Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of

Bible and Theology

http://btb.sagepub.com

The Principal Model of God in the New Testament

James M. Reese
Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 1978; 8; 126
DOI: 10.1177/014610797800800305

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://btb.sagepub.com

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/8/3/126

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009

 THE PRINCIPAL MODEL OF GOD IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT*
James M. Reese O.S.F.S.
St. John’s University
Jamaica, New York
The goal of this paper is not to suggest fields more closely than has often been
new models for God but to test whether supposed, it is also strikingly different&dquo;
the concept of model is possible or help- ( Kuhn : 209).
ful to deal with the New Testament New Testament studies have many
manner of treating God. This caution is problems to face. Yet their situation
necessary for two reasons. ( 1 ) The cannot be described as undergoing one
success of using models is characteristic of the scientific revolutions described by
of the developed sciences that are fun- Kuhn, namely, &dquo;those non-cumulative
damentally problem solving. Some developmental episodes in which an
students of religious thought favor their older paradigm is replaced in whole or
use in theology. Thus Ian G. Barbour in part by an incompatible new one&dquo;
suggests that the prevailing models in (Kuhn: 92). After presenting the New
Christian theology are inadequate and Testament data I shall explain why I
proposes a new one (Barbour: 161-165). feel the approach through models
That is a problem for systematic encounters serious difficulties.
theology to address. It touches on New Scientific revolutions are the end results
Testament studies insofar as it raises of &dquo;these flashes of intuition through
the hermeneutical problem of the which a new paradigm is born&dquo; (Kuhn:
authority of biblical language in the 123 ) . With the understanding that we are
Church. I shall come back to that briefly comparing two different fields, the term
at the end of this paper. paradigm will serve as the starting point
(2) The pioneering work of James M. for linking models and the New
Robinson and Helmut Koester on trajec- Testament. First, I want to locate
tories generated by the Christian ex- models in this more comprehensive
perience has revealed the complexity of thought pattern. Then I shall turn to
New Testament writings and the need of applying models to that little library of
refining methods of research. These two 27 books called the New Testament.
scholars have called attention to a That will be the point to raise the
&dquo;crisis of categories&dquo; in early Christian hermenutical questions involved.
scholarship and the need for &dquo;reconcep- Paradigm Patterns of Thought
tualization&dquo; (Robinson: 4). New To the lay person the work of science
Testament scholarship is scientific but seems to be largely cumulative - the
it does not conform to the situation
gaining of knowledge by adding new data
prevailing in developed sciences with to the old in a linear and one-
their &dquo;relative scarcity of competing dimensional fashion. In reality, science
schools&dquo; (Kuhn: 209). In fact, Kuhn advances by quantum leaps. Each new
issues a warning in the postscript of the
second edition of his study of scientific
paradigm creates its own theories. In-
formation must be transformed into
revolutions, &dquo;Though scientific facts or data that fit into a structured
development may resemble that in other whole ( Kuhn : 138-139 ) . Scientists &dquo;never
*
Written chapter of a book : .i I ~ ~‘ I ~ ( /.’B (Ifi’
as a iearn concept, laws and theories in the
published by the faculty of St.
l~‘~~I to be abstract and by themselves;&dquo; rather
John’s University, Jamaica, New York. &dquo;paradigms guide research by direct
126

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009

modeling as well as through abstract
rules&dquo; (Kuhn: 46-47). In a more specific
way, &dquo;paradigms provide scientists not
only with a map but also with some
directions for map-making&dquo; (Kuhn:
10-9).
The success of the scientific method
and its adaptation by behavioral
sciences has raised hope that it may
offer a useful tool in theology in general
and in New Testament studies in par-
ticular. Both these fields are being pur-
sued scientifically. But in making the
decision to do New Testament studies
through the method of paradigms and
models, scholars assume certain respon-
sibilities and should be aware of the im-
plications involved. One striking
difference comes to mind immediately.
In the case of the developed sciences,
&dquo;The transfer of allegiance from
paradigm to paradigm is a conversion
experience that cannot be forced&dquo;
(Kuhn: 151). Except during a scientific
revolution a natural science is governed
by only one prevailing point of view at
any given period. Out of this prevailing
paradigm flows its theories and models.
Paradigms and the New
Testament
New Testament studies, on the
contrary, face an ongoing variety of
competing solutions that have to be
evaluated and adapted to particular
groups. Kuhn calls attention to the
diversity when he writes, &dquo;Scientific
education makes use of no equivalent for
the art museum or the library of
classics&dquo; (Kuhn: 167). The method of
looking at reality through the prevailing
paradigm in science is extolled as the
fruit of progress and the only way of
teaching it. In the second edition of his
book Kuhn acknowledges the need of
sharpening his manner of explaining
progress in science. In doing so he dis-
tinguishes two different senses of the
word paradigm. &dquo;On the one hand, it
stands for the entire constellation of
beliefs, values, techniques, and so on
127
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
shared by the members of a given com-
munity&dquo; (Kuhn: 175). He calls this the
sociological sense of the term paradigm.
Such a frame of reference is a powerful
force because itt serves as a
&dquo;disciplinary matrix for a scientific
community&dquo; (Kuhn: 182).
But paradigm is sometimes also used
for &dquo;one sort of element in that con-
stellation, the concrete puzzle-solutions
which, employed as models or ex-
amples, can replace explicit rules as a
basis for the solution of the remaining
puzzles of normal science&dquo; (Kuhn: 175).
This is a &dquo;shared example&dquo; that the
scientific community refers to in its ex-
perimentation. It is this more restricted
use of the term paradigm that is now
known as a model. As an important
element in a complex dynamic network
models perform a heuristic function.
&dquo;Among other things they supply the
group with preferred or permissible
analogies and metaphors. By doing so
they help to determine what will be
accepted as an explanation and as a
puzzle-solution; conversely, they assist
in the determination of the roster of un-
solved puzzles and in the evaluation of
the importance of each&dquo; (Kuhn: 184).
Why not then apply this methodology
which has been so successful in
providing the good life to theology? As
Ian Barbour states in the preface of his
comparative study in science and
religion, &dquo;It is the thesis of this volume
that recent work in the philosophy of
science has important implications for
the philosophy of religion and for
theology&dquo; (Barbour: 3). He has in-
troduced essential distinctions and made
analyses that make it possible for
theologians to use the term with
precision in their discipline.
Value of Paradigms in Theology
First of all, his description of models
orients our approach. &dquo;Broadly
speaking, a model is a symbolic
representation of selected aspects of the
behaviour of a complex system for par-
ticular purposes. It is an imaginative
tool for ordering experience, rather than
a description of the world&dquo; (Barbour:
6). In addition, he distinguishes classes
of models and specifies the one helpful
in the science of theology, namely,
theoretical models. It is important to
keep in mind that these are not pictures
of reality but mental constructs that are
&dquo;partial and provisional ways of imagin-
ing what is not observable.&dquo; As such,
&dquo;they have an important continuing role
in suggesting both modifications in ex-
isting theories and the discovery of new
phenomena&dquo; (Barbour: 7).
This type of model takes on new func-
tions in the area of religion because of
the limit and self-committing nature of
religious language. Barbour’s purpose in
adapting them for use in theology is
primarily an ethical concern for en-
couraging personal commitment within
an open environment of research in the
religious sphere today. My present
cern is limited. I propose to in-
more
vestigate the New Testament’s
statements about who God is and what
he does and to see whether these data
can be organized into one or more
theoretical models.
The New Testament
Presentation of God
The next step in testing whether the
concept of model is helpful in studying
the New Testament was to read all of it
in Greek in the light of the method
described above. I did this in a modified
chronological and systematic order.
That is, I started with Paul’s letters to
the churches, then turned to the Synoptic
Gospels, Acts and the Early Catholic
writings. Then I read the Johannine
works and ended with Jude and Second
Peter.
I listed all the texts that made any
kind of statement about who God is or
what he does. In so doing I developed a
group of categories that was comprehen-
sive and yet clear enough to give an
organic overview. Obviously the ten-
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
tative nature of the following synthesis
must be kept in mind. I present it as a
working hypothesis to be tested for its
value in continuing this line of research.
This is not a simple listing of the number
of times the word God appears. That in-
formation is readily available in concor-
dances. For example, they tell us that
the word God is most frequent in Acts
(about 170 times) and in Romans (about
153 times).
God as father
Rather, my aim was to find
statements that help readers understand
how individual New Testament writers
envisioned God on the basis of qualities
they attribute to him and statements
they make about his conduct toward
creation, toward human beings, toward
believers and especially toward Jesus
Christ. I found 421 useable observations
from single words to lengthy
statements. Of these 183 (43%) refer to
con-
God as &dquo;Father,&dquo; either of Jesus Christ
or of believers or simply Father. Every
writing of the New Testament except
Third John includes this image. It is
most frequent in the Gospel of John,
namely 86 out of the 133 times some
statement is made of God (65%).
No other New Testament has such a
high percentage. Among the Synoptic
Gospels Matthew comes close to John
with 23 out of its 41 statements about
God (56%). This is in marked contrast to
Luke (eight out of 38 statements) and
Mark (two of 15). Out of its 80
statements about God Acts of the
Apostles refers to him as Father only
once. Omitting Ephesians, Paul’s letters
to the churches speak of God as Father
in 25 out of 172 statements (15%). This is
lower than the ration in Ephesians that
has eight out of 32 statements on God as
Father (25%).
Savior
I found that the bulk of the other 238
statements about God in the New
Testament fell under a small cluster of
images. The most frequent category was
128
the image of the God of salvation
history: the Savior who devised a plan
before the foundation of the world and is
bringing it to completion in history and
especially in Jesus. This image un-
derlies 111 statements in 14 books (26%).
Forty of these, however, come from the
Gospel of John and deal specifically with
the mission of Jesus. In fact, the
salvation-history image is prominent
only in Acts (27 times), in Romans 8-11
(10 times) and in Luke’s infancy gospel
(6 times). On the other hand, the picture
of God working in history in some saving
way can be almost doubled, that is, in-
creased to 51% by including in this im-
age all the statements about God as
revealing, choosing a people, being mer-
ciful, answering prayers, judging,
punishing or being present to humans in
some way.
God and Jesus
The New Testament singles out one
divine intervention that must be treated
in a special way, namely, to raise Jesus
from the dead. Since Jesus occupies the
central role in the New Testament, the
resurrection could also be grouped in a
cluster of statements about God in-
tervening in reference to Jesus. These
refer usually to exalting or glorifying
Jesus, but a few relate to some other
kind of intervention during the earthly
life of Jesus. The total number of
statements of this nature is 84 in 13
books.
God and Others
Related to these statements about
Jesus both in nature and in number are
75 comments about God working in favor
of other human beings to transform,
console or sanctify in some way.
Cosmological interest is not frequent.
God is called creator or portrayed in
some aspect of that role only 27 times
scattered through 13 books. My listing
also makes clear that New Testament
writers did not refer often to God in
abstract terms like just, faithful, true,
good or unique. The most frequent
129
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
qualities of that nature are living (19
times in ten books) and powerful (18
times in ten books). The designation
pantocrator appears nine times, but
eight of these are in Revelation.
Summary
To sum up the data. The picture of God
that emerges from the new Testament
builds upon the self-consciousness of the
Christian community as heirs of the long
Jewish religious experience as modified
by the revelation of Jesus and his Spirit.
The centrality of Jesus pushes the role
of God into the background. In fact,
Jesus is called God five times. The first
time is in the doxology at the opening of
the section on the salvation of Israel
(Rom 9-11). Paul lists Israel’s gifts
beginning with the Christ and ending
with &dquo;the Christ according to the flesh,
the God over all, blessed for all ages.
Amen&dquo; (Rom 9:5, although some
translations apply this to God). John’s
Prolog identifies both the Word and the
Son as God ( Jn 1: 2, 18). Thomas hails
the risen Jesus as, &dquo;My Lord and my
God&dquo; ( Jn 20:28). Second Peter, which
many commentators see as the last
written work of the New Testament,
opens with an address to those called &dquo;in
the justice of our God and Savior Jesus
Christ&dquo; ( 1:1 ) . The parallel phrase that
closes the letter, &dquo;in the knowledge of
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ&dquo; ( 3 :18 )
shows that it is to be taken as referring
to Christ as God.
Spirit
It may seem surprising that I have not
mentioned spirit as model of God in the
New Testament because early Christian
churches were charismatic com-
munities. The indwelling of the Spirit
and the resulting enthusiasm was
primarily responsible for the rapid
spread of this new faith. But only once
does the New Testament say explicitly
that God is spirit (Jn 4:24) and four
times that he sends the Spirit (Acts 5:32;
15:8; Jn 14:16; Rev 11:11). Trinitarian
texts are also rare. Obviouslv complete
understanding of God must consider im-
plicit texts. However, once we enter into
that dimension of the New Testament,
the use of model as tool becomes in-
creasingly difficult and less satisfac-
tory. Suffice it to mention here that the
limited number of references to the
Spirit of God does not reflect his impor-
tance in the lives of early Christians.
Basic Model?
That comment is a reminder that the
New Testament is far from a complete
record of the beliefs, teaching and ac-
tivities of the early Christian com-
munities. The fragmentary nature of the
literature they left is a further obstacle
to efforts to construct theoretical
models of God from these writings. At
the same time, reading the New
Testament with this concept in mind
may be helpful in developing an improv-
ed hermeneutic for dealing with it.
Given the frequency and universality of
the image of God as Father, my initial
reaction was to think that it provided the
basic model of God in the New
Testament. But as my analysis of the
writing continued, it became clear that
this image does not satisfy the reason
for introducing the use of models in
theological exposition. In other words, it
does not open up new insights into
relationships at work within a social en-
tity nor does it open up new possibilities
for New Testament studies.
Interacting Images
Structural elements of a system are
not passive. They interact with one
another within a system of transfor-
mations to keep the system operative. In
keeping with L,6vi-Strauss’ theories,
meaning does not come from any one
element alone but from the very way the
terms are combined within the system
( McNicoll : 84 ) . Hence, despite the
predominance of the image of Father, it
is too fluid to act as a heuristic model for
unlocking hidden secrets of New
Testament literature. At the same time,
when we consider the image of God as
Father along with the other principal
130
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
statements I found, strong network of
a
interacting images arises in modern
readers. In a sense, this complex
network operates in much the same way
as the prevailing paradigm in a
developed science. The God of creation
has manifested to chosen believers a
plan of salvation. Moses and the
prophets were witnesses to this plan that
reaches its climax in the religious ex-
perience of Jesus as confirmed by his
resurrection and the sending of the
Spirit.
Although I use the term paradigm, it
differs from those of the developed
sciences. The God emerging from New
Testament writings is not an univocal or
static or expendable being. Other words
and phrases and presuppositions must be
integrated into any search to know him.
Above all, the role of the term Kyrios or
Lord is crucial.. Kyrios was the Sep-
tuagint word used to translate the
proper name of God in Hebrew,
Yahweh. The New Testament uses it of
both Jesus and the Father. Such flex-
ibility plays havoc with any neat model
of God. More sophisticated
hermeneutical tools are needed. Paul
Ricoeur works on this assumption. His
thorough study La métaphore vive is a
step in the right direction.
Concluding Evaluation
My efforts to trace the picture of God
in the New Testament in the light of
paradigms and model building has
helped me to see interrelations more
clearly. However, in order to provide a
description of its content in the form of
possible models I had to level texts and
block them into groups that obscure
variety and individuality. Such a
procedure distorts the richness of texts.
My excursion into this method urges me
to second Paul Ricoeur’s caution that we
should not separate explication from un-
derstanding but see them as &dquo;related
moments in the complex process of in-
terpretation&dquo; (Ricoeur, 1977: 127).
The entire New Testament is a crucial
part of constitutive revelation, the sur-
viving written insights into the early
Church’s growth into mature self-
understanding. Catholic exegetes
approach these works as speaking to the
needs of the Christian community of
every age. Hermeneutics, as Pope Paul
VI stated, must bring out the application
of the text of the New Testament &dquo;to the
present circumstances of the Church
and the world.&dquo; Exegetes &dquo;enter into
the dialog which it means to conduct in
an authoritative fashion with every per-
son&dquo; (Pope PaulI VI: 2). This
hermeneutical task involves fidelity to
both the original message of Scripture
and the needs of readers in every
generation. Such fidelity is creative and
demanding and implies belief in the
abiding power of the divine word as
preserved in the Bible. &dquo;Its words, those
of the first witnesses and servants of the
word, whom the Spirit moved to give
authentic expression to the mystery of
his appearance among men, will
therefore always remain the fundamen-
tal norm for everything that will be said
about Christ down to the end of time&dquo;
( Pope Paul VI: 3).
Lest this exaltation of New Testament
language seem excessive, the words of
If systematic theologians can
translate its language and images into
theoretical models, they would be per-
forming a service to the beliving com-
munity. Some attempts are being made
along those lines. For example, the in-
terdisciplinary conference on
&dquo;Semiology and Parables,&dquo; held at
Vanderbilt University on May 15-17,
1975, used the technique of model
building to investigate parables. The
papers and discussions are now
available in the conference volume
edited by Daniel Patte. He warns,
&dquo;Each individual piece of semiological
research is disappointing in the sense
that it rarely reaches its goal. It can
only deal with limited aspects of the
meaning effect and often with aspects
which appear quite secondary&dquo; (Patte:
xi). The task of improving theological
hermeneutic in general and New
Testament hermeneutic in particular
needs all the help it can get. The use of
models is one tool that deserves to be
tested. Contributions thus far in New
Testament studies have not created any
revolution.
Source Material
Barbour, lan G. 1974 Myths, Models and

Amos Wilder are equally strong. &dquo;The

Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science
and Religion. New York.
Inaguage of the New Testament has a Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of
large part of imaginative rhetoric, alone Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition.
adequate to catch up the awareness and Chicago.
world-sense of the believers. The only MeNicholl, Ambrose. 1975.
Structuralism.
Rome.
way we can really understand it and Patte, Daniel, ed. 1976.
Semiology and
communicate it is to enter into its Parables: An Exploration of the Possibilities
original power. This can only be done as Offered by Structuralism for Exegesis. Pitts-
we identify ourselves with the original burgh.
revelation&dquo; (Wilder: 124). The word Pope Paul VI. 1970. "Exegesis and
revelation is crucial here. It is a world- Osservatore
Hermeneuties,"
(English Romano
ed.) October 8.
transforming, holistic vision of reality Ricoeur, Paul, 1975. La La metaphore vive.
and human destiny given by God as a gift Paris.
in Jesus Christ. It stands in opposition to Rieoeur, Paul. 1977. "Expliquer et com-
a paradigm of progressive understanding Revue philosophique de Lourain
prehendre,"
75: 126-147.
upon which theoretical models are
based. As inspired language the New Robinson, James M. and Helmut Koester.
Testament still contains the power to
1971. Trajectories through Early Christianity.
Philadelphia.
create a new world and to bring Wilder, Amos N. 1971. Early Christian
believers into God’s new creation in Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospel.
Jesus Christ. Cambridge.
131
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009