Re: bible ethics
George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:34:37 -0500
Bjoern Moeller wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I agree with you when you write:
>
> Jesus did not 'compile' current ethical ideas. He is
> ultimately the
> SOURCE for ethical ideas, being a member of the
> Godhead. He did not
> synthesize current ethical theories, He laid the pure
> foundation of
> those theories. Jesus, although as a man was a member
> of the culture of
> His time, as God, He preceeded that culture and,
> indeed, all cultures.
> There seems to be a current of critical thought which
> ascribes Jesus'
> ministry as derivative of His culture and
> circumstances, merely a
> dramatic repackaging of exiting ideas. This tendency
> forgets that He is
> GOD ALMIGHTY in the flesh.
>
> --
>
> What I tried to say is that modern scholars, i.e. some
> theologians, historians and others, most often
> conclude that Jesus was not an original teacher of
> neither religion nor ethics. I think, as you do, that
> he was. How could he be ? Being the son of God and God
> incarnate he was absolutely a unique, original and
> specifically extraordinary being.
>
> I am not very familiar with American scholars in
> antiquity, but I know that most European (and Danish)
> scholars would state something like what I have stated
> above (that Jesus is not unique bla bla). I just sat
> in at a lecture in 'Antique culture', a course I
> attend this fall at Copenhagen University. The
> teacher, a distinguished scholar of the antique
> period, presented views like these mentioned on Jesus
> and early christianity. He said (quote): 'What you
> think about Jesus' teaching depends on your mentality
> (i.e. your religious mentality).'
>
> Now, I dare say that it is possible to believe in the
> divinity of Jesus, and at the same time be
> scientifically responsible. After all, that was how
> theology started out.
>
> So, we can live on in agreement, and continue the
> fight for a christian theology.
The divinity of Christ should not be emphasized at the expense of his
humanity - he is, after all, not simply "God" but God _incarnate_. & "incarnate" means
more than just physical makeup. It means that God assumed the whole human condition.
This includes being part of a human culture and interacting with that and other
cultures. Matthew's genealogy and Romans 9:5, I think, make this point. When Luke
2:52 says that Jesus "increased in wisdom and stature" it means that he learned - from
Mary & Joseph & (maybe) from the local rabbi, from Gentile customers in Joseph's
carpenter shop &c.
How we are to understand the relationship between Jesus' brain and the "mind of
God" in the personal union is a non-trivial problem. (Thomas Morris in _The Logic of
God Incarnate_ has some interesting suggestions.) But it doesn't really take the human
aspect of the Incarnation seriously to say that the contents of the divine mind were
simply downloaded into Jesus' brain at conception or birth. That amounts to having
Jesus just be God dressed up as a human being.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/