In our Christology of the New Testament class, we just read on the Second Temple Jewish messianic expectations. W.S. Green, in his chapter “Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the Question,” noted the wide variety of messianic understanding in that period; he sees the diversity as too great to allow for any great unification in messianic expectation. Furthermore, the expectation is that the messiah is primarily human—or if in some sense divine, then an intermediary figure. Against the nineteenth-century scholars, W. Horbury has argued for coherence (see Horbury, “Jewish Messianism and Early Christology,” in Contours of Christology, ed R. N. Longenecker, 14-17).
Coming back to the biblical texts themselves—from which, by the way, Horbury argues for a coherence in a messianic tradition based on messianic interpretations of the scriptures—Bauckham has understood the Gospel of John to interpret Deutero-Isaiah to refer to the messiah and include him in the divine identity:
But the full significance in terms of Deutero-Isaianic monotheism we can appreciate only when we observe, as hardly anyone has done, the conjunction in [John] 8:28 of the allusion to Isaiah 52:13 (the lifting up of the Son of Man) with the divine self-declaration, ‘I am he,’ also from Deutero-Isaiah. . . . When Jesus is lifted up, exalted in his humiliation on the cross, then the unique divine identity (‘I am he’) will be revealed for all who can to see.
(Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008], 48)
Assuming Bauckham’s understanding is correct, John’s (and other Jewish New Testament writers’) messianic expectations were turned completely upside down in their encounter with Jesus Christ. Jesus the Christ is not only human, nor is he simply an intermediary figure, but he participates in the divine identity of YHWH.
the archives near Emmaus 
Yup, yup, yup! So much of this discussion comes down to our understanding of Jewish monotheism in the NT period; that foundation tends to determine how we understand the unfolding structure of christology. Horbury and Bauckham are coming at monotheism from such different directions, it’s not surprising that they come to such different christological conclusions. There are so many complicated judgements to be made about our evidence that it really makes this whole field endlessly fascinating 🙂
I find your language of Jesus “participating in the divine identity of YHWH” a little cloudy. It almost sounds like a kind of adoptionistic version of christology. Could you clarify your language a little bit?
Jonathan: You are quite correct about the complications, and Hurtado is very careful to point out that this subject is not as simplistic as many want to make it seem. I see Horbury as being in harmony with Bauckham (and Hurtado) here. Have you read other works of Horbury that would indicate otherwise?
Bobby: Thanks for asking for clarification. This is more Bauckham/Hurtado language, but I don’t think I have used it with the greatest amount of justice. In Jesus and the God of Israel, Bauckham has argued for a radically monotheistic view of God—so monotheistic that an orthodox Second Temple Jew could not appropriate any form of divine worship to any person or heavenly figure but YHWH. So, in this strict monotheistic framework, to include Jesus into the divine identity of YHWH would mean to that Jesus is no one less than YHWH.
John,
Thanks for the clarification . . . that further context helps!
I think it’s really Bauckham’s language alone (well, and those who follow him). Hurtado’s emphasis is on cultic devotion whereas Bauckham’s is on identity. So Bauckham takes the way that YHWH relates to Israel and all other reality (as Creator and Sovereign Ruler) and establishes his understanding of YHWH’s “unique divine identity.” Jesus is then portrayed as sharing in YHWH’s unique divine identity because of his position as Creator and Sovereign Ruler. Hurtado actually finds Bauckham unpersuasive on the point of sovereignty as a feature of YHWH’s uniqueness, or at least that sharing in God’s sovereignty is unique to Jesus (see Lord Jesus Christ, 47 n. 66).
So what do you guys think, are these “exegetes” trying to describe God’s being straight off of the pages of scripture prima facie? I.e. w/o appealing to the language and grammar of certain theological creeds and councils.
Nick: Thanks for your input. I’m having some trouble keeping adequate notes on what I’m reading here so I’m probably jumbling the two at points. Good to know you’ve got my back! 🙂
Bobby: I would say yes, they’re doing it without going to the creeds and councils. I acknowledge that they are resorting to other backgrounds to inform their understanding of Scripture, so it is, in a sense, an informed description from the pages of Scripture. Have you read either of Hurtado’s or Bauckham’s works on Christology?