Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity

This is a superb primary essay (revised from its stand alone book GOD CRUCIFIED earlier)with remarkable supporting essays and further argument about the inherent claims of Christians regarding Jesus and his relation to the monotheistic Jewish worship of one God. The initial book/essay gives the argument in broad strokes while the supporting essays fill in specific substance to the broader strokes. I have learned much from this series of studies and highly recommend it to those interested in the continuity of the claims in regard to Jesus' Divinity arising in the New Testament Church and continuing to this day. In addition to the NT evidence, Bauckham does an outstanding survey of Second Temple monotheism and its interactions with the surrounding Greco-Roman cultural religious mileu. He then demonstrates the ability of the Christians to identify Jesus with God within the monotheistic structure of extant Judaism by dealing with the IDENTITY of God. An excellent discussion of the difference between the conceptualization of identity with God rather than the ontological (nature of) being God opens one's mind to the modes of conceptualization that were available to Jesus, his disciples, and the Church as it understood more and more clearly what it practiced from its earliest days (indeed, from the Resurrection Day!)- the worship of Jesus.If you were to read only one book of religious study this year, this should be the one. It is thrillingly enlightening and challenging! This is a text which will richly repay multiple readings and from which one may find many references worthy of further consultation. Don't miss it!

Loved the essay type writing of this book.

One of the best books I’ve read on the subject of Monotheism and how Early Christians viewed Jesus in light of Monotheism.Each chapter is exciting and opens you up to scriptures that you may have never known how it was interpreted by the Jews and how it differed from how Christians interpreted those same scriptures in view of Jesus Christ.

I came across Richard Bauckham from reading a book by one of my favorite authors, N.T. Wright. Wright quoted Bauckham a few times in his wonderful book "Paul and the Faithfulness of God."Mr. Bauckham brings it in this book! I love the way he says that the Bible (NT) gave Jesus the Divine Identity with giving him the characteristics of the OT God YHWH. This explanation of Divine Identity, to me, is a better way to approach Jesus than the doctrine of the Trinity.I believe in a Trinitarian God but the doctrine explains God's essence or divinity in Greek philosophical language which can be hard to understand. Bauckham keeps the Divine Identity Hebrew and not Greek. He says that it wasn't about WHAT God is but WHO God is, which is, He's the Sole Creator and Sole Ruler of everything seen and unseen.I will definitely review this book over and over again until it becomes a part of me! And I will also buy more books written by him as well.Great job Professor Bauckham!

There has been a scholarly theory going back to the 19th century--and still commonly argued today--that seeing Jesus as in some way divine was a later development than in the earliest Christian circles. This book joins a growing list of scholarship which demonstrates that theory's fallacy, giving evidence that in fact Jesus was identified as Lord from the earliest Christian communities. This book, along with Larry W. Hurtado's "Lord Jesus Christ", are good resources for anyone tasked to argue against the older scholarly theory (which has passed into popular culture and become meme-worthy in the hands of skeptics.)

In a collection of essays dealing with Christology of Divine Identity (CDI), Bauckham argues that Early High Christology, or CDI is the highest possible Christology. In saying this, he argues against two other Christological approaches developed later in the history of Christianity: functional Christology and ontological Christology. CDI has to do with including Christ in the identity of the one and only true God on the basis of the criteria of who God is as opposed to what God does or what God or divinity is, developed by functional and ontological Christology, respectively. Since the basis of divine identity approach is the Jewish monotheism of the Second Temple period, it is wrong to assume that NT Christology is a foreign concept and has no place in strict Jewish monotheism. On the contrary, many NT Christological passages, especially the epistle to the Hebrews, are rooted in the understanding of OT-based criteria of divine identity.In the theology of divine identity, there are two characteristics that correspond to the unique identity of God: his relationship to Israel and his relationship to all other realities. In "Jesus and the God of Israel," there is more emphasis on the latter. Baukham begins the exposition of CDI by affirming two points. First, Jewish monotheism is indeed strict in making a clear distinction between God and other realities as evidenced in the Shema (Deut 6:4-6) and the first two commandments of the Decalogue (Ex 20:2-6). Second, despite the strictness, it is possible to establish the connection between NT Christology and Jewish monotheism, not by applying a Jewish category of intermediary figures that are subordinate or have semi-divine status to Jesus, but by identifying him directly to the one God of Israel. There are three themes that show up over and over again that form CDI criteria which are the basis of the inclusion of Jesus in the divine identity in the context of the separation or the uniqueness of God from all creatures. The point is if Scripture teaches that Jesus' identity matches all these three criteria, then he is God. First, God is the sole Creator of all things without any helper and everything else is created by him. Second, God is the sovereign Ruler of all things and all others are subject to his rule. Third, the reality of the first and second characteristics draws a response appropriate only to God in the form of monolatry, the exclusive worship of the one and true God by his creatures. He alone may be worshipped since worship is an acknowledgement of God's sole deity. Negatively, the principle of monolatry also prohibits the worship of other things and beings. In setting the stage for the inclusion of Jesus Christ in the divine identity on the basis of NT passages and their correlation to those of the OT, Baukham points out that an understanding of the uniqueness of divine identity does not rule out distinction within divine reality to show that the Second Temple Judaism is monotheistic, but not unitarian.The epistle to the Hebrews contains perhaps a single most coherent and concentrated affirmation of the inclusion of Jesus in the divine identity according to CDI criteria. In his essay, Bauckham focuses on the sonship and lordship of Jesus in chapter 1, the high-priesthood of Melchizedek as a type of Christ in 7:3 and the immutability of Christ in 13:8, of which I will analyze only the first two sections. Hebrews attributes to Jesus three categories of identity: Son, Lord and High Priest. His divine sonship and lordship that fit CDI criteria in chapter 1 are evident from the following verses. That Jesus exercises his eschatological rule of all things from his exalted throne in heaven is given in verses 2a (heir of all things, cf. Ps 2:8; 8:6), 3b (sustaining all things by his powerful word), 3c and 13 (sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, cf. Ps 110:1) and 8 (Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, cf. Ps 45:6-7). His participation as an agent of creation is taught in verses 2b (through whom he also created the worlds), 7 (He makes his angels winds and his ministers flames of fire, cf. Ps 104:4), and 10 (In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands, cf. Ps 102:25-27). The worship of Jesus by the angels and the name given to him being more superior than that of the angels are clearly shown in verses 4 and 6. Bauckham claims that this name that is superior to that of the angels is equivalent to the name that is above every name in Phil 2:9 that he believes to be the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). He also observes that angels "mark out the cosmic territory. To be above angels is to be God, to be below angels is to be human." The conclusion is then, since Jesus is more superior than and worshipped by the angels, and he fulfills the other two CDI criteria, he is God.One concern at this point is the lack of coverage of the divine identity of Jesus in relation to the other two Persons in the Trinity, especially the Father. Bavinck notes, "The real NT equivalent for YHWH is Father." If Jesus takes on the divine name YHWH and he fulfills all the criteria of divine identity in his eternality, creative work and sovereign rule from the beginning of the world to eternity future, it is natural to ask if God consists of one Person only, namely Jesus. In other words, is Jesus the same as the Father? Bauckham is careful not to exclude the subject of the Trinity, especially the relationship between the Father and the Son, but considers this as a novelty consistent with Jewish monotheism. The problem is he simply points out that we cannot use the analogy of human identity when thinking about the Father and the Son because God transcends it and therefore, insists that nothing in the Second Temple Jewish understanding contradicts the possibility of interpersonal relationship within the divine identity. His further attempt to elaborate does not help much but makes CDI look potentially liable to the charge of Modalism or Sabellianism instead.If this objection is true, it is perhaps the most serious defect of CDI as a consequence of excluding ontological Christology. This is where I think that while CDI is a powerful biblical Christology, it is not a perfect or complete Christology. There is value in resorting to ontological Christology from which we learn more clearly about the distinction between the Father and the Son, not as two Gods, but as two persons in the one and only true God. Unless we use other passages of Scripture that contain ontological devices to clear the ambiguity or confusion, it is easy to think that the Father and the Son are the same person. Without ontological Christology, Bauckham does not get very far in interpreting the Prologue of John's gospel, but he is only able to relate "God, who has never been seen by human eyes, (who) has been revealed in the human life of Jesus Christ, who reflects his Father's glory and is full of grace and truth" to the allusion of God's revelation to Moses as YHWH. Bauckham does not elaborate what "The Word was with God" means, 'o logos hn pros ton theon related to CDI that establishes a distinction between the Word and God; the latter usually refers to God the Father in the NT and the OT. There is no exegesis on "the Word was God," theos hn 'o logos either. The placement of theos without an article as a predicate nominative prior to the subject 'o logos is not an accident or arbitrary. This is exactly the structure John wanted to use to indicate who Jesus is in relation to the Father. Using Carson's rule and statistical analysis on the use of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives, Wallace believes that the anarthrous theos is qualitative. He writes that it tells us about "the nature of the Word, rather than his identity." theos was his eternal nature which we know in conjunction with "In the beginning was the Word," en archh hn 'o logos. The Word also has the quality of God, but is a distinct person from God the Father, as evident in the phrase immediately before theos hn 'o logos, 'o logos hn pros ton theon.In regards to Jesus' role as high-priest, Bauckham can't help but incorporate functional Christology since Heb 7 talks about it. He correctly views Heb 7:3 as not about Melchizedek per-se, but what it is about the Melchizedek priesthood and its application to Jesus that qualifies Jesus to be included in the divine identity, namely that he is a fully divine high priest. Here Bauckham has to inevitably invoke ontological terms as well in his exegesis by applying a "Hellenistic true-god-language. A true deity is unbegotten or ungenerated (agennetos) - having no parents - and unoriginated, (agenetos) - having no other kind of origin - as well as being imperishable forever." He sees a parallel between agennetos and agenetos with the description in Heb 7:3 and apply these two terms to Jesus being the high priest in the order of Melchizedek. The point here is that since Jesus is the high priest in the order of Melchizedek, he is eternal and therefore, divine. Related to CDI criteria, the eternality of Jesus is required for him to be the Creator of all things and the eschatological Ruler of all things and therefore, included in the divine identity. But how can Jesus be without father and mother, when in his humanity he is the son of Joseph and Mary, though he does not have a biological father, and in his divinity, he is the Son of the Father? Ellingworth answers that the point the author of Hebrews is making is that Jesus' priesthood is "a priesthood different in kind from that of the Levitical priests, held by one who is superior to Abraham and thus to his descendent Levi." The OT Levitical priesthood is laden with genealogy marked with chronological sequences, but there is no such genealogy in the divine heavenly priesthood of Jesus and thus, he is agenealoghtos.Bauckham applies the properties agennetos and agenetos to the Son again when exegeting Heb 1:5 (quoting Ps 2:7 and repeated in Heb 5:5). In this verse, God said to the Son, "You are my Son. Today, I have begotten you." This can be a problematic passage that the Arians would love to use as a proof text that the Son is a created being. The key words here are begotten and today. Baukham is correct in stating that this verse does not teach a temporal origin of the sonship of Jesus to the Father. The today of "Today I have begotten you" is "the eternal today of divine eternity." His interpretation of today is acceptable if we consider God here speaking in an anthropomorphic fashion, while in reality, God transcends time, and cannot be measured by means of the measure of time. As for God having begotten the Son, Bauckham explains that begotten refers to the Son being self-generate, self-produced (autophuhs) and self-originated (autogenhs), equivalent to agennetos and agenetos. But to say that God begetting the Son is equivalent to the Son being self-generate is to force a meaning into the verse contrary to what it clearly says that the Son is begotten by the Father. This may also dangerously lead to a conclusion that the Son is the Father. If the Son is begotten of the Father and the Son is self-generating, then the Son must be the Father. While Baukham is correct that the Son is agenetos, he is incorrect that the Son is also agennetos. The subtle difference between the two terms can only be understood in the context of ontological Christology, specifically in its relationship with the fatherhood of God.According to Bavinck, agennetos is derived from the verb gennan (infinitive of gennaw, to beget or to generate), and agenetos from the verb ginesthai (infinitive of ginomai). He makes a distinction that "the latter is by far the broader term, and denotes whatever has beginning, whether it results from creation, generation or propagation." While the Son is uncreated, agenetos, he is not ingenerate, agennetos. Bavinck uses Heb 1:3 to interpret Ps 2:7 to explain what God begetting the Son means, "Christ as the Son of God was generated by the Father, that is, in which he was brought forth as the effulgence of God's glory and the very image of his substance," which I think is correct, contrary to Bauckham's view. Bavinck also differentiates between the Father being unbegotten or ingenerate (agennetos) while the Son is passively generated from the Father. While all three persons of the Trinity are eternal, uncreated, without beginning (agenetos), only the Father is ingenerate or unbegotten (agennetos).He goes on to provide three characteristics of the generation of the Son being spiritual, out of the essence of the Father and eternal. Heb 1:5 speaks of the generation of the Son by the Father and therefore, covers all three characteristics that Bavinck mentions. The concept of generation is also consistent with the prolog of John's gospel that speaks of Christ being the epistemological logos, a revelation of who God is (John 1:18). But the use of today in Heb 1:5 particularly highlights the eternality of the generation that Heb 1:3 depicts most wonderfully that the Son is the radiance of God's glory, perhaps drawing from an analogy between the core of the sun and the sun beam. There is never a time where the former is without the later and vice versa.Bauckham claims that CDI is the highest possible Christology. While I agree that it is a powerful and wonderful biblical Christology in its glorious exaltation of the divinity of Jesus, I believe the highest Christology ought to involve functional and ontological Christology. The NT does not exclusively reveals Jesus in terms of his divine identity, but also what he does and what he is, fully human and fully God, a distinct second person in the Trinity. A high Christology ought to also be one that displays the greatness and goodness of Jesus in his deity and humanity. He is not only great in his divine perfection, beauty and glory, but also in his flawless humanity, especially in his active and passive obedience to the Father. In CDI, Bauckam puts a lot of weight on the greatness aspect of Jesus. Though in this review I only analyze Bauckham's work on some portions of Hebrews, he does a compelling exegesis from a number of other NT passages as well about the divine transcendence of Jesus, particularly in relation to Deutero-Isaiah. This is not to say he doesn't cover the goodness aspect of his Christology at all, but there seems to be a lack of balance, specifically in the area of how the greatness of Jesus relates to creatures, especially believers. In other words, there is a great emphasis on his divine transcendence without adequate coverage on what this means for us, or to use Kapic's term, there is a lack of anthroposensitivity. An example of a more balanced Christology that still maintains a high view of Jesus, better than CDI in my view, is Jonathan Edwards' exposition of Jesus being the Lion and the Lamb from Rev 5:1-6. Quoting Edwards, here is what I mean by Christology that displays the greatness and goodness of Jesus, and has a powerful pastoral implication as well,"In Christ infinite greatness and infinite goodness meet together, and receive luster and glory one from another. His greatness is rendered lovely by his goodness. The greater anyone is without goodness, so much the greater evil. But when infinite goodness is joined with greatness, it renders it a glorious and adorable greatness. So, on the other hand, his infinite goodness receives luster from his greatness."To be fair, however, Bauckham makes some efforts to find some practical theology out of CDI. He relates what it means to us for Jesus to be a divine and human high priest, namely, that he may understand human weaknesses so that from the heavenly throne, he may exercise grace and mercy to sinners."It is no longer simply sovereignty he shared with his Father from eternity, but now a sovereignty exercised in human solidarity with humans. The cosmic throne is also, therefore, the throne of grace that sinners can approach with boldness (4:16). So the high priestly work of atonement is the way in which he comes to exercise his sovereignty in the way that he does - salvifically."Since CDI is developed in the context of Jewish OT culture, Bauckham could have added that the Levitical priesthood including the pattern of animal sacrifices in the day of atonement follows the heavenly pattern of the priesthood of Jesus being the offerer as well as the offering that Heb 9 speaks of (Heb 9:23, cf. Heb 7:24, 12:24). He could have expanded the discussion with such a correlation not only to add credibility of his claim about OT and NT continuity of CDI, but also to include a deeper soteriology, such as the doctrines of propitiation and perseverance. The latter is an extension and application of the solidarity of Jesus with humans beyond merely the boldness and the confidence that believers are given in coming to God in prayer (4:16) that Bauckham speaks of. He should have written more on related verses such as 2:14-18, 4:15, 7:24-25 and 10:32-39, which perhaps are appropriate to be placed under "theological reflections" section like he does in his other essay "God's Self-Identification with the Godforsaken."In summary, as a general apologetic tool, while divine identity-based Christology is powerful in refuting Arianism and adoptionism, with the limited exposure I have with CDI, I have shown that it might be liable to the charge of Sabellianism since Bauckham doesn't seem to make enough effort to distinguish the personality of the Father and the Son. Another potential use of CDI is in the area of contextualized Jewish evangelism. As Bauckham points out, the Second Temple Judaism has no category of functional and ontological divinity, so it might be difficult to discuss Jesus with Jewish unbelievers in these contexts. My hope is that we can use divine identity approach with a more balanced emphasis on the divinity and humanity of Jesus in a way that is anthroposensitive, as a stronger point of contact in establishing the case for the gospel of Christ for the Jews. But to do this, we inevitably have to involve ontological and functional Christology alongside CDI, which might be difficult for Jews to relate, but something we can place under the novelty category as Bauckham does. Though the effectiveness or the result of evangelism does not ultimately depend on techniques, but on the sovereign operation of the Holy Spirit illuminating the mind and changing the heart, it doesn't mean that there is no need for a careful, thoughtful, compassionate and contextualized approach. As I studied the introductory section of Bauckham's work, somehow the first thought that came to mind was this topic of the gospel for unbelieving Jews and CDI being the apologetic basis for it. Despite some potential weaknesses, may the Lord be pleased to use CDI not merely in scholastic theology, but more importantly as an evangelistic tool to bring many, especially Jewish unbelievers to a saving relationship with him as promised in Rom 11:25-32.

Excelente análise, totalmente contextualizada no pano de fundo histórico-cultural dos judeus e cristãos do 1º século! Tudo o que foi escrito por Richard Bauckham tem a marca da profundidade.

As a leader of an evangelical Church who seeks to be informed about current biblical scholarship I found this book valuable & inspiring. Prof Bauckham's presentation of Jewish OT monotheism as a binary option (no half-gods, semi-gods, etc) --the absolute distinction between God the Creator & the creation/creatures--which carries over into the NT is a fundamental insight. It argues against the views of some "Christian Churches" about deification (theosis) where that doctrine is understood as involving humans taking on the substance or essence of God (e.g. Mormon Church of the Latter Day Saints (LDS), or the "Local Church" of Witness Lee, aka "the Lord's Recovery") That is but one application of this book's valuable insights.

This is the second of Richard Bauckham's books I've wrestled with in the last year. The other ('Jesus and the eye-witnesses') I did find a slightly easier read, but both of them are certainly worth getting to grips with.I've awarded this five stars because of the author's forensic thoroughness in dealing with his subject. He tackles head-on, and in a thoroughly-reasoned way, how the early Christian church was able to proclaim the divinity of Christ whilst at the same time holding to a rigorously Old Testament monotheistic view of God. He achieves this by exploring in some detail the various OT descriptions of the uniqueness of YHWH. If you want a solid understanding of Jewish monotheism in the Second Temple period, in order to see how this feeds through to the New Testament perceptions of Christ, then this really is the book to get.I have to say, that I find Bauckham's style of writing a little too uncompromisingly academic - for instance, Ken Bailey is a whole lot easier to read, but his treatments no less scholarly - but anyone who wants to get to grips with this vital subject should find the rigour of the treatment exceptionally helpful.

This book was purchased as a gift. The recipient was delighted with the book finding it's focus excellent and a valuable study resource.

It is not a great book. I prefer to read the Gospel of John and Pray to God to reveal his word for me.