Edexcel special
Implications New Testament
This ‘Edexcel special’ looks at one way of tackling a passage from J. Bowker’s God: A Brief History in the New Testament Implications paper
Edexcel A2 Unit 4: Religious Studies —Implications
This text by J. Bowker covers a controversial topic and offers candidates the chance to use a number of different resources. There is no single right answer, so candidates should take the opportunity to use a variety of material from scripture and the writings of scholars past and present. Here we suggest one possible way in which you could address the generic Implications question in response to a passage from this text.
Exam advice is provided to help you apply the answers to your own work.
Question (a)
Examine the argument and/or interpretation in the passage. (30 marks)
Student’s answer
‘The God of the Old Testament is…a petty, unjust control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a homophobic, racist, genocidal, sadomasochistic, malevolent bully.’
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
This passage is about our understanding of the unique nature of the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son — are they the same, or different? It begins in the Old Testament with the covenant relationship between God and humanity and the requirements of love, obedience and service on behalf of the whole world. It then stretches into the New Testament, where God, through Christ, brings in a new covenant, centred on the healing and redemption of humanity and freedom from sin. For Bowker, God is not the ‘petty, unjust control freak’ of Dawkins, but the one whom the prophet Jeremiah said would ‘…put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts’.
Bowker begins with the Jewish understanding of their relationship with God as a ‘covenant people’, who offered themselves in holiness to God to worship and follow him, to obey and serve him for the benefit of the whole world. God, in turn, cared for them. He said to Abraham:
‘…this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations…I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and your descendants…
Genesis 17:4 –7
Later, with the help of laws to aid and guide, the covenant with the Jews was renewed with Moses on Mount Sinai:
‘…now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession…a kingdom of priests and a holy nation‘
Exodus 19:5 –6
Bowker then contrasts this with the Jesus the New Testament, where the covenant is extended to include the Gentiles as well:
‘I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.’
John 10 :16
This is a good, solid start. The candidate, with the aid of scholarship and scripture, is able to offer an overview of the passage and highlight the background and context — the use of the Old Testament is very helpful in focusing on the main issues.
Bowker compares the New Testament portrayal of God with his portrayal in the Old Testament, citing the qualities of mercy, peace, love and hope. Bowker concludes that he is consistently portrayed as the God of healing, hope and redemption.
‘I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving kindness, I will build you up again and you will be rebuilt, O Virgin Israel.’
Jeremiah 3 1:3
‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’
John 3 :16
‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord in one.’
Deut 6:4
‘You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.’
Mark 12:32
’ But Bowker criticises the ways in which the Gospel writers apparently misinterpret the scriptures when applying Old Testament prophecies to Jesus. He cites Matthew’s use of the prophet Micah, whom he quotes as saying: ‘The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and they shall call him Immanuel’. Bowker claims that this verse refers to the birth of a royal child and is not about a virgin birth. Similarly, Matthew uses the prophet Hosea’s words ‘out of Egypt I called my son’ to refer to Jesus when, in fact, the original passage was concerned with the Exodus.
Bowker argues that the Gospel writers are doing this because they want to show that Jesus was the continuation and fulfilment of the purpose of God that was started centuries earlier. Bowker portrays Jesus as the fulfilment of God’s plan since the moment of creation (‘Through him all things were made.’ John 1:3). Jesus comes in fulfilment of prophecy, prompting Bowker to remark that ‘Jesus, in his life, death and resurrection, was the continuation and fulfilment of the purpose of God’. Moreover, for Bowker, the Holy Spirit is the presence of God in his people, inspiring and changing them. This is the same Holy Spirit that is present in Christ himself.
This leads us on to Bowker’s main question — how can Jesus be both God and human when he declares, ‘I am in the Father and the Father is in me’ (John 14:11)?
Bowker cites one early answer from the scholar Arius in 318 CE who declared that Jesus could not be equal to God because God must have existed before him:
‘If we say that Jesus is the Son of the Father, it means that he was brought into being at some point in time; from which it follows that there was a time when he did not exist.’
The Christian Church has never been able to fully resolve this. Some have said that Jesus was human, yet brought into the world by the power of God, but distinct from God. Others argue that only if Jesus was fuly God would his sacrificial death on the cross be able to save humanity and bring eternal life. As St Paul wrote in Romans 8:11:
‘If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through the Spirit that dwells in you.’
In contrast, the scholar Athanasius argued that Jesus did not become God, but he had always been God for he did what only God could do — became human — bringing humanity salvation and eternal life. As the Nicene Creed says: ‘For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven and was made man.’
For Christians, therefore, Christ is human and divine. This is shown in Hebrews 4:15:
‘Jesus, Son of God…has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin.’
The candidate has identified, explained and examined the issues in the passage thoroughly. He or she has also clarified the meaning and significance of terms and ideas and supported all of this with good scholarship and scriptural references. It is a clear and concise examination of the passage.
Question (b)
Do you agree with the ideas expressed? Justify your point of view and discuss its implications for understanding religion and human experience. (20 marks)
Student’s answer
I agree with Bowker’s view on the close links between the portrayal of the nature of God in the Old Testament and the nature of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. In particular, Bowker is right to emphasise the importance, in both the Old and New Testaments, of the covenant and the spreading of the message to all peoples. As Jesus says:
‘In my Father’s house there are many rooms…I am going to prepare a place for you.
John 14:2
Equally, I agree with Bowker’s views that the Gospel writers had misinterpreted the Old Testament prophecies to fulfil their own needs. However, I disagree with Bowker’s view that they did this to show that Jesus was the fulfilment of God’s plan.
My reason for disagreeing is that it is surely unacceptable to deliberately misinterpret a passage to suit your own requirements. Bowker fails, in my view, to make the more serious point that this kind of deliberate misinterpretation means that the Gospel accounts of the life and work of Jesus could, in places, be unreliable. To use Bowker’s own example, if Matthew’s reference that ‘…the virgin will be with child’ is incorrect, then it brings into doubt the accuracy of the very important notion of the virgin birth and all that it means for Christ to have been born sinless and the effect of this on the doctrine of salvation and forgiveness of sins.
I broadly agree with Bowker’s claim that Jesus Christ and God the Father have a unique relationship and that, in some way, they are, as the Nicene Creed puts it, ‘of one being’. My main reason for taking this view is that, if the way to salvation and eternal life is through Christ, surely, he is only doing what God can do, and therefore must be of the same nature as God. This is clearly shown when Jesus heals a paralytic by forgiving his sins. To the Jewish leaders, such words were blasphemy because ‘who can forgive sins but God alone?’ (Mark 2:6). Jesus’ reply is enlightening:
‘But you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.’
Mark 2:10
This is good — the candidate is offering his or her own opinion and backing it up with textual quotations and useful scholarship.
But all this still leaves many unanswered questions — in particular, how can Jesus have the same nature as God and yet also be human? I disagree with Arius’ notion that Jesus, because he was physically born, therefore came after God the Father and was, in some way, a lesser being. While I understand the logic of this position, it misses the essential theological point that Jesus came to earth in human form to redeem and restore humanity. Jesus performs miracles, dies as a sinless sacrificial offering and rises from the dead. Indeed, his death/resurrection led to the growth of Christianity. To do this, Jesus had to be of the same nature as God.
For this reason, I agree with Athanasius, in that Jesus did not become God, but was always God — for only in that way could he have redeemed humanity. As the Fourth Gospel writer notes:
‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.’
John 1:1
The candidate considers a range of different viewpoints and responds with scholarly argument.
The implications of the view that Christ is God are that, if true, Christianity is right, Christ’s teachings are true and authoritative and this means that other faiths are not completely accurate. It would give Christianity, and the Christian Church, unique moral and religious authority.
On the other hand, if Christ is not God, then he is simply human. His teaching would therefore carry less authority and his sacrificial death as a sinless offering would be meaningless. Consequently, much of the teaching and authority of the Christian Church would be challenged and Christian morality would have to be re-evaluated. As Karl Barth remarked, what is really needed is a ‘decision of faith’.
The candidate has rightly considered the implications — looking at what would happen if the argument was true and, alternatively, if it was false. It is pleasing to see how the candidate understands the different views expressed.
The overall essay is sharp and concise and addresses all the main issues. The candidate examines the argument, uses scripture for support and utilises the views of scholars.
The candidate is comfortable giving his or her own views and supporting them with evidence, while appreciating and evaluating the views of others.
This ‘Edexcel special’ is the responsibility of RELIGIOUS STUDIES REVIEW and has been neither provided nor approved by Edexcel.