@Robert
yes Christ hands over the kingdom to God the Father – should our conclusion be that the father has been handed the kingdom by someone else and is therefore lower than he who handed him over the kingdom?
All will be made alive in Christ – therefore Christ “is” all.
Christ will be put in subjection to the father – so that God may “be” all “in” all.
>All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.
> yes Christ hands over the kingdom to God the Father – should our conclusion be that the father has been handed the kingdom by someone else…
“hands over” cannot mean that the son is empowering the father or delegating pwr to the father. The father otoh has power to put all things in subjection to another. The son clearly lacks this. he has no inherent pwr .
the son is being empowered and then in the end subjected to the father. he has no inherent pwr to do it by himself. and since he was empowered by the father, then the returning of kingdom is derivative of the fathers power in the first place.
>All things are put in subjection this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him
correction:
because all these are already under the subjection of the father something the son lacked. clearly the authour does not seem to think that they are one ousia and has clearly identified “God” as the doer. so the “handing over” must be taken as non-literal language.
So we’re agreed that the NT writers thought Jesus was divine.
Sure but what we’re disagreeing about is what that meant for them.
Can we agree that they thought there was only one god?
Well at that point, last third of the first century, it’s likely that most of the Jews were as close to monotheists as they ever became. The gentile converts, not so sure. At any rate, they thought the god of Jesus, the OT Yahweh, was the Supreme God.
And that at least John and Paul thought Jesus to be Lord of Heaven and Earth, existed before, and was a participant in the creation of, the entire cosmos?
Based on Philippians 2, assuming that is Paul’s actual view, he believed Jesus was a pre-existent divine being, created by God, and exalted because of his sacrifice in becoming human. To John the Logos was a created emanation of God that assumed a seperate existence and became human. Paul and John did not have the same view.
In what sense then would could God the Father be said to be of a higher ontological status than the creator of the cosmos in John and Paul’s theology?
By this time God the Father was seen as competely transcendent. As a consequence in Second Temple Judaism there arose any number of divine intermediary figures actively working God’s will. For Paul and John, Jesus was the highest of these.
The passage from I Cor that Robert quoted is very interesting on a number of levels. The idea of firstfruits for example, which got almost completely occluded in later western Christian thinking. Jesus was special but he wasn’t the one and only. His resurrection, for Paul, was the beginning not the end. Paul has the view that the believer will be divinized and made as Jesus is. Interesting that the further east you went the more this idea remained a part of Christian thinking.
The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
-1 Cor 15:26
Robert, a question. Given Paul’s apocalytic views and his concept of divine figures, i.e., “principalities and powers”, etc, do you think maybe “death” here is not meant mearely in the abstract? Is Death a demonic figure here maybe? I notice none of the standard translations capitalize it. Any clues from a Greek context?
@Robert
**”No, of course not, because it is God the Father who raised Christ from the dead, it is God the Father who is subjecting all things to Christ, and the Son himself is subject to God the Father.”**
Right but you have to look elsewhere to find that out. There are verses in the NT which seem to indicate that the Father is of a lower ontological status than Son; the father is handed the kingdom of god by Jesus. But we need to take Paul as a whole before drawing conclusions on his theology.
**”It was also formulated against those who believed, like Paul, that the Son of God is changeable or alterable (ἢ τρεπτόν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν). Of course they did not intend to anathematize Paul, but they no longer truly understood Paul.”**
If you think they’re unknowingly anathematizing Paul here then they’re also anathematizing themselves “Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man.”
But they don’t mean “changeable/alterable” in the Pauline/Phil 2 “made-man” sense, they mean it in the Arian sense of the son’s “divinity” being a creation of god which can be changed or altered. The Philippian sense of made-man is the same as the Nicene sense. You wont find the Arian sense anywhere in Paul.
So lets look at Paul’s actual conception of god, Romans 8:34-36 “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them? For from him and through him and for him are all things.”
So Paul believes that the Lord is God and through him all things. What else is he describing here but God’s “essence”.
What’s Paul’s view of Christ? 1 Cor 8:6 “for us there is one god from whom all things and there is one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things …”
What else is Paul saying here but the Nicene claim that Christ is of the same essence as god. Very god from very god.
@Robert
“You’re missing the dynamism of Paul because you only read him from a post-Nicene dogmatic perspective.”
well no, I try to read Paul as a consistent whole.
Phil 2 is not about some random angelic being super-exalted to equality with Yahweh.
It is, as per Gal 4:4, God’s son. “God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law”
Jesus is the son and heir. Equality with god is his birthright. The lordship and name of the father are his inheritance. Equality with his father is his to be grasped. However rather than taking what is his he showed humility and humbled himself to be reborn as a slave, “born under the law to save those under the law”. He is then righteously and justly made Lord rather than simply taking it as a birthright.
That he is not “eternally” Lord shouldn’t be a problem for us – as for Paul the father is also not “eternally” king of his own kingdom. The Son hands the kingdom back to him at the end of time. Rather we should see Paul as understanding the authority of heaven and earth being transferrable from Father to Son, a divine unity of father and son – not some created angelic being but made Lord yahweh.
You also have to explain how you fit “Lord through whom all things” into your understanding of Paul.
How do explain Paul claiming that both God and Jesus are the one Lord through whom all things?
@Robert **”I did not say “random.” That is your addition, the unworthy use of a strawman to try and make your own position seem stronger.”**
Its an implication of your position, where jesus is just one of many divine angelic beings and that there is nothing unique in him being found in the form of god and equality with god being within his grasp.
**””Paul does not here further define the exact status of the pre-existent divine being”**
That’s fine but we’ve already agreed we can interpret this within the full Pauline corpus.
**”Paul never speaks of Jesus being an heir to divinity by birthright. Being an heir is not a metaphysical designation of eternal equality with God the Father for Paul. Abraham (Rom 4,13) and we all are heirs (Rom 8,17) with Abraham (Gal 3,29 4,7). You should also know that Jesus being the son of God, is not necessarily a metaphysical designation of being of the same substance of the Father from all eternity. The anointed king (or messiah) is spoken of as the son of God in the prior Jewish tradition, as it is by Paul as well, where ‘God’s son is descended from David according to the flesh’, and when speaking of a higher, glorified sense of being, he is “delimited (ὁρισθέντος) to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the realm of the dead” (Rom 1,3-4). All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God (8,14 cf 2 Cor 6,18).”**
He speaks of Jesus as being the pre-existent divine son sent by god to redeem those under the law who can then receive adoption to sonship. Paul’s gospel is about this unique son of god who will be king of the kingdom-of-god until he has destroyed all other powers and he hands it over to the father. We are heirs through christ, but Paul never says how or why Christ is the heir – he just is the heir. We are adopted to sonship through christ – but for Paul christ just is the son.
**””Really? You think Paul did not believe that God the Father was God from all eternity?”**
No he does think that – but he doesn’t think the father is “eternally” king of the kingdom of god. Until he himself destroys all other dominion the son is the king of the kingdom of god.
*””Are you acknowledging that the Lord Jesus Christ was made Yahweh at some point?”**
He was made yahweh “after” his time on earth. Being god or yahweh is a property reserved for those outside of time. “Eternally” being yahweh in the divine sense means being yahweh outside of time. The son was outside of time, became a participant in time, and was raised to the eternal world outside of time again. For Paul the fact that the father and son are both outside of time, all things from the father through the son, means he’s comfortable with all authority moving back and forth between the two.
**”He differentiates between the two in saying that all things come from God the Father, but only through one Lord Jesus Christ. I’ve already explained this above. An instrument of creation is not the same as the one who wields the instrument. The word spoken by God is not the same eternal substance as the God who spoke the word.”**
Here’s the point you’re not addressing. Although he differentiates between the two in 1 Cor 8:6 he does not differentiate between the two in Romans 11:34-36 ” … For from him and through him and for him are all things”.
All things from him and through is a description of God in Romans 11 but in 1 Cor 8 it’s a description of the father and son.
God is the lord through whom all things in Romans 11, but Jesus is the lord through whom all things in 1 Cor 8.
One more aspect of the White/Tuggy debate I find interesting. Another shared assumption. And that is, the writers of the New Testament are all saying pretty much the same thing. Telling the same story. Of course White and Tuggy disagree on what that story is, but they both think there is a constant, consistent message.
I think it’s actually this viewpoint that is the foundation of fundamentalism, rather than simply the idea of always interpreting the Bible in a “literal” way. A consistent strategy used by fundamentalists is to explicate a passage in one book by applying a passage from another without demonstrating any explicit textual relationship. In this way a pre-composed template is imposed onto the various texts rather than derived from them.
I don’t think I’m simply projecting, but I remember what a shock it was to my own thinking when I first absorbed the idea that all the writers in the NT are not saying the same thing. Only then could I grasp the concept of different Christologies, of differences in the meaning of Jesus’ death, among the writers. Part of the development of a later “orthodox” church was the creation of a pre-composed template to impose onto the NT texts. Many theological conflicts over the centuries are over not the meaning of the texts themselves but over this template.
Each individual text must be taken on its own terms. Interpreted in light of it’s own message. Even then there are certainly problems of understanding. And of course you then begin to see conflicts within each text! But only in this way do the texts become alive. Become truly meaningful.
I think that in order to truly interact with the NT we must first pass this hurdle. And unfortunately most discussions with folks who have not passed this hurdle are doomed to frustration.
Playing a unique role in creation–how can you possibly understand that to be just a random angelic being?
This raises all kinds of questions that we’ll never know the answers to because Paul presupposes a background of knowledge he doesn’t share. Who was this pre-existent divine being and under what conditions was he presented with the opportunity to serve God in this way? I think we can reasonably suppose that a good apocalyptic Jew like Paul is importing a bunch of his previous understanding into his Jesus belief. The Enochic material is full of this kind of thing, divine beings and such. Later tradition associated the pre-existent Jesus with Michael the Archangel and the OT Angel of the Lord.
And then in Mark’s gospel the author doesn’t speculate why Jesus was the one adopted by God. Mark has Jesus participate in the “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” like everyone else. But then the heavens open for him and not everyone else. Why him?
@Robert **”No, it is not an implication of my position. You obviously either did not read or did not understand my post. Try again. Playing a unique role in creation–how can you possibly understand that to be just a random angelic being?”**
Well if your understanding of angelic beings is that god created lots of angelic beings then each of them can play some unique (major or minor) role in creation.
When you describe Phil 2 as about “An angelic divine being that is only ultimately super-exalted was not super-exalted from all eternity” the implication is that he is just one of many angelic beings, the rest of whom didn’t humble themselves and get exalted. But this is reading Paul incorrectly. Everything written by Paul must be read in the light of Gal 1:15 “But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles”. Everything that Paul writes is about this Son, not one of a supposedly many angelic divine beings.
**”And, again, Paul does not say that equality with God was within his grasp; he says he did NOT regard equality with a god as something to be taken or seized. Whether or not he could have succeeded in doing that is not said, ‘though your presumptive post-Nicene reading is that he was already equal to the God with the definite article and the capital G. That’s simply not what the text says. …. Paul never speaks of Jesus pre-existing as Yahweh outside of time from all eternity. That is merely your post-Nicene perspective.”**
No I’m reading Phil 2 in light of Romans 14:11 “As I live says the Lord every knee will bow before me and every tongue will confess to God.” Paul here claiming that the Lord who spoke to Isaiah the prophet was Jesus. Or Romans 10:16 “But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, Lord who has believed our message?” The good news here being Jesus is Lord and the same Lord is Lord of all. Romans 10:9-13.
For Paul the Lord who spoke to Isaiah is the Son who was sent into the world to redeem those under the law, he took on the form of slave and God super-exalted him giving him the name yahweh. Romans 14:9 “For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.” The Lord died to redeem the dead so he could be Lord of them too.
Paul’s dynamism allows for the timelessness of yahweh.
**”Paul in Romans 11 is not speaking specifically of the role of Christ in creation in Romans 11. He is speaking very generally of God in the singular after quoting the Jewish scriptures, and using standard, formulaic language to speak of creation.”**
Exactly. In Romans 11 he is giving a description of God. God is the Lord through who all things. For Paul, referring to the Lord-through-whom-all-things means speaking about God. When Paul talks about the one Lord through whom all things, he is speaking about God.
@Stephen
**”This raises all kinds of questions that we’ll never know the answers to because Paul presupposes a background of knowledge he doesn’t share. Who was this pre-existent divine being and under what conditions was he presented with the opportunity to serve God in this way?”**
Here’s the explanation “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son”. “But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles”
**”And then in Mark’s gospel the author doesn’t speculate why Jesus was the one adopted by God. Mark has Jesus participate in the “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” like everyone else. But then the heavens open for him and not everyone else. Why him?”**
Mark is not an adoptionist and has the same understanding as Paul. Mark 12 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, They will respect my son. But the tenants said to one another This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him”. Mark 10 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Brenmcg, is there really any point in a response from me? I don’t share your faith position. What seem like answers to you are for me merely restatements of the questions. Circular reasoning.
In truth the ancient writers weren’t interested in character motivation or character development. That’s because they had no concept of personal psychology. our “nature” was fixed at birth and stories of youth were merely foreshadowing. But I’m a modern and we like backstory.
I have been reading ** you do not have permission to see this link **.)
But what in the blue heck does any of that have to do with the subject of the New Testament or the doctrine of the Trinity?
I’m glad you asked.
In chapter 2 of Sconduto’s book she discusses the Church’s response to the popular pagan belief in werewolves and shapeshifters. Apparently this belief, humans turning into animals and back again, was so widespread that even a heavy hitter like Tertullian chimed in. His objection was twofold. First, while it was possible for humans to have the same nature as animals – natures can be shared – humans and animals did not share the same substance, ousia, so such metamorphoses were impossible. Here, interestingly, ironically, we find an example of a Church figure criticizing an idea derived from paganism by using a concept derived from paganism. The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in just such an intellectual environment. How could it have been otherwise? There simply wasn’t the wall between these areas of thought that modern fundamentalists imagine existed.
Tertullian’s second objection was that humans possessed the imago dei which of course animals did not. Humans alone were created in the image of God. To claim that humans could transform their substance into that of animals was a direct attack on this idea of the specialness, the distinctiveness, of humans.
What interests me about all this is that even though the ancients had no concept of Darwinian evolution of course they seemed to intuit the close relationship between humans and animals. As far back as the Epic of Gilgamesh we have the figure of Enkidu, the natural man, who runs with the animals, shares their nature, and who is subsequently transformed into a normal human. (In large part through a week-long bout of recreational sex with a temple prostitute!) Enkidu is suddenly alienated from nature, from the animals. But the whole episode, while highlighting the separation from nature, also highlights our bond with it. Humans came out of nature. You didn’t need to to understand natural selection to grasp that.
Christianity, informed by Greek philosophy, channeling it and adapting it, created the idea that there is an abyss between the divine and the human, and between the human and the animal. Surely this was part of the reason Darwin was such a shock to the sensibilities of Christians. Even to this day there are millions of Americans who simply cannot wrap their heads around the idea of human evolution. Evolution “diminishes” us, “reduces” us.
All this stuff is still quite relevant. How many Christians realize that in the Eucharist, at the moment of transubstantiation, it is the ousia of the bread and wine that is transformed into the body of Christ? How many opponents of abortion rights realize that their objection is based on the metaphysical assumption that it is the human ousia that is infused at conception? (Otherwise conception is simply one discrete moment in a process that begins with the biological production of gametes, and ends, if we’re fortunate, ninety years later in a hospice.) In both these cases the presence of some sort of metaphysical “substance” is purely a matter of faith. (Did anyone point this out to the Supreme Court during their recent deliberations over Roe v Wade?) What we can actually detect is the physical, the biological.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)