Jesus Puzzle: Chapter 12

Chapter 12 Critiqued:

Doherty wrote: “No other New Testament document so clearly illustrates the higher and lower world thinking of Platonic philosophy as the epistle to the Hebrews. The writer places the sacrifice of Christ in heaven itself, in ‘the real sanctuary, the tent pitched by the Lord and not by man’ (8:2). This tent of Christ’s priesthood ‘is a greater and more perfect one, not made by men’s hands, not part of the created world” (9:11) (TJP:120).

Barnabas Lindars, author of The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, provides a different perspective: “The real humanity of Jesus is essential for the argument of Hebrews, because the whole argument turns on the saving efficacy of his death. It is, of course, yet another point which he can take as common ground. The original teaching never denied that Jesus was human, and there is no reason to suppose that the readers would have done so, unlike some of the later Gnostic heretics. Thus it is not possible for Hebrews to remain faithful to the tradition and at the same time to develop an argument which leaves the humanity of Jesus out of account. In fact he uses it to great advantage. For the solidarity of Jesus with humanity makes him a representative figure. He is the ‘pioneer’ ( 2:10) of the way of salvation for the whole human race…From this point of view he can be referred to metaphorically as a high priest ( 2:17)” (TTLTH:40).

Doherty continued: “Christ’s sacrifice is not spoken of in terms of a crucifixion on Calvary….Not only is Christ’s sacrifice not located on Calvary, the writer never introduces into his Platonic comparison the fact that an important part of Jesus’ act had taken place on earth” (TJP:120).

Hebrews 12:2 states: “…fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you may not grow weary and lose heart.”
Hebrews 12:2 makes reference to both “a cross” (in Greek) and “sinners” (not demons).
The Greek text indicates Jesus “…having endured by – of sinners against himself hostility…”; not “suffering at the hands of demonic spirits in the heavenly realms.”
Thus, it is much more plausible that these verses are discussing Jesus’ death on a cross on earth related to the hostility directed towards Him by sinners.

Doherty wrote: “See Appendix 5 for an examination of one passage in Hebrews [8:4] which virtually tells us that Jesus had never been on earth” (TJP:122).

Doherty has taken this verse out of context.
Charles Laymon wrote the following regarding Hebrews 8:1-5: “The risen and regnant Jesus has not gone into retirement but continues to serve as high priest in the heavenly sanctuary” (TIOVCB:907).
In other words, Jesus performs these activities after his resurrection following His death on a cross.

Doherty then wrote: “In this way, we can understand the concept of Christ being ‘in flesh’ (en sarki, kata sarka, etc.) a stereotyped phrase which appears with surprising regularity in the epistles (Romans 1:3, 9:5; Ephesians 1:15; Colossians 1:22; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 5:7; 1 Peter 3:18, 4:1). It signifies either that Christ took on the spiritual counterpart of flesh, its ‘likeness,’ when he descended to the lower celestial sphere (as in the Ascension of Isaiah 9 or the hymn of Philippians 2:6-11), or as Barrett has suggested, that he entered the ‘sphere of the flesh,’ which included the realm of the demon spirits in the firmament. On occasion, it may refer to Christ’s ‘visit’ to that sphere, as in ‘the days of his flesh’ in Hebrews 5:7. In a more general way, the term may also entail the idea of Christ’s activities being ‘in relation to the flesh,’ in their effect on the material world and humans” (TJP:122).

Both the Ascension of Isaiah 9 and the hymn of Philippians 2:6-11 have been addressed previously, and both are insufficient for supporting Doherty’s case.

Doherty wrote: “Moreover, Paul’s ‘born of a woman’ is not only something that was said of certain mythical savior gods, like Dionysus, it is a detail he could well have based not on history, but on his source for all that he says about the Son, the scriptures…..One might ask why it is that Paul bothers to say that Christ was born of a woman, since this should be an obvious biological fact to his readers. His point may be that he wishes to stress the paradigmatic parallel between believers-who are themselves born of woman, as well as born under the law of the old covenant which Paul wants to abrogate-and Christ himself” (TJP:124).

In regards to Doherty’s reference to Dionysus, the issue of pagan parallels with early Christianity was addressed in the critique of Chapter 11 of The Jesus Puzzle.
New Testament scholar James D.G. Dunn provided another interpretation of Paul’s use of the phrase ‘born of a woman.’
Dunn wrote:
- “Moreover, ‘born of woman’ was a familiar phrase in Jewish ears to denote simply ‘man’ (Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4, Matt. 11:11)-man is by definition ‘one who is/has been born of woman.’ So the reference is simply to Jesus’ ordinary humanness, not to his birth” ( CMANTIODI:40).
The Jewish Use of the Phrase “Born of Woman”: Primary Sources:

Hebrew Bible:

Job 14:1: “A mortal, born of woman, few of days and full of trouble, comes up like a flower and withers, flees like a shadow and does not last.”

Job 15:14: “What are mortals, that they can be clean? Or those born of woman, that they can be righteous?”

Job 25:4: “How then can a mortal be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure?”

The Dead Sea Scrolls:

1QS: “The Community Rule”: 11.20-21: “Who can endure Thy glory, and what is the son of man in the midst of Thy wonderful deeds? What shall one born of woman be accounted before Thee? Kneaded from the dust, his abode is the nourishment of worms” (TCDSSIE:117).

1QH: A portion of “Thanksgiving Hymn 3”: “What is he that is born of woman in the midst of all Thy terrible [works]? He is but an edifice of dust, and a thing kneaded with water, whose beginning [is sinful iniquity], and shameful nakedness, [and a fount of uncleanness], and over whom a spirit of straying rules” (TCDSSIE:247).

1QH: A portion of “Thanksgiving Hymn 18.12-13”: “Thou didst open [his fountain] that he might rebuke the creature of clay for his way, and him who is born of woman for the guilt of his deeds; that he might open [the fount of] Thy truth to a creature whom Thou upholdest by Thy might…” (TCDSSIE:297).

Richard Carrier wrote the following in his review of Doherty’s case:

“There are some specific places where Doherty needs to do more convincing by adducing more primary evidence. For instance, when he argues that the "born of woman" of Gal. 4:4 could be a mythical/scriptural attribute rather than an assertion of earthly incarnation, he says it is "something that was said of certain mythical savior gods, like Dionysos," that Isaiah 7:14 "was taken by Jew and early Christian alike to refer to the Messiah," and that "national gods were often regarded as having the same lineage as the nation itself" (p. 124). He does not demonstrate any of these claims. Many examples are needed to establish all three generalizations as not only valid, but relevant to the given passage. For example, citing cases where Dionysus had a mother because he was euhemerized as a real person, or had a goddess for a mother, are not relevant, since Paul can be doing neither here. And so on. Given the fact that this passage is the most problematic for his theory, Doherty needs to spend a great deal more time validating his interpretation, certainly more than two pages, which consist mostly of argument rather than evidence.”