In the earliest days, Christianity was entirely Jewish, yet by the end of the first century, the majority of the church was Gentile, and by the end of the second century, only a minority of Christians were converts from Judaism. There is little doubt that a book like Hebrews is Jewish-Christian, given its focus on the Law and its use of the Old Testament. On the other hand, the writings of the second-century apologists are almost entirely Gentile in character, owing to their use of philosophical categories to argue for the truth of Christianity. In a previous post, I surveyed Donald Hagner’s description of Jewish Christianity and Raymond Brown’s four categories of Jewish Christianity. I also looked briefly at Jacob Neusner’s suggestion that Jewish Christianity was a myth. Neusner said, “Judaisms and Christianities never meet anywhere. That is because at no point do Judaism, defined by Torah, and Christianity, defined by the Bible, intersect.” I think they do (go read that earlier post), and the Jewish Christian literature (Especially Hebrews and James) is evidence of that.
But most books are not as easy to categorize as Hebrews or James, so the following several posts will develop a set of criteria to indicate whether a book is more or less representative of Jewish Christianity. I will begin with the Christology of Jewish-Christian literature.
It is often assumed that “high Christology” means a book is “less Jewish” and ought to be dated as late as possible. High Christology holds that Jesus was, in some sense, divine. Low Christology is the belief that Jesus was only a human, or was a human specially appointed by God. The general assumption is that the belief that Jesus is God and part of the Trinity developed over several hundred years, not finally taking shape until the fourth century. There is some truth to this since the claims the gospels make about Jesus could be read either way: Jesus is a human, but he also seems to claim some divine prerogatives which imply he was “more than just a human.”
This “low develops into the high” Christology is evident in the New Testament. For example, Mark’s Gospel is the earliest of the four and does not contain any birth narrative. Jesus is the suffering servant who tries to keep messianic expectations to a minimum. Matthew and Luke include birth stories which expand Jesus’ origins to include a divine miracle (the virgin birth) and the fulfillment of prophecy. John’s Gospel was the last written and describes Jesus as the Word of God who was with God at creation, and is in fact God (John 1:1-3).
The main reason a low Christology is assumed to be “more Jewish” is the importance of monotheism in Second Temple period Judaism. If a Jewish teacher like Jesus announced he was the God of the Hebrew Bible in the flesh, he would have likely been immediately stoned for blasphemy. In Mark 2 Jesus claims to be able to forgive sin and he is accused (at least in thought) of blasphemy.
I had some reservations since Paul (a Jewish Christian) has a remarkably high Christology at a fairly early date (Phil 2:5-11). This particular example is important because it appears that Paul is recalling a well-known tradition, suggesting that this example of “high Christology” is earlier than the letter of Philippians. Martin Hengel, for example, associates high Christology with the early church, commenting that a high Christology “grew entirely out of Jewish soil” and any “pagan influences have been suspected in the origins of Christianity were mediated without exception by Judaism” (“Early Christianity,” 2–3). Richard Bauckham also concluded “the earliest Christology was already the highest Christology” (God Crucified, viii, also see here).
There are examples of Jewish-Christian letters that lack a robust Christology (James barely mentions Jesus). But Hebrews cannot be described as a “low Christology,” but certainly represents Jewish Christianity. How might a writer’s view of who Jesus be influenced by whether they are Jewish or Gentile?
The latest wave of Pauline studies headed by Nanos, Fredriksen, Elliot, et al. argue that the designations “Christian” and “church” are completely anachronistic translations within their first century context. “Messianic-Jew” seems to be their preferred term, though it’s academics in progress and the arguments about what “Jew” and “Judaism” even mean within the first century are far from settled. See their latest round of essays in Paul Within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle, Fortress Press, 2015.
As far as High Christology goes, Daniel Boyarin argues in The Jewish Gospels (New Press, 2012) that all the elements for a “High Christology” through interpretations of Son of Man (a divine titular designation) existed by the time of the birth of Jesus, so it’s not unreasonable to accept that Paul, or even Jesus (and, I suspect, Mark as well), had a fully developed “High Christology”. So, Hengel may be right, but off by a century or more. Boyarin also argues that that this development suggests “Judaism” was more polytheistic in the first century than is assumed and that the formulation of Father, Son and Holy Spirt, came from within “Judaism” itself, and not the Greeks, and was present within Jewish messianic/apocalyptic thinking by the time of Jesus. Fredriksen also points out that Paul fully accepted the polytheistic world of the Greeks and Romans, but that their gods all took a knee to the Christ. I suppose the point is, the first century world was (still) far more rich and complex than we yet understand, as reflected in books like James and Hebrews, no doubt.
(Paula Fredriksen’s tome on Paul and paganism is due from Yale sometime in 2016.)
I’m looking forward to your future posts.
Thanks for these comments and references! Tho I have little time for book-length reading lately, I’ve noted these and the upcoming Fredricksen one… her work on Jesus becoming Christ (exact title escapes me at the moment) was excellent.
Howard, I agree: Reading takes dedication and some financial resources depending on the what’s in your local libraries, which is why a book of essays like Paul within Judaism is a welcome respite. It’s a box of chocolates you can consume at your leisure. Also, if you go to YouTube and search a scholar’s name, often times you’ll come across a wealth of lecture material that you can download and watch at your leisure. Here’s a couple of worthwhile talks by Fredriksen:
Reflecting some of what “robwaltoon” says above, we just have too little of the literature (and knowledge of the thinking) of the 1st century to see very clearly how things developed. (The claimed “history” of Acts is very sketchy, selective and often unreliable, the little that it does seek to explain.)
What is clear, but often not recognized, is that there were many strains of thinking, many “faith communities” all developing rapidly at the same time… and the following of many “messiahs” both before and after the Jerusalem fall in 70. With that, no settled views from varying “OT” descriptions or “predictions” of Messiah, so that sincere Jews could and did readily project out a messiah of their preference.
On another 1st century issue, we still, even after the Nag Hammadi texts were discovered, have no clear understanding of the roots and early development of the many strains of Gnosticism – “Christian” and otherwise. Thus, while Paul does evidence an early high Christology, he also evidences a number of pretty important parallels with Gnostic thought, especially if Eph. and Col. are included in his corpus. And as to Gnostic origins, it won’t do to just presume it was a corruption of Christian dogma, as Evangelicals often do.
I’ll reference my comment in the just-prior post introducing “Jewish Christian Literature”. There I develop a bit a case that amounts to this: Even presuming an early and Jewish high Christology does not require that the same people based that on evidences for a bodily Resurrection and “empty tomb”, or necessarily had such a belief. In fact, the NT evidence indicates otherwise.
Reblogged this on Zwinglius Redivivus and commented:
A not completely reprehensible post! Nice work Phil.
Nowhere ever Jesus claimed to be God. He always was very clear that he was the sent one from God, who is higher than him and Without Him he could do nothing.
Surprisingly, the topic of low and high Christology and how they are important to how Christ is both a perfect, sufficient sacrifice and a relatable human was not mentioned by P. Long. The importance of low and high Christology is obvious enough for Christ is a perfect atoning sacrifice for us. But He is also fully human and thus extremely relatable to us, something that previous to Christ was even more difficult to grasp. However, P. Long does make it clear that low Christology in this sense contains to the belief Jesus was only a man appointed by God and not referring to Christ’s humanity.
Previously to P. Long’s blog post, I had never fully understood the aspect that the Jews considered Jesus claiming to be God broke the aspect of monotheism within Judaism. Certainly, I recognize that God is three in one but that is merely because of the time and space I live in. further along within the Church, the apostolic fathers theologically battled and thought through the concept of the trinity. However, previous to that theological battle, the trinity was a concept unknown within Judaism. Logically when I think of prophecies within the Old Testament for the messiah, I merely assumed the Jews knew the messiah would be in human form and not necessarily in a higher form. In further study, passages such as Genesis 12:3 and Isaiah 7:14, both prophecies hitting towards the messiah’s humanity, reveal that Jews should have recognized God’s coming in human form. I do not understand why the Jewish leaders were not expecting a human form of God, that truly is an aspect I never fully dug into and considered.
The heritage of a writer will always affect their perspective and understanding of a specific topic. These separating or different worldviews are what causes differences between things like low Christology and high Christology or approaches to how to explain Jesus. The question at hand is, ‘what differs between a Jewish understanding of Jesus and a Gentile’s understanding of Jesus and what are their influences?’
A Jewish writer would need to make a very specific case for monotheism especially if he was writing to other Jews trying to explain who Jesus was. It seems that early Jewish writers probably would have had a low Christology due to this emphasis or would at least have to be very careful in explaining who Jesus was and how He was divine. As you said, it would have been blasphemy and worthy of death. An example of this would be the book of Hebrews. The author seems to be Jewish writing to a Jewish audience. He does a thorough examination of Jesus and His relation to the Law and Jewish history to help Jew understand and be encouraged.
A Gentile writer would have almost the opposite problem. Romans had a polytheistic culture. The author, if a Gentile, would have to make a case for Jesus being the only true God. This Greco-Roman culture was also saturated with Neoplatonism (Jobes, 25). This plea to dualist philosophers can be recognized in the Gospel of John when John describes Jesus as the ‘word’ or logos (1:1). John connected platonic teaching with the gospel to help Neo-Platonists understand it better. Even in most of the Pauline letters, due to his audience, Paul rarely writes about Jewish history. There are a few instances but not many.
Both ultimately are searching to explain something that is, at this time, indescribable. Someone who is fully human and fully divine does not seem to make sense, but for the sake of everything, it must be true. Both Jews and Gentiles came from different perspectives to try to describe the same thing. As theology has progressed, I believe we have grown into such a greater understanding than the early church fathers, but I also believe a lot has been lost and can be relearned from their writings as well. Humans are broke creatures and even though we get some things correct we need to constantly be checking ourselves. Theology should always be constantly reformed and made better.
I believe that a true follower of Jesus Christ, a true born-again believer (being a Jew or Gentile) he or she will have a high Christology from the get go and it would not be developed over time. As a true Christian, one comes to faith by way of repentance of sins and a recognition of salvation in Jesus Christ (God) who came to earth as a man to die in our place for our sins and conquered sin and death as the perfect Godman, coming back to life after taking our punishment and the wrath of the Father. By His Grace and work one is justified and by His Grace we are to live our lives to God’s glory. I believe as both Hengel and Bauckham conclude that high Christology was from the very earliest.
Now, a non-believer or a Jew lost in the law and his past would of course have a low Christology basing his life and beliefs in works of righteousness that he would do. A Jew would have much more difficulty in recognizing Jesus as Christ because his zeal is towards his religion and that is what Paul stated in Romans 9 and 10. Hebrews is a book written towards the Hebrew people to see and recognize Jesus as superior to all that was the Jewish religion. Jesus is superior so put your faith in Him and not in what are the rudiments of the law.
I believe that during the early few centuries of the church and the rise of Christianity, there would be a difference between the Christology of a Jew and a Gentile. While there maybe some truth to the rational idea that anyone coming to faith in Jesus Christ would automatically have a high Christology of Jesus, I believe there is good evidence of many competing views of the Christology of Jesus. Starting with the various heresies that deal with the Christology of Jesus. Arianism was one of the first heresies put forth by an early church father named Arius which stated that Jesus was a man and not fully God. This is an extremely low Christological view and the other church fathers rightly deemed this as a heresy. However, heresy goes both ways as another early belief called Docetism held that Jesus only appeared to be a man, that he wasn’t actually a man and was only God. While this is a very high Christological view, it is still a heresy. Arianism and Docetism were not the only heresies during the early years of Christianity and were certainly not the only ones dealing with Christology. Others such as Gnosticism, Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, Nestorianism, and many others all challenge one aspect of the Christology of Jesus. With the reality of these heresies arising it appears to me that believers may not have all started with a high Christology, but may have needed to correct their views as they grew in their faith.
Today I believe that most everyone who comes to faith in Jesus as their savior, has a high Christology since Christianity has been around for 2000 years now and all the heresies about Jesus have already been stated and then dealt with by now. If someone is going to believe in Jesus, they will almost by default have a high Christology. I also believe that anyone regardless of their ethnicity, age, or upbringing, if they have studied the scriptures correctly for an extended amount of time, will arrive at a high level of Christology since the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is fully God, equal to the father, and is eternal. Without wanting to dive too deep into the plethora of verses that display Jesus’ deity here is a list of a few, John 1:1-14, John 8:58, Philippians 2:5-6, Hebrews 1:1-4, etc.
Christianity was entirely for the Jews. This did not take long as they did not acknowledge this, by the end of the first century the majority of the church was Gentiles. To say less by the end of the second century, only a minority of Christians were converts from the Judaism. so much Christology within the book of Hebrews is because the customs and times were beginning to change. The Jewish customs and practices were what the people were used but being adapted. The book of Hebrews would ultimately first be received by Jews therefore, needed to be in relation to them. The book makes general correlations with the intended audience so that the audience may better understand the points trying to be made. As we know from learning and reading the new testament, we see that Jews and Christians were mostly the same but towards the of the first century most of the church was made up of gentiles. I find this to be interesting as today we learn about the Jews by the culture and beliefs that they have, and we also learn through our similarities of beliefs. The one thing that is different is that the Jews don’t believe that Jesus was the Son of God. They were and still are very grounded into what they believe and yet they still wait for the Messiah to come. My initial thought was that Gentiles might have had an easier time accepting Christ’s divinity and upon accepting him as God simply because they would not have had the historical perspective that the Jews did of Yahweh. Jobes says, “Biblical faith can claim a confidence beyond one’s own experience because it rests in the character of God, of which there is nothing more certain and constant”
A writer’s view of who Jesus was impacts their writing entirely. If one man is in the high Christology category, they will write Jesus as the divine son of God. An example of a writer with high Christology is John the Apostle. In the book of John, he describes Jesus as being the Son of God multiple times. A specific example is in John 3:16 when he writes that, “God sent his one and only son…” Low Christology can be seen in an example of the Jewish writings that believe Jesus was only human. The book of Mark describes Jesus continually with human characteristics and focuses on his human nature. The views of the writer may be influenced by whether they’re Jewish or Gentile because one believes heavily on Christ being divine, and the other believing heavily on Christ being human. John was a Jew but he himself walked with Christ and saw the miracles and then providing him with the knowledge of Christ as divine making him have a high Christology. As a people group each side traditionally believed in Christ as divine or human. This is the same if you are influenced by anything. Say there are two writers both writing about President Biden (No I am not equating Jesus to Biden by any means this is just an example). If one writer believes Biden is a good president and the next does not, their writings would be entirely different. The first would write highly about him stating the good things he has done, the next would write negatively and likely put more emphasis on the negative. Now with the idea of Jesus being divine or not, it would drastically affect how a writer describes them. Since one believed He was divine and the other did not, this impacts the way that they are able to portray Him as a man, and as the Son of God.
It’s very interesting to think about how Christology has developed and changed over time. I find it interesting how early traditional Jews held strong to the fact that Jesus was a man. In one person’s response they noted that it would be hard to grasp the concept of Jesus as divine because the whole world believed in other gods so they would not believe the fact that a living man on the planet could be of divine origin. That point fascinated me and really makes me think more on this and where theology will be in years to come. I found it very interesting that it developed over time as Jesus interacted with people and they became more open to the idea that He was divine and the Son of God.
The difference in views can only stem from whether or not they actually believe that Jesus is God. Because Christianity is for everyone, Jewish or Gentile alike, and believing Jesus is God will obviously be high Christology. A Jew that still practices Judaism is entitled to believe the low Christology, because that is all they see, and the idea of the Trinity is foreign but not absent in the Old Testament. God is referred by many names, and even characters in the Old Testament. A chosen one, or son is references in the prophetic section of the Old Testament, and God as spirit or just spirit is referenced in Genesis. God refers to humanity as his children, uses many father-like adjectives to describe with interacting with his children. Judaism and Christianity cannot intersect, because when they intersect that is the moment of fulfillment of prophecy. That fulfillment was the line of David gaining its redemptive son. A Jew following Judaism will only see Jesus a man, because the idea of trinity was not doctrine for Judaism, due to the sole character of God in the Old Testament. A sect or denomination that attempts to merge Judaism and Christianity will not find sound doctrine around their own teachings, instead find many contradictions. Its sounds strange because it sounds like The Old and the New Testament cannot co-exist with this thinking, but the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and reformed Judaism into Christianity. Judaism was meant to evolve into Christianity with the introduction Jesus and his mission.
All these subjects of this week’s assignments are really revealing. However, I believe I don’t have such a depth of knowledge to be able to point strongly if an audience is more Jewish or Gentile based on the author’s view of who Jesus is. Even more because this deep understanding of Christian Jewish audience is being more accessible for me now. I need to go more deeply into understanding how the gentiles when converted to Christianity they perceived Jeus, in order for me to differentiate one scenario from another. I know that the gentiles had a lot of influence from other gods, which we see that in Paul’s writings he adapted his speech in order to teach to the gentile that there is only one God.
“ Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols… And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? For you bring some strange things to our ears” (Acts 17:16-21, ESV).
However, the Jewish come from a perspective of monotheism, which makes sense to think why they seem a bit skeptical of Jesus supremacy, and those years living under the law of Moses needed some guidance on how now those practices were not enough to provide the redemption for sin, but only Jesus could be the one to provide the real forgiveness and redemption. However, it’s possible to recognize how much an author had about the laws and costumes of the Jewishs. In the case of Hebrews it is clear that the author had a deep understanding of the Jewish culture, for he highlights very specific points of the Jewish faith and customs, trying to point his audience to Jesus as the center of all, and the new covenant in Jesus. “For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”; as he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 5:1-6, ESV).
Reference:
Jobes, Karen H. Letters to the Church: A Survey of Hebrews and the General Epistles. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2010.
The ESV global study Bible. (2023). Crossway. (Original work published 2001).
I am certain a writer’s view of Jesus would have been influenced by whether they were Jewish or Gentile. For the Jewish writers, they would have had a long history steeped in Law and tradition surrounding Judaism. If a Jewish writer views Jesus as Messiah, there are massive assumptions that are tied to that belief. I would assume there would also be extreme excitement as Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecies of old accompanied by intense skepticism. I think a Jewish writer would have far more natural reverence for Jesus in such cases. I also think Jewish writers would have struggled and been far less likely to jump to a “High Christology” view of Jesus and instead would need more convincing than Gentile writers.
For Gentile writers, there would not have been this automatic reverence surrounding the awaited Messiah. Gentiles would not have had millennia of expectations and tradition to shape their view of Jesus like a Jewish writer had. Instead, I believe there would have been a more exploratory curiosity that would develop as they learned about who this Jesus is and potentially encountered Jesus in person. It is also possible that Gentile writers would have had a tendency to view Jesus like any other God, depending on their surrounding culture. I am reminded of the Mars Hill account where there were so many idols standing within the city of Athens. Even so, I think it would be easier for Gentile writers to view Jesus with a “High Christology.”