WHERE WE ARE
In Part 4 of this series I clarified Kreeft's argument for his Objection #3 against the Myth Theory:
1. The Gospels (i.e. the four Gospels in the New Testament) portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.
A. IF the authors of the Gospels invented the following four elements in their accounts of the life and death of Jesus: portraying Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead, THEN we would find evidence of an earlier account of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT include those four elements.
2. There is no evidence whatever of an earlier account (prior to the Gospels) of the life and death of Jesus that did NOT portray Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.
Therefore:
B. It is NOT the case that the authors of the Gospels invented the following elements in their accounts of the life and death of Jesus: portraying Jesus as (a) a divine person, (b) claiming to be divine, (c) performing miracles, and (d) rising from the dead.
Therefore:
C. The Myth Theory is FALSE.
I showed that the inference from premise (B) to the conclusion (C) is INVALID and ILLOGICAL, so the argument constituting Objection #3 FAILS because a key inference in the argument is INVALID.
I also claimed that this argument is probably UNSOUND because the three premises supporting premise (B) are all DUBIOUS. Thus, it is likely that at least one of those three premises is FALSE.
In order to show that premise (1) is DUBIOUS, I am reviewing the "Scriptural Data" provided by Kreeft in support of the divinity of Jesus and in support of Jesus claiming to be divine, from the end of Chapter 7 of his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Kreeft makes twenty-one points on this issue, each supported by various passages from the New Testament.
In Part 4 of this series, I argued that we can set aside fifteen of Kreeft's twenty-one points because (a) some are not supported by any Gospel passage, (b) some are only supported by Gospel passages from the Gospel of John, and (c) some clearly apply to people who are NOT divine and thus fall short of giving a sufficient reason for concluding that a person is divine. We are left with just six points from Kreeft's list of twenty-one points to consider:
2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as.")...
6. Omnipresent...
7. Omnipotent...
12. Rightly worshiped...
18. The Father testifies to him...
21. Is Lord over the Law...
POINT #6: JESUS AND OMNIPRESENCE
According to Christian theology omnipresence is one of the divine attributes, a basic characteristic of God. The idea is that God is present everywhere in the universe. This divine attribute is a bit puzzling, though. God is also a spirit, which means that God is a BODILESS person. Since God, according to Christian theology, has no body, it is unclear how God can be "present" in a particular place.
When I am at the grocery store, for example, my body is at the grocery store. It would be very odd to say that "I am at home watching TV right now, but my body is at the grocery store downtown." How can my body be one place, when I am located somewhere else? We normally understand a person's location to be where their physical body is located. But God has no body, so how can God be at any particular location, let alone be at every location?
Being at a particular location seems to involve two main components: (1) experiencing the events that are taking place at that location, and (2) being able to influence or affect events that are taking place at that location. [reference Swinburne] So, although God has no body, if God could experience (or know) what is going on in my living room (e.g. the TV is showing a CNN news broadcast) and also experience (or know) what is going on at the grocery store downtown at the same time, then God would be, in part, "present" at both places at the same time.
Furthermore, if God could also change or affect events at both locations at the same time (e.g. change the TV channel on my TV so the program is a science-fiction movie and make a candy bar fly up and into a grocery cart at the grocery store), then God would be fully "present" at both places at the same time. So, being "omnipresent" means knowing what is happening at every location in the universe and also being able to influence or change the events that are happening at every location in the universe.
Here is the "Scriptural Data" from the Gospels that Kreeft provides for the view that Jesus claimed to be omnipresent (which would also show that the Gospels portray Jesus as claiming to be omnipresent) and/or that the Gospels portray Jesus as being omnipresent:
Matthew 18:20
19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
(Matthew 18:19-20, Revised Standard Version)
Matthew 28:20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
(Matthew 28:19-20, Revised Standard Version)
First, note that in both passages of these passages from the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the speaker. So, these passages appear to be evidence in support of the view that the Gospels portray Jesus as claiming to be divine. Nothing in these passages portrays Jesus as being omnipresent. So these passages do NOT provide evidence that the Gospels portray Jesus as being divine, as being God.
Second, note that Kreeft only provides references to passages from the Gospel of Matthew, so at best this evidence only shows that the Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as claiming to be divine. This evidence tells us nothing about the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Luke.
Third, note that in neither of these passages does Jesus say, "I am omnipresent." nor does Jesus say, "I am present at every location in the universe." nor does Jesus say "I am present everywhere." Jesus does not clearly and decisively assert that he is omnipresent. Thus, Kreeft has to do some interpretation of the words of Jesus in order to get to the conclusion that the author of Matthew was portraying Jesus as claiming to be omnipresent.
What does Jesus mean by "I am with you"? in Matthew 28, or by "there am I in the midst of them" in Matthew 18? Jesus, unlike God, has a body. So, does Jesus mean that his resurrected body will zoom down from heaven and that he will sit down next to the believers whenever they are "gathered in his name"? or that his resurrected body will constantly ("always") be hanging around with the apostles as they go out to evangelize the world? If so, then how could Jesus' body be present at two, or three, or twenty-eight different Christian prayer meetings at the same time? How could Jesus' body be present in two, or three, or twenty-eight different countries at the same time, where his followers are evangelizing and spreading the Christian faith? That makes no sense, and it is clearly not actually the case. Jesus' resurrected body doesn't show up every Sunday in the pews of every Christian church.
So, presumably, Jesus is NOT talking about his body being present at hundreds or thousands of prayer meetings at the same time, and he is NOT talking about his body being present at dozens or hundreds of different countries at the same time. Jesus is presumably talking about the sort of presence that God has: (1) experiencing (or knowing about) events happening at the same time in many different locations, and (2) being able to influence or change the course of events happening at the same time in many different locations. How could Jesus do this without being omnipresent?
However, there is a fairly obvious way that Jesus could do these things without his body being present at every location in the universe at the same time: through God. Jesus believed that God was omniscient (all-knowing), and Jesus believed that God was omnipotent (all-powerful), and Jesus believed that after he died, he would go to be with God in heaven. So, if Jesus was in heaven with God, then God would be able to communicate directly to Jesus whenever Christians gathered and asked for help from Jesus, and God would be able to influence and change events at any location, so if Jesus wanted God to provide assistance to his followers on earth, God could, according to Jesus, make any changes to any events anywhere in the world (or in the universe) in order to provide assistance to the followers of Jesus whenever and wherever they needed assistance.
If a thousand different Christians gathered "in the name of Jesus" at a thousand different locations around the earth at the same time, God, being omniscient (all-knowing), would be able to instantly know about any prayer requests made at those meetings, and God, being omnipotent (all-powerful) could instantly respond to any prayer request by any Christian at any one of those meetings, even if thousands of them made prayer requests at the exact same moment. Furthermore, God, being omniscient, knows exactly how Jesus would want God to respond to each request, so God could respond to each request in exactly the way that Jesus would have wanted without taking the time to discuss each request with Jesus.
In other words, because Jesus believed that God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) and perfectly good, Jesus believed that God could be "present" for Jesus, responding to their prayers in exactly the way that Jesus would want God to respond to all of the followers of Jesus in any and every location, until the end of time.
Since Jesus believed God to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and perfectly good, Jesus might well have believed that God would take care of his followers in exactly the way that Jesus would do, if Jesus were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Thus, from the point of view of Jesus' followers, Jesus would in effect be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, even though Jesus had none of these divine attributes because Jesus was close to God and Jesus trusted God to take good care of his followers and to provide them with assistance whenever and wherever they need it.
Therefore, neither of the passages from Matthew portrays Jesus as claiming to be omnipresent, and thus neither of these passages portrays Jesus as claiming to be divine, as claiming to be God. These passages might well only indicate that Jesus believed God to be omnipotent and omniscient and that Jesus trusted God to take very good care of his followers (the sort of care that Jesus would provide if he were able to be present in many different locations at the same time).
POINT #7: JESUS AND OMNIPOTENCE
According to Christian theology omnipotence is one of the divine attributes, a basic characteristic of God. The idea is that God can do anything, at least anything that does not involve a logical contradiction. God cannot make a triangle that has five sides, and God cannot make a person who is both a bachelor and is married at the same time. So, if the authors of the Gospels portray Jesus as being omnipotent or portray Jesus as claiming to be omnipotent, that would support Kreeft's premise (1).
First, note that Kreeft references only ONE Gospel passage in support of this point, and that passage is from the Gospel of Matthew. So, once again, at best this evidence only supports Kreeft's claim about the Gospel of Matthew, and this evidence tells us nothing about the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Luke.
Second, note that in none of the three Gospels that we are considering (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), does Jesus clearly say "I am omnipotent." nor does Jesus say "I am all-powerful." Jesus also never says "I am so powerful that I can do anything, make anything at all happen." Jesus never clearly and decisively claims to be omnipotent. And none of these three Gospels ever clearly states that "Jesus is omnipotent." or "Jesus is all-powerful." or "Jesus is so powerful that he can do anything, make anything at all happen." So, Kreeft must do some interpreting of the words that the Gospel of Matthew attributes to Jesus, in order to get to his desired conclusion.
Kreeft points to just one Gospel passage concerning this point:
Matthew 28:18
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
(Matthew 28:18, New Revised Standard Version)
Note that Jesus is speaking here, so this is presumably evidence for the view that Jesus claimed to be divine. There is nothing in this verse that portrays Jesus as being omnipotent. At most this verse provides evidence that the Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as claiming to be divine, by portraying Jesus as claiming to be omnipotent.
However, the words attributed to Jesus here do NOT imply that Jesus was claiming to be omnipotent. Being given "All authority in heaven and on earth" does sound very impressive, but "all authority" does NOT mean "all power", so Jesus is not claiming to be all-powerful or omnipotent in this verse.
The distinction between power and authority can be seen in the example of the president of the United States of America. The president has the AUTHORITY to order a nuclear strike against any country, like Russia. If the president ordered a nuclear strike against Russia, then nuclear missiles would be launched and in less than an hour, a number of large cities in Russia would be destroyed. That is an awesome authority possessed by the president of the USA.
However, the president is not able to simply cause the destruction of large cities in Russia on his own. It is the nuclear missiles and the nuclear warheads on those missiles that possess the power to destroy large cities in Russia. If those missiles did not exist, or if they were all defective and inoperative, the President could issue orders for a nuclear strike all day long, and nothing would happen to any large city in Russia.
The president of the USA has the AUTHORITY to order the destruction of large cities in Russia, but the president does not have in himself the POWER to destroy large cities in Russia. The president requires there to be military officers who will follow his orders, and military officers who know how to launch nuclear missiles, and the president requires there to be functioning nuclear missiles in the possession and control of our military in order to be able to actually bring about the destruction of large cities in Russia.
Similarly, Jesus claims to have been given great AUTHORITY by God, and Jesus believed that there were millions or billions of very powerful angels that obey the commands of God. If God gave authority over those angels to Jesus, then Jesus could, for example, order the destruction of our entire universe, and millions or billions of angels would quickly carry out that dreadful order. That is a huge amount of AUTHORITY, but it is NOT the same as having the POWER to destroy the universe on one's own. Just as the president does not have the POWER to destroy large cities in Russia on his own, Jesus could have had the AUTHORITY to order the destruction of the universe yet not have the POWER in himself to destroy the universe on his own.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible makes it clear that this passage in Matthew 28 is NOT talking about Jesus being given the POWER of "doing this, or the other thing, or of omnipotence" but is talking about Jesus being given AUTHORITY, including authority over the angels:
...which is to be understood of him...not of a power of doing this, or the other thing, or of omnipotence, being the Almighty; nor of doing miracles, and forgiving sins, which he had, and exercised before his death and resurrection, but of governing: he was king before, but his kingdom was not with observation; but now he was declared, and made manifest, to be both Lord and Christ; he had "all" power and authority for the settling the affairs of his church and kingdom, to appoint offices and officers in it, and, to bestow gifts upon men, to qualify them for the same, and to institute ordinances to be observed till his second coming: and this power of his reached to things in heaven; he having the angels in heaven subject to him, as ministering spirits to be sent forth by him at his pleasure; and all the gifts of the Spirit to dispose of as he thought good; and to things on earth, not only to the saints, whose King he is, and who are made willing to serve him; but to all flesh, to kings and princes, who rule and reign by him; and even to all the wicked of the world... (emphasis added)
Because having all AUTHORITY does NOT mean being all-powerful, Jesus' alleged claim to have been given all AUTHORITY does NOT mean that Jesus has been made all-powerful. Thus, this passage in Matthew Chapter 28 does not portray Jesus as claiming to be omnipotent. This passage does not portray Jesus as claiming to be God.
POINT #18: THE FATHER TESTIFIES TO HIM
It is UNCLEAR how the "Father" (i.e. God) testifying to Jesus is relevant to either the Gospels portraying Jesus as being divine or to the Gospels portraying Jesus as claiming to be divine, claiming to be God. If God (the "Father" of Jesus) is doing the "testifying" then Jesus is NOT the one making the claims about himself.
If we hear an announcement from a booming voice in the sky, and if that voice says "Jesus is divine!" or "Jesus is the creator of the universe!", then that voice would be taken by some people to be evidence that God has asserted that "Jesus is divine." or that "Jesus is the creator of the universe." And since people, at least Christian believers, think that God is all-knowing and perfectly good, many would infer that these assertions by God must be true.
Thus, if a Gospel contains a story about a voice in the sky making some religious or theological assertions, then the author of that Gospel presumably believes those religious and theological assertions came from God and are thus true. So, one can argue that any story in a Gospel that describes a voice in the sky announcing that "Jesus is divine." or "Jesus is God." is a way of portraying Jesus as being divine, because this event would have been put forward by the author of the Gospel as evidence that Jesus is divine.
Kreeft provides two passages from the Gospel of Matthew and one from the Gospel of John in support of point #18. We can ignore the passage from John, and that leaves us with just the two passages from Matthew. Note that this evidence tells us NOTHING about the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Luke. At best, this evidence would only show that the Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as BEING divine, as being God. Since we are talking about God testifying about Jesus, this would not provide evidence for the view that the Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as claiming to be God.
Matthew 3:17
16 And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.
17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.”
(Matthew 3:16-17, New Revised Standard Version)
Matthew 17:4
3 Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.
4 Then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”
5 While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, “This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!”
(Matthew 17:3-5, New Revised Standard Version)
These passages in Matthew appear to imply that Jesus is "God's son", according to the author of the Gospel of Matthew. If being "God's son" means that Jesus is God, or that Jesus is divine, then these two passages would be instances where the Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as being divine, as being God.
But it is NOT clear that being "God's son" implies being God, nor is it clear that being "God's son" implies being divine. These are key issues that we need to examine in order to evaluate Kreeft's point #2, so I will hold off on drawing any conclusions about point #18 until we have a chance to examine and evaluate point #2, which focuses on the idea that Jesus was God's son, and that Jesus claimed to be God's son.
POINT #21: JESUS IS LORD OVER THE LAW
In the Jewish faith, Moses was the greatest prophet, and what Moses was primarily known for is giving the laws and commandments of God to the nation of Israel. So, the laws and commandments communicated by Moses to Israel are at the heart of the Jewish faith. If Jesus claimed to be "Lord" over the laws of Moses, which Jews believed were laws and commandments from God, then Jesus claimed to have authority over the laws and commandments of God. Claiming such authority seems audacious from a Jewish point of view, and could reasonably be interpreted as claiming to have authority equal to the authority of God. So, claiming to be "Lord" over the laws of Moses, could be viewed as implying that one is divine, as implying that one is God.
Kreeft provides only one Gospel passage in support of point #21, a passage from the Gospel of Luke:
Luke 6:1-5
1 One sabbath while Jesus was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands, and ate them.
2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?”
3 Jesus answered, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?
4 He entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?”
5 Then he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.”
(Luke 6:1-5, New Revised Standard Version)
First, note that this evidence only relates to the Gospel of Luke, so this tells us NOTHING about the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark.
Second, Jesus does not clearly state, "I am Lord over the laws of Moses." nor does Jesus clearly state, "I have authority over the laws and commandments of God.", nor does Jesus clearly assert, "I have authority that is equal to the authority of God." Jesus does NOT clearly and decisively claim to be "Lord over the Law". At most, Jesus only talks about one commandment, the commandment to do no work on the Sabbath day. So, Kreeft must do some interpretation of the words of Jesus in order to get to his desired conclusion.
Kreeft's interpretation of this passage, however, makes no sense. If Jesus is implying that he has authority over the laws and commandments of God, and if Jesus is implying that his authority is equal to the authority of God, then why would Jesus mention David as an example of someone who apparently violated the Sabbath and was justified in doing so? Jesus obviously does NOT believe that David was God, nor does Jesus believe that David had authority equal to the authority of God. So, clearly, the point Jesus is making in this passage is NOT that Jesus has authority equal to that of God. The example of David has nothing to do with anyone having authority equal to that of God. So, Kreeft's interpretation of this passage makes Jesus look like a fool for using David as an example to make his point.
This is not the only passage where Jesus has something to say about the religious observation of the Jewish Sabbath day (i.e. about not doing any work on the Sabbath). By looking at other passages where Jesus discusses this commandment, we can get a better idea of what point Jesus was trying to make here.
Luke borrowed this story from the Gospel of Mark, so let's take a look at the same story as it was originally written by the author of Mark:
23 One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.
24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?”
25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food?
26 He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.”
27 Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath;
28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”
(Mark 2:23-28, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)
Luke's version of this story leaves out a key statement made by Jesus:
"The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath..."
This statement, which the author of Luke edited out of the story from the Gospel of Mark, gives us an important and helpful clue to the point Jesus was trying to make. According to Jesus, the PURPOSE of the Sabbath day of rest is to HELP humans, to help us to be happy and healthy. It is not just an arbitrary rule of a capricious deity who demands mindless obedience. If someone is hungry, then it makes sense for them to set aside the sabbath day rule against doing any work, if that is what is necessary to meet their need for food.
If the PURPOSE of the sabbath day is to help humans to be happy and healthy, and if God is not a capricious and oppressive dictator, then, according to Jesus, there should be some exceptions to this rule, namely when the health or happiness of a human being requires that one temporarily make an exception to the general rule of not doing any work on the Sabbath day. According to Jesus, that is how God intended this rule for humans to work.
In other words, EVERY HUMAN has the "authority" to set aside the Sabbath day prohibition against doing any work. Every human being, like David for example, can use the intelligence God gave them to figure out that an exception to the Sabbath day rule is REASONABLE on the basis that some human being's health or happiness requires one to make a temporary exception to the rule of not doing work on the Sabbath day.
On this alternative, and fairly obvious, interpretation of this story, and of the point Jesus was making, the example of David makes perfect sense. Jesus was NOT claiming that David had authority equal to that of God, nor was Jesus claiming to have authority equal to God. Jesus was asserting that God is NOT a capricious dictator and that God expects human beings to exercise some intelligence and common sense in interpreting the laws and commandments given by God.
When Jesus says "The Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath." He means that HUMAN BEINGS should exercise intelligence and common sense in following the laws and commandments of Moses or God, and that means sometimes making a temporary exception to those rules for the sake of the health or happiness of some human beings. Jesus is NOT claiming to have any sort of divine authority in this passage, and thus when the author of Luke borrowed this story from the Gospel of Mark, the point Jesus was making does not change; it still has nothing to do with Jesus having some sort of divine authority equal to the authority of God.
In the next part in this series, I will examine the two points from Kreeft's list of twenty-one points that are the only two points that seem to be worthy of serious consideration:
2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as.")...
12. Rightly worshiped...
TO BE CONTINUED...
No comments:
Post a Comment