Review of: Jesus and the Constraints of History A. E. Harvey Chapter 7 Son of God: the Constraint of Monotheism Review & Critique by Barbara Buzzard Reviewer s Note: This is a review of one chapter only, as this chapter is so definitive, so remarkable that I should not want anyone to miss it, failing time for the rest of the book. Barbara Buzzard We rightly think of constraints and restraints as having to do with seatbelts and the protection they offer. Oddly, that very protective quality is also present in this theological mindset. This book is based on the author s Bampton Lecture, an examination of Christian origins. Prof. Harvey was Lecturer in Theology at Oxford and a Fellow of Wolfson College. Here is what is at issue: The belief that there is only one God, and that he is Lord of all, was fundamental to the one religion in antiquity which offered determined and uncompromising opposition to the tolerant polytheism of the pagan world. It was within a culture indelibly marked by this monotheism that Jesus lived and died and was proclaimed. It was within this constraint that he had to convey his conviction of divine authorization and that his followers had to find means of expressing his unique status and significance. 1 The constraint of monotheism is this: it prohibits one from worshipping more than one God; it is insistent on that point; it is uncompromising. Further, it does not allow one to give equal respect to any religion which is not monotheistic. The force of Prof. Harvey s argument only becomes clear when one realizes that while orthodoxy maintains that it is monotheistic, it denies the very basis of the tenets of monotheism - i.e. the constraints. Consider this: orthodoxy asserts that Yahweh is God; it also asserts that Jesus is God. That would, according to Harvey, be monotheism denied. That would, according to rational math, be two Gods. How telling it is then that both orthodox Jews and Muslims consider that Christianity is polytheistic. The power of the monotheistic confession is seen perhaps most clearly in the criminal code: the most grievous offences were those which in any way diminished the unique majesty and honour of God Moreover any intellectual or religious opinion which seemed to postulate a second celestial being independent of the one god was firmly 1 Jesus and the Constraints of History, A.E. Harvey, The Bampton Lecture, 1980, p.154
anathematized. 2 Monotheism, therefore, is incompatible with the recognition of any other divine being. There is a rigid distinction between God and man, much discussed here. There is also the fact that calling someone a god (with a small g) was a way of describing and acknowledging exceptional powers and/or character. That is not to confuse that individual with the one God of the universe. to call Moses (in some sense) divine was to insist on the altogether exceptional nature of the gifts and to imply that these gifts were from God. But it was not for one moment to suggest that Moses should be (or ever had been) acclaimed or worshipped as a god Jesus himself is recorded as having endorsed the standard Jewish confession of monotheism (Mark 12:29) and accepted the prohibition which this implied of any moral comparison between himself and God. 3 This is such a far cry from current churchspeak that one could easily doubt that there is any connection between the modern version of churchianity and the original church. Prof. Harvey speaks of the hold that monotheism had on the New Testament writers. They were compelled to stay within the bounds of the truth which drove them. I would maintain that that hold, that constraint, is no longer in place. Constraints prohibit certain things. But we have not recognized the constraints in this matter. Rather, we have deviated, overridden, ignored, misunderstood, and proceeded dishonestly with the documents. It might tend to moderation and in the end agreement, if we were industrious on all occasions to represent our own doctrine (the Trinity) as wholly unintelligible" (Dr. Hey, Lectures in Divinity, 2, 235) Note the vivid contrast between churches statements of faith and the author s conclusion: The New Testament writers similarly are insistent about the absolute oneness of God, and show no tendency to describe Jesus in terms of divinity; the few apparent exceptions are either grammatically and textually uncertain or have an explanation which, as we shall see, brings them within the constraint of Jewish monotheism. 4 It is the author s contention that popular theology has broken the constraint of monotheism though it would vigorously deny this. How enormously clever is that trick of saying that three is really one. Ought we not to remember that the word only is just an abbreviated form of one-ly? Karen Armstrong records Sir Isaac Newton s passionate desire to purge Christianity of its mythical doctrines. He believed the spurious doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity had been added to the creed by unscrupulous theologians in the fourth century. Indeed, the Book of Revelation had prophesied the rise of Trinitarianism this strange religion of ye West, the cult of three equal Gods as the abomination of desolation. 5 Prof. Harvey makes a significant point in showing that if we realized how very, very important the title Son of God was we would not feel the need to reverse the phrase to the popular but erroneous God - the Son. He points out that only by supernatural power (with one exception) was one able to recognize Jesus as the Son of God. The extreme importance of this is masked in today s culture. What a son owed to his father was: 1) obedience, (Jesus learned obedience from what he suffered), 2) Equally hard for us to understand the son does what he sees the father doing, and 3) the son acts in concert with the father - the principle of agency again, not something that we necessarily understand. The Jewish law of agency was an effective means of conducting business only if the acts of 2 Ibid., p. 155 3 Ibid., p. 157 4 Ibid, 5 Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God, p. 69.
the agent could be assumed to be approved by his principal, and therefore to bind the principal in respect of legal liability. 6 Whatever Jesus did, it was as if God Himself were present. As an envoy represented his sovereign, so too kneeling before one s representative was not kneeling to him, but to the king he represented. We have lost the understanding of this guiding principle and without it, we fall into dangerous misunderstanding and grievous error. It is thought that John 1:1 is the basis of understanding who Jesus is, but Prof. Harvey has a much different perspective than the superficial one most often heard. A study of the Fourth Gospel reveals that an understanding of Jesus as the authorized agent and representative of God is one of the controlling themes of the whole narrative. 7 Harvey returns to his theme that the importance of the title, Son of God, as authorized revealer of truth was to say something of very great consequence of Jesus. And this profound truth follows: how we respond to, how we listen to, how we obey Jesus is equivalent to how we respond to God Himself. Indeed, to be in Jesus presence was as if being in the presence of God Himself. A leading theologian of today says this: The crux of the matter lies in how we understand the term Son of God The title Son of God is not in itself an expression of personal Deity or the expression of metaphysical distinctions within the Godhead. Indeed, to be a Son of God one has to be a being who is not God! It is a designation for a creature indicating a special relationship with God. In particular, it denotes God s representative 8. In agreement with Dr. Brown, Prof. Harvey concludes: To call Jesus Son of God was therefore to accept the claim implied in his words and actions that he was totally obedient to the divine will, that he could give authoritative teaching about God, and that he was empowered to act as God s authorized representative and agent. 9 There is much food for thought here: if the misnomer, God the Son, were true, then we have a God who is obedient (to whom?), a God who was empowered (by whom?), a God who was authorized to speak (by whom?). Harvey reminds us of the critical nature of Deut. 18:18-20 which speaks of God raising up a prophet and speaking through him, words which that prophet was to speak as if from God Himself. To confuse the authority with which Jesus acted and spoke with the idea of him being someone he wasn t would be a catastrophic error, and it would lead to further mistakes and misunderstandings. Prof. Harvey s definition of Son of God: God s authorized representative and agent on earth. If Jesus was God s authorized agent and representative, then he was not the Only True God. What a mountain of grief this insight would save! When Peter saw this that the presence of Jesus amounts to the presence of God Himself he truly understood Jesus as the Son of God. What becomes so apparent is the exposure that is vitally needed to background information. One simply must understand what is being said and meant by the term Son of God in order to grasp its importance and significance. Without this foundation, one s judgment is impaired. To assert belief in anything, one must know what that thing is. We have done very much harm to ourselves in accepting the non-biblical God the Son phrase. Immediately upon hearing or speaking those words, one should shudder as they break the constraint of monotheism, i.e. having two gods, God the Father and God the Son. 6 Ibid., p. 161 7 Ibid., pp. 162, 3 8 Prof. Colin Brown, general editor of the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, from Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy, Ex Auditu, 1971, p. 88 9 Jesus and the Constraints of History, p. 164
Harvey s conclusion of the matter is that Jesus followers were strictly bound by the constraint of monotheism. This meant that they stopped far short of describing him as divine. They did, however, attribute to Jesus claims to divine authority which came from being Son of God. there is no evidence whatever that he spoke or acted as if he believed himself to be a god, or divine. 10 Jesus stressed the fatherhood of God; he taught us this concept and suggests that sonship was a privilege claimed by an exceptionally wise and God-fearing man. How fascinating to consider Jesus in this light! Was Jesus God-fearing?! (Rather the opposite to a child s view of Jesus as nice, but not smart. ) The supreme authority of the Father is a cardinal restriction of monotheism. Jesus endorses this restraint when he says that only the Father knows the day and the hour of his return. In fact, so strictly was this held that the charge of blasphemy against Jesus was fundamentally, of diminishing God s honour by usurping some privilege or prerogative due to him alone. 11 Prof. Harvey summarizes his findings by stating that: 1.) both Jesus and his followers submitted to the constraint of monotheism which excluded any claim to divinity; 2.) Jesus assumed a unique and God-given authority for his words and deeds. Indeed, it was the failure of some Jews to understand the chain of command from Father to Son that caused them to go wrong repeatedly and even to accuse Jesus of blasphemy. This failure to understand caused them to be guilty of a desperate sin. They were complicit in the death of Jesus because they did not understand his God-given authority. They did certainly err not knowing the Scriptures. Did they not remember that Moses was as if God to Pharaoh? when the son is known to be acting as the father s authorized agent, it is as if the father is actually present in the son, it followed that it was appropriate to pay to the son the respect and honour which are due to God himself When Thomas called Jesus My Lord and my God, we do not have to suppose that he, or the evangelist, was flouting the constraint of his instinctive monotheism, rather he is portrayed as acknowledging Jesus to be the fully accredited divine agent, to speak to whom was as if to speak to God himself. 12 Mat. 14:33 tells the story of the disciples prostrating themselves before Jesus after he walked on the water. But Harvey points out that Matthew is not ignoring or slighting the constraint of monotheism but is making the point that the disciples recognized Jesus as the fully authorized Son and agent of God. They register that momentous occasion by prostrating themselves as if in the presence of God Himself. The facts are simple: Jesus was acting as God s agent and representative on earth, as if, when he spoke and acted, God Himself was present. This understanding is rich and invaluable. It would be parallel to the preparation and training for being in the Olympics: one could not succeed without it. In Luke s phrase, God was with him ; in Paul s, God was in Christ. That this was so had been demonstrated by the resurrection, after which Jesus had necessarily been given the highest place, under God, which could be awarded to any living being. Christians could now confidently join in the worship and praise due to one who had been given (again under God) a name which is above every name, and through whom the Holy Spirit was now 10 Ibid., p. 168 11 Ibid., p. 170 12 Ibid., p. 172
active among those who acknowledged his lordship. It was as far as one could possibly go 13 (Emphasis mine.) However, the later church no longer understood the agency principle and went considerably further. Being much more influenced by Greek philosophy as well as losing the constraint of Jewish monotheism, they began to think of Jesus as God. Harvey wonders if the new construct, Jesus as God incarnate is even intelligible. My summation is this: it is at our peril that we do not understand these principles so brilliantly laid out by Prof. Harvey. It has cost us what we cannot afford - it has caused us to invent another Jesus. That should be sobering enough, but there is worse: in that process, we have lost the real Jesus. 13 Ibid., p. 173