Jesus Speaks About Himself - Revision history

David Persyn: /* Conclusion */ format

2015-01-06T22:17:49Z

‎Conclusion: format

David Persyn: /* Why Did Jesus Reveal His Identity as Exclusive Son in an Indirect Way? */ formats

2015-01-06T22:13:33Z

‎Why Did Jesus Reveal His Identity as Exclusive Son in an Indirect Way?: formats

David Persyn: /* Did Jesus Explicitly Know that He Was the Exclusive Son of the Father? */ footnotes

2015-01-06T22:10:04Z

‎Did Jesus Explicitly Know that He Was the Exclusive Son of the Father?: footnotes

David Persyn: /* “No one knows the Son except the Father…” (Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22) */ footnotes

2015-01-06T22:08:15Z

‎“No one knows the Son except the Father…” (Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22): footnotes

David Persyn: /* Jesus’ Self-Reference in the Parable of the Wicked Vintners (Mk 12:1-12) */ footnotes

2015-01-06T21:51:11Z

‎Jesus’ Self-Reference in the Parable of the Wicked Vintners (Mk 12:1-12): footnotes

David Persyn: /* Jesus’ Self-Reference in the Parable of the Wicked Vintners (Mk 12:1-12) */ footnotes

2015-01-06T21:48:16Z

‎Jesus’ Self-Reference in the Parable of the Wicked Vintners (Mk 12:1-12): footnotes

Show changes

David Persyn: /* Jesus Addresses God as “Abba.” */

2015-01-06T21:30:54Z

‎Jesus Addresses God as “Abba.”

David Persyn: /* The Charge of Blasphemy (Mk 14:61) */ footnotes

2015-01-06T21:29:35Z

‎The Charge of Blasphemy (Mk 14:61): footnotes

David Persyn: /* Jesus Addresses God as “Abba.” */ footnotes

2015-01-06T21:24:27Z

‎Jesus Addresses God as “Abba.”: footnotes

David Persyn: /* Accomplishing the Mission Reserved to Yahweh */ typo

2015-01-06T21:09:10Z

‎Accomplishing the Mission Reserved to Yahweh: typo

@@ Line 386: / Line 386: @@
 In light of the above, it is difficult to deny that Jesus understood Himself to be the exclusive Son of the Father who was to accomplish the threefold mission reserved to Yahweh alone.  He believed that He was to accomplish this task in a way that went far beyond second-Temple Judaism’s anticipation of it – He would vanquish evil by His own authority and bring the kingdom of God in His own person.  His exclusive sonship with the Father enabled Him to exorcize, heal, and raise the dead by His own authority and power, revealing that God’s authority and power was intrinsic to Him during the ministry.  Though Jesus did not directly express to His disciples His exclusive sonship with the Father, He did this indirectly, but quite clearly – in His remarkable address to God as Abba, in His admission of divinity which caused the charge of blasphemy at His trial, in His indirect reference to Himself as the Beloved Son, and in His acknowledgement of direct access to and knowledge of the Father as Son.
-When the early Church reflected on the divine glory intrinsic to Jesus’ risen state, the divine power of the Spirit (who was at once the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Jesus operating through the name of Jesus), and the fact that He exorcised, healed, and raised the dead by His own authority and power, it could not help but reflect back on the claims He made about His mission and Himself – claims about vanquishing evil and bringing the kingdom of God in His own person, claims about being the Beloved Son.  They would have been particularly aware of Jesus’ claim recorded in the famous Q logion where He asserts such closeness to the Father that He has complete interpersonal knowledge of Him (He knows the Father just as the Father knows Him).  This implied being in complete union with the Father, which, in turn, implied sharing in the Father’s divine life.  For Semites, the notion of “life” includes the fullness of power;  so Jesus’ sharing in the Father’s divine life would also include His sharing in the fullness of the Father’s divine power.
+When the early Church reflected on the divine glory intrinsic to Jesus’ risen state, the divine power of the Spirit (who was at once the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Jesus operating through the name of Jesus), and the fact that He exorcised, healed, and raised the dead by His own authority and power, it could not help but reflect back on the claims He made about His mission and Himself – claims about vanquishing evil and bringing the kingdom of God in His own person, claims about being the Beloved Son.  They would have been particularly aware of Jesus’ claim recorded in the famous Q logion where He asserts such closeness to the Father that He has complete interpersonal knowledge of Him (He knows the Father just as the Father knows Him).  This implied being in complete union with the Father, which, in turn, implied sharing in the Father’s divine life.  For Semites, the notion of “life” includes the fullness of power;<ref>See McKenzie 1965, p. 507 – “The OT does not distinguish between ‘life’ as a principle of vitality and life as living, the concrete experience of vitality.  Its language is concrete rather than abstract, and life is viewed as the fullness of power….”</ref> so Jesus’ sharing in the Father’s divine life would also include His sharing in the fullness of the Father’s divine power.
 Note here that the Church never held that Jesus became Lord after His resurrection or even after His birth.  It understood very well that divine power and authority was intrinsic to Him during His ministry, and that He claimed to be in such close union with the Father that He shares in the Father’s divine life and power as an exclusive Son.  This had to belong not to an adopted son, but to a natural Son who shared co-naturally in the Father’s divine life, power, and Spirit.  Jesus’ naturally sharing in the divine life, power, and spirit implied that He is divine, and co-natural divinity implied co-natural eternity.  Thus, the early Church believed that Jesus was as eternal as the Father whose life He co-naturally shared.  It thought Him to be preexistent not simply because He claimed to be the eschatological Son of Man (with its implications of preexistence), but most importantly because He claimed to be the exclusive Son of the Father and to be in such natural union with the Father that He knew the Father as the Father knew Him.
@@ Line 392: / Line 392: @@
 For this reason, the Church at its earliest origins proclaimed Jesus to be “the Lord” (with all its divine implications) and shortly thereafter, “the Son of God.”  But this was not enough.  In the Hellenistic world in which the early Church preached, it became essential to give ontological meaning and explanation to this incredible revelation of Jesus.  They would have to find some suitable way to express the co-natural divinity and eternity implied in the combination of Jesus’ divine power (during the ministry), His self-revelation of being the exclusive Son of the Father, His glorious risen appearance, and His gift of the divine Spirit.  As Wright notes:
-…kyrios meant not only ‘lord of the world’, in the sense that he was the human being now at the helm of the universe, the one to whom every knee, including that of Caesar, must bow, but also ‘the one who makes present and visible what the Old Testament said about YHWH himself’.  That was why the early Christians ransacked texts about God’s presence and activity in the world in order to find appropriate categories to speak of Jesus (and the Spirit, though that is of course another topic).
+<blockquote>…kyrios meant not only ‘lord of the world’, in the sense that he was the human being now at the helm of the universe, the one to whom every knee, including that of Caesar, must bow, but also ‘the one who makes present and visible what the Old Testament said about YHWH himself’.  That was why the early Christians ransacked texts about God’s presence and activity in the world in order to find appropriate categories to speak of Jesus (and the Spirit, though that is of course another topic).<ref>Wright 2003, p. 577.</ref></blockquote>
 It found a remarkable resource in Wisdom speculation which spoke about Wisdom as the personification of the image and essence of God.  Early converts (who were probably well educated Scribes familiar with the Wisdom schools and the Hellenistic categories utilized by them) began to fashion remarkable explanations of Jesus’ natural divinity.  Two such expressions are sufficient to reveal the extent and depth of the early Church’s well-verified conclusion.
@@ Line 399: / Line 399: @@
 [Jesus], subsisting (huparchōn – “being from the beginning” – note archē root – or, with reference to God, “being from all eternity” – participle – implying a continuing state) in the form (morphē – which, in a Hellenistic context, probably implies an unrefined sense of “nature”) of God (predicative use of theou without the definite article, implying “divinity,” “divine status,” or “divine nature” in an unrefined way)
 did not deem equality with God (literally, the “to be equal with God” – “to einai isa Theō – predicative use of Theō, implying “divinity,” “divine status,” or “divine nature” in an unrefined way)
 something to be held onto (harpagmon)
 but emptied (ekenōsen – aorist – precise point in time) Himself
 taking (labōn – participle – implying a continuing state) the form (morphē) of a servant,
 being born (genomenos – aorist participle – becoming or being born – the latter being preferable in context) in the likeness (homoiōmati – more than mere resemblance – probably “similar in every way”) of men (anthrōpōn – referring to generic human qualities – “of humans”)….
@@ Line 408: / Line 413: @@
 In “all eternity” (en archē – as “source”) was (ēn – imperfect of “to be” implying continuation) the Word (ho Logos – the complete self-expression of the divine nature),
 and the Word was dynamically in the presence (pros) of the Father (ton Theon – “Theos” accompanied by the definite article in the New Testament is generally translated as “the Father”),
 and the Word was (ēn – imperfect, implying continuation) God (Theos – without the definite article, implying “divine” or “divine nature” in an unrefined way).
 This One was (ēn – imperfect, implying continuation) in the presence (pros) of the Father (ton Theon – “Theos” with a definite article, indicating “the Father”) in “all eternity” (en archē – as “source”).
 All things came to be (egeneto) through Him,
 and without Him not one thing which has come into being came to be.

@@ Line 364: / Line 364: @@
 The answer, I believe, is threefold:  (1) by choice and temperament Jesus did not aggrandize Himself, (2) He would not have used a more explicit title of Himself prior to the completion of His revelation, and (3) the timing of His mission.  Let us take each in turn.
-(1) By choice and temperament, Jesus did not aggrandize Himself.  Jesus authentically lived the humility which He professed:  “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle (praus) and humble (tapeinos) in heart” (Matt. 11:29). Wright believes that this logion is authentic to Jesus and is part of His central message to trust Him and find rest (peace) through His way – gentleness and humbleness of heart.   This central text corresponds closely with the first and third beatitudes which He holds out for us:  “blessed are the poor in spirit” (ptōchoi tō pneumati) and “blessed are the meek” (praeis).  The Greek term ptōchoi (in the first beatitude) refers to the anawim who were exceedingly lowly and so placed their trust in God (having no one or anything else in which to place their trust); and the term tapeinos (from Matt. 11:29) also means lowly, humble, and cast down.   Interestingly, both references attach one’s interior disposition to the sense of lowliness or humility.  The first beatitude attaches “in spirit” (“tō pneumati”), and Matt 11:29 attaches “in heart” (“tē kardia”).  Furthermore, Matthew 11:29 uses the same Greek term to signify “meek/gentle” (praeis) as the third beatitude (praus).  In view of the centrality of these teachings, there can be little doubt that these two fundamental attitudes – lowliness/humbleness of heart and meekness/gentleness of heart are central to Jesus’ identity and proclamation of the kingdom.
+(1) By choice and temperament, Jesus did not aggrandize Himself.  Jesus authentically lived the humility which He professed:  “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle (praus) and humble (tapeinos) in heart” (Matt. 11:29). Wright believes that this logion is authentic to Jesus and is part of His central message to trust Him and find rest (peace) through His way – gentleness and humbleness of heart.<ref>See Wright 1996, pp. 299 and 647</ref>  This central text corresponds closely with the first and third beatitudes which He holds out for us:  “blessed are the poor in spirit” (ptōchoi tō pneumati) and “blessed are the meek” (praeis).  The Greek term ptōchoi (in the first beatitude) refers to the anawim who were exceedingly lowly and so placed their trust in God (having no one or anything else in which to place their trust); and the term tapeinos (from Matt. 11:29) also means lowly, humble, and cast down.<ref>See www.strongsnumbers.com, #5011.</ref>  Interestingly, both references attach one’s interior disposition to the sense of lowliness or humility.  The first beatitude attaches “in spirit” (“tō pneumati”), and Matt 11:29 attaches “in heart” (“tē kardia”).  Furthermore, Matthew 11:29 uses the same Greek term to signify “meek/gentle” (praeis) as the third beatitude (praus).  In view of the centrality of these teachings, there can be little doubt that these two fundamental attitudes – lowliness/humbleness of heart and meekness/gentleness of heart are central to Jesus’ identity and proclamation of the kingdom.
 In addition to this, there are multiple authentic logia where Jesus extols humility.  Among many other texts, we find:  “…whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Mt 23:12), and “Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 18:4).  Jesus tells the parable of a guest taking too high a place at the table and suffering the humiliation of being asked to go lower, whereas the one who takes too low a place is praised when asked to go higher (Lk 14:7-11).
@@ Line 381: / Line 381: @@
 Conclusion.  The above three contentions adequately explain why Jesus only indirectly refers to Himself as the exclusive Son of the Father – He did not want to be a profound self-contradiction; He wanted to complete His revelation about messiahship, sonship, and God the Father; and He did not want to bring His mission to a premature, unsatisfactory conclusion.  It seems to me that these reasons are far more probative than the speculation that Jesus was somewhat vague or confused about His divine status while He was raising the dead by His own power and authority, and indirectly claiming, “no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.”
 == Conclusion ==

@@ Line 342: / Line 342: @@
 It seems to me that the most appropriate question is not, “Did Jesus know…?” but rather, “How could Jesus not know…?”  How could Jesus not know that divine power and authority was intrinsic to Him when He was exorcising, healing, and raising the dead by His own power?  Recall that Jesus consciously broke with the prophetic tradition of Elijah and Elisha (which prayed for the power of God and effected the raising of the dead through the name of Yahweh), and instead effected the raising of the dead by His word and authority alone.  Considering this radical break with the prophetic tradition with which He was intimately acquainted, how could Jesus not know that the power over life and death – the power of God – was intrinsic to Him?
-Recall also that Jesus not only exorcised demons by His own authority,  He linked His exorcisms to the arrival of the kingdom of God on earth (“But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” – Luke 11:20).  How could Jesus not know that the power to vanquish evil – the power of God – was intrinsic to Him?  Further, how could He not know that the power to bring the kingdom of God was intrinsic to Him?  As we have seen, Jesus willingly took on the mission reserved to Yahweh alone.  How could Jesus not know that He shared in the life (power) of Yahweh which gave Him the authority to carry out the mission reserved to Yahweh alone?
+Recall also that Jesus not only exorcised demons by His own authority,<ref>He sometimes uses the emphatic ego when he exorcises, which accentuates the fact that the source of the power and authority is within Himself (egō epitassō soi exelthe – “I command thee, come forth”).  See above, Section I.A.</ref> He linked His exorcisms to the arrival of the kingdom of God on earth (“But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” – Luke 11:20).  How could Jesus not know that the power to vanquish evil – the power of God – was intrinsic to Him?  Further, how could He not know that the power to bring the kingdom of God was intrinsic to Him?  As we have seen, Jesus willingly took on the mission reserved to Yahweh alone.  How could Jesus not know that He shared in the life (power) of Yahweh which gave Him the authority to carry out the mission reserved to Yahweh alone?
 As we have seen, Jesus called Himself the eschatological Son of Man, who will come as divine judge clothed in divine glory.  How could Jesus not know that He had the power and authority to be the divine judge?  And given this passage’s implications of preexistence (in the apocalyptic circles of Jesus’ day), how could He not have had some sense of His own preexistence with the Father?
@@ Line 353: / Line 353: @@
 We may now proceed to the question about why Jesus makes only indirect reference to Himself as the exclusive Son of the Father.  This will respond to the critics who speculate that Jesus’ indirectness is evidence of His uncertainty about His divine status, because it will present evidence for His motives for so doing.
 === Why Did Jesus Reveal His Identity as Exclusive Son in an Indirect Way? ===

@@ Line 279: / Line 279: @@
 ==== “No one knows the Son except the Father…” (Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22) ====
-In Matthew 11:25-27/Luke 10:22, we encounter a logion which some have characterized as a “meteor from the Johannine heaven”  because of its direct self-reference to Jesus’ exclusive sonship:
+In Matthew 11:25-27/Luke 10:22, we encounter a logion which some have characterized as a “meteor from the Johannine heaven”<ref>McKenzie 1968, p. 83.</ref> because of its direct self-reference to Jesus’ exclusive sonship:
-I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.  All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows  the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.
+<blockquote>I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.  All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows<ref>In Luke, ''“ginōskei”'' (“knows”); in Matthew, ''epiginōskei''  (“fully knows”).</ref> the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.</blockquote>
 If Jesus truly uttered this prayer, then there can be little doubt that He referred to Himself as the exclusive Son of the Father.  The triple repetition of the definite article before “Son” (“ton huion… ho huios… ho huios”) makes this clear.
-Furthermore, Jesus claims within the prayer that all things have been given over to Him.  As McKenzie notes, “panta” (“all things”) probably refers to all revelation, and “…this is a direct contradiction of the Jewish claim to have the complete revelation of God in the Law and the Prophets.”   Jesus’ claim is to have greater revelation than the Law and the prophets, which betokens divine prerogative, and indicates that “the Son” mentioned in the subsequent verse must refer to Him.
+Furthermore, Jesus claims within the prayer that all things have been given over to Him.  As McKenzie notes, “panta” (“all things”) probably refers to all revelation, and “…this is a direct contradiction of the Jewish claim to have the complete revelation of God in the Law and the Prophets.”<ref>McKenzie 1968, p. 83.</ref>  Jesus’ claim is to have greater revelation than the Law and the prophets, which betokens divine prerogative, and indicates that “the Son” mentioned in the subsequent verse must refer to Him.
 So did Jesus utter this prayer?  We may first note that this is not a Matthean or Lukan redaction because the two texts closely resemble each other (with the exception of ginōskei – “know” – in Luke vs. epiginōskei “fully know” – in Matthew), and therefore must go back to Q.  The many references in the Gospel of John about the intimate relationship between the Father and the Son (and Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive Son of the Father) have evident redactional characteristics.  However, the core message underlying these many references may well be historical because it would be highly unlikely that such a central part of the Johannine Gospel would not be grounded in some core way in history.  The fact that this theme shows up in the Q logion would seem to support this line of thought.  Thus, if we consider the underlying theme in John to have an historical core, then there would be double attestation (one in John and one in Q) of Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive Son of the Father who alone knows the Father and all revelation.
-Secondly, the passage which contains the claim of sonship is uttered within the context of a prayer:  “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth….”  Recall from Jeremias’ extensive study that “pater” or “ho pater” uttered within a prayer is likely a Greek translation of “Abba.”    This is precisely what we find in the Q logion under consideration (which many exegetes have confirmed since the time of Jeremias).   In the Q logion being considered, the Greek translation for “Abba” is used not only once, but twice—(1) in Mt. 11:25 (Lk 10:21a) where pater is used without the definite article in a prayer context which is translated as a vocative “Abba,”  and (2) in Mt 11:26 (Lk 10:21b) where “ho pater” is used as an articular nominative indicating a vocative “Abba.”
+Secondly, the passage which contains the claim of sonship is uttered within the context of a prayer:  “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth….”  Recall from Jeremias’ extensive study that ''“pater”'' or ''“ho pater”'' uttered within a prayer is likely a Greek translation of “''Abba.”''<ref>See Jeremias 1971 p. 64.  See also The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1988.  Entry under ''“Abba.”''.</ref>   This is precisely what we find in the Q logion under consideration (which many exegetes have confirmed since the time of Jeremias).<ref>See Jeremias 1971 p. 64.  See also The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1988.  Entry under “Abba.”</ref>  In the Q logion being considered, the Greek translation for ''“Abba”'' is used not only once, but twice—(1) in Mt. 11:25 (Lk 10:21a) where ''pater'' is used without the definite article in a prayer context which is translated as a vocative ''“Abba,”''<ref>''“pater"'' (“father”), the Greek vocative (Mt. 11:25 par. Lk 10:21a; Lk. 11:2; 22:42; 23:34, 46; Jn. 11:41; 12:27f.; 17:1, 5, 11, 21, 24f.)”—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1988.  Entry under ''“Abba.”''  See also unit II-E, Section II.B., for the full quotation.</ref> and (2) in Mt 11:26 (Lk 10:21b) where ''“ho pater”'' is used as an articular nominative indicating a vocative ''“Abba.”''<ref>''“ho pater”'' (“the father”), the articular nominative used as a vocative (Mk. 14:36 [''abba ho pater''; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6]—correct Greek form, since the second member of a compound address is always in the nominative [Robertson. p. 461]; Mt. 11:26 par. Lk. 10:21b—incorrect Greek usage, and therefore in all probability a Semitism, since the articular nominative constitutes the vocative in both Hebrew and Aramaic [Turner, p.34])”—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1988.  Entry under ''“Abba.”''  See also Unit II-E, Section II.B., for the full quotation.  Note that the use of ''“ho pater”'' is incorrect Greek usage in Lk 10:21b (which Luke intentionally preserves) indicating an underlying Semitism (because the articular nominative indicates the vocative in both Hebrew and Aramaic).</ref>
 Recall also that “Abba” had its origin (as a common address to God) in Jesus, and that passages which use “Abba” (or its Greek translations) likely had their origin in Jesus as well, and so there is probative evidence for this logion’s origin in Jesus.  The underlying Semitism indicated by the incorrect Greek usage of “ho pater” and the double use of “Abba” in this logion makes the evidence particularly probative.
 Thirdly, Wright implies that this passage may be historical because Jesus’ exclusive knowledge of and access to the Father is the only explanation for how He could believe that He could accomplish the mission reserved to Yahweh alone:
-If it is true, as I have argued, that [Jesus] acted upon a vocation to do and be for Israel and the world what, according to scripture, only Israel’s god can do and be, then we may legitimately enquire whether we have any clues as to what generated, sustained, or at least centrally characterized that vocation.  When, asking that question, we discover that Jesus seems to have addressed Israel’s god as “father” in a way which, even if not completely unique, is at least very remarkable, we may be near to an answer.  And when we find a passage like [Mt 11:25-27/Lk 10:22] – then we may be confirmed in this deduction.
+<blockquote>If it is true, as I have argued, that [Jesus] acted upon a vocation to do and be for Israel and the world what, according to scripture, only Israel’s god can do and be, then we may legitimately enquire whether we have any clues as to what generated, sustained, or at least centrally characterized that vocation.  When, asking that question, we discover that Jesus seems to have addressed Israel’s god as “father” in a way which, even if not completely unique, is at least very remarkable, we may be near to an answer.  And when we find a passage like [Mt 11:25-27/Lk 10:22] – then we may be confirmed in this deduction.<ref>  Wright 1996, p. 649-651.</ref></blockquote>
 What Wright is saying here is that Jesus has made some pretty extraordinary claims about Himself, such as vanquishing evil by His own authority, bringing the kingdom of God in His own person, accomplishing the mission reserved to Yahweh alone, exorcising, healing, and raising the dead by His own power, changing and fulfilling Torah by His own authority, etc., all of which individually and collectively demand an explanation.  How could He possibly do these things?  How could He possibly have this power and authority?  It would have been very strange for Jesus to have acted in this way (e.g., raising the dead by His own power) and to have claimed divine prerogative (e.g., to accomplish the mission reserved to Yahweh alone) without giving some minimal explanation of it.
@@ Line 304: / Line 305: @@
 Instead, we see Semitic expressions – familial and relational terms (Father and Son) and “knowing,” which, in the Semitic mind, is also relational.  McKenzie notes:
-The Israelite knew with the heart, and Hb has no word which corresponds exactly to our “mind” or “intellect.” … In general it may be said that in Hb to know is to experience; experience develops into acceptance or possession.
+<blockquote>The Israelite knew with the ''heart'', and Hb has no word which corresponds exactly to our “mind” or “intellect.” … In general it may be said that in Hb to know is to experience; experience develops into acceptance or possession.<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 485.  Italics mine.</ref></blockquote>
 The combination of “father knowing son and son knowing father” suggests experiential knowledge of the heart; it does not suggest mere mental, intellectual, or categorial knowledge.  Thus, it is very likely that this logion is not an early Church invention.  Instead, it is very likely a passage uttered by an Israelite who believed Himself to have a relational intimacy with God whom he addressed as “Abba.”
@@ Line 316: / Line 317: @@
 Well, how should we translate this passage into ontological or metaphysical categories?  Does this passage have implications of Jesus sharing the nature of God or being in a preexistent relationship with the Father (“nature” and “preexistence” being ontological categories)?  Though Semites did not think this way, one can see how the passage could lead in this direction.  To claim to be so close to God that He experientially knows the heart of God just as God knows Him, certainly suggests being in union with God (loving union), and this union, in turn, suggests a sharing in the divine life.  “Sharing the divine life” ontologically implies sharing (equally) in divine power and nature.  However, it must be remembered that Semites did not think this way.  As McKenzie notes:
-The OT does not distinguish between “life” as a principle [power] of vitality and life as living, the concrete experience of vitality.  Its language is concrete rather than abstract, and life is viewed as the fullness of power….
+<blockquote>The OT does not distinguish between “life” as a principle [power] of vitality and life as living, the concrete experience of vitality.  Its language is concrete rather than abstract, and life is viewed as the ''fullness of power''…<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 507.  Italics mine.</ref></blockquote>
 Thus, for the Semitic Jesus (and His Semitic interpreters), “knowing the Father as the Father knows Him” implies complete union with the Father; complete union with the Father, in turn, implies sharing in the life of the Father; and sharing in the life of the Father implies sharing in the “fullness of power” with the Father.  It is not a far stretch to see how the early Church could have converted this central logion into ontological terms through Wisdom school expressions such as “in the form of God,” “being equal to God,” and “being God.”

@@ Line 275: / Line 275: @@
 <blockquote>The whole picture serves as a further, and richer, explanation of what Jesus had been doing in the Temple, and why.  I submit that such an essentially elegant and yet richly textured explanation is far more likely to go back to Jesus – who, after all, had long planned and meditated his climactic symbolic action – than to any subsequent thinker or writer.<ref>Wright 1996, p. 501.</ref></blockquote>
-I find Wright’s explanation to be quite compelling, and see this passage as another instance of Jesus’ indirect reference to Himself as the Son – indeed, as the beloved  Son of the one He called “Abba.”
+I find Wright’s explanation to be quite compelling, and see this passage as another instance of Jesus’ indirect reference to Himself as the Son – indeed, as the beloved<ref>See Wright 1996, p. 501.</ref> Son of the one He called “Abba.”
 ==== “No one knows the Son except the Father…” (Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22) ====

@@ Line 201: / Line 201: @@
 The significance of this address indicates Jesus’ intimacy with the Father.  As Jeremias notes:
-<blockquote>He spoke to God as a child to its father:  confidently and securely, and yet at the same time reverently and obediently…. Abba as a form of address to God expresses the ultimate mystery of the mission of Jesus.  He was conscious of being authorized to communicate God’s revelation, because God had made himself known to him as Father (Matt. 11:27 par.).<refLJeremias 1971, p. 67-68.</ref></blockquote>
+<blockquote>He spoke to God as a child to its father:  confidently and securely, and yet at the same time reverently and obediently…. Abba as a form of address to God expresses the ultimate mystery of the mission of Jesus.  He was conscious of being authorized to communicate God’s revelation, because God had made himself known to him as Father (Matt. 11:27 par.).<ref>Jeremias 1971, p. 67-68.</ref></blockquote>
 Jesus enjoyed a remarkable intimacy with the God He called “Abba” and this intimacy gave Him a the confidence to teach His disciples and all other people to do likewise.

@@ Line 215: / Line 215: @@
 ==== The Charge of Blasphemy (Mk 14:61) ====
-As we saw in our treatment of Jesus’ claim to be the son of man (Section II.A), it is likely that Jesus used this expression in an apocalyptic way implying his pre-existence with the Father.  Yet there is an even more explicit reference to Jesus’ sonship with the Father in that same passage.  Recall that in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is asked by the high priest, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (14:61), to which Jesus responds, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mk 14:62).  At this point, the high priest tears his garments and declares that he has evidence of Jesus’ blasphemy.  Did the high priest really ask, “Are you the Son of the Blessed One?” and did Jesus really respond, “I am”?  Perhaps not in this way,  but in Wright’s view, Jesus did respond to the questions of the interrogators in such a way that He was not only charged with messianic pretensions, but also with blasphemy.  Wright believes that the trial, the charge of blasphemy, and Jesus’ admission to something significant within the substance of the charge are historical:
+As we saw in our treatment of Jesus’ claim to be the son of man (Section II.A), it is likely that Jesus used this expression in an apocalyptic way implying his pre-existence with the Father.  Yet there is an even more explicit reference to Jesus’ sonship with the Father in that same passage.  Recall that in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is asked by the high priest, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (14:61), to which Jesus responds, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mk 14:62).  At this point, the high priest tears his garments and declares that he has evidence of Jesus’ blasphemy.  Did the high priest really ask, “Are you the Son of the Blessed One?” and did Jesus really respond, “I am”?  Perhaps not in this way,<ref>his account of how Jesus came to be accused of blasphemy is very likely a Marcan redaction.  See Unit II-M, Section III, with respect to Mark 14:62.  Nevertheless, Jesus was charged with blasphemy, and something occurred in the trial that made this highly unusual (if not unique) charge credible in the eyes of the religious authorities.  Jesus may have admitted to some kind of filial relationship with the one He called “Abba.”</ref> but in Wright’s view, Jesus did respond to the questions of the interrogators in such a way that He was not only charged with messianic pretensions, but also with blasphemy.  Wright believes that the trial, the charge of blasphemy, and Jesus’ admission to something significant within the substance of the charge are historical:
-All that remained was to extract some sort of confession of guilt in relation both to the Temple and to the charge of false prophecy.  That was what the nocturnal hearing succeeded in doing. ¶ Succeeded, indeed, beyond their hopes.  The prisoner, in agreeing to the charge of being a would-be Messiah, “prophesied” his own vindication in such a way that a plausible charge of “blasphemy” could be added to the list.  …in such a way as to prophesy that he, as Messiah, would sit on a throne beside the god of Israel. “You will see ‘the son of man’ ‘sitting at the right hand of Power’, and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’”
+<blockquote>All that remained was to extract some sort of confession of guilt in relation both to the Temple and to the charge of false prophecy.  That was what the nocturnal hearing succeeded in doing. ¶ Succeeded, indeed, beyond their hopes.  The prisoner, in agreeing to the charge of being a would-be Messiah, “prophesied” his own vindication in such a way that a plausible charge of “blasphemy” could be added to the list.  …in such a way as to prophesy that he, as Messiah, would sit on a throne beside the god of Israel. “You will see ‘the son of man’ ‘sitting at the right hand of Power’, and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’”<ref>Wright 1996, p. 551.</ref></blockquote>
 The charge of blasphemy goes so far beyond the charge of messianic pretensions that there does not seem to be any precedent for it in Jewish judicial history:
-Since we have no evidence of anyone before or after Jesus ever saying such a thing of himself, it is not surprising that we have no evidence of anyone framing a blasphemy law to prevent them doing so.
+<blockquote>Since we have no evidence of anyone before or after Jesus ever saying such a thing of himself, it is not surprising that we have no evidence of anyone framing a blasphemy law to prevent them doing so.<ref>Wright 1996, p. 551.</ref></blockquote>
 The uniqueness of the charge provokes the questions: What made the Jewish authorities think of the charge of blasphemy during Jesus’ trial when it was so rare (if not unique)? What was it in Jesus’ response at the trial that made this exceedingly rare charge stick?  Wright seems to have the most plausible explanation, namely, that Jesus predicted His vindication by the Father in such a powerful way (perhaps referring to Daniel 7 -- the apocalyptic Son of Man coming in divine power to judge the world) that the authorities felt that he was claiming to be more than a prophet and even more than the Messiah – He was claiming to have a uniquely special relationship with God.   We may conclude with Wright’s observation:
-…granted the charge of false prophecy already hanging over him, and the “two power” implication that the reference to Daniel 7 suggests, it seems to me likely that the reaction of Caiaphas, as in Matthew 26.65 and Mark 14.63-4, is substantially historical.  ["He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.”]
+<blockquote>…granted the charge of false prophecy already hanging over him, and the “two power” implication that the reference to Daniel 7 suggests, it seems to me likely that the reaction of Caiaphas, as in Matthew 26.65 and Mark 14.63-4, is substantially historical.  ["He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.”]<ref>Wright 1996, p. 551.</ref></blockquote>
 ==== Jesus’ Self-Reference in the Parable of the Wicked Vintners (Mk 12:1-12) ====

@@ Line 195: / Line 195: @@
 ==== Jesus Addresses God as “Abba.” ====
-“Abba” is the Aramaic emphatic form of ‘ab – “father” employed as a vocative (as an address).  McKenzie notes that Aramaic epistles show that it was a familiar address used by children,  which could have the meaning of “my father,” or even a more intimate address, such as “daddy.”  The implications of childlike trust and affection should not be written out of the term when Jesus uses it to address the Father.  Moreover, Jesus taught His disciples to address God as “Abba.”  As noted above, Paul is aware of this, but finds it impossible to use the title without the help of the Holy Spirit because of its high degree of familiarity (Unit II-E, Section II.B).  In addition to its explicit use in Mark’s Gospel (14:36), Jeremias sees other implied uses of the term “Abba” in the New Testament:  “…we have every reason to suppose that an Abba underlies every instance of pater (mou) or ho patēr in his words of prayer.”
+“Abba” is the Aramaic emphatic form of ‘ab – “father” employed as a vocative (as an address).  McKenzie notes that Aramaic epistles show that it was a familiar address used by children,<ref>See McKenzie 1965, p. 1.</ref> which could have the meaning of “my father,” or even a more intimate address, such as “daddy.”  The implications of childlike trust and affection should not be written out of the term when Jesus uses it to address the Father.  Moreover, Jesus taught His disciples to address God as “Abba.”  As noted above, Paul is aware of this, but finds it impossible to use the title without the help of the Holy Spirit because of its high degree of familiarity (Unit II-E, Section II.B).  In addition to its explicit use in Mark’s Gospel (14:36), Jeremias sees other implied uses of the term “Abba” in the New Testament:  “…we have every reason to suppose that an Abba underlies every instance of pater (mou) or ho patēr in his words of prayer.”<ref>Jeremias 1971, p. 65.</ref>
-Though this use of “Abba” is not unique to Christianity (as Jeremias conjectured) it is exceedingly rare in Judaism by comparison to its prolific use in Christianity.   The probable reason for this is the presumptuousness that the Israelite elders must have felt in addressing God (who is the “Master of the universe” and the “Master of history”) with a possessive (my Father) in a childlike manner.
+Though this use of “Abba” is not unique to Christianity (as Jeremias conjectured) it is exceedingly rare in Judaism by comparison to its prolific use in Christianity.<ref>See Wright 1996, p. 649 and also Unit II-D, Section II.B.</ref> The probable reason for this is the presumptuousness that the Israelite elders must have felt in addressing God (who is the “Master of the universe” and the “Master of history”) with a possessive (my Father) in a childlike manner.
 The significance of this address indicates Jesus’ intimacy with the Father.  As Jeremias notes:
-He spoke to God as a child to its father:  confidently and securely, and yet at the same time reverently and obediently…. Abba as a form of address to God expresses the ultimate mystery of the mission of Jesus.  He was conscious of being authorized to communicate God’s revelation, because God had made himself known to him as Father (Matt. 11:27 par.).
+<blockquote>He spoke to God as a child to its father:  confidently and securely, and yet at the same time reverently and obediently…. Abba as a form of address to God expresses the ultimate mystery of the mission of Jesus.  He was conscious of being authorized to communicate God’s revelation, because God had made himself known to him as Father (Matt. 11:27 par.).<refLJeremias 1971, p. 67-68.</ref></blockquote>
 Jesus enjoyed a remarkable intimacy with the God He called “Abba” and this intimacy gave Him a the confidence to teach His disciples and all other people to do likewise.
@@ Line 207: / Line 207: @@
 How is it that Jesus felt confident enough to address God so possessively and intimately? And how does He gain the confidence to teach others to do so?  The degree of intimacy and kinship, and the filial parity inherent in this intimacy and kinship would seem to be the ground of what might otherwise be thought to be “sheer presumption.”  This intimacy appears to run so deep that Jesus takes it upon Himself to change the history of revelation and encourage a love of God hitherto unknown.
-Jesus’ use of Abba is not an explicit indication of Jesus’ awareness of and claim to be the exclusive Son of the Father.  However, it does imply this.  In order for Jesus to have encouraged His disciples (and others) to address the Father confidently in this very intimate, trusting, and affectionate way, He would have had to have had some sense of Himself as Beloved – beloved as a son.  Obviously, we cannot draw a perfect inference from this, but then again, we don’t have to, because, as Wright notes, there is other significant evidence of Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive Son of the Father,   and when His teaching about “Abba” is set into the context of this other evidence, the point becomes quite probative and clear:
+Jesus’ use of Abba is not an explicit indication of Jesus’ awareness of and claim to be the exclusive Son of the Father.  However, it does imply this.  In order for Jesus to have encouraged His disciples (and others) to address the Father confidently in this very intimate, trusting, and affectionate way, He would have had to have had some sense of Himself as Beloved – beloved as a son.  Obviously, we cannot draw a perfect inference from this, but then again, we don’t have to, because, as Wright notes, there is other significant evidence of Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive Son of the Father,<ref>“…[I]t should not be supposed that Jeremias has been disproved completely: there is a striking phenomenon to be observed in the prayers of Jesus, and, once we relieve it of the strain of being the load bearing wall in a much larger construction, it can relax and make a valuable contribution to a different one” (Wright 1996, p. 649).</ref>  and when His teaching about “Abba” is set into the context of this other evidence, the point becomes quite probative and clear:
-Since Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah who would draw Israel’s destiny to its climax by embodying the new exodus in himself, it is natural to suppose that he would make a special point of praying in a manner that was consonant with this belief, and teaching his followers to do the same. ¶ What we can now suggest…is that within this meaning, and the messianic vocation it implied, Jesus discovered a deeper one, so that he experienced a peculiar appropriateness in designating Israel’s god as ‘father’.
+<blockquote>Since Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah who would draw Israel’s destiny to its climax by embodying the new exodus in himself, it is natural to suppose that he would make a special point of praying in a manner that was consonant with this belief, and teaching his followers to do the same. ¶ What we can now suggest…is that within this meaning, and the messianic vocation it implied, Jesus discovered a deeper one, so that he experienced a peculiar appropriateness in designating Israel’s God as ‘father’.<ref>Wright 1996, p. 649.</ref></blockquote>
 We may now proceed to an examination of this “other evidence.”
 ==== The Charge of Blasphemy (Mk 14:61) ====

@@ Line 143: / Line 143: @@
 Wright shows that these three tasks (mentioned in italics at the end of the foregoing quotation) were the ones reserved to Yahweh alone in Jewish scripture.<ref>Wright 1996, pp. 463-467 and 651-653.</ref>  This is highly significant because it reveals how Jesus’ claim to defeat evil by His own authority and power, and to bring the kingdom in His own person – here and now – accomplished the tasks reserved for Yahweh alone – here and now.  It cannot be thought that Jesus did not realize that His claims to be defeating evil and to be bringing the kingdom were not simultaneously claims to be the very presence and “embodiment” of Yahweh in the world.  Jesus not only knew this for Himself, but He also expected that many Jewish scribes and authorities (who were familiar with scripture) would have known it as well.  This may explain the Jewish authorities’ “hypersensitivity” to blasphemy in Jesus’ preaching and actions (see below, Section III.B).  Wright concludes to this as a matter of history:
-<blockquote>Jesus’ prophetic vocation thus included within it the vocation to enact, symbolically, the return of YHWH to Zion.  His messianic vocation included within it the vocation to attempt certain tasks which, according to scripture, YHWH had reserved for himself.  He would take up himself the role of messianic shepherd, knowing that YHWH had claimed this role as his own.  He would perform the saving task which YHWH had said he alone could achieve.  He would do what no messenger, no angel, but only the ‘arm of YHWH’, the presence of Israel’s god, could accomplish.  …[H]e believed he had to do and be, for Israel and the world, that which according to scripture only YHWH himself could do and be.  … I propose, as a matter of history, that Jesus of Nazareth was conscious of a vocation:  a vocation, given him by the one he knew as ‘father’, to enact in himself what, in Israel’s scriptures, God had promised to accomplish all by himself. </ref>Wright 1996, p. 653.</ref></blockquote>
+<blockquote>Jesus’ prophetic vocation thus included within it the vocation to enact, symbolically, the return of YHWH to Zion.  His messianic vocation included within it the vocation to attempt certain tasks which, according to scripture, YHWH had reserved for himself.  He would take up himself the role of messianic shepherd, knowing that YHWH had claimed this role as his own.  He would perform the saving task which YHWH had said he alone could achieve.  He would do what no messenger, no angel, but only the ‘arm of YHWH’, the presence of Israel’s god, could accomplish.  …[H]e believed he had to do and be, for Israel and the world, that which according to scripture only YHWH himself could do and be.  … I propose, as a matter of history, that Jesus of Nazareth was conscious of a vocation:  a vocation, given him by the one he knew as ‘father’, to enact in himself what, in Israel’s scriptures, God had promised to accomplish all by himself. <ref>Wright 1996, p. 653.</ref></blockquote>
 The implications of this are obvious.  Jesus considered Himself to be the very presence of Yahweh in the world.  When this is combined with his contention that the power and authority of Yahweh were intrinsic to him (in exorcising, healing, and raising the dead by his own power and authority), it is hard to escape the implication that Jesus saw himself as sharing in the divine life of the Father, implying a status of divine Sonship which further implies a relationship with the Father before his human birth, and even before the world began.  This conclusion is further confirmed by His references to Himself as “Son of Man” (Section II.A) and exclusive Son of the Father (Section II.B.).