Abstract
The thesis of this book is that the letters of Paul indicate that he (and the churches to which he wrote) believed Jesus to be divine. This argument runs counter to the more frequently asserted position that Jesus’ earliest followers understood him to be a human being and only later attributed divinity to him. Capes’s thesis arises out of an analysis of Paul’s use of passages in the Old Testament where the title “lord” (kyrios in Greek) is used in place of the divine name; Capes calls these texts “YHWH texts.” Because Paul appears to apply a large number of these texts not to God the Father but to Jesus, Capes concludes that Paul must have believed Jesus to be divine. Capes first made this argument in a book entitled, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, published in 1992. The book under review began with a request to Capes that he revisit this work and respond to more recent developments for the Hayward Lectures delivered by the author at Acadia Divinity College in 2014. Capes currently serves as associate dean of biblical and theological studies and professor of New Testament at Wheaton College. Capes has published extensively for both the academy and the church with a focus on (but not limited to) Paul. Capes essentially recreates the case he made in the earlier book, updating his bibliography and engaging with scholars who have contributed to the debate since its publication. Chapters 1 and 2 set the stage for the argument Capes wants to make.
The first chapter begins with a discussion for the nonspecialist of the complex linguistic situation that lies behind the term “lord” in English translations of the Bible. More than one Hebrew (or Aramaic or Greek) word can be translated by the English word “lord.” In addition, the word “lord” can refer either to human or divine beings. The second half of the chapter (which appeared in the original publication) discusses the manuscript evidence for practices used by ancient scribes when dealing with terms used to refer to God. Chapter 2 introduces the reader to a brief history of the scholarly debate regarding the use of the Greek term kyrios (lord) as a referent for Jesus.
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 discuss Paul’s usage of the term kyrios. Chapter 3 looks at the variety of ways Paul uses the term. Although Paul can use that title for a variety of human and nonhuman agents, the vast majority of his uses refer to Jesus. Furthermore, Paul uses this title for Jesus in predictable contexts: ethical, eschatological, and liturgical.
Chapters 4 and 5 look specifically at Paul’s use of Scripture. Chapter 4 illustrates that Paul quotes (or alludes to) some of these texts with God the Father in mind. This indicates that Paul does not collapse Jesus into God; he distinguishes between the two. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of the challenges of determining quotations and allusions in Paul. Chapter 5 illustrates that in many cases Paul quotes (or alludes to) such texts with Jesus in mind. Capes reminds the reader that not all scholars agree on which texts refer to God and which texts refer to Jesus. The only way to distinguish the usages described in chapter 4 from the usages in chapter 5 is by careful attention to context.
In chapter 6, Capes addresses several topics connected to the assertion that Jesus was divine. He first responds to some objections to his thesis that have arisen during the years since the publication of the first volume. He then briefly illustrates ways in which Paul’s treatment of Jesus is not that different from John’s, of whom most scholars would agree believed Jesus to be divine. He introduces the reader to various solutions to the question of how Paul could apply YHWH texts to Jesus and remain a monotheist. And finally, Capes suggests aspects of the life and teachings of Jesus, and of Paul’s own experiences, that might have led Paul to apply these texts to Jesus. A concluding chapter succinctly redescribes the argument of the book.
The book is clearly written and well edited. Capes successfully writes for the nonspecialist. Footnotes point the reader to significant works in the debate. The person who finishes the book will have a clear understanding of why Capes believes the church, from its earliest stage of existence, understood Jesus to be divine.
Richard Wright
Abilene Christian University Graduate School of Theology