I think that no one can know exactly for sure, but I would guess that it has something to do with the timing and the socio-political atmosphere that Jesus was in.
In the early part of Jesus’ ministry, He often prevented the demons (who knew who he was and had access to the spiritual realm) to disclose his identity prematurely; perhaps not wanting anyone to worship him before His glorification and His completion of His earthly mission. He however allowed people to slowly draw implications out of his miraculous works and his extraordinary teachings with authority. As times goes on, we see that His claims become more and more explicit; claims that only someone equally divine as the Father can make. Even His opponents after arresting Him, charged Him of claiming himself to be the Son of God, which He could have simply rejected and clarify, and in doing so even save His life; but He went on to say that "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matthew 26:57-65) Thus, confirming further the charge made against Him.
Once Jesus asked His disciples who they think He was, and eventually Peter answered that He is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16) Jesus once again seems to confirm it and even blessed Peter. Maybe Peter got it right even though Jesus had not yet been glorified, while the rest were maybe still not aware. But after that, it puzzles me that He still warned his disciples not to tell anyone that He is the Christ. Perhaps, just perhaps, that just letting his disciples or just Peter to know and get it was enough for Him. Openly proclaiming it to the public would complicate His mission as the public probably still had a wrong conception of what ‘the Christ’, the ‘Saviour’, ‘Messiah’ means. Maybe only after his resurrection would it all be clear and then would everyone know and understand. And by then neither would he need to state anything anymore. They all get it!
Dear Jason,
ReplyDeleteYes I agreed with you on the timing factor. But I have a question that may help us to learn and understand better:
Does Jesus’ reply to the high priest Caiaphas that He is the “Son of God” as Caiaphas said, and Jesus’ further proclamation that in the future they will see the “Son of Man” sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven, a clear disclosure of his equal divinity with God? Perhaps a deeper study on the Son of Man and Son of God is needed here.
Thank you for your time :>!
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteI was reading a verse in John 10:34 that you might want help to enlighten me about with regards to claiming Son of God (or rather, explaining Son of God). In fact, the verses are John 10:34-36. I might as well copy it here for easy reference (taken from the NET Bible):
John 10:34: Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'?
John 10:35: If those people to whom the word of God came were called 'gods' (and the scripture cannot be broken),
John 10:36: do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
According to the verse, Jesus was quoting from Ps 82:6. From what I read in commentaries, contextually, the Jews of old do call their judges gods because of their power of judgment. Now, if it was the practice of the Old Testament to refer to men like judges as gods, then, Jesus was questioning them that if they could be referred to as 'gods' and not be deemed as blasphemy, why then are they charging Jesus for blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God. Now, if Jesus gave the context of the usage of gods in the Old Testament and questioning why is He judged so on the same premise, wouldn't you think that in that instance, Jesus was defending Himself? Maybe in those verses, Jesus was showing us that He was not the divine as we know Him but rather just like men of old, a man who was just a vehicle of the word of God (as referenced in 10:35)?
Dear Cheryl,
ReplyDeleteYeah, i think the problem for me is that i am thinking that we need to find out what the term "son of God" means to the gospel writers themselves. because it could have the possibility that after all the experience and beliefs of what the gospel writers went through, the term "son of God" could now mean something different as from traditionally understood in the Judaism context. because we need to remember that Christianity is in a sense a distinct separation from Judaism, that could mean that terms could take on new meaning for a Christian in those time. Oh it's complicated.
Hey Bryan,
ReplyDeleteGreat observation!
But i was thinking about how to answer ur question and what came to my mind was that the difference between the judges and Jesus is that the judges don't call God the Father, neither do they call themselves sons of God, while Jesus addresses the Father in an intimate way.The term Gods in the Old Testament could merely mean representatives of God which is what they are and nothing more. And also could Jesus meant in a literal manner that he was 'sent into the world', which would again make him stand out from the rest. last of all, i think that that conversation was in a context where Jesus was trying to make a point of defending himself as not having done anything deserving of being stoned, not neccessarily identifying totally with the judges in nature.
Do you think this would be a valid answer?