Loading...My last couple of posts have been on the “Christ Poem” found in Philippians 2:6-10. Many years ago when I talked about the poem and argued that it was in fact a poem, a reader (who apparently knew Greek!) objected that the poetic lines I suggested don’t actually work. I answered that question before moving on to showing just how amazing the poem is: it ends by giving the resurrected Jesus the authority of God Almighty himself.
That may not seem surprising to Christians who already think it’s true. But just imagine how it would resonate with someone living in the first century who knew that Jesus was publicly executed for crimes against the state. It might help if you imagine how you would feel if someone made a claim like this for someone who was condemned as an enemy of the of the state for insurrection against the United States who suffered the death penalty — and someone claimed he had become God, the Lord of the universe. Uh, really? Yup, that’s what Paul’s poem claims about Jesus. Really astounding when you think about it.
COMMENT:
This ‘rhythmic structure’ just does not work in Greek. The first ‘stanza’ with three ‘lines’:
Who, although he was in the form of God
Did not regard equality with God
Something to be grasped after;
In Greek the ‘third line’ is only one word and it appears in the middle of the ‘second line’, after only the first word of the so-called second line. There are a few different views of the structure, but they all must be based on the Greek text.
RESPONSE AND FURTHER COMMENT:
That’s exactly right – you make a good point. For my translation I arranged the poem in three stanzas of three lines each; but in Greek it’s different. But even there there are still three stanzas of three lines each, but because of the grammatical difference, it works differently. In Greek it’s like this for the first part of the poem:
The rest of the post is for blog members; think about joining! You get five posts a week, with archives going back to 2012, all for a small membership fee, every penny of which goes to charity!
Please can you help me with a biblical genealogical problem (which is making my brain ache!)?
In the past when referring to the Nativity genealogies you have said something like “Luke’s list (Luke 3:23) is NOT Mary’s genealogy: this is evident if you just bother to read it, it clearly states that it gives Jesus as the son of Joseph.”
I agree with your assessment BUT lately I have read that there is an OT precedent where ‘son of’ could mean ‘son in law’ or some such relationship.
The OT passages cited refer to Jair son of Manesseh (Num 32:41) but who was actually the son of Manasseh’s granddaughter (1Chronicles 2:21–23).
I just cannot get my head round how this family tree plays out or if there is some correspondence with Mary’s situation and her possible relationship to Heli.
Your comments would be massively appreciated.
Sometimes a grandson, or great grandson, etc. is called a son – just as Jesus is called “son of David” even though he lived a thousand years later.
Forgive me if I pursue my question further regarding “Jair son of Manneseh” Deut 3:14.
1 Chron 2:21 appears to say that he was actually the son of Manasseh’s granddaughter by her husband Hezron.
From my efforts to construct the family tree from 1 Chron 2:21-3, I believe it shows that Jair was the great grandson of Manneseh through Manneseh’s granddaughter and her husband and he, in turn, was a distant SON-IN-LAW of Mannaseh.
Now if my working is correct does this not give support to the possibility that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary, with Joseph being the SON-IN-LAW of Heli?
If you feel this is a question for which you do not wish to bother to work out an answer, perhaps there is some amateur genealogist on the blog who would be prepared to enlighten me.
However, all this being said, is there any point in giving any heed to biblical genealogies if they are compiled in so cavalier a manner that the links between members of a family can be listed willy-nilly with different relationships being given so that one can never know who is the father of whom?
Sorry, this has gotten too convoluted for me to follow. Am I right that you are saying that Luke’s genealogy works because Joseph is the son-in-law of Heli? And that Luke is simply following a convention by calling him the “son,” based on teh precendent of 1 Chroniscles 2:21-23? If I’m right so far, you need to lay out for me simply how you see it working in 1 Chron again, that Jair is named as a direct patrilinear descendent of Mannaseh even though he was not in the family line but married into it. I’m completely confused — including about how Manannaseh hhas gotten into it: isn’t this section dealing with the line of Judah through Tamar?
Thank you for covering this, Dr Ehrman. Your treatment of the Trinity in “How Jesus Became God” moved me a good way forward in my understanding of how the concept came about but I think I need a few more doses to get there.
It is my understanding that in old Israel and other ancient groups, a king was considered to be in the image of God (for his subject citizenry) and performed his duties in the likeness of God (as God would, so to speak). So my understanding leads me to believe that if Jesus as a human (as the first human Adam) (and not as a king, but a common man) was made in the image and likeness of God could he not be made equal with God, but he wouldn’t be God?? Seems he performed all the requisites. Does that make sense?
Yes, that is why the king was called “The Son of God”. Unlike them, though, Christ, for this poem started out as being “in the form of God.” It’s a pretty strong statement: the term “form” is not referring to outward appearance but more like a close resemblance in every way.
May I ask, how then might the following apply to this discussion. 1 Cor 15:28, “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him that God may be all in all.”
(Not two gods at all is what I am saying is all.) This could also in a sense work for the experience of God and the holy spirit at the time of conversion?
In the conception of 1 Cor. 15:28 Christ is a divine being to whom all other things in the universe are subject. But he subjects all things to God, as the one who had given him such authority. So they are not equal in the final state of things, even if God has given Christ his own name and degree of authority at his exaltation.
Indeed, I am most interested in the development of the doctrine of the divine trinity. It seems the question of Jesus being God from the beginning paints the early church fathers into a corner because one would assume that people would believe that Christians were polytheists in that they worshipped two gods. And how does the Holy Spirit make into that troika? Although they were decreed to be not just equal but the same (separate but equal?), the Son and the Spirit always seemed to be subordinate (although not intended to be) as they were derivative of the Father. (Yes, heresy, I know.)
Right! I’m getting there! It will be a while to round the discussion of the trinity out. So hold on!
Is it fair to say that the Christ poem is primarily of the making of early Jewish followers of Jesus rather than Gentile or Pagan?
The Christ poem also suggests that early followers of Jesus were seeing the Hebrew Bible with new eyes and new meaning and that it happened early. The story of the disciples in Luke on the road to Emmaus who had a spiritual experience of the resurrection and then found new meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures probably describes this early process perhaps? Probably not historic but describes the process?
I’d say that it’s … hard to say! The concepts are thoroughly Greek; the author knows Scripture well; but leaves almost no trace of ethnic / religious origin. And yes, that is all part of the continuum: Christ fulfilled Scripture. Here, far more than in the Gospels even.
Thanks Bart; it has really set me thinking.
‘Someone’ wrote the poem in the first couple of decades after Jesus’s death;
– and stylistically that person is unlikely to have been Paul.
Are there other New Testament writers for whom it might be more likely? The author of the letter to the Hebrews perhaps? Or that of the letter to the Ephesians? If we can’t speculate an identity; can we at least suggest cultural or educational characteristics?
And if it isn’t a hymn (at least in its current form), and isn’t a spontaneous digression into high-style writing in the course of Paul’s composing his letter; in what context might it have arisen? Is this the sort of thing that early followers of Jesus expressed in worship?
I”d say we don’t know when it was written, but yes, certainly before Paul quoted it. I wouldn’t see any grounds to date it, e.g., in the 30s necessarily. It could have been in the early 50s just as well. And it does advance a pretty sophisicated level of thought. As to who wrote it, no: the style is not identifiable wiht any of our other authors. IT’s usually thought to be irretrievbly anonymous. Context? Good question. It’s easy to imagine it being *used* in a service of worship. Or maybe a very thoughtful person just came up with it as an expression of his faith? I wish we know.
Thank you for showing the literal translation to English and the layout of the Greek. That helped. Before that, it was all Greek to me.
I was raised with the belief in the oneness of the godhead, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all dwelt in Jesus bodily, similar to the Trinity but different.
Interesting. Early Christian theologians would have called that a heresy. 🙂
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
Paul said that there was One God, the Father, and One Lord, Jesus. Is it possible for a person without a prior Trinitarian bias, to read this, “Who being in the form of a god”?
An important passage! But I’m not sure what you’re asking about it.
So if I am reading your posts correctly, we have two views of Jesus. In one view, he started out human then became divine. In the second view, he started as a divine being became human then got an upgrade in his divine status. Both of these views had early origins in the 1st century Christian church. Any thoughts on the motivations and origins behind the two views?
The first was motivated by the belief in his resurrection (when he was taken up to heaven and made God, since that’s what happened when people were taken up); the second was motivated by the need to show he was *more* than a mere man, but had always been divine. Christians wanted to say the most glorious things they could about him, and so that led to changes in Christology.
Long before Jesus lived, most people in the world had what we westerners think of esoteric belief systems. They thought of it as plain, flat out religion.
Looking at religions like the ancient Zoroastrianism (probably 5-600BCE who spread through and influenced the central Asia and all the way to mediteranian Europe. They had very spiritiual origion perception of the world, where their supreme god “eminated creation first to the perfect, then trapped into matter. The emination was still “one” but became many.
Looking at Hinduism which existed in written form 1000 years before Jesus, also talked about emination (e.g. Brahman), agian from a perfect state, and emination to divinities in a Hierarchy, but derived from the “one”.
The same in Buddism, eminated from a perfect state of mind,,a Buddha nature,, and descending and ascending from that, but still from “one”
The later Gnosticism like found in the Apocryphon of John (some even claim a part (Barbelo gnosticism) has its origin before Jesus lived (with a strong platonic influence, but also Aristotles), but nevertheless all started with “one”, and from this One/God/Noesis by its thought, Barbelo was eminated (not created) and so were the son (Christ), namely they were three but still one. Some claim that the ideas, could be influenced by hellenism but that was before Jesus.
And in addition to that Judaism, or esoteric thoughts within it, who later was conseptualized in Jewish mysticism.
I think those conseps found in Paul’s poem of Christ was there within other religon which more or/and less influenced the middle east at that time. On the premis of those views, the fabric for such high christology could have been around when it was written and centuries before.
In the beginning of the gospel of John, it says “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. In greek “Word” is Logos, but in the Targums it would be “Memra” which, as I understand it, means the sort of active aspect of God, the part that interacts with the world and works in the world. In that sense, there is no need for a separation between God and Jesus. Jesus is just the Word of God, or Memra, in human form. Wouldn’t first century Jewish Christians have completely understood this? Could this concept have evolved into the high Christology that Paul espouses, and perhaps even to the Gnostic variants of Christianity?
My sense is that the readers of John — and John himself — did not speak Aramaic. Logos here appears to be feeding off of Greek philosophical traditions which were in the air, rather than Aramaic traditions that had a very limited audience. (The other questions of course are such things as wehther the later targumim had undersandings commensurate with those of earlier times and if so whether they were widely known)
Paul’s view is that Jesus was a pre-existing divine being. He states that w\i ~20ish years of the crucifixion to a pre-existing group of Xtns. So :
His pretty well documented fight with the Jerusalem Xtn followers Is over the necessity of following Jewish Law and Gentiles place in salvation … Not about their understanding of who Christ was or what he was (or the current end times, or the Lord’s Supper whatever that was).
Wouldn’t this man who is not shy about “flaming” anyone who crossed him, have been apoplectic if the apostles were running around saying that Jesus became divine at his baptism? Or his death? Or he was a great teacher but not “divine”? End me in tears Dr. E: I am putting forth a hypothesis here that would make an evangelical nod and give me a thumbs up: that it is more likely than not that Paul’s view of Jesus’ divine nature was not fundamentally different than that of say, Peter or James. (Or Apollos for that matter but that makes direct question Paul vs. Apostles – too complex for the blog)
I don’t know if he knew what the other were saying, frankly, about the time of Jesus’ exaltation. He never says one way or the other.
What are the earliest manuscripts that contain the Christ poem? Is it possible that Paul didn’t originally include the poem and that someone added it later?
Every ms of PHilippians has it; there is not a dispute about whether it was originally there — it fits perfectly well with precisely the argument Paul is using it for, to show that followers of Jesus should be like him in giving up everythign for the sake of others, even to the point of death.
Your reference to Isaiah suggests that at least one author of the poem knew his OT, which in turn suggests that a sophisticated mind spent considerable calories fashioning such an allusion. Which in turn suggests to me that the poem—or at least it’s essence, the idea of it—had been around for quite some time, long enough for a rather mature Christology to evolve. Just a thought.
My sense is that the earliest followrs of JEsus were already well steeped in the Hebrew Bible, especially some of its key teachings about God. But it seems like your view should suggest the poem was *not* an earlier creation in the Christain movement but a later one, after peole had thought about it all for decades, no?