Sermon Tone Analysis

According to Bauckham, the monotheism of Second Temple Judaism was indeed strict.

In chapter 1, I have set out in broad outline a particular thesis about the relationship of early Jewish monotheism and early Christian Christology, which also entails a relatively fresh proposal about the character of the earliest Christology.

I argued that the monotheism of Second Temple Judaism was indeed 'strict'.

Most Jews in this period were highly self-consciously monotheistic, and had certain very familiar and well-defined ideas as to how the uniqueness of the one God should be understood.

In other words, they drew the line of distinction clearly between the one God and all other reality, and were in the habit of distinguishing God from all other reality by means of certain clearly articulated criteria.

So-called intermediary figures were not ambiguous semi-divinities straddling the boundary between God and creation.

Some (such as God's Wisdom and God's Word) were understood as aspects of the one God's own unique reality.

Most were regarded as unambiguously creatures, exalted servants of God whom the literature often takes pains to distinguish clearly from the truly divine reality of the one and only God.

Therefore, differing from the second view, I do not think such Jewish intermediary figures are of any decisive importance for the study of early Christology.

(We shall return to the issue of Jewish precedents for early Christology after

Richard Bauckham.

Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Locations 2309-2316).

Kindle Edition.

Why was a Christology possible within a Jewish monotheistic context?

In my view, high Christology was possible within a Jewish monotheistic theistic context, not by applying to Jesus a Jewish category of semi-divine divine intermediary status, but by identifying Jesus directly with the one God of Israel, including Jesus in the unique identity of this one God.

What was more important for Judaism who the one God or what divinity is?

In other words, for Jewish monotheistic belief, what was important was who the one God is, rather than what divinity is.

I use the term 'unique identity' as the best way of speaking of the uniqueness of God as generally conceived in early Judaism.

The concept of identity is more appropriate, as the principal category for understanding Jewish monotheism, than is that of divine nature.

In other words, for Jewish monotheistic belief, what was important was who the one God is, rather than what divinity is.

Richard Bauckham.

Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Locations 2317-2321).

Kindle Edition.

What are the two unique identifying features of the one God?

Richard Bauckham.

Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Locations 2317-2321).

Kindle Edition.

The first concerns his covenant relationship with Israel.

He is the God of Israel...God was also characterized as unique by his relationships to the whole of reality, especially that he is the only Creator of all things and that he is the sole sovereign Ruler of all things.

The first concerns his covenant relationship with Israel.

He is the God of Israel...God was also characterized as unique by his relationships to the whole of reality, especially that he is the only Creator of all things and that he is the sole sovereign Ruler of all things.

Richard Bauckham.

Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Locations 2323-2325).

Kindle Edition.

The one God of Second Temple Jewish belief was identifiable as unique by two kinds of identifying features.

The first concerns his covenant relationship with Israel.

He is the God of Israel, known from the recital of his acts in Israel's history and from the revelation of his character to Israel ()...As well as such identifications of God from his relationship with Israel, this God was also characterized as unique by his relationships to the whole of reality, especially that he is the only Creator of all things and that he is the sole sovereign Ruler of all things.

The one God of Second Temple Jewish belief was identifiable as unique by two kinds of identifying features.

The first concerns his covenant relationship with Israel.

He is the God of Israel, known from the recital of his acts in Israel's history and from the revelation of his character to Israel ()...As well as such identifications of God from his relationship with Israel, this God was also characterized as unique by his relationships to the whole of reality, especially that he is the only Creator of all things and that he is the sole sovereign Ruler of all things.

Richard Bauckham.

Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Locations 2321-2322).

Kindle Edition.

What are creational monotheism, eschatological monotheism and cultic monotheism?

creational monotheism - That God alone - absolutely without advisors or collaborators or assistants or servants - created all other things was insisted on (even when he was understood to have created out of pre-existing chaos rather than out of nothing).

eschatological monotheism - that God was the sole Creator of and the sole Lord over all things required the expectation that, in the future when Adonai fulfils his promises to his people Israel, Adonai will also demonstrate his deity to the nations, establishing his universal kingdom, making his name known universally, becoming known to all as the God Israel has known.

cultic monotheism - Only the sole Creator of all things and the sole Lord over all things should be worshipped, since worship in the Jewish tradition was precisely recognition of this unique identity of the one God.

We could characterize this early Jewish monotheism as creational monotheism, eschatological monotheism and cultic monotheism.

That God alone - absolutely without advisors or collaborators or assistants or servants - created all other things was insisted on (even when he was understood to have created out of pre-existing chaos rather than out of nothing).

That God was the sole Creator of and the sole Lord over all things required the expectation that, in the future when YHWH fulfils his promises to his people Israel, YHWH will also demonstrate his deity to the nations, establishing his universal kingdom, making his name known universally, becoming known to all as the God Israel has known.

This aspect I call eschatological monotheism.

Finally, there is cultic monotheism.

Only the sole Creator of all things and the sole Lord over all things should be worshipped, since worship in the Jewish tradition was precisely recognition of this unique identity of the one God.

Richard Bauckham.

Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Locations 2332-2337).

Kindle Edition.

What were the early Jewish protecting against when they included Yeshua in the unique identity of the One God of Israel rather than adding him to that identity?

Richard Bauckham.

Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Locations 2332-2337).

Kindle Edition.

This was the early Jewish believers way of preserving monotheism against the ditheism that any kind of adoptionist Christology was bound to involve.

Not by adding Yeshua to the unique identity of the God of Israel, but only by including Jesus in that unique identity, could monotheism be maintained.

The early Christian movement, very consciously using this Jewish theological framework, created a kind of christological monotheism by understanding Jesus to be included in the unique identity of the one God of Israel...If Yeshua was integral to the identity of God, he must have been so eternally.

To include Jesus also in the unique creative activity of God and in the uniquely divine eternity was a necessary corollary of his inclusion in the eschatological identity of God.

This was the early Christians' Jewish way of preserving monotheism against the ditheism that any kind of adoptionist Christology was bound to involve.

Not by adding Jesus to the unique identity of the God of Israel, but only by including Jesus in that unique identity, could monotheism be maintained.

Richard Bauckham.

Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Locations 2346-2349).

Kindle Edition.

Is it possible that Paul did not understand kurios was a reverential way of referring to the YHVH when he used it to refer to Yeshua?

Richard Bauckham.

Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Location 2363).

Kindle Edition.

Paul certainly knew the Hebrew text as well as the Greek, but, in fact, even a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian who knew the Jewish Scriptures only in Greek could not have been unaware of the function of kurios as representing the Tetragrammaton.

In many manuscripts of the Septuagint, what appeared in the written text was not kurios, but the Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton or a Greek equivalent (IIIIII) or a Greek transliteration (IAQ).

1 cor 1:31

How are these phenomena of Paul's usage to be understood?

We may quickly discount two possible interpretations: (1) It is not plausible that, where Paul takes the kurios of the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, he is not aware that kurios is functioning as a reverential substituted for the divine name.

Paul certainly knew the Hebrew text as well as the Greek, but, in fact, even a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian who knew the Jewish Scriptures only in Greek could not have been unaware of the function of kurios as representing the Tetragrammaton.

In many manuscripts of the Septuagint, what appeared in the written text was not kurios, but the Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton or a Greek equivalent (IIIIII) or a Greek transliteration (IAQ).

Readers substituted kurios in reading (whether to themselves, since ancient readers usually pronounced the words when reading alone, or in public reading).

When kurios was written in manuscripts as the substitute for YHWH,28 it was usually differentiated from other uses of kurios by its lack of the article, indicating that it was being used as a proper name.

In a phrase such as 'the name of the Lord, this is particularly clear, since its Greek form in the Septuagint (to onoma kuriou) breaks the normal rule that in such a construction either both nouns should have the article or both nouns should lack it.29

Richard Bauckham.

Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Locations 2386-2393).

Kindle Edition.

Richard Bauckham.

Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Locations 2337-2338).

Kindle Edition.

Richard Bauckham.

Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Locations 2386-2393).

Kindle Edition.

Did Rabbi Paul think there was a high God and a second god, or lower category of being called Yeshua or Messiah?

the notion that Paul read the Jewish Scriptures in a 'ditheistic' way, distinguishing between the high God (Heb.

'el 'elohim, Gk. ho theos) and YHWH as a 'second god

We can also discount (2) the notion that Paul read the Jewish Scriptures in a 'ditheistic' way, distinguishing between the high God (Heb.

'el 'elohim, Gk. ho theos) and YHWH as a 'second god 1.31)

It is clear from our summary of the evidence that, more often than not, Paul took the referent of YHWH to be God and, less frequently, took it to be Messiah.

It is indeed noteworthy that Paul seems only very rarely, if at all, to take 'God' (Heb.

'el 'elohim, Gk. ho theos) in the text to refer to Messiah, and we shall return to this point.