Source: Crispin Fletcher-Louis, Jesus Monotheism: Christological Origins: The Emerging Consensus and Beyond, vol. 1 (Eugene, OR: Whymanity Publishing, 2019), 293–316.
This podcast explores the scholarly debate surrounding the nature of Jewish monotheism, specifically whether there is an absolute distinction between Creator and creation. Some scholars argue for a rigid separation, while others see a more "fluid" or permeable boundary, where certain figures like Moses or angels could be described as "divine." The speakers proposes a third way that acknowledges God's absolute transcendence but also His freedom to share His identity and enter into creation, offering an "exclusive inclusive monotheism" to better explain texts where "divine" language is used for entities other than God
1. The Scholarly Debate on the Creator-Creation Distinction: The central focus of the text is a significant disagreement among scholars regarding the nature of the distinction between God (the Creator) and everything else (creation) within normative Jewish theology and practice, particularly in the Second Temple period. On one side are scholars, prominently represented by Richard Bauckham, who argue for an absolute, clear, and sharp distinction. They contend that Jewish monotheism strictly separates God from all other reality. On the other side are scholars who respond to this by suggesting a more "fluid" or permeable boundary, where in special cases, certain figures can be seen as straddling these categories. This latter group is more willing to use language like "divine" for entities other than God, a practice the first group generally avoids. The source positions this debate as a foundational issue for understanding texts, especially those relevant to Christological origins.
2. Richard Bauckham's View of Absolute Distinction and Divine Identity: Richard Bauckham's perspective is presented as a key articulation of the position that asserts an absolute distinction between God and creation. He argues that Jewish talk of God always drew a "firm line" between the one God and all other reality. Bauckham suggests understanding God's uniqueness in terms of "identity" rather than focusing solely on attributes like "divine nature," which he believes can introduce Greek philosophical concepts that distort the biblical worldview. God's identity is defined by his unique relationship to reality as Creator and Ruler, with a distinct name (Yhwh), and revealed through his relationship with Israel. This view is contrasted with a Greco-Roman "inclusive" view of divinity, where there is a gradient scale of divine beings. Bauckham posits that normative Jewish monotheism is "exclusive," meaning God exists outside any class of supernatural beings to which he could belong as the supreme instance. According to this perspective, mediatorial figures in Second Temple literature were either expressions of God's own character (like Wisdom or Spirit, belonging to the Creator side) or creatures (like angels and exalted humans) who could not be considered "divine."
3. Textual Evidence Challenging the Absolute Distinction: A significant portion of the text is dedicated to presenting textual evidence from Second Temple Judaism that appears to challenge Bauckham's assertion of an absolute, unbridgeable distinction. Four types of texts are discussed: ◦ "Divine" Creatures as Creative Agents: Texts like Sirach 24 and Proverbs 8 present Wisdom in ways that blur the line between Creator and creature, sometimes depicted as a created co-Creator. Philo's writings also contain language about the Logos straddling this boundary. ◦ "Divine" Angels: The Dead Sea Scrolls and other Jewish texts use "god" language (elim, elohim) for angels, suggesting a possible continuation of older ideas where Yhwh presided over a divine council. Even prominent angels like Iaoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham are described in terms that some scholars, including those who argue for a sharp distinction, find appropriate to label as possessing "divinity" due to association with the divine name. ◦ "Divine" Human Beings: Certain righteous humans, most notably Moses, are described in terms typically used for God or angels. Exodus 7:1 states God made Moses "as God/a god to Pharaoh," and descriptions of Moses' radiant face after descending Sinai are interpreted as suggesting he gained a heavenly or "divine" identity. Some texts use language of "deification" or "apotheosis" for exemplary humans. While some texts warn against improper forms of deification (like self-deification or deification of pagans), the source argues that a deification performed by God, where the human being perfectly reflects and makes God's character and presence manifest, is compatible with Jewish theology and warrants the use of "divine" language without posing a threat to God's unique identity. ◦ Worship of "Divine" Agents: Texts like the Worship of Adam story and the Similitudes of Enoch (concerning the Son of Man-Messiah) suggest that worship directed towards specific, distinct creatures (like Adam) or entities (like the Son of Man) was sometimes considered appropriate, but in a way that did not compete with worship of God. This suggests God was willing to share his identity or nature such that another figure could be deemed "divine" and worthy of veneration, but only as a manifestation or representative of God, not as an independent divine being.
4. Critiques of Bauckham's Model and Assumptions: The source raises several criticisms of Bauckham's approach to the Creator-creation distinction. The author suggests Bauckham uses a form of theological modeling that starts "from below," based on analogies to human identities, resulting in a modern, Cartesian view of God as a discrete, impermeable self unable to share his nature or identity. This is seen as potentially limiting God's freedom and sovereignty by imposing external notions of identity. The author questions Bauckham's rigid binary (figures are either "included" in the divine identity or not) and the assertion that monotheism must draw a certain line, suggesting this might make God's identity subordinate to a concept of monotheism itself. Furthermore, Bauckham's omission of God's presence in the Temple as a definition of his identity is seen as reflecting a detached notion of sovereignty, missing the biblical emphasis on God's sovereignty being defined by his particular presence within creation. These critiques suggest that Bauckham's philosophical assumptions may influence his interpretation of the texts and his tendency to downplay concepts like the Incarnation.
5. Proposal for a New Model: "Exclusive Inclusive Monotheism": In response to the challenges to Bauckham's view and the perceived limitations of a strict absolute distinction, the author proposes moving "from above," allowing the biblical and Jewish texts to shape our understanding of divine identity. This leads to the suggestion of a model referred to as "Exclusive Inclusive Monotheism." This model posits that the absolute difference between God and reality, paradoxically, serves as the warrant for God's ability and freedom to transcend that difference and share himself, his nature, or his identity with creation, even taking created reality into his own being. This view sees God's identity as "shareable" and highlights his intention to delegate and share. Drawing on Benjamin Sommer's work, the author considers the possibility that biblical texts assume a notion of divine "fluidity" or extendibility, where God's being can be present in multiple places or entities, like cult objects or the human creature as his image. This proposed model aims to explain both the evidence for God's transcendence (which Bauckham highlights) and the textual evidence where "god" or "divine" language is used for other entities, suggesting that such sharing is a gracious act of the one God, not a sign of a Greco-Roman hierarchical system or a compromise of strict monotheism. The New Testament's depiction of the Incarnation is presented as the most compelling evidence for this kind of framework existing in early Christian thought, where God fully enters creaturely existence without abrogating the Creator-creation distinction in a problematic way.
The debate about Christological origins involves different scholarly views on the relationship between God and creation in Jewish thought and how this relates to early Christian beliefs about Jesus.
Key aspects of the debate:
•Core Disagreement: Scholars are divided into two main groups regarding the distinction between God (Creator) and creation in normative Jewish theology.
◦ One group argues for a clear and sharp distinction. Richard Bauckham is a prominent proponent of this view, emphasizing an "absolute distinction between God and all other reality". This view sees Jewish monotheism as "exclusive," meaning God exists outside any class of supernatural beings.