How 'protective bird imagery' uniquely identifies Jesus as Yahweh
Out of the ranks of argumentation given for a high christology, the argument I am going to be summarizing in this article is one you probably haven't heard before, and I say this knowing that you've probably heard a lot of them. And if you have heard of it, it probably was in the debate between Chris Date and Dale Tuggy where Date employed this argument. So, what is it?
It's centered around the lament over Jerusalem in Matt 23:37–39 and Luke 13:34–35, its usage of 'protective bird imagery', and how the picture of Jesus as a mother hen establishes a metaphor that uses imagery that is elsewhere used exclusively of a deity, or, in the biblical narrative, Yahweh's divine protective over Israel.
I will be summarizing a paper done by Jonathan Rowlands of the university of Nottingham on this argument, it seems that he was the one that made it popular although I could be mistaken. The paper is titled "Jesus and the Wings of Yhwh Bird Imagery in the Lament over Jerusalem (Matt 23:37–39; Luke 13:34–35)".
The purpose of this article is to merely summarize the paper and make it more accessible for people without time to read the entire paper.
Luke 13:34–35
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 35. Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’”
We will briefly assess bird imagery in the ANE (Ancient near east) and in the Hebrew Bible given by Rowlands and then analyze the lament in light of it. We will find that Matthew and Luke as using imagery that is an exclusive reference to Yahweh, and this provides us with a powerful argument for Christ's deity.
When this sort of protective bird imagery is used, it always concerns a deity. How do we know this? Well, let us begin our brief survey some uses of it to show the context of it to the Hebrew Bible. He goes over a plethora of different sources in the paper. From bird imagery in ancient Jewish literature, the Odes of Solomon, 2nd Baruch, Wisdom, and others. Again, we'll just be examining a few.
1 - Winged-Sun Disks
In the most common use of bird imagery in the ANE, the sun was worshiped and portrayed with the picture of "winged scarabs mimicking dung beetles as they roll the sun across the horizon".
When solar worship became common, Yahweh too was imagined in solar terms. This sort of concept can be seen as influential all throughout the Hebrew Bible. As Dr. Glen Taylor in "Yahweh and the Sun" writes,
"Several lines of evidence, both archaeological and biblical, bear witness to a close relationship between Yahweh and the sun. The nature of that association is such that often a “solar” character was presumed for Yahweh. Indeed, at many points the sun actually represented Yahweh as a kind of “icon.” Thus, in at least the vast majority of cases, biblical passages which refer to sun worship in Israel do not refer to a foreign phenomenon borrowed by idolatrous Israelites, but to a Yahwistic phenomenon which Deuteronomistic theology came to look upon as idolatrous.... an association between Yahweh and the sun was not limited to one or two obscure contexts, but was remarkably well integrated into the religion of ancient Israel.".
In light of this, it makes perfect sense and allows for a more robust understanding of winged sun disks and how this knowledge can be applied to the Hebrew Bible.
2 - Egyptian Bird Imagery
Egyptian deities were commonly describe as birds. An example would be vultures and their association with goddesses. In Egyptian cosmology, that is, the study of the origins of the universe, the gods came from “the upper side of [the] sky … the place from which birds come.”
Here is part of a hymn from pharaoh Amenhotep III's reign, speaking of a god using bird imagery "when you cross the sky all faces see you … Great falcon, brightly plumed." It is these kinds of texts that provide evidence the ANE background to the Hebrew Bible's portrayal of deities as winged creatures. Or, in this case, Yahweh.
3 - Examples in the OT that use bird imagery to connote Yahweh's divine protection of Israel
The Hebrew Bible is filled with metaphors about God being like a bird, such images are largely, as Michael Jay Chan notes, associated with notions of protection, strength and refuge.
Take how bird imagery is used in the psalms, note specifically of how animal body parts are used to speak of human beings, for example horns, *but interestingly, wings are an exception to this. The Psalmist only uses wings as descriptions of God.* This is exactly what you'd expect to find on the view that has been argued for in this article.
Look to how the Psalmist speaks of 'hiding in the shadow of [Yahweh's] wings' (Psalm 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4), (these wings being one of the many body parts ascribed to God). What is to be recognized here by Rowlands is that "anthropomorphic language about Yhwh is common, zoomorphic language is not."
This image, that is, Yahweh's wings, is the exception. And this exception is what helps make this such a powerfully unique argument for Christ's deity.
Conclusion:
The witness of the ancient near east (something we shouldn't be afraid to dive into studying) and Hebrew Bible demonstrate that the most likely reading of lament over Jerusalem in Matt 23:37–39 and Luke 13:34–35, the reading that has the most explanatory power concerning the usage of protective bird imagery, is that Jesus is being portrayed as Yahweh.
In a final quote from Rowlands, he shares:
"the most plausible explanation for the bird imagery in the lament over Jerusalem is that the evangelists intend to portray Jesus as Yhwh, through an established metaphor for Yhwh’s protection of Israel."
Objections to this argument:
1 - The evangelists familiarity with the Hebrew Bible and bird imagery (or lack thereof) precludes their usage being in the way we understand it.
Both Matthew and Luke were familiar with the Hebrew Bible. Matthew begins his gospel with a genealogies tracing Jesus' lineage through various figures in it, and Luke frames Jesus' ministry as the fulfillment of prophecy. And as Rowlands argues in the paper, the evangelists portrayal of Jesus with bird imagery showcases their intimate familiarity with the Hebrew Bible. Thus, he writes:
"It is likely the evangelists knew of the imagery of a protective bird as referring to Yhwh’s protection of Israel. How reasonable is it to suggest the evangelists used this imagery to portray Jesus as Yhwh? I suggest it is preferable to alternative readings since it has greater explanatory power regarding the bird imagery. I asserted that protective bird imagery was a common HB motif exclusively referring to Yhwh’s protection of Israel developed under the influence of ANE iconography. If it cannot convincingly be demonstrated that the evangelists are reimagining this tradition, then the original referent of the motif (Yhwh) is to be assumed as the referent here too. The default reading ought to be that the evangelists are portraying Jesus as Yhwh in some sense."
At the very least, this objection, that is, objecting on the basis of Matthew and Luke lacking knowledge about the Hebrew Bible, is not only is a bad one, but also could have negative repercussions elsewhere in the synoptic gospels. There is a lot more that can be said about this objection, Rowlands covers it relatively extensively, especially in his footnotes.
2 - "The usage of the ancient near east in interpretation is against Sola Scriptura and undermines biblical inerrancy"
This sort of objection came up, albeit it in a different context, in my debate with Scarlett Clay on animal death before the fall of Adam. But ultimately I fear it comes from a straw-man. To keep it short (and this is something I could ramble on for ages about) no one is claiming we need the ancient near east a necessary hermeneutical tool to gain any knowledge at all from the Bible. We're not "gnostic" as some have labelled, we don't think without the ANE we can't come to any biblical truth. All we're saying is that taking into account the cultural and religious context in which Scripture was written is a helpful way of learning certain truths that we might not understand if we were to rip the Bible out of the context that God inspired it to be written in. Full stop.
Anyone who is intellectually honest will realize the hypocrisy in unitarians giving this objection. Unitarians who would appeal to the cultural, religious, or political context of the Scriptures in order to prove certain "Jesus is God" proof-texts aren't valid cannot do this and simultaneously reject Trinitarian argumentation such as is in this article.
3 - "Jesus is merely speaking as a representative of Yahweh"
Rowlands writes:
"I contend this pericope portrays Jesus as equating himself with Yhwh. By this I mean Jesus is said to be the person of Yhwh in some sense. To be more specific—and specificity is important here—Jesus claims to be Yhwh, not merely to be acting on the part of Yhwh or to be an emissary for Yhwh. This claim is ontological rather than economic; it primarily concerns who Jesus is, not what he does."
The image of a protective bird in the Old Testament is only ever used to refer to Yahweh Himself, and never to any intermediaries of Yahweh.
As a side note, I don't think Rowlands usage of the word 'person' is problematic, he isn't using it to say "there is only one person in the Trinity", contextually this simply isn't the usage.
Thanks for reading!