Page 3 of 126

Posted on

Theodicy vs. Anti-theodicy with Jahdiel Perez

This transcript has been edited for clarity and space.

Hey everybody. My name is Jahdiel Perez, and I’m an Assistant Professor of Humanities and Sciences at Villanova University in Pennsylvania.

David Capes  

Jahdiel, welcome to The Stone Chapel Podcast. Great to see you again. 

Jahdiel Perez  

Great to see you too. Thanks for having me. 

David Capes  

Oh, this is a delight. I was deeply impressed by your presentation here, and we’ll say more about that in a few minutes. But for those who don’t know Jahdiel Perez, who are you?

Jahdiel Perez  

I’m a Guatemalan and Puerto Rican pastor’s kid that grew up in Boston. I wanted nothing to do with school. I hated school with a passion. When I was about 19 years old, I had this encounter with the writings of C. S. Lewis, and it completely changed my life. I felt like God was waking me up and inviting me to play this really intriguing game with him that I later learned was called philosophy, theology, apologetics. 

And after that moment, I just wanted to spend my life wrestling with the some of the most important questions that we can ask as human beings. And then God opened the doors to study theology at Harvard and to get my doctoral degree at Oxford University. Now in this latest stage I’ve taken up a position of Humanities and Sciences at Villanova. So, it’s just a pleasure to be with you

David Capes  

Well, having watched you teach when you were at the Lanier Theological Library, I can tell your students are very fortunate to have you, because you’re very clear. You know where you want to go with a lecture. You were here for part of a conference that we did with Amy Orr Ewing entitled C.S. Lewis and the Problem of Pain. You did a lecture to a smaller group of people who were gathered here for the Lanier Certificate in Theology and Ministry. You did a talk and called it C.S. Lewis Among Contemporary Theologians. I have retitled it Theodicy versus Anti-theodicy. In a sense, you pit the two against each other. Let’s just get into the definitions. First of all, you start by defining horrendous evil. We all sort of know the idea of evil, but what do you mean by a horrendous evil?

Jahdiel Perez  

Horrendous evil is this idea that this philosopher, Marilyn McCord Adams, introduced in 1990 and the idea was that when we talk about how God relates to suffering, we’re not talking about just ordinary suffering. We’re not talking about the kind of suffering where you have a cavity or a headache. What Adams wanted to do was to distinguish those kinds of suffering where you can point them to a greater good. Like, if you go to the dentist, it’s for health, right? The pain that you feel at the gym is for health as well. There are ways you can easily think about a good reason for suffering. 

Horrendous evil is this category of evil where it’s almost impossible to try to find or imagine a good reason why somebody could suffer like that. And she defines it as life-ruining evil. It’s a kind of suffering where you question that your life could ever be meaningful again, or that anything good could compensate for that evil. So that’s basically how she defined the category. And ever since this has been the main term that philosophers and theologians have been debating over. So now we’re not talking about evil anymore. We’re talking about horrendous evil. 

David Capes  

One of the ways that that philosophers and theologians deal with that is through an idea that you find in philosophy and theology. Theodicy is the key term. When you say theodicy, what do you mean by that? 

Jahdiel Perez  

There’s a few ways to define theodicy. It comes from these two terms, Theos and Dike, which means God and justice. I’m defending the justice of God, the nature of God in the face of suffering. So there’s this obvious tension between the magnitude of suffering and the goodness of God, right? And maybe you’ve heard of the problem of evil. The idea that, if God is all good and all powerful and morally perfect, how can he allow so much suffering? So theodicy, simply put, is a response to the problem of evil. It tries to defend the nature of God in the face of suffering.

There’s two ways to think about theodicy. One is primarily in terms of truth. I’m searching for the truth about God in the midst of suffering. Another way is, I’m searching for meaning that God can give to my suffering. Those are two different ways that the discussion goes. Some philosophers will want to debate, is theodicy true? Others will want to say, is it helpful? Does it give suffering meaning that allows us to experience it and cope better with suffering?

David Capes  

I guess it’s probably the perfect answer, if you find that it is both true and it helps you discover meaning. But now there’s this movement that is called anti-theodicy. What is anti-theodicy? 

Jahdiel Perez  

This movement really picked up steam in the middle of the past century, during the world wars, from all the carnage and all the unprecedented suffering and terror that that we experienced together. There’s a book called God after Auschwitz, and it says that you can’t look at God the same way. Before we used to imagine evil as something horrendous, but now, after two world wars, after all the carnage of the 20th century, now that it means something so much more, something so much deeper. It’s almost like we share this collective trauma that makes us look at God differently. 

So anti-theodicy wants to say this, there is no meaningful relationship between God and horrendous suffering. Their main thesis is this, that horrendous suffering is inherently meaningless, and there’s no way to redeem it. There’s no way to find meaning in it, to justify it, that the most appropriate moral response as a community and as individuals, is to reject the Theodicy. That doesn’t mean we reject God. 

It just means we reject the attempt to reconcile God with suffering. They think this is not helpful. They think there are philosophical problems with it, but the big impetus behind anti-theodicy is morality. They think it’s evil to try to impose a kind of God-given meaning to suffering if the people suffering don’t accept it. We used to think this was valid, but after the 20th century, there’s no way we can keep doing this. It’s irresponsible and sometimes harmful. 

David Capes  

That’s the idea that came across very carefully in your presentation here, that theodicy they claim, harms people. That people are harmed further by attempting to find this meaning and reconcile God with that suffering. You cite a number of people and let me just include two, because I know both. I’ve met both of John Swinton and Rowan Williams, and here’s a statement by Williams, who was Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Perhaps it is time for philosophers to look away from the theodicy. Part of the task of good theology and a candid religious philosophy is, I believe, to reacquaint us with our materiality and mortality, and part of that is the knowledge of suffering as without explanation or compensation. It is more religiously imperative to be worried about evil than to put it into a satisfactory theoretical context. 

You talk about how in theodicy, what we do is take a faraway view of it. We look at it in an abstract way, but they look at it theoretically. Comment on Williams’s ideas there.

Jahdiel Perez  

I think Rowan Williams has a really intriguing perspective on what makes theology good. Up until the anti-theodicy movement, you just assumed that if you have a theology that doesn’t answer the problem of evil, it’s a bad theology. He’s flipping the script and saying, actually, theology can do its job better, it can draw you closer to God if you don’t respond to the problem of evil, if you affirm anti-theodicy. 

The important thing to note here is that anti theodicy is not just an atheist critique of religion, but actually some theologians, very good theologians like Rowan Williams and John Swinton have said, wait, there’s an insight here that can actually help us do theology and pastoral care even better. Now, personally, as I said in my lecture, I have some questions and comments and some reservations about that, but I do think that they’re hitting onto something important. They’re trying to make us aware that when we talk about God, it has consequences. If we’re not careful, we might actually do harm to people because they’re not at the correct stage of processing their loss. My position is not, oh, they’re just all false. Let’s just throw their ideas away. I think this can serve as a very important corrective to how we do theodicy.

David Capes  

Part of what you do in this paper, and a part of what you’re working on with your broader project that I hope one day will be published in a book, is to not necessarily say, okay, anti-theodicy is completely wrong. But you say it’s mostly wrong. There are some things about it that we ought to listen to, and there are some things about it that, in fact, are wrong. And part of that is the question of, does theodicy actually harm people? You’re looking at psychological studies. Tell us a little bit about that and how that research is developing for you.

Jahdiel Perez  

My research project is trying to intervene into this debate between theodicists and anti-theodicists, primarily from a psychological perspective. I can say this because I started as a philosopher. I still am a philosopher. I absolutely love philosophy, but we’re not often aware when we are making empirical claims, a claim about the physical, observable, measurable universe. Sometimes we just like to say things about human beings, but we don’t realize that this is an empirical claim, not just a philosophical speculation. 

So my first move is, let me track the empirical claims that keep going back and forth in this debate. Instead of just philosophically debating them why don’t we look at the psychological studies? What can they tell us, if anything, about the way human beings respond to suffering and trauma? So it’s very important that I shift from horrendous evil to talking specifically about trauma and PTSD. That’s the way psychologists speak about hurt, and it’s evil. I think it’s yielded very interesting insights.

I’ve found areas where anti-theodicies are correct. They’re just absolutely correct. One of their main points is called the argument from insensitivity. It’s the idea that theodicy is inherently insensitive to people who are suffering. That there’s no time, there’s no place where you can articulate a theodicy, and it will be helpful. It’s always going to be harmful. It’s always going to be insensitive. 

I think that they take that a little too far, but they’re correct that people who are suffering from PTSD, almost universally have a common symptom called hyper-arousal. It’s hypersensitivity. Somebody who’s traumatized can get triggered at the smallest cues, at the smallest remembrance. Sometimes just the tone of your voice, sometimes just your facial expression, sometimes if you just use the wrong word, it can trigger them and remind them of the imprints of their trauma. And anti-theodicists are picking up on this. Their concern about sensitivity is exactly correct that people who have suffered horrendously and have been traumatized tend to be hypersensitive. Not just our level of sensitivity, but they tend to be hyper-aroused, hyper-sensitive. So maybe we need to be very careful with how we talk about God and how we talk about theodicy. 

In my research, I have found almost the opposite, that theodicy doesn’t just help people who are suffering, but helps even caregivers that are giving medical or therapeutic care to victims of horrendous evil. If you have some kind of meaning that you can give to suffering that’s going to make it less potentially traumatic for you. One way of defining trauma is an event that you cannot make meaning of, you cannot integrate it into the overall story of your life or your overall worldview. And insofar as that event or that suffering remains that way, remains senseless, the imprints of trauma are going to continue. They’re going to affect you physically. They’re going to affect you cognitively, psychologically, spiritually. 

But if you have a framework that can try to make meaning of suffering, even horrendous suffering, you’re more likely to be able to cope with it better. What I found so far is that some of the empirical claims in the debate are not what the anti-theodicists think. If theodicy hurts individuals, it is not necessarily because theodicy is harmful, but because those individuals are in a very particular, very specific moment of processing their loss. They’re in a very specific moment of their grief. It’s very clear that your sensibilities and your needs change depending on which stage you are at. 

So, my argument is, what if the Theodicy is harmful and theodicy is offensive at the earliest stages of grief. Of course, you don’t want to hear about God when you just lost your loved one or when you just experienced trauma. Who cares about God in those moments, right? Sometimes you don’t want to hear about it. Sometimes it’s defensive. It’s hurtful. But what the anti-theodicists think is that that’s the only stage of grief, and that if you feel that way immediately, you’re bound to feel that way 10, 20, or 30 years after the event. And psychologists have shown that’s just not the case. The way we make judgments about our meaning in life changes and can change very dramatically based on many different factors. But one of them is, which stage of grief are you in?

David Capes  

Yes, that is huge. That is fascinating. One of the things that you talk about is the fact that it is important at some stage, at some point in grief, that a person actively maintain a distancing. That it’s helpful to distance yourself and to think theoretically about that, because you said that it helps to reduce stress and anxiety and negative emotions. It reduces the blood pressure, it reduces cardiovascular activity etc. And here’s a statement that you made that I thought was interesting. That “self-immersion in stressful events can lead to maladaptive reflection, more anxiety, more worry, more saying this is catastrophic, higher blood pressure, higher cardiovascular activity. That a part of what philosophers do and theologians do is to conceive of these things Theoretically, and that it’s helpful for people who are in some stage of grief to  look at it from that perspective. Would you comment on that?

Jahdiel Perez  

This relates to another major argument of anti-theodicists and it is called the “argument from detachment”. The more you abstract away from the specific, embodied suffering, the less clearly you’ll be able to see the suffering and to evaluate it correctly. So. the further you are away, the more harmful you are going to be to someone who’s suffering. If you’re suffering, you want to know you’re not alone, right? You want people to come close to you. Maybe not to talk to you, but at least to be present. So that doesn’t make some sense. 

However, what psychologists have found is that there’s two ways of looking at any specific moment in life, especially trauma. One is from a self-immersed perspective, which uses “I” statements, which means this is happening to me right now, at this very moment. I’m reliving, reenacting the trauma. Another is from a self-distance perspective, which is trying to create some sort of psychological distance between who you are now and the you that suffered the trauma. 

What psychologists have found is that trauma is overwhelming. What it does is that it keeps you trapped in the moment. It affects the way you perceive time. So even years after the event, you might think you’re still suffering. And one of the interventions that therapists like to make is precisely to create psychological self-distancing from this event. Because if you cannot distance yourself specifically from that traumatic stress, all those factors that we mentioned, anxiety, heart rate, depression, reactivity of your heart and all these biological markers tend to increase without this kind of psychological self-distancing. 

What if the theodicy provides the kind of distance that individuals need to cope better with suffering, and this is something that I think there’s enough evidence to suggest. But what if it’s not the argument per se that helps us cope better? What if it’s just the distance from the trauma and the meaning that it can give that can help us live better with suffering? 

David Capes  

It’s a fascinating study Jahdiel. Thank you for being with us today on The Stone Chapel Podcast.

Jahdiel Perez  

I appreciate it. Thank you so much for having me any time.

A Nugget of Wisdom from Jahdiel Perez  

One of my favorite sayings is that if you’re the smartest person in the room, then you’re in the wrong room. I think it’s very important to surround yourself with people that are ahead of you, that are smarter than you. I never want to be the smartest person in the room, the most spiritual person in the room. I found that every time I’ve grown in life, or anytime I’ve succeeded or have been promoted, it’s because I have mentors around me that can help me grow.

Posted on

Endurance in Non-Retaliation with Darian Lockett: 1 Peter 3:23

To hear the podcast (12 min) click here.

1 Peter 2:23 is translated in the NIV as, “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats.” Close attention to the Greek grammar can illuminate that Christ’s non-retaliation was an enduring one, outlasting the repeated attacks made on him. Dr. Darian Lockett is Professor of New Testament at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, and a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.

Among his publications are, Letters for the Church: Reading James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, and Jude as Canon and Letters from the Pillar Apostles: The Formation of the Catholic Epistles as a Canonical Collection.

Check out related programs at Wheaton College:

B.A. in Classical Languages (Greek, Latin, Hebrew): https://bit.ly/3yeGTfX 

M.A. in Biblical Exegesis: https://bit.ly/4d6MGmV 

Posted on

“A High Tower” with Megan Roberts: Psalm 46

To hear the podcast (12 min) click here.

Psalm 46 is a psalm for our moment, and its encouraging message is amplified when read in Hebrew. The psalm reminds us that amidst the nations in uproar, and battles, and devastations, and mountains falling into the sea, the God of Jacob is our high fortress, lifting us above the chaos. Our instinct in turmoil is to tighten our grip on things. The psalmist advises us to let go and know that the Lord is God.

Dr. Megan Roberts is an alumna of the M.A. in Biblical Exegesis at Wheaton College, and Professor of Old Testament and Program Director of Bible/Theology at Prairie College, Alberta, Canada. Her dissertation, Memory Formation in Isaiah 40–55: Healing to Accomplish Comfort, is forthcoming with Brill.

Check out related programs at Wheaton College:

B.A. in Classical Languages (Greek, Latin, Hebrew): https://bit.ly/3As5Gxy 

M.A. in Biblical Exegesis: https://bit.ly/4der6wI 

Posted on

LanierAcademic

My job recently changed. I was asked to focus on academics, so I was named the Director of Academic Programming at Lanier Theological Library. As part of the LanierAcademic initiative, we are launching a new program: The Lanier Certificate in Theology and Ministry.

Starting off, most courses will be in person, but over time we will be developing online assets as well. This is all part of a greater initiative called LanierAcademic. We will have courses in Greek and Hebrew and the certificate program. We are considering additional courses as well.

Classes begin fall 2024. If you interested or if you know someone who may be, here is a QR code you can check out.

If you are a bi-vocational pastor, Sunday School leader, deacon, elder, in leadership in your church, or maybe a seminary graduate who just needs a refresher, this course of study may be what you want or need.

For more information https://www.laniertheologicallibrary.org/lctm-main-page/

To register for classes see https://laniertheologicallibrary.moodlecloud.com

Posted on

How Christology Begins with Stan Porter

Here is a conversation I had recently with Dr. Stan Porter on “The Stone Chapel Podcast.” That podcast is part of the ChurchLeaders Podcast Network.

Stan Porter  

I’m Stanley Porter and I’m the President and Dean and Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

David Capes  

Dr. Stanley Porter, Stan. Good to see you. Welcome to The Stone Chapel Podcast.

Stan Porter  

Thanks, David. Good to see you, too.

David Capes  

It’s a pleasure to have you. I’ve been wanting to [have you on the podcast] for a while. I got your book, The Origins of New Testament Christology, the one you wrote with Bryan Dyer. And I’m very excited to be chatting with you today about it. Because you know, I love Christology. I just resonate with it. But for those who don’t know you, who is Stan Porter?

Stan Porter  

Well, that’s a good question. I have a lot of things I could talk about. One of my main interests is Greek language and linguistics. That’s how I started out my career. I’m originally from the United States, and was educated, at least in part there. And then I did my PhD in Britain, at the University of Sheffield. And I’ve taught at a lot of different places. I taught in the States, I taught in Western Canada, and I taught in the UK. Now I’m in Canada. I’ve been in Canada since 2001. I’ve been at McMaster Divinity College, probably for the biggest part of my career, and it’s been great. I’ve been President at McMaster Divinity College, and we’ve had a great time working with a lot of great students in developing a lot of different programs. And they’ve been, I think, serving the church very, very well.

David Capes  

Is there a denominational connection at McMaster?

Stan Porter  

McMaster Divinity College, we’re a Baptist seminary. We’re connected with the Convention Baptists. It’s distinctly Canadian Baptist. We’re connected to the Canadian Baptists of Ontario and Quebec. About 10% of our students are Convention Baptists, but we have a lot of other students. We have close to 40 different denominations, from a lot of different places around North America and around the globe.

David Capes  

It’s a great school. I’ve known a number of people to have gone there over the years. And it has a fantastic reputation in part because of your leadership there. And you’ve got a brilliant faculty as well. 

Stan Porter  

Thank you, David. Yeah, we’ve worked hard to develop a good faculty. 

David Capes  

That’s a big factor. And that attracts some good students, I would imagine over the years. Let’s talk about your book Origins of New Testament Christology. Here’s the subtitle, An Introduction to the Traditions and Titles Applied to Jesus. Now you wrote this, along with Bryan Dyer. How was it working with Bryan? 

Stan Porter  

Bryan’s a great guy. Bryan, I struck up a friendship and a working relationship. We edited a book on Paul and rhetoric. And I wrote this book on sacred traditions. Bryan contributed a chapter. And when we were working on that book, developing this notion of how important sacred traditions are, we got the idea of doing more, and that turned into the Christology book. It was a great experience working with Bryan. 

David Capes  

He’s a brilliant fellow. And I’m really grateful for him. Can you do a wrap it up in terms of the big focus of your book? (Now Christology means the doctrine of Christ, I guess is a simple way of putting it.) When you think about the person of Jesus, and the significance and those things, in a way you’re thinking Christologically. How does this book fit into other books about Christology? What’s the big idea of your book, Stan?

Stan Porter  

Actually, it’s a pretty complex question, because Christology is a complex issue. There are a couple of things, I think, to your question that I could address. The big idea is that we’re trying to get out how is Jesus Christ depicted in the New Testament for who he is? What are the New Testament writers doing? And what kinds of ways of depicting him do they use? How do they go about doing this? What are they saying by doing this? 

And hence, we have used a form of the titles approach. There have been important Christology books. Cullmann’s book, you know, is a well-known Christology in some ways. We patterned [our book] after that. Or at least think of it in terms of serving academia and the church in a similar kind of way. In other words, going through and not doing an exhaustive and comprehensive treatment, but a good solid treatment. Especially for students in seminary, or advanced undergraduates, of key ways that Jesus is depicted, we pattern the book then both in terms of the history of research like Cullmann and some of the others. Even at the end, in the last chapter, we position it in relationship to what some people would call the second history of religion movement, or this idea of “how Jesus became God” and try to address how it fits in there. But our primary task is to say, let’s take what the New Testament presents and show how Jesus is depicted. 

David Capes  

And that’s done, like you said, through a modified title approach. Because you don’t just do titles you do traditions and titles together. I like that. In fact, I was concerned a few years ago, when people seem to be abandoning Christological titles for other things. Those other things are good. But I didn’t feel honestly that we could divorce the titles from some of those other things, particularly narrative Christology, let’s say.

Stan Porter  

Yeah, those are really good observations. David, I think you’re absolutely right. There was a push back against the tiles approach. And in some ways, I think it was warranted, because in a lot of treatments of titles, there tends to be a focus on particular wordings. And sometimes the wordings are not particularly Christological. And you get this problem of trying to do a kind of word theology that I think goes much too far. And it’s probably not a good responsible way of dealing with lexical items. And what we’re trying to do is to say you need some kind of an organizing principle. And yes, others have used other ways of doing that book by book narratively, etc. 

But there are certain ways that Jesus is depicted or addressed by the New Testament authors. And we wanted to focus on those not trying to provide comprehensive treatments, for example, of every time a given lexeme appears in the New Testament. But when this particular set of wordings may be used, especially in these contexts that are theological, what is being meant by and that’s where the traditions part comes in. Because we found and are supporting the idea and trying to develop further, that a lot of these did not come from nowhere. But they are reflecting traditions that were found in the Jewish world and in the Greco-Roman world, and I don’t like to make a bifurcation between those two. But you know, Jesus lived within that wider thought world in which the New Testament was written. And we pick up on those particular kinds of wordings, and hence develop it along that way. That’s why it’s a bit of a modified titles approach, because the traditions help inform how this language came to be used and why it has significance in the New Testament.

David Capes  

Sometimes people look at a particular word, and say I don’t find that word, therefore, the idea is not there. I feel like that’s overreaching. Yes, that word might not be there. But still, the same idea is being expressed, let’s say in the questions being asked, or the statements being made, or the claims being made about Jesus, for example.

Stan Porter  

Yeah, absolutely. There’s that kind of thing, or just because a particular word might be used, I suppose you could say, I don’t know I’m just thinking for an example the word ‘son”. Every time “son” is used, it’s got to have some kind of theological significance to it. It’s a term that does sometimes in contexts have that theological meaning as we want to talk about that, but not do an exhaustive study of the lexeme. And all of its different uses. 

David Capes  

You and Bryan did 11 chapters on it. Let me just read the names of the chapters. And I’m going to ask in a second about the order you guys chose. Number one, Jesus the Lord. Number two, Jesus the Prophet. Number three, Jesus, the Son of Man. Number four, Jesus, the Son of God. Five, Jesus, the Suffering Servant. Six, Jesus, the Passover Lamb. Seven, Jesus the Messiah. Eight, Jesus, the Savior. Nine, Jesus, the Last Adam. Ten, Jesus, the Word and Eleven, Jesus, the High Priest. is there anything significant about that order, or was that just something you came up with as a way of getting all those titles and traditions represented,

Stan Porter  

It’d be great and clever if we said that it’s really some kind of a hidden code that spells Bryan’s middle name or something, but it’s not! That’s a good question, David. We actually debated the order. We debated whether there should be other chapters in the book. And once you open that up, you can find lots of other possibilities. You’ll notice, for example, that in dealing with “Jesus as the Word” I think we have wisdom in there. And we put those together. We maybe could have had a separate chapter or, do Moses or, there’s all sorts of things like that. But I think what we tried to do—and I’m not sure that you can ever do this in an entirely consistent way—was to have several different things going on. One starting with the broader and most well known kinds of titles. 

And so especially with “Jesus is Lord”, that’s a really important one, especially throughout the New Testament. And then we start with that one, it has a lot of implications regarding who Jesus is, as God. They move on to some of the other ones that are perhaps more specialized, but often thought of as important. Now “prophet” is interesting. Because if you say Jesus is Lord, well, then you have the prophets proclaiming the Word of the Lord. And so, you know, Jesus comes along and so “prophet” seems a natural thing. But then if you get into things like “Son of Man” and “Son of God”, “Son of Man” is pretty much a Gospel’s only kind of title. 

But when people think in terms of depicting Jesus, it seems to be the way that Jesus thought of himself often refers to that and is big in the Gospels. It needed to be probably near the top of things. “Son of God” is one of those that reaches into the Greco Roman world, in a big way. It ties in with some of the traditions concerning how especially Eastern rulers were thought of. So, there’s a long history there and we tried to tease that out. And then after that, you get into some of the perhaps even more specialized titles if you get into “Passover lamb”, there are a few places in the desert, but it’s predominantly John’s Gospel that depicts that and then you get some that are probably less overtly divine Christological titles. Some more human ones. You have the “Suffering Servant”, although that’s got some interesting things to it and “Messiah”, perhaps could have been put earlier. 

But on the other hand, there’s a lot of debate about what were the theological implications of Messianism at the time. We tend to take a more diverse view of Messianism than a lot of people are doing these days. Right now, there’s a lot of depiction in terms of the Davidic line. And the King Jesus ideas, the way of defining Messiah. But we take a little bit of a broader view, recognizing that was probably broader terminology. So, it fits then within certain other kinds of things. It will have some ties to priest, perhaps, as well. And so, you have “high priests“ there near the end, giving you a little bit of an idea of, at least how I can think of it in terms of once we settled on the order, but we did think about that.

David Capes  

Yes, some [scholars] distinguish between human titles, the human Jesus, his humanity and then the Divine. I don’t think there’s always a good clean line, sometimes between those. Let me ask you this, because I’m curious. Among the earliest Christians, they’re trying to sort out Jesus in the first century, having not had a New Testament. But what they had was the Old Testament. What they had was their culture at the time. I’m wondering what you and Bryan are thinking about the doctrine of Christ today. Is it a settled matter? Has it been settled? Or do you see things in culture or maybe in the churches that seemed to be detracting from the person and the work of Jesus these days?

Stan Porter  

It’s a live topic. It’s a hot topic. That’s part of reason we wrote the book, and you’ll see that the way we framed it we talk especially in terms of adoptionism as one of the big issues. And I mentioned earlier some of those who’ve been discussing this whole concept of the “How Jesus became God” debate that’s tied in with that whole thing. I think we frame it near the end. There’s the question of, if that’s an issue how and when. And those are big, big debates, right? Was it something that took place much later and the church bestowed? Or was it something that was there from the start? And so, in that sense, Christological issues, I think, are a very, very big issue, and are constantly being debated. 

So, some would conclude in the Jesus became God debate, it’s right from the beginning. There’s the sense in which Jesus was regarded as divine, and then the church’s language was just unfolding. Others would say, we can point to a place or a time or an event or something that occurred where some in the church people decided, that is when Jesus became regarded as divine.  We don’t get as involved in that debate, as others have, as I said, in the final chapter, we try to place our work within that larger context. 

Our primary focus is to see how the New Testament authors depict Jesus. And I think our own conclusions might be called and it’s traditionally been called a High Christology, emerges from that. From what we can see in the earliest documents, there’s a sense of Jesus being in some way divine. We want to take that seriously, and are less concerned for teasing out the rest of it. So, in that sense, we are not part of the adoption as a group, and no, we’re not. But we’re not overtly making an argument against it so much as trying to take the text as we see them. And then let others do that. 

David Capes  

I think you’re right. The other thing I’ve notice as I run into Christians who have a sense that Jesus was a prophet, he was this and that, but he wasn’t really God. That was just something that was added later. The other thing that I’m seeing, and I have noticed, it seems like there’s an abiding Gnosticism. That in the church, a sense that Jesus was never fully human. So, we get the divinity of Jesus [early], but the full humanity of Jesus was never really established. If you look up Gnostic Christianity on the Internet, there’s websites where people today are still calling themselves Gnostics. And I don’t know if that’s a thing in Canada, if that’s just a thing down here in the States or not.

Stan Porter  

I think you’ll find that in a lot of different places. But yes, you’re absolutely right. And I think some of the pushback that’s occurred in some circles, to the High Christology probably has gone too far. In emphasizing Jesus’ humanity, in an effort to make sure that we don’t forget that he’s human, I would like to think our book does address that, in some ways. All the titles probably fit into the larger picture of who Jesus is. And that overall is a High Christology, but not every one of them, is a way of naming him as God in the same way as all the others are. And so, I think we’ve tried to maintain that balance, and so that you can appreciate fully his humaneness whilst seeing how that fits within the larger picture of his divinity.

David Capes  

And the church does deal with these things and puzzles them out, in a sense over many decades, centuries. They’re trying to sort out what they find there in the earliest texts themselves. We’re talking to Dr. Stanley Porter about his book with Bryan Dyer, The Origins of New Testament Christology: An Introduction to the Traditions and Titles Applied to Jesus. It’s a brilliant book. I’m going use this as a textbook next time I teach Christology, because I think that it handles so many of the important issues. Dr. Stan Porter, thanks for being with us today on The Stone Chapel Podcast. 

A Nugget of Wisdom from Stan Porter  

One of the things that I often talk with my students about is that we work in a discipline [theology/biblical studies] that tends to emphasize the individual scholar. But I’ve had great pleasure over the years of working collaboratively with somebody else. And sometimes we wonder why is it that science seems to make so much progress. And one of the things I observe is that scientists often work collaboratively and you get the dynamic and synergy and the kind of excitement that comes from a lot of people sharing the abilities that they have. And I would like to encourage a lot of us within the field of Biblical Studies to think of working together. And I think there’s a lot of potential and a lot of good that we can do in the work that we do if we think in those terms.