I recently perused a brief post by D. C. Toedt who maintains the Questioning Christian blog in which he explains how the Greek term kyrios used for Jesus does not necessarily imply that Jesus was somehow divine. I thought it was a naive and sloppy argument by someone who apparently dabbles in theology and biblical studies just enough to be dangerous and paid it little mind.
William Witt – who has a doctorate in systematic theology and according to my sources has finally gotten an opportunity to teach at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry – was challenged by Toedt on TitusOneNine and decided to compose a more thorough response.
(The specific issue at hand is whether Luke-Acts assumes a “low” or more specifically adoptionist Christology. That is Jesus was a regular human being who was elevated at his resurrection.)
What I appreciate about Witt’s reply is not only that he so resoundingly refutes Doedt’s weak argumentation but that he does so by using critical biblical scholarship:
One of the causes for frustration in the current discussions between the orthodox and revisionists in the mainline churches these days (especially on the blogs) is that so often the debates are between an uncritical orthodoxy and an uncritical revisionism. Many of the orthodox seem under the impression that critical biblical scholarship is essentially unchristian, and always leads (or will inevitably lead) to heresy. Many revisionists endorse a kind of popularist uninformed version of biblical scholarship that amounts to little more than a philosophical prejudice that “miracles don’t happen” combined with a search for “gotcha” difficulties. In my opinion, both of these approaches represent a kind of naïve epistemological fundamentalism that has its roots in the Enlightenment, specifically in the Cartesian methodology of doubt and a “foundationalist” or “methodist” rationalism. (Perhaps more on this later some other time.) A single difficulty is thought to uproot the entire faith, so “conservatives” launch an all out attack against any recognition of genuine diversity or plurality or development in the Scriptures as attacks on Christian faith, while the revisionists regard such diversity, development, or pluralism, as definitive arguments against orthodoxy.
Read the whole thing here. In fact save it for future Bible studies on Luke-Acts and/or on christologies of the New Testament. (By the way notice who the first comment is from. Does that name ring a bell?)
This is partly why I composed the post on why “The Presiding Bishop is not entirely wrong about everything”. Religious conservatives sometimes go too far and reject the baby (critical scholarship) along with the bathwater (such scholarship used badly to advance theological revisionism/liberalism). For years I have been a strong advocate for the idea that the Bible contains more than one point of view on many theological issues – and yet these multiple views co-exist in a kind of semi-coherent tension (apologies to John Barton). Conservatives want everything to be a little too neat and clean. Liberals think the slightest hint of diversity means everything is up for grabs. (How is that for a little gross overgeneralization?)
In any case this is how Dr Witt lands the plane:
Luke is making the same point in Acts, and in his account the apostles’ sermons are summaries of this. It is not that Jesus was an ordinary human being, who received a celestial promotion after the resurrection; rather, from the beginning Jesus was the Lord (kyrios), the Son of God–and Luke lets his reader know this from the beginning of his gospel. However, Jesus’ Lordship and Deity were hidden in humility until the resurrection–he is the Lord who waits at tables. It is only after his resurrection, that Jesus is exalted to the right hand and his identity as “Lord of all” (panton kyrios) is finally recognized and proclaimed by his followers.
Thank you not only for a fine response to Toedt but for such a model of careful scholarship that represents well “critical orthodoxy”.
