Christology

Brant Pitre, Jesus and Divine Christology

Pitre, Brant. Jesus and Divine Christology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024. xii+320 pp.; Hb.; $39.99. Link to Eerdmans

Brant Pitre is Distinguished Research Professor of Scripture at the Augustine Institute Graduate School of Theology. His Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (Baker 2006) was a solid contribution to the study of the historical Jesus as was his  2017 Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans). He also contributed to Paul, a New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline Theology (with Michael P. Barber and John A. Kincaid; Eerdmans 2016;  reviewed here). In this new volume, Pitre argues there are compelling reasons to think Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, miracle worker, and teacher of parables and that he acted like he was a divine Messiah. Jesus’s divine claims led to charges of blasphemy during his ministry and eventually led to his execution for the crime.

Pitre Divine Christology

In Historical Jesus studies, the idea that Jesus claimed to be God is usually met with derision and accusations that the author is engaging in apologetics. One of the assured results of earlier quests for the Historical Jesus is that if a saying or event in the gospels implies that Jesus was God, it must have been created by the later church. In the synoptic gospels, Jesus is merely a human; only in the late theological gospel of John is he presented as divinity. Most works on the Historical Jesus ignore the claims, especially the charge of blasphemy (19). Pitre says this view “needs to be left behind as the outdated relic that it is” (329). The assumption in academic studies of Jesus that he was merely human in the synoptic gospels should also be abandoned as “demonstratively false” (330). He concludes, “The ‘smoke’ early divine Christology originated in the ‘fire’ of Jesus’s own divine messianism” (331). In another context, Pitre says he is out to “demolish the scholarly myth—which goes back at least as far as the time of Ernst Renan—that Jesus is not depicted as divine in the Synoptic Gospels” (40).

These are bold claims. To support them, Pitre proposes a methodology that avoids the Form Criticism and the criteria for authenticity. The criteria have fallen on hard times in recent years, and few scholars publishing in Historical Jesus defend them anymore. As an alternative, Pitre uses a triple context method developed by E. P. Sanders in Jesus and Judaism (Fortress 1985). First, Contextual Plausibility within First Century Judaism. Jesus must have been a believable figure in first-century Palestine. This is different than the old criterion of double this similarity. In older Historical Jesus studies Jesus needed to differ from both the Judaism of his day and later Christianity. Pitre is not saying, “If it’s Jewish, it’s Jesus” (29). Second, Coherence with Other Evidence about Jesus. A saying or event needs to fit into other historically reliable reports of what Jesus said and did. Pitre points out that this is a standard principle of historiography. Third, Consequences in the Early Church. This is a form of reception, history, or what Pitre calls a “plausibility of effects.” This is the opposite direction of the old Form Criticism, which relied upon the earliest form of a saying or event, the pre-literary form.). Instead, Pitre asked how the situation in the early church reflected a particular saying or event. There needs to be a “casual thread” (to use Sanders’s) words between Jesus’s life and death and the later Christian movement.

As he works his method, he traces a “plausible trajectory” from Judaism to reports about what Jesus said and did and then to the early church. This is unlike older Historical Jesus studies because he is not interested in recovering the actual words of Jesus (ipsissima verba). Nor does he claim that he is discovering the actual voice of Jesus (ipsissima vox). He is after the “basic substance of a teaching or action” (substantia verborum Jesu). For Pitre, this is what he means by “historical” (35).

For some Historical Jesus scholars, Pitre’s rejection of the classic criteria of authenticity is the correct move, and the search for the substance of Jesus’s words (rather than his authentic voice) is admirable. However, it seems as though he has rejected the old criteria and replaced it with another (less old?) criteria drawn from E. P. Sanders. I happen to think the methodological steps Pitre drew from Sanders and rigorously employs in this book are solid. But scholars in the so-called “Next Quest” may find Pitre’s method as having one foot in the old (now rejected) methods. For example, the essays collected in The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus, edited by James Crossley and Chris Keith (Eerdmans, 2024, review coming soon).

There are several other unique elements to Pitre’s study. Unlike most classic Historical Jesus studies, Pitre uses the Gospel of John as a historical source. For many academics working on historical Jesus, the gospel of John is set aside as late and problematic because of its advanced theology. A final difference is that his first step will always be “to offer a contextually anchored interpretation of any given or deed of Jesus before weighing the arguments for or against authenticity” (39). Typically, Historical Jesus studies begin with the criteria of authenticity to decide whether the saying reflects what Jesus may have said or done. Rarely do these kinds of studies begin with an exegesis of the words of Jesus to determine what the passage actually says. Although technically not part of his methodology, Pitre offers citations from Christian, non-Christian, and Jewish scholars to support his arguments for the authenticity of a passage. The fact that a diverse range of scholars can agree that some saying or event likely goes back to the historical Jesus helps with the plausibility of the argument.

Pitre works this method by examining the epiphany miracles of Jesus (chapter 2), Jesus’s teaching in parables (chapter 3), his apocalyptic teaching (chapter 4), and his trial for blasphemy (chapter 5). For each topic, he selects three examples from the gospels. After a brief exegetical section, he works through the three contextual steps as presented in his introduction.

In Chapter 2, Pitre studies three Epiphany Miracles (Stilling in the Storm, Walking on the Sea, and The Transfiguration). Pitre is clear: not all of Jesus’s miracles were signs of his divinity. But the epiphany miracles “certainly were taken as signs he was more than human” (108). Since these three examples come from the Synoptic Gospels, “a close study of the epiphany miracles demolishes the modern myth that Jesus only speaks and acts as if he is divine in the fourth gospel” (108).

In Chapter 3, he examines three parable-like sayings (Greater than the Father and Nother, No One is Good but God, and the Riddle of David’s Lord). These examples are not traditional parables in the sense of the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan. Jesus used Psalm 110 to suggest to his followers that the Messiah was not merely a human descendant of David. In fact, the Messiah was to be something much more: the preexistent, divine son of God (168).

In Chapter 4, Pitre describes Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet by examining examples (The Heavenly Son of Man, the John the Baptist Question, and the “Apocalyptic Thunderbolt”). By the “Apocalyptic Thunderbolt,” Pitre refers to the Johannine-like saying in Matthew 11:25-27 and Luke 10:20-21. In this context, Jesus claims that God’s omnipotence has been given to him. Jesus possesses a kind of divine sonship that transcends the divine sonship of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. For Pitre, this explains the apocalyptic Christology of Paul (241), which is quite similar to the apocalyptic self-understanding of Jesus.

Finally, in chapter 5, he examines the bedrock historical event of the gospels, the crucifixion of Jesus for blasphemy. Three examples are drawn from the gospel of John: Picking up Stones (John 8:48-59), Making Yourself like God (John 10:22-39), and the Charge of Blasphemy, which led to Jesus’s execution. Following John Meier, “a Jesus whose words and deeds would not alienate people, especially powerful people, is not the historical Jesus” (Meier, Marginal Jew 1:177, cited 246). So, what did Jesus do that resulted in his execution? Many scholars have observed that, from a Jewish perspective, messianic pretenders do not merit punishment (249). Nor is Jesus charged with its threatening the temple (298). When Jesus is questioned, he puts himself into the context of Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:14. He is the divine figure from these two messianic passages. The high priest in the Sanhedrin understood clearly what he claimed, so Jesus was condemned to death for blasphemy against God (304). Pitre agrees with E. P. Sanders: “I have no doubt that Jesus died for his self-claim” (cited 326).

Conclusion. In his acknowledgments (353-54), Pitre describes his first encounter with John Meier’s The Marginal Jew. He studied with Meier at Notre Dame while Meier was working on volumes 3 and 4. Unfortunately, Meier died before completing the last planned volume on the enigmas of Jesus’s self-designation. To a certain extent, Pitre’s Divine Christology fills that gap. Because the methods of Historical Jesus research have shifted considerably since Meier’s project began, I suspect that Pitre’s conclusions on historicity might differ from Meier’s.

NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of these books. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense

Bowman Jr., Robert M. and J. Ed Komoszewski. The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2024. 853 pp. Hb. $57.99  Link to Kregel Academic  

Bowman and Komoszewski have previously collaborated on Putting Jesus in His Place (Kregel, 2007). That volume was substantial, yet it is less than half the size of The Incarnate Christ and his Critics. The reason for this expanded book on traditional Christology is a rapid decline in the belief that Jesus is God in both America and the U.K. In their introduction, Bowman and Komoszewski point to Ligonier Ministries surveys as evidence that evangelicals do not understand what the Bible claims about Jesus. For example, while large majorities would affirm the idea of the Trinity, a surprisingly high number would also agree Jesus is the first and greatest of God’s creations.

They use the acronym HANDS as an outline for Christology: Jesus receives honors that are due God; he shares attributes of God; he shares the names of God; he does the deeds that only God does; he is on the seat of God’s eternal throne. Bowman and Komoszewski argue that Jesus claimed these things, and the early church recognized them in their worship of Jesus as God. This stands in contrast to the common academic claim that the historical Jesus never claimed to be God. A significant difference between this and the earlier volume is that Bowman and Komoszewski answer objections to the divinity of Jesus from seven theological schools of thought. This book is, therefore, a significant contribution to apologetics as much as to systematic theology.

Incarnate Christ

In the first introductory chapter, Bowman and Komoszewski List and define the seven critics with which they interact in this book: mysticism, Muslims, progressive Christianity, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and one Pentecostal. The second introduction chapter describes the traditional Christology they defend the book. Although many people think “Jesus is God” is a simple enough definition of what the Bible teaches, this is not enough since Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses would agree. A more precise definition is “the unique, eternal son, guide in nature and status, humbled himself to become a man, Jesus Christ, in order to die on the cross to rise from the dead for the redemption of human beings” (63).

The second introductory chapter defines how Bowman and Komoszewski understand the deity of Christ. They describe this as “traditional Christianity” (63), “biblical monotheism” (67), and “historic Christian faith” (77). Someone defending a traditional doctrine of Christ cannot say “Jesus is God” since Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses would both agree with this. Therefore, Bowman and Komoszewski define what they mean by deity, divine, and God. God is the only proper object of worship, uncreated and eternal, revealed as Yahweh to Israel, the creator who rules over all things. They use these five points as they develop their acronym HANDS. As for defining what they mean when they say deity of Jesus: Jesus is the unique, eternal Son, truly God in nature and status,” yet he is also fully human who died and rose from the dead. The resurrection demonstrates that Jesus was more than a prophet or good teacher. But Jesus is the Son, not the Father: this is a trinitarian view of Christ.

Part one (six chapters) demonstrates that Jesus receives honors due to God. God is the only proper objective worship, yet the gospels describe people worshiping Jesus. In Hebrews 1:6, God himself commands the angels to worship Jesus. Paul says that all creation will worship Jesus Phil 2:10–11. Likewise, Revelation describes all of creation as worshiping Jesus. Bowman and Komoszewski conclude that Jesus is a proper subject for worship. They observe that early Christian worship used the word Maranatha (Rev 22:20–21) and used the name of Jesus in benedictions, doxologies, hymns, and rights, such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In addition, prayers are to be offered only to God, yet early Christians prayed to Jesus as God.

In part two (eight chapters), Bowman and Komoszewski show that Jesus shares attributes of God. Rather than a list of attributes of God from systematic theology, Bowman and Komoszewski define what they mean by God in contrast to their critics. They begin with the pre-existence of Christ, including a full chapter on John’s gospel. They answer the critique that Jesus is the first created being (Jehovah’s Witnesses) with significant sections on Colossians: 15 and Revelation 3:14. The section also deals with the sinlessness of Christ, divine knowledge during the incarnation, and the paradox of Jesus is both divine and human. Bowman and Komoszewski argue for a traditional view of the hypostatic union.

Part three (eleven chapters) surveys the names of God Jesus shares. Bowman and Komoszewski begin with the name Jesus and what it means to be “in the name of Jesus.” They observe that people are saved in the name of Jesus, baptized in the name of Jesus, etc. Jesus is called the son of God, although he is not a literal son (contra the critics). Nor is one of the gods, or an angel, such as an archangel or equivalent to Michael. This section includes several chapters focusing on the gospel of John since John describes God as the father and Jesus as the son. Bowman and Komoszewski offer a detailed chapter on translating the phrase “the word was God” John 1:1 which is critically important for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. They discuss the translation of the word begotten, or unique son of God, and Thomas’s declaration that Jesus is “my Lord in my God” (John 20:28).

Chapters 25–27 deal specifically with the Lord as a divine name. Does “Lord” in the New Testament imply the same thing as Yahweh in the Old Testament? For example. When Peter fails to walk on the water in Matthew 14:30, he says, “Lord, save me.” Is he calling out to Jesus or Yahweh? Based on illusions from Matthew 14 to Psalm 68, Bowman and Komoszewski conclude that Peter calls out to Jesus as Yahweh. They provided a chart collecting all the verses in which Paul calls Jesus Lord (501). Finally, they discussed the “I am” sayings in the gospel of John. When Jesus begins a phrase with “I am,” does he imply equality with the Old Testament God? For example, John 8:58 key passage. After examining this passage closely, Bowman and Komoszewski conclude that John 8:58 makes the same point as Exodus 3:14 or Isaiah 43:10. Jesus claims to be “the eternal one.” So yes, in John 8:58, Jesus claims to be divine.

In part four (seven chapters), they examine the deeds of Jesus in the Gospels and show that Jesus does the things that only God does. In this section, Bowman and Komoszewski discuss a series of stories in the gospels where Jesus does something that implies that he is divine. For example, Jesus claims to forgive sin (Mark 2:1-12 and parallels). There are several stories where Jesus heals an illness by forgiving their sins. They include two chapters on Jesus as a miracle worker. Miracles are not necessarily proof of divinity since others claim to do miracles, yet they were not God. Bowman and Komoszewski deal with skeptics of miracles in general and critics who claim that the leader church creates the miracles to imply that Jesus is God. Of critical importance for the argument of this book are Jesus’s nature miracles. In these kinds of miracles, Jesus demonstrates that he is the creator. Likewise, by raising people from the dead, Jesus shows that he is the giver of life. In both cases, Bowman and Komoszewski illustrate these points with illusions of the Old Testament, which described God as the creator and giver of life. The final chapter in this section argues that Jesus claimed to be the eschatological judge (see for example, Tucker Ferda, Jesus and His Promised Second Coming). If Jesus claimed that he would return to judge the nations, is this a claim of divinity? The problem is that the Second Temple literature did not consider the Messiah equal to God. The critical text is Daniel 7:14, the son of man receives authority from the Ancient of Days, who appears to be a separate divine person. This chapter provides an excellent transition to the next part of the book.

Finally, in part five (four chapters), Bowman and Komoszewski demonstrate that Jesus is presently on the seat of God’s eternal throne. Jesus is the Lamb of God seated on God’s throne. This section begins with a survey of the trials of Jesus. How could Jesus be executed for blasphemy if he did not claim some form of quality with God? Part of this claim is that he will be seated on the right hand of God. Bowman and Komoszewski discuss what it means to be seated on the right hand of God, with copious Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish texts to illustrate Jesus as a divine Son of Man seated on God’s throne. Bowman and Komoszewski also misunderstand of what “seated at the right hand” means among their critics, especially Mormonism in this case.

In conclusion to the volume, Bowman and Komoszewski review their acronym as “criteria of deity” and make a cumulative argument in favor of the traditional doctrine of Christ. The traditional doctrine of Christ’s divinity is not a biblical construct, citing several New Testament passages (Matt 28:16-20; John 1:1-18; Heb 1:1-13; Phil 2:6-11). Some critics may object that Jesus himself never claimed to be God, and at least three of these four passages come from as late as 40 years after Jesus. Bowman and Komoszewski make a biblical argument that assumes the accuracy of the gospels. Historical Jesus scholars would dismiss the gospel of John as a late theological text rather than an accurate record of what Jesus said and did. In addition, mythicists would dismiss all the evidence because it comes from the Bible.

Conclusion. With thirty-eight chapters and a conclusion, this looks to me like 40 Questions on Christology that got out of hand. Bowman and Komoszewski provide a detailed biblical argument for traditional Christology. Although the book could be considered a contribution to systematic theology, the book goes beyond what appears typically in systematic theologies. They include exegesis of critical texts and a canonical approach supplemented by an awareness of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. Going further, Bowman and Komoszewski seriously engage with non-traditional views of Christ’s deity (“the cults) and other religious views. There is less response to mythicists critics than I expected, given their growing popularity in American culture.

Bonus: An Interview with Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski at Kregel Academic’s blog.

NB: Thanks to Kregel for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Book Review: Larry W. Hurtado, Honoring the Son

Hurtado, Larry W.  Honoring the Son. Jesus in Earliest Christian Devotional Practice. Ed. M. Bird; Snapshots Series; Bellingham, Wash: Lexham, 2018. 95 pp; Pb.  $15.99  Link to Lexham Press

Lexham’s Snapshot Series attempts to engage “significant issues in contemporary biblical scholarship.” This new volume Larry Hurtado summarizes his major works over the last twenty years on what has come to be called “early high Christology.” His One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism was first published in 1988 (Fortress; second edition T&T Clark, 1998; third edition Bloomsbury, 2005). David Aune called Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2005) “one of the more important books on Jesus in this generation.” In addition to dozens of articles and reviews on an early high Christology since 1979, Hurtado published a shorter monograph, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Eerdmans 2005). In fact, Hurtado’s own works take up more than two pages in the eleven page bibliography in Honoring the Son.

In this short book, Hurtado addresses the question of early Christian devotion to Jesus as God. The earliest followers of Jesus were Jewish monotheists but the later creeds worship Jesus as part of a Trinitarian Godhead. As Hurtado observes in his chapter on the “scholarly context,” the consensus view is Jesus never claimed to be God  and his first followers did not worship him as God. There was a slow development of Trinitarian theology over the first century of the church. This consensus is based on the work of Wilhelm Bousset’s Kyrios Christos, a major influence on Rudolf Bultmann. First published in German in 1931 (English translation, 1970), Bousset argued early Christian devotion to Jesus appeared in diaspora settings like Antioch and Damascus rather than among the Jewish followers of Jesus. This view continues to be popular in the popular work of Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God (Harper Collins, 2014).

In contrast to this view, Hurtado argues the earliest Christians believed God required them to worship Jesus. Their devotional response to God led them to worship the Son. In the conclusion to the book, Hurtado points to John 5:22-23, “all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” One might object John is the latest of the New Testament writings, but Hurtado does not think this devotion to Jesus is a late Johannine development. On the contrary, it is a “concise and somewhat polemic expression of the matter set here in the context of challenge from Jewish critics of Jesus’s validity” (67).

To make this argument, Hurtado must first properly worship in the ancient world (chapter 2) as well as the nature of ancient Jewish monotheism (chapter 3). Unlike modern, western religious experience, ancient religion was not assent to a creedal statement, but rather ritual practice. For a Jewish person, any ritual practice not focused on God was idolatry. Jewish people in the Second Temple period adapted to the Hellenistic world in many ways, but Hurtado argues there is no evidence at all Jewish people gave any sort of worship to angels, biblical heroes or even God’s attributes such as Wisdom (32). There were no altars, sacrifices or public ritual devoted to any of these things, contra Bart Ehrman. Hurtado cites several examples, such as the angel Raphael in Tobit. Although this archangel is powerful, all prayers in the book are directed to God and Raphael tells Tobias to praise only God (Tobit 12:6-7).

Hurtado refers to the early Christian devotion to Jesus as a “mutation” (chapter 4). By this he means early Christian worship is in some ways similar to ancient Judaism, but worshiping the risen and exalted Jesus as God is a sudden and unexpected development. There was no slow progression from Jewish monotheism to adoration of angelic beings and eventually to Jesus as God. For Hurtado, Paul’s early devotion to Jesus as a recipient of worship in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 and other texts indicates an early high Christology. Because Paul never claimed a unique view of Jesus nor does he consider his worship of Jesus to be a radical development, Hurtado thinks Paul’s Christology follows the views of earlier Jewish followers of Jesus. Certainly Paul claims to have “passed on” traditions from those who were in Christ before him (1 Cor 15:3-5, for example). This means the eruption of “cultic veneration of the risen Jesus presumed already as typical of Jewish and gentile circles of the Jesus movement” prior to Paul’s letters (50).

One of Hurtado’s major contributions to the discussion of an early high Christology is his study of Jesus in the earliest Christian devotional practices (chapter 5). These include prayers and invocations, the practice of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, hymns, psalms, and prophecy. Hurtado offers a short summary and example for each of these examples, but for the meat of the argument readers will need to consult his far more detailed arguments in Lord Jesus Christ.

Conclusion: As David Capes says in his introduction to this slender volume, “behind each paragraph is an article or monograph. . .” (ix). In fact, the body of this book is a mere sixty-eight pages plus another seven pages of appendix, eleven pages of bibliography and five pages of indices. But brevity should not be mistaken for sketchiness. Hurtado succeeds in summarizes and updated the arguments made in his earlier and more substantial works and provides enough bibliographical material to enable the reader to explore the details of the argument of the book. The book is written to appear to layperson, student and professional interested in the development of a high Christology in the early church.

NB: Thanks to Lexham Press for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Was 1 John Written to Answer Docetism?

The opponents in 1 John are usually identified as having some kind of deficient view of Jesus.  In her Letters to the Church, Karen Jobes mentions both Docetism and Cerenthuis as possible targets of 1 John, although she is quick to point out that John does not dwell on these Christological errors as much as is often taught (420). The oft-repeated story of John in the bathhouse at Ephesus is likely apocryphal, but it makes for good preaching so it keeps turning up in sermons and commentaries on 1 John. But the letter may not even be about Docetism as it is defined in systematic theologies surveying the early Christological heresies.

By the end of the first century, at least some Christians began to deny that Jesus had a physical body.  (The name “Docetic” comes form the Greek word dokeo, meaning “to appear.”)  This teaching is known as Docetism, and was motivated by a strong belief that Jesus was in fact God, but also that material things are inherently evil.

John vs CerenthuisIrenaeus wrote in Against Heresies 3.11.7 that John wrote against an error taught by Cerinthus, although there is a considerable amount of legend concerning the contact Cerinthus may have had with John’s churches. Ignatius argues against Docetism in Ad Trall 9, 10 “Turn a deaf ear therefore when anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David the child of Mary, who was truly born, who ate and drank, who was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died….”  Notice that Ignatius follows the same logic as John by pointing out that Jesus had all of the characteristics of a human, including eating, drinking, suffering and dying.

Is Docetism more Jewish than Gentile?  Frequently Docetism is seen as part of the larger theology of Gnosticism, and therefore more or less a “Greco-Roman Philosophy” or perhaps even an early Christian attempt to develop a rational non-Jewish theology which would appeal to the larger Roman world.

But this may not be a proper view of how Docetism developed.  Docetism is the earliest of the “Christological controversies.” If the common view that 1 John dates to the mid 90’s and the letter was written from Ephesus, it is a least plausible to argue that John is reacting to a Jewish Christian attempt to explain who Jesus was.  Rather than making Christianity more palatable to Romans, Docetism would have been appealing to Jews, since the idea of “God made flesh” is troubling to their view that God is completely transcendent.

Docetism is sometimes associated with a group of Jewish Christians known as the Ebionites. This group was ascetic, living a live of voluntary poverty in the desert. This voluntary poverty may have been based on the early Jewish Christians in Acts 2 (selling possessions for needs of the group), or perhaps based on Jesus’ own voluntary poverty.  On the other hand, they may have taken Jesus’ teaching “Blessed are the poor” quite literally!

The real problem with this identification is that Docetism as a Jewish viewpoint would have developed in Palestine, not Ephesus. It is possible that John’s gospel was developed while he was still doing ministry in the Land, and that the fall of Jerusalem forced Jews out of Judah, many of whom ended up in places like Ephesus and Corinth.

Given what we know about Docetism  1 John 1:1-4 seems like a good answer, but 1 John has a great deal more to say about “those who have gone out” and are trouble his readers. Reading only 1 John, what is the nature of the false teaching in 1 John?

By His Wounds You Have Been Healed – 1 Peter 2:24

In 1 Peter 2:24, Peter alludes to Isaiah 53:5 when he declares that Christ’s death provides “healing.”  He is clearly referring to the death of Jesus on the cross (“he bore our sins on the tree”).  But Peter adjusts the wording of Isaiah 53 slightly. In both the Hebrew and Greek versions, the line reads “we are healed,” Peter has “you (plural) are healed.”  This may simply be a case of a pastor inserting his congregation into a text for rhetorical purposes.

On the other hand, it is not clear in Isaiah who the suffering servant benefits – who is the “we” in this verse?  A common first-century answer was “Israel.” The nation as a whole suffers in order to bring redemption to the world.   This could be an example of Peter re-using a text from the Hebrew Bible and applying it more specifically to the Church. It is not the nation of Israel who is healed by the death of the messiah, but rather the ones who follow Jesus.

The verb translated “healed” (ἰάομαι) can easily be misunderstood. While it is often used for physical healing, it is also used for being delivered from spiritual blindness. What is more, it is used in Isaiah 6:10 to describe what might happen if the people of Isaiah’s day turned their hearts to the Lord and really understood the message of the prophet – “they would be healed.” This text from Isaiah is used several times in the New Testament to describe the spiritual blindness of those who witnessed Jesus’ ministry. They were spiritually insensitive and therefore rejected the Suffering Servant when he revealed himself.

John 12:37-44 is a remarkable combination of Isaiah 6:10 and 53:1. This is John’s summary of the ministry of Jesus. No one heard the message of the Suffering Servant, so no one turned as was healed! Like John, Peter is saying that those who follow Christ are healed of their spiritual blindness in a way which separates them from those who heard the teaching of Jesus and failed to respond.

Isaiah 53 forms a foundation for Peter’s Christology, and probably for the Christology of the earliest apostolic preaching. Based on the suffering of Jesus Christ, his followers experience redemption.  But there is a pastoral application of Peter’s theology of salvation.  If Jesus suffered so intensely so that you can have salvation, then those who follow Jesus ought to suffer in the same way.  Look back a few verses:  1 Peter: 2:20 is an ethical statement about servants who are unjustly suffering at the  hands of their masters.

In fact, Peter’s point is that how you follow Jesus ought to be based on the way in which Jesus lived, suffered and died.  This is not some sort of sugary “WWJD” pep-talk.  Peter bases his ethical teachings on the suffering of Jesus, not his “good life” or other moral teachings.  It is remarkable that Peter does not say, “Love your neighbor the way Jesus loved his neighbors.” I am sure that is true and that Peter would agree with that sort of a statement.   But Peter says, “suffering in silence, the way Jesus suffered.”

My guess is that most people who wore the WWJD bracelets were not thinking about being silent while they were beaten unjustly for their commitment to their Lord and Savior.