I’d like to pick up on Peter’s comment in the ‘different views of the trinity thread’ that Jesus’ baptism was a ‘trinitarian event attended by Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. Apart from the fact that this makes it sound like Father, Son and Holy Spirit turned up at the church like three close relatives (I’m sure the humour was intended), it seems to me that this illustrates rather well the problem of using ‘trinitarian’ in such a context.
It’s all very well saying that an expression such as ‘trinitarian framework’ is shorthand for something more complex, but it still must introduce some sort of argument about relational ontology - it has to do unavoidably with discussions about the relationship between three persons within the one godhead. But this is surely a very long way from the interests of the account of Jesus’ baptism.
The baptism marks Jesus out as Israel’s messiah, but I think it is reading far too much into the text to suggest that at the level of the biblical narrative Father, Son and Spirit here are conceived as being in some sort of unique trinitarian relationship. Israel’s messiah virtually by definition would receive the Spirit of God - just as Gideon or David or Isaiah (cf. Isaiah 59:21; 61:1) received the Spirit of God, just as the whole community would receive the Spirit of God under the new covenant. The coming of the Spirit is associated with the commissioning of Jesus as messiah at this moment in time; there is no suggestion of a prior ontological relationship between Son and Spirit.
The declaration that Jesus is the ‘beloved Son’ has the same implications. The allusion is to Psalm 2:7 (Isaiah 42:1 may also be in the background): it is the language of enthronement of Israel’s king at a time of political conflict and presupposes, in the context of the Gospels, the sort of apocalyptic narrative that we have been discussing elsewhere.
I would regard these as the sort of thoughts that properly make up a narrative theology of the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit. To read a developed doctrine of the trinity back into such texts is misleading, if not plain wrong. I think it would be much more honest to acknowledge that the standard trinitarian formulations are the product, in effect, of post-eschatological (that is, after the apocalyptic story of judgment and salvation) reflection on the status of the exalted Christ. There are certainly hints of this in the New Testament, but we have to allow the narrative context not only to generate meaning but also to delimit meaning.
Re: Was Jesus' baptism a trinitarian event?
The essence of my response (I lost a longer one that I was just typing!) is that although there may not be a fully developed doctrine of the trinity in the NT as we understand it (in a historically developed sense), there is a much more developed trinitarian understanding than Andrew is prepared to allow.
I don’t really accept ‘post-eschatological’ as a defining term of reference, so the question of when the idea of a three-member godhead was developed is not such an issue. The main thing is that it is there in the NT texts - as written by their authors, not as superimposed onto material which does not in itself contain such an interpretation. (It doesn’t really matter when they were written, though a pre AD 70 date for all the texts is not out of the question).
It’s true that in examples of divine commissioning in the OT, we see the ‘Spirit of God’ providing an enduement of power upon human personalities. But we don’t see the recipients being affirmed by a divine voice addressing them as ‘beloved son’. Neither do we see the word ‘Father’ being used with such overwhelming frequency as by Jesus, the ‘Son’; nor do we see anywhere else the use of the word ‘abba’ to address God.
It’s also true that words and phrases like ‘Father’, ‘Son’ or ‘Son of God’ have OT roots and meanings. But again, the essence of my point is that the NT authors fill these words with new content. This is so transparent, it should not need arguing.
It is also the case that in all the gospels, Jesus is dressed in divine significance - especially as God is perceived through 1st century Jewish symbols and thought-forms. Although my comments on this have been decried in previous posts, I haven’t seen a substantial argument against it. It is also the view held by Tom Wright in ‘The Challenge of Jesus’.
Wright also underscores the existence of an incipient belief in a triune God - eg ‘What St Paul Really Said’ - Chapter 2. I refer to Wright not because everyone accepts what he says, but because his approach is particularly understood and accepted as a guiding method on this site - and Wright makes this point from a narrative-historical perspective.
Anyway, it would be interesting to know what others think - if there is anyone out there in cyber space who reads these peculiar exchanges.
reading, enjoying, wondering
These "peculiar exchanges" certainly are read, Peter.
As one who has (at least cursorily) understood some of Andrew’s novel arguments and compelling constructions, I’ve personally particularly appreciated your work in challenging them with more conservative viewpoints. If nothing else, it enables them to be more clearly seen for what they are, whether one agrees or not.
However, I am also ocassionally left wondering whether the energy of two considerable theological minds isn’t, at times, if not on balance, being used to strain out a gnat, while larger purposes go relatively undeveloped within the opensourcetheology project.
I appreciate that it undoubtably works as debate and as a talking shop, many are finding it a safe place to discuss ideas. Yet, personally, I can’t get away from feeling that there is also, alongside the minutae of emergent theological details, an emergent sense of purpose that, at times, can’t seem to quite get it’s head properly up above water. Perhaps it’s just me…
Shalom!John
Re: reading, enjoying, wondering
Re: reading, enjoying, wondering
Yes, Andrew, I take your point, too, about the minutiae making a distinct difference to the final outworking of larger purposes and expressions. I also recognise that it is a joy to discover people with whom one can discuss such minutiae, in a manner that ultimately helps formulate and form conviction. I wouldn’t want to rob anyone of that experience. As I said, it (OST) undoubtably works as debate…
However, I think ultimately your final sentence actually expresses the feeling I was trying to articulate, when you said, "it would be irresponsible not to maintain a close connection between the more theoretical and the more practical". It is a context for some of the finer points that sometimes seems lacking and I do wonder if more ground could not more productively be covered more quickly if some of the minutiae were, at times, overlooked: in other words, if the theology could not, at times, be allowed to lead somewhere.
As I said, perhaps it’s me. Perhaps I’m impatient; maybe disappointed by discussions occasionally becoming somewhat exclusive when they (descend / ascend) to (heights / depths) of detail that make it less accessible to a wider audience. I’m no particular dunce theologically or mentally, but sometimes I’m left cold; maybe others are too.
Yet, perhaps that’s inevitable; perhaps it’s a good thing, perhaps not, for the wider purpose of OST, which I’ve always been interested in supporting: a development of theology for emerging church. Personally, at some point, I’d like to see some recognisable theological strands emerging, rather than the debate seemingly endlessly broadening, either because terms of engagement are constantly being enlarged (I’ve been interested to see once or twice that there has been a notable reaction against the theological enlargements of pluralist, for example, outside what are considered by some to be appropriate boundary lines…) or because finer and finer details are being focussed upon. Perhaps that kind of consensus simply can’t or isn’t meant to happen through a site like OST? But if it is, or if it could, I’d like to hope that such an opportunity wouldn’t be missed…
B/t/w, this is not a complaint, though it may sound like one. I simply hope that if it does resonate, in whole or part, with you / others that it might contribute to the refinement of the process in some way.
Shalom!
John
Re: reading, enjoying, wondering
I’m very new to this site, and I’m trying hard to get up to speed. I’ve been out of circulation theologically for a long time. I have had my mind blown away by Andrew’s posts, and they really resonate with what I have been struggling with for a long time. I also agree with both John and Peter Wilkinson when they want to focus on a practical/missiological motivation for discussion.
From what I understand of the emerging church, it generally defines itself as post-evangelical. The reason I abandoned evangelicalism is the ethical reductionism and intellectual dishonesty that seem to be inherant in the evangelical worldview. However, the good thing that they emphasise is that our point of existing as God’s people is that we are God’s tool for redeeming the world. In creating a narrative theology, I would assume we would all agree that that would be a key part of the story (I hope I’m not assuming too much).
Unfortunately, there are irreconcilable differences in theology. One person says that Anselm’s atonement theory is inescapable from a respectful reading of the Bible, with many passages backing up that viewpoint, while I just can’t accept it from a Biblical perspective (I also have many passages), and it just doesn’t wash with what I understand to be God’s character as I see in the world and in the Bible. Most importantly I don’t see what it gives you, the theological pay off, that a lesser more consensual view does not give.
Similarly, I would like to know what the theological pay off is from believing the Jesus IS God that can not be gained by believing that he is beloved of God, intimately indwelled by God, is God’s messiah, is the symbol of God’s presense among his people, and has a will in perfect concert with God’s. I do not see how anything else can be gained from a reading of the Gospels. I have honestly tried for the last 3 years, but I can’t find it.
Would it be possible to have more posts where a minimum statement/story of faith is agreed, the rest is agreed to disagree during that post, and then missiological significance of that position is worked out. Other posts could discuss the practical implications of having a more involved statement. I have seen some posts where this has happened, so it is not like I’m having any original ideas, I would just like to be involved in more of that sort of discussion.
Also, is there any agreed upon theological methodology for discussion. I actually agreed with pluralist bringing in a literary understanding of the books of the Bible, but he seemed to be shut down by people not wanting to take that into account. Or I might have misinterpreted the exchange :-)
None of the previous is meant as a criticism, as this is by a long way the BEST place I have seen to discuss real (as opposed to dogmatic) theology. I also realise that I have been on this site for a very short time, but I have already been frustrated by discussions stalling in disagreeements before its significance for the emerging church is worked out.
Re: Was Jesus' baptism a trinitarian event?
I had meant to title my comment ‘In what sense was Jesus’ baptism a trinitarian event?’, but it was a bit too long. I agree that the New Testament persistently raises questions about how God is encountered and worshipped that cannot be answered within the framework of a simple monotheism. But I still think as a matter of biblical exegesis and for the sake of a good narrative theology we need to be careful not to read later theological developments back into scripture.
Certainly ‘beloved Son’ indicates a highly significant relationship - just not the relationship described by trinitarian theology. It defines the relationship of Israel’s messiah/king to Israel’s God, which is why it is more or less exceptional (I say ‘more or less’ because presumably it was originally applied to David in some way). Wright states that the phrase ‘son of God’ does not carry the ‘overtones of "divinity" that later Christian theology would hear in it’ (The Challenge of Jesus, 79).
Surely the ‘abba’ argument doesn’t work in view of Galatians 4:6: we all cry ‘abba, Father’, because we are in the Son, who as ‘son’, ‘servant’, represents or embodies the restored people of God, which is also God’s ‘son’ and ‘servant’. The language is doing some really important things here - just not quite what later theologians, who had lost touch with the historical-eschatological narrative, came to think it was doing.
To say that Jesus is ‘dressed in divine significance’ is poetic but vague. What exactly do you mean by that? Wright’s argument is that Jesus replaced the cardinal symbols of God’s presence in the midst of his people - temple, torah, word, Spirit, wisdom. (‘Spirit’ in this sense should probably be understood quite concretely as God’s dynamic presence manifested in characteristic forms of behaviour - prophesying, speaking boldly, speaking in tongues, etc.) Jesus becomes the locus of God’s presence and therefore becomes definitive for the renewed people of God - just as temple, law, Spirit and Wisdom had been in definitive for Israel without being confused with YHWH. I know we’ve gone over this ground before, but that still seems to me to be rather different to introducing the idea that Jesus is God into the narrative. Again, trinitarian theology may be true, but it doesn’t help us very much in reading the Gospels.
Re: Was Jesus' baptism a trinitarian event?
I appreciate the carefully nuanced way in which this thread is developing in the discussion of the trinity in NT. I can’t pick up all the points which have now been made - which is frustrating - but I’d like to make one or two nods towards what has been said, and introduce some further thoughts.
First - I cannot disagree with Andrew’s analysis of Jesus’s baptism in terms of the way it resonates with the OT and suggests Jesus’s messianic character. It is also the place where Jesus’s ministry began, which took on a very different appearance from anything that had been expected of a messiah. This illustrates something of my point: that a narrative interpretation as pursued by Andrew here does indeed take account of the horizon of OT expectations, but does not take full account of new and unexpected horizons which are opened up by the development of the narrative itself, and I would suggest, include the impetus towards a trinitarian understanding of God (if not in a fully developed, explicit form) - in the gospels as well as elsewhere in the NT, and not least in this particular episode.
Max Turner (The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts) is perhaps more cautious than many in conceding an implicit trinitarianism to the NT, but interestingly he turns to a detailed exploration of the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost as the main base for developing the view of such a possibility. The proposition that there is an inherently binitarian understanding of God has already been established. He fully accepts that terms like ‘the Spirit of God’ can simply be ways of speaking of the activity of God, in synecdoche, not as a separate ‘person’ of his being. At Pentecost, if God and the Spirit were simply different aspects of one and the same person, Jesus would be placed in the position of pouring out ‘the Father’, and having authority over the Father. Instead, a distance is required between the Spirit, and ‘God’, into which a trinitarian development begins to assert itself. (‘The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts’ - pp173-174).
Turner draws attention to the trinitarian shape of Paul’s pneumatology, as does Gordon Fee in ‘Paul, the Spirit and the People of God’. Again, it’s not that there is an explicitly or fully developed doctrine of the trinity, but the implication of such a position makes it very difficult for such a doctrine not to be made in the light of all the evidence, and in turn for God to be seen and understood in the light of this evidence.
What are the practical implications of this sort of development? I would suggest a few:
1. That the gospels as well as Acts and epistles reflect the same view of God, and that the gospels, besides developing the historical narrative of the people of God, have also been arranged so that their significance will extend beyond the simply historical, and will apply to different and future contexts and horizons of understanding. This is part of the point made by Brevard Childs in looking at canon criticism in ‘Introduction to the New Testament…".
2. Jesus did not ‘become God’ at some point subsequent to the gospel narrative, likewise the Spirit; the weakness of Andrew’s narrative description is to tend to suggest that this is what happened. My understanding of what the gospels are intending to project about the nature of Jesus is somewhat different from Andrew, and although we have already gone over the ground, I will quote from Tom Wright, The Challenge of Jesus, p.84:
To this I would only add that the ‘as if’ is as much to say ‘that he was’ - which is the accumulated weight of all the evidence, and the conclusion which is drawn by John (John 1:14).
3. More importantly, a trinitarian understanding of God has huge implications for the event central to all versions of Christianity - the cross and resurrection of Jesus. Without such an understanding, I return to previous assertions that God is made out to be a monster, requiring the blood sacrifice of an innocent victim (however willingly he may have offered himself), and letting the real culprits escape free.
At this point, I return to an earlier comment I submitted, which was to say that a trinitarian understanding of God informs a missional declaration about Jesus, the cross/resurrection, ascension/outpouring of the Spirit - which I take to be central and formative, rather than the preservation of the people of God through the destruction of Jerusalem/Rome, as in Andrew’s version of the narrative. Without such an informed base of understanding, it is my contention that there is no missionary proclamation or identity of the people of God, which has the power to challenge, engage and transform people of all historical or cultural contexts beyond the 1st century.
Re: Was Jesus' baptism a trinitarian event?
47 years ago, when I sat in what was titled “Constructive Theology” in order to accommodate the ecumenical aspirations at Chicago’s divinity school but which in fact was historical theology since it was taught by Joseph Sittler, the issues in this thread were dissected for us by the professor. I expected that by now the same issues would not still be cause for debate or even discussion. Instead, I expected the Trinitarian formulation-whatever it means-is not open to reconsideration, so that the only remaining issues would be, as someone mentions earlier, “the payoff.”
I am by conviction a Unitarian-again, whatever that means – so I am not in sympathy with locating evidence of the trinity prior to Nicea. However, I am interested to develop an appreciation of what the trinity offers for those of you here who do value it. I have not felt deprived as a non-Trinitarian, at least not since I became comfortable with a Weltanschauung devoid of immortalities. But this seems an opportunity for me to see what, perhaps, I’ve been missing in recent years.
Taking Peter’s descriptions of the payoffs for him in his last post and in the order he gives them, I understand #1 as locating Trinitarian implications in all the major documents of the NT canon provides a beneficial coherence to the story told there. In philosophy the term for such a dynamic is “theory ladened.” In philosophy it is more desirable to struggle to free one’s thoughts from theory ladenedness than to celebrate such, for the danger is that otherwise when one goes looking one only finds what one already knows. Further, in #1, Peter complains of “the simply historical.” I am not exaggerating to write that confinement within the historical is as close to an absolute foundation for much current philosophical work as many of the leading writers get. To be human is to be historical, not quite exactly like Aristotle’s “rational animal” but occupying a similar status.
In #2,. Peter rejects the adoptionist heresy and quotes Wright on the Jewish heresy that Jesus is taken to represent (before the Sanhedrin, I assume) as evidence for Jesus’ self-claimed divinity. I expect that is a very difficult and elaborate position Peter summarizes concisely. My own theory-laden bias leads me also to expect that Jesus’ teaching about the divine and his personal relationship to the divine might well have been a shock to the religious establishment, but I am left wondering how it happens that the Sanhedrin has obtained the wisdom to comprehend the nature of that correctly? And his own disciples seem so out of touch.
In #3, Peter reminds us of some of the potential pitfalls in the doctrine of the atonement. Again, in my tradition, which now includes Universalists, that doctrine has had little appeal in any of its several forms. Still an explanation based, as I believe Peter has done, on the evangelical successes of the church as evidence of the power of the doctrine of the atonement ascribes a succession of causality (cross>resurrection>atonement>conversion of unbelievers) to an account actually of reverse order. That is, we can see early church growth, therefore something must have impressed them, and what happened earlier was the cross and resurrection, so that must be the cause? In philosophy that’s the renowned post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which could be used also to account for all and every event that comes later in time. Claims of causal connections require a bit more evidence.
I well expect that there are alternative objections and replies that can be brought to these same issues. The library shelves on them must be miles-long by now. To wind up, I do have my own problems accounting for what I call the salvational influence of Jesus for me, but my problems are apparently not issues around the trinity and the other doctrines Peter has brought to our attention. Should I have somehow inadvertently included a hostile interpretation to your words, Peter, I do apologize, as I swear that is not my intent.
Re: Was Jesus' baptism a trinitarian event?
Thank you, Sojourner, for your response. I’d be interested in knowing more of your own position, further to the response to mine.
The heart of my comment was not contained in the final three points - which were, as I saw it, implications arising out of the argument I was reflecting. Rather, I was attempting to locate irrefutable evidence for a ‘trinity’ in the NT. I haven’t seen anything better then Max Turner’s exegesis of Acts 2. Having found the ‘trinity’ there, it does, of course, have a habit of appearing elsewhere, but as Fee says, in more of a functional rather than doctrinal form, or in arrangements of ‘father/son/spirit’ which are suggestive (if not definitive) of a ‘trinity’.
You unpack the final three comments in ways which hadn’t really been intended by me.
In the 1st, I don’t think I was going so far as to say that ‘the trinity’ lends a ‘beneficial coherence’ to the NT story in all of its documents; I think I was probably saying that the ‘trinity’ could be found in these documents (in ways which it is difficult to escape from, but more implicit than explicit). I also pointed out the phenomenon of the texts and their narrative creating new ‘horizons’ of understanding and being deliberately arranged so that their significance would not be isolated in the ‘simply historical’. Like you, I accept the importance of historical context as a basic tool of interpretation. (Wright’s approach rests on this!). But I think the texts also have a context of meaning which provides relevance for all time. This is not a simple thing to explain, but I am thinking especially here of the gospel narratives.
In the 2nd, Neither Wright nor I were intending in the quotation an oblique reference to the adoptionist heresy, and not Jesus’s ‘self-proclaimed divinity’ before the sanhredin. I was referring to earlier discussions in which I had been arguing that Jesus more or less self-consciously took on the role and identity of the temple in himself; I also argued that it is difficult (I would say impossible) to extricate this from an implicit claim to divinity. Wright here is saying the same thing.
In the 3rd point - I would be interested to know what your tradition is. Even universalism has, by my understanding, a doctrine of the atonement. Likewise unitarianism. I haven’t heard of any version of the Christian faith which does not have some doctrine of the atonement. Likewise, I’m not primarily arguing backwards from the ‘evangelical successes of the church’ to prove a dotrine (though I think that is a weighty consideration). I was suggesting that without the kind of doctrinal base I was defending, there is little to explain Christianity as a powerful missional force, with the capacity to challenge and transform. That assertion may also need some further explanation.
I don’t take your words as hostile in intent; I an delighted to converse with someone who is coming from such a different viewpoint and way of questioning the kinds of arguments I was putting forward.
In case you were wondering why I am submitting comments on a site dedicated to theology for a postmodern age, I have made some suggestions towards a ‘renewed theology’ in the thread devoted to that topic.
Re: Was Jesus' baptism a trinitarian event?
Peter,
Thanks for your prompt response. I need to plead for some time to respond in turn. I’m out the door for an all-day doing and these are issues, the theology of which (vs. philosophy of), I have not dealt with in a good long time. The clevage between Unitarian Universalist Christians and non-Christians has been growing. Following my current interests, I have attended mostly to the philosophical inadequacies of both.
However, it is primarily as hero (more in a platonic-teaching than a Homeric-conquering role) that Jesus is my savior. Elsewhere on this site I identify myself as a Good Friday Christian, an event I find it necessary to attend RC mass to celebrate, as my stuffy Protestant co-religionists would find my weeping and wailing discomfiting, to say the least.
Let me return to this as time allows.
Re: Was Jesus' baptism a trinitarian event?
Peter,
I would only demonstrate my ignorance if I tried to explain a Unitarian Universalist position on atonement. I once half-heartedly attempted to read the orthodox position, as represented in Anselm, and quickly discovered that not only was I unable to follow the intricacies of his arguments but that what he was defending and expanding was so closely knit that it would take a lifetime of study to even approach an understanding of the scholarship Anselm represents.
The classic UU view comes from an 1805 publication by the American cleric Hosea Ballou which I read, at least in part as I recall, half a century ago, since which time I have never had an interest to pursue the points he raised. But I remember them having an overall character as did my earlier response to your statement; to wit, critique rather than corrective.
Thinking about that has reminded me that my struggle from the beginning of my active ministry has been to correct those aspects of my beliefs dependent on a supernatural metaphysics. After decades being comfortable with a religiously couched existentialist humanism, I then lost faith that we, humans, could reach a sufficient spiritual maturity to allow the notion of self-sufficient autonomy to be taken seriously. That’s a long, very personal story of change for me. At that point I began to investigate Heidegger’s notion of the history of Being. I, of course, did not understand it for a long time without the biases of my previous lifetime under the influence of metaphysics, naturalist as well as supernaturalist. Only when I began formal academic study again was I able to begin to appreciate H’s project. Since H makes it very clear that a chasm stands between religion and philosophy, I could not find in him directions to continue my search, while I did find there a much bigger topography for my search than I had been aware of.
Anyhow, to make a much longer story short, I have returned to my Christian roots through the discovery of my own need for salvationary experience. The best account I can give myself is in terms of grace deserving of my gratitude. Its focus remains in the community of faith in which I participate, but it is less biblical and theological than it is existential and philosophical. The rhythm of the thrust of that for me, however, is now from the latter to the former, a reversal, without question. And as Luther wrote (incidentally, he is Heidegger’s principal model for an understanding of religion versus philosophy) “Here I stand.” And hence also my interest in this BBS.
Re: Was Jesus' baptism a trinitarian event?
Greeting Friends,
I have encountered much aggression lately from those who hold the modern …”mystery” version of tinitarian thought, and I just wanted to comment on how amazing it is to see contributors to this forum behaving like kingdom folks! I don’t want to bring up any points or my experiences with church-folk or anything, I’m just sun bathing in here. Truly a good spirit is in this place, and I thank you guys for being the way you are.
Please remember, this is what it’s about. We can talk trinity and that’s cool, but if we can’t adopt the civics that Christ demands, its all worthless. You guys are showing that, and I wish the real world felt like it does in here.
Thanks again,
<<~martian~>>