The Pope's First Jesus Book— Final Chapter, Final Reflections

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 11:14 pm by Ben Witherington

The Pope's First Jesus Book— Final Chapter, Final Reflections 2015-03-13T23:14:51-04:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In the final chapter of this book (pp. 319-55), the Pope discusses the titles of Christ. Immediately he makes an interesting observation— that the title Christ became a name very quickly, and this was appropriate since Jesus and his office or tasks were inseparable. In others words, he wouldn’t have been who he was if he had not done what he did. Doing and being were deeply intertwined in Jesus. For example, had he not died on the cross, he would not have been the Savior of the world. As the Pope goes on to say, the term Kyrios when applied to Jesus indicated he was worthy of having the divine name applied to him, for this is the word used for the divine name in the LXX. On p. 320 the Pope also affirms the homo-ousios term, the only philosophical term that makes it into a creed. As he puts it, there is an eternal dialogue in the Godhead, between Father and Son.

The Pope is more concerned in this final chapter with the titles Jesus applies to himself directly, which do not include the term ‘mashiach/messiah. He has two terms in mind— Son of Man and just Son simpliciter. The Pope repeats the oft made remark that we find the phrase Son of Man only on the lips of Jesus in the NT, except for the one time Stephen calls Jesus this in Acts 7.56. This is not quite true— the blind man in John 9 calls Jesus this as well, but the basic point is right—- this term, which Jesus applies to himself 14 times in Mark is found almost exclusively on Jesus’ own lips— it was his preferred self designation, yet this term was not used in the early church’s proclamation of Jesus— why?

The Pope is well aware of the scholarly efforts to place Son of Man sayings in three distinct categories (future sayings, present sayings, Passion and res. Sayings) and then suggest only some of the future sayings, which seem to distinguish Jesus from the Son of Man are authentic. As the Pope says, this dogma is wrong, not least because life is complex, but also because if Jesus never said anything remarkable about himself, it is hard to imagine why he ended up on a cross with a titulus King of the Jews. Why should we predicate theological genius of the later writers of the NT or even of the anonymous first passers down of the tradition, and not of Jesus himself? The Pope makes the good point that since Son of Man was not a common messianic title, its mysterious nature suited the mysterious proclamation of Jesus in parabolic form.

The Pope points out that Son of Man in its basic sense simply means a human being, and when in a saying like the Son of Man is Lord over the Sabbath he is making claims, he is doing so as the representative and perfect human being—- the Sabbath was made for all human beings, and they have a certain lordship over it, not the other way around. The Pope’s exegesis of Dan. 7 on pp. 326ff. is worth close attention. He rightly contrasts the beastly empires that lead up to the human and humane one of the Son of Man. He also rightly contrasts the origins of those empires, from the depths of the chaos waters, as opposed to the Son of Man who comes down from heaven. The Pope suggests that in Daniel the Son of Man is corporate or collective, it represents a kingdom or a people, but that it is Jesus who first refers it to a particular person— himself.

Turning to Mt. 25, the parable of the sheep and goats, the Pope makes the good point that here Jesus implies of the Son of Man that he was someone in need of food, clothing, visitation in prison, which matches up with various of the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head sort of present sayings. The Pope’s point is that present, future, and passion sayings are all intertwined and shouldn’t be too radically dichotomized. Furthermore, he is right that a saying like Mk. 8.38 makes clear that Jesus did indeed identify himself with the future coming Son of Man, as the Evangelists are clear about (cf. Mt. 10.32-33). Why does Jesus speak in such obscure and indirect ways— the Pope’s answer is Jesus is “leaving the listener final step toward understanding.” (p. 329). This is correct. In Mk. 14.62 Jesus is not so much correcting the high priest, as explaining that he is right, but needs to expand his understanding of the Christ in terms of the apocalyptic Son of Man figure. The Pope stresses that Mk. 1.22 is a proper reaction to Jesus, only if he stands on the side of the one who gives the Law, God’s Word, not if he stands only on the side of a mere interpreter of the Law. On p. 331,the Pope stresses that only God has the power to forgive sins, ergo Jesus stands in the position of God in Mk. 2.5. But the problem with this is that Jesus himself later bequeaths the power to forgive sins to mere mortals like Peter.

Jesus embodies the new humanity, and is the last Adam, Adam gone right, starting the human race over again in himself. The Pope rightly points out that Jesus draws on a whole series of texts to explicate what the Son of Man is and does— including Is., 53 in Mk. 10.45, various of the Psalms, including Ps. 110 and 118.22. The Son of Man term becomes the umbrella term to which all sorts of Scriptures apply in the case of Jesus.

On p. 335, the Pope points us to his book Introduction to Christianity for a fuller exposition of the title ‘the Son’. The Pope says the term applied to a ruler in the ANE refers to either adoption when one becomes king, by a deity, or in Egypt perhaps even origins in a god of that individual. In the first instance the ‘son’ terminology was applied in Exod. 4.22-23 to the whole nation— Israel is God’s son, and then to the individual king of Israel ( 2 Sam. 7) and then for the coronation ritual—Ps. 2.7ff. Israel’s privileged status as the son of God is embodied in the king. The myth of divine begetting, in Hebrew literature is replaced with a theology of election— they are chosen. But the hope of a true king who would truly rule in the world, became just a hope. Later to be applied to Jesus in his resurrection which in Acts 13.32ff. is said to be the day when the true king is coronated as the true ruler of the world.

On pp. 338-39 the Pope points out that the claim of the risen Jesus being the true ruler, not in the sense of a political ruler on earth, but one who superintends from above, came into conflict with the imperial cult, where Caesar claims to be the son of the divine Augustus ruling even during his lifetime on earth. Caesar takes the ANE claim of divine kingship and applies it to living Emperors beginning with ‘the god’ Caligula. Thus a clash with Christianity was inevitable when a ruler demanded worship as a god by all his subjects.

The Pope makes much of distinguishing between the title Son of God, and the simple phrase ‘the Son’ which is found in both the Synoptics, John, Paul, and Hebrews. Mt. 11.25-27 becomes a key text. This saying indicates the Son alone has perfect knowledge of and perfect communion with the Father. “Unity in knowing is possible only because it is unity in being.” (p. 340). The Son conforms his will perfectly to that of the Father, and so the Son wills to bring into communion with God all those the Father wills should have such communion. The beatitude about purity of heart lets us know how a person can really see and know God. It is not through great erudition, which can even get in the way, but by being simple, being pure in heart. We have to give up our own individual will, and so become dependent, like a child, on God. The Pope appeals to Jeremias’ classic study of Abba to point out that in some sense, Jesus shares his sonship with us, so that we can be bold to call God Abba as he did, and have intimacy of the sort Jesus had with the Father. Sonship and its benefits apparently can be shared. We become sons and daughters of God through the intimacy made possible through Jesus, the Son.

The Pope finishes this helpful study by examining ‘I am’ sayings both in John and the Synoptics (pp. 345-55). Here he rightly places them in two categories—absolute statements like John 8.24— ‘I am he’ and statements with predicates— I am the genuine vine. Exod. 3.14 is pointed to as the background of such a saying— where God claims he simply ‘is’—I am that I am. More clearly we have Is. 43.10-11– ‘I am he’ and there is no other god. The lesson here is that Israel’s God doesn’t have to have a land, a temple, a sacrifice to be a real god. Israel’s God, is God over all lands, and he simply exists, without need of sacrifice, temple, and land. Jesus is able to say I am he because he also says I and the Father are one. He who has seen Jesus has seen the Father (John 14.9). When the Son of Man is lifted up on the cross, then people will know ‘I am he’ (John 8.48), namely that Jesus is the true revelation of the identity and character of God, most clearly seen on the cross. When Jesus says before Abraham was, I am, he is not merely claiming to be older in origins than Abraham, he is claiming to have an entirely different order and category of being than Abraham, a divine one. Mk. 6.50-51 does not allow us to take ‘I am he’ as merely a self identity marker, because while the disciples feared when they first saw Jesus walk on the water, they became even more afraid when suddenly the storm was stilled when Jesus got in the boat. Their fear is that of the fear when one is part of a theophany, an encountering of God.

The divine life of God is in Jesus in its fullness, and so he can give life and be the resurrection. The seven I am plus predicate sayings are all suggesting Jesus is the source of divine life. Jesus has come so we might have true life in abundance. But Jesus gives us life because he gives us God, which is our deepest need. More than we need God’s benefits, we need God in our lives, in order to be our best selves. Thus Jesus is not merely the giver, he is the gift— the life itself. The Pope concludes that the Nicene Creed does no more than explicate what is inherent and implied in this Gospel material— the Son is of one nature with the Father.

This book is an excellent study, balanced, and rich, of Jesus, and the meaning of his existence and words and actions. With the second book in this series, it presents us not only with a clear picture of a human and also divine Jesus, but also with a clear picture of a Pope who has studied deeply, thought hard, and is indeed a Bible scholar and a theologian. Perhaps, in times such as these, he is precisely what both Christendom and the world needed as a Pope— someone who has not merely plumbed the depths of NT scholarship, but someone who has drunk deeply from the well of the waters of life known as Jesus, and is able to share that with us with clarity and verve. Thanks be to God.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 24, 2011

Rob Bell on the Resurrection

Next Post

April 25, 2011 Mary, Mary Extraordinary---- an Easter Sermon

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz