Mike Bird on his biggest influences

From Hootie and the Blowfish to Joel Osteen, Mike Bird airs his dirty laundry! (He’s only joking!)

Enjoy!

How exactly did Paul think of Jesus? (Paul and Monotheism, 2)

Regular readers will know that I’ve been discussing Paul and Monotheism quite a bit lately.

Paul and Monotheism

1 Cor 3.23: Our Subordination to Christ; Christ’s to God (Monotheism in 1 Corinthians, 1)

Well now, that’s an excellent question!

Implications of Subordinationism in Paul for Trinitarianism Today

The funny thing about blogging is that sometimes discussions get started that are rather unforeseen. As I mentioned at the outset, my current focus is in the Synoptics and Jesus studies, not so much Paul. All that to say, my take on the whole topic of Paul and monotheism is very much in a state of flux. (And I’ve had to catch up with many of my conversation partners!) I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again: I’m in process, and this whole discussion as revolved around what I think Paul thought about Jesus, not what I think about Jesus myself. Does that make sense? Moving on.

Now that I’ve had some time to think through these issues and the primary sources involved (and  to read [and reread] some more of Hurtado and Bauckham, as well as McGrath), I’d like to clarify and refine my stance. Anyone looking for a journal article here will be disappointed. These are just a view observations and my attempt to synthesize a host of evidence in a coherent manner.

1. I’m not sure whether Paul expands the Shema (McGrath) or places the identity of Jesus within the Shema (Dunn) in 1 Cor 8.6. However, I am growingly inclined to the latter over against the former for the following reasons.

2. Exegetically, in 1 Cor  8.6, one could take the “one God” / “one Lord” pairing either as adding “one Lord” to the “one God” of the Shema,” or, in a short of midrash explaining the Shema by locating the identity of God Most High in both the Father and Jesus. A decision is quite difficult on this matter. In fact, for me, what tips the scale in favor a Jesus sharing in the identity of God Most High is not any one exegetical argument, but evidence from outside of the immediate context.

3. What I mean is this: It is often easier to judge one’s actions than his or her thoughts. The former is easier to see. In the same way, it is easier to see the contours of Paul’s Christology by looking at the contours of Pauline Christianity. When I look at the marks of Christianity in the ancient world, I am compelled to believe that the earliest Christians (Paul included) treated Jesus in much the same way they treated God Most High. For example, they prayed to Jesus (“called” on his name), celebrated a modified passover regularly that was centered about Christ, they attempted to do great works in his “name,” etc. Of course, it may objected that this is not “worship” in the sense of sacrificial worship. Perhaps, but it is certainly devotion to Jesus as an expression of their loyalty to God Most High. In this way, to show devotion to Jesus was to express loyalty to “the one who sent him.”

4. The interesting thing about devotion to Jesus is that it was perceived by later paganism as worship (Lucian Peregrinus 13; Celsus ap. Or. Cels. 8.12, 14, 15; Porph. ap. Aug. civ. Dei 19:23; cf. Mart. Pol. 17:2). For example, the Martyrdom of Polycarp 17.3 reads:

τοῦτον μὲν γὰρ υἱὸν ὄντα τοῦ θεοῦ προσκυνοῦμεν, τοὺς δὲ μάρτυρας ὡς μαθητὰς καὶ μιμητὰς τοῦ κυρίου ἀγαπῶμεν ἀξίως ἕνεκεν εὐνοίας ἀνυπερβλήτου τῆς εἰς τὸν ἴδιον βασιλέα καὶ διδάσκαλον· ὧν γένοιτο καὶ ἡμᾶς συγκοινωνούς τε καὶ συμμαθητὰς γενέσθαι

For this one, who is the Son of God, we worship, but the martyrs we love as disciples and imitators of the Lord, as they deserve, on account of their matchless devotion to their own King and Teacher. May we also become their partners and fellow-disciples!

Now, it might be objected that one would need to nuance the meaning of προσκυνέω here and elsewhere. However, whether it merely refers obeisance or is itself a mark of attributing some sort of divinity to the object of devotion, it would seem to me that the context of these acts make clear that whatever the specific act was, it would be seen as a violation of the Shema unless the identity of Jesus was indistinguishable from the identity of God Most High.

5. Lastly, the Apostolic Fathers closely relate Jesus with the God of Israel, though to different degrees of proximity. Ignatius (who himself is quite Pauline) refers to “the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God” (ἐν θελήματι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν), having just mentioned “God the Father” (θεοῦ πατρὸς). Interestingly, 1 Clement refers to “the majestic scepter of God, our Lord Jesus Christ” (τὸ σκῆπτρον τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς). Now, of course, I’m not suggesting that we read Paul in light of the Fathers. However, one needs to ask the question from where did the Fathers learn to speak about Jesus in this way?

6. Passages like the Carmen Christi (Phil 2.5-11) closely relate the identity of Jesus with God Most High.

7. I still think that Paul viewed Christ primarily in terms of a principal agent. However, given passages like 1 Cor 8.6 and they way he and others displayed their devotion to Jesus, it would seem that he believed that Jesus shared in the divine identity of God Most High. I’m not sure we can legitimately get much more specific, but I’m sure some will disagree.

8. I like the way that such a view from Paul would comport with Luke’s Christology of identification. On this, see especially, Early Narrative Christology by C. Kavin Rowe.

Does this get us to Nicea, where we can claim that Paul held that Jesus and the Father were of the same essence? I am still unconvinced. However, one can easily see how Nicea arrived at the conclusion they did through much theological reasoning (and bit of Greek philosophy).

Alright, that should do it for now. I have the feeling that I missed something, so we’ll see what comes up in discussion.

What are your thoughts?

(Please, Nick, don’t let the fact that Tilling’s thesis isn’t yet published stop you from chiming in.)

Review of Biblical Literature Newsletter (30 July 2009) – Good stuff!

Here’s the newest RBL newsletter. I was happy to see that there was a review of John and Adela Collins’ King and Messiah as Son of God, an excellent work. (Check out part 1 of my review here, part 2 is still pending. I really will finish it up some time!)

You may also want to check out Warren Carter’s review of Christ and Caesar.

_____________________________

The following new reviews have been added to the Review of Biblical Literature and listed on the RBL blog (http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/):

Keith Bodner
1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6924
Reviewed by Tim Bulkeley

J. Bretschneider, J. Driessen, and K. van Lerberghe, eds.
Power and Architecture: Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6793
Reviewed by Aren Maeir

Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins
King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7034
Reviewed by Stephen Reed

Stacy Davis
This Strange Story: Jewish and Christian Interpretation of the Curse of Canaan from Antiquity to 1865
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6532
Reviewed by David M. Whitford

Michael B. Dick
Reading the Old Testament: An Inductive Introduction
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6512
Reviewed by George C. Heider

Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Andrea L. Weiss, eds.
The Torah: A Women’s Commentary
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6637
Reviewed by Yael Shemesh

Friedhelm Hartenstein
Das Angesicht JHWHs: Studien zu seinem höfischen und kultischen Bedeutungshintergrund in den Psalmen und in Exodus 32-34
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6916
Reviewed by Mark W. Hamilton

Brad E. Kelle and Frank Ritchel Ames, eds.
Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in Biblical and Modern Contexts
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6887
Reviewed by Pierre Johan Jordaan

Seyoon Kim
Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6957
Reviewed by Warren Carter

Tat-siong Benny Liew
What Is Asian American Biblical Hermeneutics? Reading the New Testament
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6869
Reviewed by Jae Won Lee

Evan Powell
The Myth of the Lost Gospel
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5230
Reviewed by Sarah E. Rollens

Moses Taiwo
Paul’s Rhetoric in 1 Corinthians 10:29b-30
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6983
Reviewed by Mark A. Jennings

James W. Thompson
Hebrews
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6966
Reviewed by Alan C. Mitchell

Jason A. Whitlark
Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light of Reciprocity Systems in the Ancient Mediterranean World
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7027
Reviewed by Ryan D. Chivington

To the one looking for Rob Kashow…

His blog is here.

I trust you will enjoy yourself here and then take a gander at Rob’s blog.

(I thought I’d post Rob’s blog link since I have received no less than three hits from someone(s) looking for “Rob Kashow.” I thought I’d make it easy on him/her/them.)

Who says that Christians can’t drop it like it’s hot?!?!?

How would you like this to be your church?

“From the N to the A to the Z – B – O…”

I imagine that Nick particularly enjoyed this. Jim too.

Implications of Subordinationism in Paul for Trinitarianism Today

Rob asked an incisive question yesterday about the compatibility of subordinationism and trinitarianism. Over the past week I have discussed a reading of 1 Corinthians that a arisen out of my reading of The One True God by James McGrath (here and here), viz., that I think it’s possible (perhaps probable) that Paul, as reflected in 1 Corinithans, evinces a view of Jesus that has more in common with Second Temple Judaism than with Nicea. By this I mean that some of what Paul says about Jesus in relation to the Father  in 1 Cor 3.23; 8.6; 15:28 sound as though he is presenting Jesus as a principal viceroy, an ultimate intermediary figure, rather than one who is ontologically equal with God. Now, I’m not sure about all this by any means. Like you, I’m still in process. But I do think there is enough evidence to ponder what the implications might be for trinitarianism.

Simply put: If (for the sake of argument) Paul has a view of Jesus and the Father that is more compatible with two-power theory, than Nicea, does that mean we should abandon Nicean trinitarianism?

While some may suggest an affirmative response, I am of a different opinion. Here are a few comments.

First, many will look to the Gospel of John for confirmation for a vision of Jesus that leads to Nicea. Certainly, this may be the case. John 1:1c, I am convinced, teaches in not uncertain terms that the Word was qualitatively divine (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). There are plenty of other places to find a divine Jesus in the Gospel of John. Now, to be sure, (and this must be said) there may well be a difference to between being θεός and being God Most High. We must be grappled with this.

Second, many will look to the creeds themselves to find assurance of the veracity of the trinity. I am not as sure about this line. It would seem to me that those protestants who would affirm the trinity of such grounds would likely not affirm the Council of Trent with its larger canon. So why lend such authority to the earlier Nicene creed? No doubt the response would be that the Nicene Creed was one of the ecumenical creeds. I suppose this is intended to assure one that the Spirit was at work protecting true doctrine. Maybe the Spirit was at work. I don’t know. Of course, if the Spirit was at work, then one wonders why he wasn’t at work in those who dissented and why Nicea seems to be a bit of a compromise between conflicting views.

Third, one option that does not seem to me to be on the table is to simply accept the trinity on blind faith in the face of the evidence under discussion from 1 Corinthians. I know that better men have been burned at the stake for saying such things, but I’m not an advocate of blindly accepting anything. I may be a child of postmodernism, but I’m still a rationalist at heart.

In the end, I don’t think there is enough evidence to force a reasonable person to abandon the trinity. While some may choose to do so as a result of academic study, others will find that the whole the NT provides seeds which will later blossom into Nicea after years and years of theological reflection. I find myself in this latter camp.

One last comment before we start the discussion: Paul’s view of Jesus in 1 Corinthians is NOT low. If we are right to see Jesus as a second power in 1 Corinthians, then Paul has seated Jesus in the second highest seat accorded to any being, second only to God Most High.

First, I’d like to thank the Academy

As the rest of the biblioblogging community weeps in sorrow and jealously, I humbly accept the “Paul Post of the Week” award for 7/19 through 7/25, which has been benevolently granted to me by Kevin Scull. Obviously this is a sign from the Power that I have not let an error provide from my fingers in typing these posts. I consider this ultimate vindication from God and his Christ. See the posts here and here that Kevin has graced with this eternal reward. You’ll know you are in the right spot when you see the exquisite banner crafted by none other than Sitz im Leben’s Brandon Wason.

Hearts are breaking, Sibboleth is no more.

I was saddened to see last night that Daniel Kirk has closed down Sibboleth for the “foreseeable future.” I had really enjoyed reading Daniel’s thoughts as he wrestled with tough questions. He will be missed in the blogosphere, but we can continue to expect great things from him in the years to come in scholarship. Hopefully, his impact will continue to be felt for the “foreseeable future.”

Well now, that’s an excellent question!

There was an helpful exchange in the comments from my post on 1 Cor 3.23 that I thought I would elevate to its own post for further reflection by you, my beloved readers.

Orrey poses the question:

Small question – How is McGrath’s thesis different from Hurtado’s work on Jesus as God’s ultimate principal agent?

I was naturally relieved to see that James McGrath provided his own answer, as I was going to defer to him anway:

I agree with Hurtado on a great many things, and points on which I might have called for greater nuance with respect to earlier publications, he has nuanced much more precisely in more recent books like Lord Jesus Christ.

One point about which I tried to be more precise is the notion of “cultic worship”, which I agree is an important category. But it seems to me that sacrificial worship was an absolute defining marker of the devotion due to YHWH alone, whereas other actions (such as prayer/invocation) which Hurtado sometimes lumped together as “cultic” do not seem to have been as universally regarded as representing the sort of devotion due to the one God and no other.

But I’d be much more interested in hearing how those who’ve read my book and Hurtado’s several see the differences. I wouldn’t be surprised if the differences seem greater or less than I myself perceive them!

So, my dear readers, I put now put James’s question in the final paragraph to you: For those who have read the works in question, what differences do you see?

(If you haven’t read these, by all means, do so now! I’d chime in, but I have yet to finish Dunn’s Christology in the Making , and Bauckham’s Jesus and the God of Israel and Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ, though I hope to do so soon.

1 Cor 3.23: Our Subordination to Christ; Christ’s to God (Monotheism in 1 Corinthians, 1)

In light of the grammatical stir I seemed to have caused here, I thought I would offer a defense of my view that 1 Cor 3.23 refers to the subordination of all Christians to Christ, and (more importantly) Christ’s subordination to God.

Here’s the text and translation of 1 Cor 3:21-23

ὥστε μηδεὶς καυχάσθω ἐν ἀνθρώποις· πάντα γὰρ ὑμῶν ἐστιν, εἴτε Παῦλος εἴτε Ἀπολλῶς εἴτε Κηφᾶς, εἴτε κόσμος εἴτε ζωὴ εἴτε θάνατος, εἴτε ἐνεστῶτα εἴτε μέλλοντα· πάντα ὑμῶν, ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ, Χριστὸς δὲ θεοῦ.

.

So then, no more boasting about people! For everything belongs to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death, whether present or future. Everything “yours”, but you “Christ’s”, and Christ “God’s”.

I’ve left the genitival phrases in question translated in the least interpretive manner possible. So, how are we to take these genitives?

What I’m not arguing is for the so-called “genitive of subordination” (the nominatives and genitives would need to be flipped for that). In fact, before I go further, let’s deal with what exactly a genitive does at an syntactical level.

The genitive case is, at heart, a qualitative case, viz.,it attributes some quality to its nomen regens (head noun) with which it is collocated. For exampleample, the well worn pistis Christou is first and foremost “Christ-faith,” what “Christ-faith” refers to specifically is left to the context to sort out for the reader/hearer. This context is not limited to the lexical-semantic contours of the surrounding context (e.g. is the nomen regens a verbal noun), but also includes both the literary context (i.e. what precedes and what follows in flow of thought?), and the historical context (i.e. what is the reader/hearer most likely to think of when he or she comes across this construction in context?). In my opinion, this is where many go astray in dealing with genitives, only paying obeisance to the semantic situation (a phrase turned by Dan Wallace), but not going on to the “rest of the story.”

So, what happens when we look at 1 Cor 3.23 in these contexts? (Obviously, these three contexts are inextricably bound to one another, having much overlap amongst them. They are separated for pedagogical purposes.)

Lexical-Semantic Context: ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ, Χριστὸς δὲ θεοῦ

The most important feature to note hear is that the first genitive becomes the head noun in the second genitival phrase. In this way, we have a concatenative (or interlocking) structure. Also, in the first genitival construction, there is quite clearly a disparity between the nomen regens and its genitive. Specifically, Χριστοῦ is a figure of a authority in a totally different realm that that of ὑμεῖς, which interestingly includes all Christians, making no social stratification within them. Whether or not this same relationship is played out in the second genitival construction is under question. Beyond that, there’s not much here to note.

Literary Context

Because of the nature of language itself, being more fluid and lithe rather inflexible and rigid, literary context provides the most important contribution to our understanding here. So what has Paul said and does he go on to say? Paul is in the middle of tearing the Corinthians new “nomen rectums” for playing favorites within their congregation and exalting one of early church leaders over the other (“I am with Paul! I am with Apollos! I am with Cephas!”). To this, Paul decries, “No! We are all servants (διάκονοι) through whom you came to believe!”) (1 Cor 3.4-5). Servants of whom? The Lord, that is Jesus Christ.

So when he writes, “Everything belongs to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future” in 3.21-22, he means that since all Christians are but servants of the Lord, then there should be no favoritism. Paul continues, “Everything belongs.”  What is more, he goes on to clarify that all have the same master. “And y’all belong to Christ.” What comes next is startling. There is nothing lexically or grammatically to offer any indication that the relationship between the head noun and its genitive should be any different: “Christ belongs to God.”

(Obviously more could be said here, but this is just a blog!)

The idea of subordination is indeed inherent in the context, both in what precedes 1 Cor 3.23 and what follows.

What comes immediately after the passage in question is key: The next sentence (4.1) opens, “people should think about us this way – as servants of Christ (ὡς ὑπηρέτας Χριστοῦ) and dispensations stewards of the mysteries of God.”

[As a side note: If Christ is God's principal agent to Paul, then it would made sense that, as servants of Christ, Christians would also be stewards of God's mysteries.]

If one checks the BDAG entry on ὑπηρέτας, he or she will find that the term denotes a helper or assistant, frequently in a subordinate capacity. Even at the lexical level, subordination is in the immediate context.

What about later in 1 Corinthians? Do we have any warrant for seeing Jesus as subordinate to the God? Yes. 1 Cor 15:28 specifically says that the Son will be subjected (ὑποταγήσεται) to God. It may also be the case that the God/Lord, Father/Jesus Christ line from 1 Cor 8.6 suggests this.

Thus, we have support for the subordination of Jesus to the Father elsewhere within the very letter.

Historical Context

I won’t belabor this point because this post is already quite long. There is ample historical evidence that, for man first century Jews, God Most High had a principal agent that acted on his behalf. This “two-power” theory lends further support to my argument. When I listed this point as an assumption, my doing so was not circular as Rob seems to imply. Rather, it is born out of serious investigation of the primary sources for first century Judaism. This is something I was happy to find in The One True God by James McGrath, but I’m by no means dependent on him for it. In fact, in most circles, the existence of such a phenomenon to one degree or another is well-excepted.

Thus, the lexical-semantic, literary, and historical context all point to an understanding of 1 Cor 3.23 that involves the implied subordination of Christians to Christ (duh!) and Christ to God (huh!?).

If you’re still reading this, I’m impressed. Please share you’re thoughts below. Let’s keep this discussion going!