windows, but ultimately the ingress of rain, vermin and thieves would make it uninhabitable.
Much better to repair the windows – and to realise why they exist.
It’s the same with sin. A few ‘little’ sins don’t seem to matter much in one’s life (the same argument is made for ignoring sexual sin in the Church) but eventually they can come to overwhelm us. Fanatical zeal is easy to mock, but neither should a Christian compromise with sin, error or unbelief. It sounds modest and wise to do so, but sometimes it arises from laziness or indifference.
We must take all writers and scholars – Brunner, Barth, Dunn, even Tom Wright – with a certain pinch of salt, being grateful for the faithful ways they have made sense of Scripture, but not automatically endorsing everything they said. All of them have erred in some way, even if, like my analogy of broken windows, it may take some time to see the consequence of an error.
I like the broken windows analogy. Thanks
You would, Steve. You are so visual!
James – yes – I’d agree pretty much with that. And – yes – I’d agree that all these writers have to be taken with more than a pinch of salt – while, at the same time, understanding that some of them in some of their writings gave us some great insights. I’m very grateful to Brunner for the clear-cut distinction between general revelation and special revelation, for his critique of the charismatic perspective of ‘sinking in on divine ground’ which, as he rightly points out, is an attempt to achieve communion with God that bypasses The Mediator.
I’m wondering why it is, though, that it seems impossible to find a great theological thinker who is ‘straight down the line’ on everything that I would consider important. To add to your list, I found T.F. Torrance The Trinitarian Faith extremely useful, but at the same time, from reading the book I developed a creepy feeling down the back of my neck that he may well have been a universalist (ultimately all are saved). I think he was very good at explaining the theology of others (e.g. what Athanasius believed, how it differed from other views of the Trinity at the time), but T.F. Torrance was more or less ‘off the wall’ when making up his own theology. Maybe theologians have to be ‘off the wall’ in order to claim lamp posts as their own. Anyone who wasn’t trying to be weird and wacky would probably go into the ministry instead.
Jock writes: “I don’t see any of the authors of the epistles writing about the virgin birth and insisting on its importance for the divinity of Christ”.
I’m not sure that’s the chief point of the doctrine. Muslims believe in the VB – it’s in the Quran – but not in the divinity of Christ. I think the chief point is that it shows humanity cannot produce its own Saviour.
Our Lord’s accusers did understand him calling himself ‘the Son of God’ to be a claim to divinity, but it takes at lot of reflection on the Trinity and the Incarnation to understand this theologically, beyond the limits of first century Judaism (as we popularly understand this).
There is no salvation, no Good News without Jesus being fully man and fully God.
DDDaD. Doubling, Down on Doctrine and Dogma, from this long in the tooth, wearied to the bone on this carousel of opinion.
I used to think the legal system is adversarial, and it is, but it pales into insignificance compared to theology and the church. At least there were known rules of law (doctrine) and of engagement (application) confined to laws and rules of evidence and professional standards, which generally excluded expert witnesses.
As a layman I greatly appreciate some Biblical scholarship but have found that discernment is needed. Some scholars approach scripture as believers, some as unbelievers.
While the discernment was far from instant and expanded over time and in different denominations and included some lay study of systematic theology (which this site generally gives a wide birth to) then onto Biblical theology, it is drawing to an end: patience and my time is not endless and influence is minimal. Having worked as a lawyer and in management in the NHS, the CoE seems like the worst of both worlds.
It may be a national institution but it has lost its Christian purpose, the Mind of Christ and if Israel is called to repentance, how much more so the CoE?
There is nothing new under the Sun.
There is nothing new under the Son, except a new life in Him, a new creation from above. Doxology from the reality of living doctrine of The Way, The Truth, The Life, Our LORD Jesus the Christ, transcendent and immanent, Emmanuel. There is None Greater. What is a life worth? What is His Life worth?
Sad to say, this has been one of the most unhelpful comment strings on Psephizo I have read for some time. I was hoping to get some insight into the Feeding of the 5,000; however I have more insight into certain commenters’ staggering ability to talk across each other. I hope that Ian’s deprecation of anonymous posts will raise the level of interaction. Please.
Andrew Godsall writes:
“James. The Apostles and Nicene Creeds are clear that the Virgin Mary was partnered by the Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus Christ. The Creeds are therefore clear about the origin of any genetic materials involved. The Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit. What other conclusion can you draw?”
Andrew, what is stopping you from saying ‘Therefore Jesus did not have a human biological father.’ That is all people on this site are asking you to affirm.
Why this? Because, believe it or not, some people have said: ‘I believe in the Virgin Birth – but I don’t exclude a human biological father as well.’
How is this possible? I don’t know; perhaps because they reason ‘Everything is (ultimately) created through the Holy Spirit and the Spirit supplied everything in the world.’
So, do you affirm that Jesus did NOT have a human biological father? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (or ‘don’t know’) answers all confusion.
So, do you affirm that Jesus did NOT have a human biological father? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (or ‘don’t know’) answers all confusion.
Sadly no it doesn’t because Andrew Godsall has already admitted to making a distinction between ‘the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith’ (cf https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/the-feeding-of-the-five-thousand-in-matthew-14/#comment-431764 )
So even if Andrew Godsall were to say ‘Christ did NOT have a human biological father’ he might be crossing his fingers behind his back by leaving unsaid, ‘Well, the Christ of faith sure didn’t have a human biological father, but the Jesus of history might well have done’).
So the confusion would remain.
“Andrew Godsall has already admitted to making a distinction between ‘the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith’ “
The phrase is an absolutely standard expression in theological study. I don’t know anyone who has studied theology or biblical studies who has a problem with the phrase.
‘I don’t know anyone who has studied theology or biblical studies who has a problem with the phrase.’ I know of many. I don’t accept it. I think it leads to docetism. The Jesus of history *is* the Christ of faith. If not, who else is he?
(It is very odd that you repeatedly identify ‘theological study’ with ‘Christian orthodoxy’. I don’t know why you do.)
I think it’s pretty odd that you identify Conservative Evangelical with Orthodoxy. The huge majority of Christians through time and throughout the world wouldn’t recognise anything Orthodox about the Conservative Evangelical expression of faith.
I identify theological study with rigorous method and wide academic consultation. I have no idea how anyone claims to be thoughtful and thought provoking without the academy.
‘The huge majority of Christians through time and throughout the world wouldn’t recognise anything Orthodox about the Conservative Evangelical expression of faith.’ Thanks for sharing your prejudice!
The biblical studies academy is not like maths or physics. It is often in the sway of whatever philosophical movements prevails at the time.
Many of the main claims of ‘critical scholarship’ lack good methodological justification.
I believe in rigorous method, but that does not always mark ‘the academy.’
I believe in rigorous method, but that does not always mark ‘the academy.’
Credentialism is bad enough; but when credentialism is combined with No-True-Scotsman-ism (‘No spat agrees with you!’ ‘Actually x, Y and Z all said the same thing I’m saying’ ‘Then they can’t be real scholars!’) renders one utterly impervious to truth.
“Thanks for sharing your prejudice!”
Well seeing as you shared yours it seemed like that was the approach you favoured…..
I welcome discussion here, but not trolling or silly accusations. Please think a bit more carefully.
“That is all people on this site are asking you to affirm.”
I have affirmed that. Other people on the site on the site have said that I have been clear. However I say it, it seems that one or two people on the site can’t and won’t recognise that and continue to make ad hominem comments to the point of trolling. I don’t see any need to feed trolls when I have already made something perfectly clear. If you can’t accept that, it isn’t my problem.
It never was my problem anyway. I have no idea who you or S are. I have made it perfectly clear that I am willing to enter into e mail correspondence and you are free to ask Ian for my e mail address. I have even said that I am happy for anyone to publish the correspondence. What I don’t need to do is satisfy the spurious needs of anonymous commenters.
What I don’t need to do is satisfy the spurious needs of anonymous commenters.
Of course you don’t need to do anything if the sort. And people can draw their own conclusions from your refusal to do so.
Let’s be clear, once again, what the Creed says:
[Jesus Christ] who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
The fact that Mary was a Virgin when Jesus Christ was born means she had to have been a Virgin when Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, yes? And if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, why would anybody or anything else need to be involved. That’s what I have consistently said I believe.
How would anyone claim that was ambiguous or unclear?
The fact that Mary was a Virgin when Jesus Christ was born means she had to have been a Virgin when Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, yes? And if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, why would anybody or anything else need to be involved. That’s what I have consistently said I believe.
So — sorry, but just to be clear — you’re saying you think it is a true, scientific, physical fact (the same kind of fact as the fact that men have walked on the moon, ie) that the Jesus of history, the actual first-century Jewish man who walked around Judea in the first century, was born without a human father; who had genetic material in his Y-chromosomes that was formed miraculously in his mother’s womb; whose blood, if we could have sampled it and compared it to every other male living, would show no paternal relatives whatsoever?
That Bultmann was totally wrong?
That is what you are saying?