Matthew on the Deity of Christ

[Rey Reynoso]

A warning: this section is very messy. This entire series was pretty much sifting what I’ve been studying and trying to slap it into some sort of form that others can read but this execution is, admittedly, less refined (if not outright rough).

 

I’m going to focus on Matthew. Not because I think Matthews account was first (I actually think priority goes to Mark), nor because I think that Matthew is most reliable (I think Luke’s account gives the most historically pertinent information) but because Matthew account might possibly, yet without conviction,be examined on it’s own.

 

You can read more of this at the Bible Archive where I justify looking only at Matthew and where Matthew presents Jesus as God's unique family, as the heralded God, as functioning with God's prerogatives, and as recognized by his enemeis.

[Scott]

Link above is not correctly directing to Bible Archive. But maybe the time stamp at BA hasn't come yet.

[Rey Reynoso]

Darn, this was supposed to post tomorrow.

[Scott]

I'm wondering if you are going to head down the path of what NT Wright asserts about how Jesus' divinity comes through the synoptics, but not in the "usual way" way we think in today's world. It's a very Jewish way to let the Jews know Yahweh was in their midst. But not in the more later developed theo-philosophical proof-texting approach.

 

Oh, and I think it posted a day early because it recognised you spelt Matthew wrong in your tags. :D

[Marv]

Yeah, my prediction is that ReyRey is going to go all Wrighty Tighty on us and show he has begun to tipple the Kool Aid. I expect his post to be full of jargon such as Second Temple Judaism and such. Before long he'll be Ennsing it up and opining about ANE myths and assuring us that the OT was basically written post-exilically. The important word here is post, which I predict will be Rey's new buzz phrase. The fam will get tired of his saying he's working post-breakfastly and going to be post-brushteethally. I dunno, but maybe Scottle is on to something. Have I got my finger on your pulse, Rey?

[Marv]

Oops, I forgot to name drop Perriman in that last part of my nonsense when I blathered about "post." So sorry.

[Scott]

Real mature, Marv.

 

Wright actually approaches things somewhat differently than Perriman. Whereas Andrew would argue the gospels are not ultimately trying to convince us of the "divinity of Christ" or the "hypostatic union", etc, again, Wright would half-way agree and say they aren't trying to convince us of later systematic theological formulations in the councils and creeds, but they are still communicating some of the essence of these things, but in a very Jewish way. Yahweh has come amongst his people. Yahweh IS here. God's Messiah is Yahweh dwelling amongst us. And you get this as you read the story of Jesus across the pages. Every Jew would be drawn to see Yahweh's activity as they read about Jesus.

 

Of course, maybe the biblical authors of a few hundred years earlier were thinking like Nicaea, Chalcedon, etc. Or maybe the biblical authors were thinking like modern day evangelical systematic theologians. Or maybe those biblical writers were dealing with realities in their time, much different from 325 or 451 or 1517 or 1984 or 2012.

[Marv]

I understand they are not the same. But scratch one of 'em and you seem to always find Wright. Perriman on McKnight: he's on track but takes things halfway or so. It's a game of theological limbo" How low can you go?

[Scott]

Marv -

 

Such is reality in biblical scholarship when the goal is never to maintain a particular set in stone, prescribed view, but to engage with the biblical text within its own context.

[Rey Reynoso]

I don't think I do it like Wright but I do come down on the side of saying that he's presented as Lord God but not like how Paul or John does it.

[Phil James]

Rey and Scottl-

“The Synoptic Gospels are written in the key of Jesus as divine, but that is not their melody.” - NT Wright

I'm not at all sure Mr. Perimman would agree with that.