A Titular Study In Spiritual, Judaic And Hellenistic Context
Part Three
In Part One of this series, we looked at how the title of the “Son of God” was understood within the spiritual realm. In Part Two we sought to understand what the title meant from a Judaic perspective. Now we will investigate how the title was perceived and understood within the Hellenistic culture of that time.
Hellenistic Perspective
The claim to be the Son of God may have been blasphemy to the Jews, but to a Greco-Roman audience it had nothing to do with blasphemy and presented no threat to Roman authority. Carson writes; “It placed Jesus in an ill-defined category of ‘divine men,’ gifted individuals believed to enjoy certain ‘divine’ powers. If Jesus was a ‘son of God’ in this sense, Pilate might feel a twinge of fear; he had just had Jesus whipped.”[1] However, is it necessary to insist that all Greco-Romans who encountered Jesus understood his claims in the same way? Some scholars claim that Greco-Romans could not have understood the true meaning of the Son of God title against the backdrop of their polytheistic pagan culture. Wilhelm Bousset in his work titled Kyrios Christos writes; “This title [Son of God] originated on Greek ground, in Greek language…the confession of Jesus as the Son of God by the Gentile centurion in Mark 15:39 cannot be understood as a recognition of Jesus as the Jewish messiah.”[2] Adela Yarbro Collins appears to concur when he writes; “Those familiar with Greek polytheistic traditions, however, were likely to associate the Jewish or Christian term ‘Son of God’ with terms like ‘son of Zeus and ‘son of Apollo.” Collins continues;
“It is highly significant for our purposes that kings and other rulers were consistently portrayed as descended from gods or as ‘son of god,’ ‘son of Helios,’ son of Zeus.’ This was especially true of Egypt in the Hellenistic period. At the oracle of Ammon in the Libyan desert, Alexander the Great was called ‘son of Ammon,’ ‘son of Zeus’ in Greek. From the beginning, the Ptolemies, the successors of Alexander in Egypt, claimed the same title. And in the early Roman imperial period, the title son of god was used for Augustus. Doubtless, residents of the Mediterranean world familiar with the ruler cult would have associated the idea that Jesus was the messiah, the king of Israel, with this usage…From the point of view of traditional Greek religion, the identification of Jesus in this scene [Mark 9:7] as God’s son is equivalent to identifying him as a divine being.” [3]
Without denying the fact that some, if not many, familiar with Greek polytheistic traditions understood the term Son of God as comparable to those found in Greek mythology, it is unnecessary to paint all Greco-Romans with that same broad brush. For example, Matthew 8:5-10 records a significant event. Upon entering Capernaum, Jesus encounters a Roman centurion;
“When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. ‘Lord,’ he said, ‘my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.’ Jesus said to him, ‘I will go and heal him.’ The centurion replied, ‘Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.’ When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, ‘I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.”
Some would argue that the centurion’s actions were consistent with the belief that Roman emperors, because of their divinity, could also perform miraculous healings. And Roman emperors, especially as propagated by the emperor Nero, would often be referred to as “son of god”, “lord”, “saviour” and “benefactor.”[4] However, in this event recorded by John in his gospel, the centurion obviously knows that Jesus is not the emperor and yet he still addresses him as “Lord.” The centurion appears to know enough about Jewish customs not to insist that Jesus, a Jew, defile himself by entering a Gentile residence. Consequently, there is no reason not to think that he is not familiar as well with Jewish monotheistic theology. Significantly, Jesus does not rebuke the centurion for his comments but instead applauds him for his faith. While in other instances, Jesus consistently rebukes those who misunderstand him—including his disciples! It is unlikely Jesus would hold the centurion up as a model of faith if the centurion did not know in whom he had faith. Otherwise it would imply that it is not necessary to recognize Jesus for who he is, but that any kind of nebulous or arbitrary faith involving Jesus in some way is acceptable. As opposed to the Apostle Paul’s encounter in Lystra were the inhabitants lauded him as Hermes and his fellow traveler, Barnabas, as Zeus because of his miraculous healing (Acts 14:12), the Gospels do not record a single incident where Jesus has to correct anyone who attributes divinity to him in terms of traditional Greek religion. Consequently, in contrast to Collins’ previously stated position, there is no reason not to think that some Greco-Romans had a more than cursory understanding about the principles and practices of the Jewish monotheistic theological system and how Jesus as the Son of God fit into that system. It is perhaps prudent at this point to take a closer look at some key verses to add some clarification to this position.
Matthew 27:54
Chapter 27 of Matthew’s gospel narrates the horrific events of Jesus’ final hours of life, his death and finally his burial. Powerfully moving, upon his death, numerous apocalyptic signs occur. Including earthquakes and complete darkness covering the entire land for three hours during the middle of the day. Professor Craig Blomberg eloquently writes; “Whatever its cause, it is clear that “nature” was in sympathy with the horror of the Son of God being put to death.”[5] Also included in this chapter, Matthew records the centurion’s confession upon Jesus’ excruciatingly painful death as; “Surely he was the Son of God.” An interesting note in Matthew’s account includes this confession not only by the centurion but also by the others that were guarding Jesus. As noted earlier, some scholars insist that these Greco-Romans could not have fully understood the meaning of that title. Additionally, proponents of that position point at the word “was” in the centurion’s confession as proof that the past tense reference to the Son of God is consistent with the Hellenistic tradition of post death deification of great leaders.[6] That, however, seems like a stretch to prove a particular position. It assumes that only Greco-Romans, after having either witnessed or heard of the death of Jesus, would have referred to him in the past tense. However, the gospel writers do not record anyone believing Jesus was anything but gone for good. A good example is Luke’s account of the resurrected Jesus addressing Cleopas and his unnamed traveling companion on the road to Emmaus. Jesus prompts Cleopas to tell him of the things that have transpired in Jerusalem in the past few days. Without recognizing Jesus, Cleopas exclaims; “About Jesus of Nazareth…He was a prophet…and they crucified him; but we had hoped he was the one who was going to redeem Israel (italics added) (Luke 24:13-35).” As with the past tense usage of “was” by the centurion, the only thing the past tense usage of “was” by Cleopas reveals is that neither fully understood who Jesus claimed to be—either through the Son of God title or any other title he claimed for himself.
Having established that it is not necessary to insist that all Greco-Romans understood the title Son of God in the same way, Donald Hagner writes with respect to the centurion’s statement; “There is irony and tragedy in the fact that the statement is made by Roman soldiers and not the Jews to whom Jesus had come…anticipating the salvation-historical shift that will be articulated in [Matthew] 28:19.” Hagner continues; “The soldiers in their fear mouth words whose real significance they could hardly have known. What they had seen was enough to make them receptive to Jesus’ claim (which they would have heard from the Jewish authorities).”[7] Important to note as well is how the supernatural events witnessed by the centurion and his soldiers elicited the identical confession as expressed by Jesus’ disciples after they witnessed him walking on the water and calming the storm earlier in his ministry. Blomberg is not nearly as definitive in his understanding of the centurion’s statement when he writes; “Perhaps the best explanation is that which interprets the confession as meaning, ‘He was a good man, and quite right in calling God his Father.’”[8] However, this may be a minority view as Craig Keener goes on to write; “These Gentiles recognize Jesus’ sonship in the cross rather than by ignoring the cross, all the more remarkable because this defied Gentile models of leadership.”[9] Based on these findings and at the risk of being redundant, there is no reason to insist that the statement made by the centurion and his men had a substantially different meaning than that which would come to be understood by those who were witnesses to Jesus’ ministry prior to his crucifixion.[10]
Mark 15:39
In this parallel account to Matthew 27:54, Mark records the identical confession by the centurion. Notably however, Mark records that as opposed to the confession in response to the supernatural events surrounding the death of Jesus as in Matthew’s account, the centurion confesses Jesus as the Son of God when, “He stood in front of him, heard his cry and saw how he died.” Craig Evans writes; “Impressed by the manner of Jesus’ death and the signs that attend it, the Roman centurion confesses of Jesus what he should only confess of the Roman emperor.” Evans continues; “In calling Jesus the ‘son of God,’ the centurion has switched his allegiance from Caesar, the official ‘son of God,’ to Jesus, the real Son of God.”[11] Considering the likely severe consequences of such a shift in allegiance, why the sudden change of heart? Undoubtedly, this hardened soldier was not moved by sentimentality. Instead, he probably heard what the Jews said he claimed about himself and he possibly even heard Jesus telling Pilate; “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above (John 19:11).” As a consequence, what the centurion observes through Jesus’ death elicits a complete philosophical reversal. The centurion would have understood successful leadership in terms of power and might and the degree to which an opponent is crushed. Instead, what he saw was the power of Jesus’ leadership through his tenacious obedience to the point of allowing himself to be crushed by his opponents and then petitioning the Father to forgive them for their ignorance. William Lane writes; “The centurion proclaimed that the crucified Jesus (and not the emperor) is the Son of God. His words provide a discerning Gentile response to the death of Jesus.”[12] David Garland offers an extremely poignant summation to this section of our survey as he writes;
“To make this confession, the centurion must have changed his perception of the basic things that governed his entire life. As a centurion he has sworn allegiance to the emperor, and he represents Roman imperial power. For Romans, ‘the notion of power was central to the definition of deity,’ and the title ‘Son of God’ properly belonged only to the emperor, who embodied Rome’s majesty. Remarkably, this soldier bestows the title on a Jew who has just been executed. He must have changed his mind not only about Jesus but also about what it meant to be son of God. Divinity was no longer associated with splendor and military might of an empire. It resided where there was no apparent splendor or might.”[13]
Finally and most importantly Garland writes, “Faithful obedience unto death, not wondrous works of power, can convert even the executioner.”[14] Part Four of this series will conclude our titular study of the Son of God in the Spiritual, Judaic and Hellenistic context with a look at how this understanding applies to our lives today.
[1] D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary-The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 600.
[2] Adela Yarbro Collins, “Mark and his readers: the Son of God among Greeks and Romans”, Harvard Theological Review v. 93 no2, (Apr. 2000), p. 1.
[3] Ibid., p. 2.
[4] T. Desmond Alexander & Brian S. Rosner, (eds.), New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000) pp. 269, 272.
[5] Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), p. 348.
[6] Collins, “Mark and his readers…”, p. 4.
[7] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28-Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas, TX: Word, Inc., 1995), pp. 852-853.
[8] Blomberg, Matthew, p. 422.
[9] Craig S. Keener, Matthew-The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, USA, 1997), p. 391.
[10] Hagner, Matthew 14-28, p. 853.
[11] Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, Word Biblical Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), p. 510.
[12] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Willam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p. 576.
[13] David E. Garland, Mark-The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), p. 604
[14] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment