Board index ‹ Paul the Apostle

[Ratfink]

Did Paul believe that Jesus is YHWH, the God of Israel? If he did, why does this not appear in his letters as a clear point of contention between the early Christians and the Jews/Pagans, as the crucifixion and resurrection prominently are? Wouldn't such an idea among Jewish-Christians like Paul have been terribly controversial and thus worthy of argument? It seems that rather it is the crucifixion of the Messiah 'as accursed before God' that was innovative among Jews of Paul's time.

In addition, how could Paul speak of "the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, Jesus Christ"(1 Cor 8:6) if he believed Jesus was the one God of Israel? Why would he call this God 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'?

[jimwalton]

Paul is firm in his teaching that Jesus was YHWH. When Paul speaks of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, he speaks of intertwined relationships of equality. His texts not only define who Jesus is in relationship to God, but also who God is in relationship to Jesus. When Paul speaks of God the Father and of the Lord Jesus Christ, he uses the conjunctive "and" expressing equality of stature and rank. Paul is, of course, explicit (as you are desiring) in Philippians 2.6, 1 Corinthians 4.6 & 15.25 about the equality of YHWH and Jesus.

> Why does this not appear in his letters as a clear point of contention between the early Christians and the Jews/Pagans, as the crucifixion and resurrection prominently are?

Even when Peter is preaching to the Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost, the issue at hand is the death and resurrection, not the trinity. so also Stephen in Acts 7, and Peter in Acts 5. Whether in Jewish circles under Peter, or in Gentile/Jewish circles under Paul, the primary issue became the resurrection more so than Christ's divinity.

> It seems that rather it is the crucifixion of the Messiah 'as accursed before God' that was innovative among Jews of Paul's time.

It was. There was no messianic expectation of a suffering Messiah.

> 1 Cor 8:6

God's fatherhood refers primarily to the internal relationship within the Trinity. God is first and foremost the Father of Jesus. This is not an invention of later church leaders, but comes directly from Christ, who refers to God as His father. The fatherhood of YHWH is also known from the OT (Ps. 103.13; 68.5).

1 Cor. 8.6 portrays both the Father and the Son as deity—notice that synonymous parallel statements are made about each one.

[Tiger]

In the Old Testament, it says that no one can be compare to Yahweh. Psalm 89:6 "For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh? Who among the sons of the heavenly beings is like Yahweh,"

Yahweh asked this question: Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will you liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?"

And now you are saying there are someone is equal to Yahweh(YHWH)? Have you not read anything from the Old Testament? If so, how can you go against Yahweh's words?

Now, I want you to answer Yahweh question: Who will you liken him to? Who is his equal and can be compare to him?

Then YHWH will answer you with this: Isaiah 45:5 "I am Yahweh, and there is none else. Besides me, there is no God..."

Then what will you say? Are you going to say "No, Paul said that Jesus is your equal. I believe Paul"? Are you going to argue with God? Are you going to take Paul's words over Yahweh?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the reply. Believe it or not, I have read many things from the Old Testament. I'm glad to have this conversation with you.

The position of the New Testament is that Jesus **is** YHWH. He makes that most clear in John 10.30: "I and the Father are one." Not one person, which would require the use of a different word, but one in essence or nature. He doesn't have to be likened to God or made equal to God (Isa. 46.5). That's *exactly* the point of the wording of Philippians 2.6, where Paul writes that Jesus was "in very nature God," and "equality with God was not something that had to be grasped." Jesus' equality with God was something that he possessed, not something that he lacked and to which he had to attain. His essential nature was already identical to that of the Father.

It's still true that there is no God but YHWH. Jesus was not considered "another", but "the same as" (John 1.1).

[Ratfink]

> When Paul speaks of God the Father and of the Lord Jesus Christ, he uses the conjunctive "and" expressing equality of stature and rank. Paul is, of course, explicit (as you are desiring) in Philippians 2.6, 1 Corinthians 4.6 & 15.25 about the equality of YHWH and Jesus.

Using the conjunction kai 'and' does not necessarily mean Paul is equating the Lord Jesus with God. As for the Philippians hymn, morphe theou 'form of God' explicitly does not make Christ YHWH. Rather, 'form of God' is equivalent to 'image of God' - what Adam was made in. Therefore, I think an Adam christology underlies the whole hymn. Christ did not grasp at equality with God though he was like Adam having been given dominion over creation. Further, how could Christ be YHWH if God had to 'exalt him' and 'give him the name above every name'(presumably 'Lord')? Psalm 8:6 sits in the background. By becoming obedient to God as a man, Jesus regains the dominion man was made to have.

1 Corinthians 15:25 makes the point. Jesus is the 'Lord' of Psalm 110:1 whom YHWH exalts to His right hand - 'YHWH said to my Lord,...'

> 1 Cor. 8.6 portrays both the Father and the Son as deity—notice that synonymous parallel statements are made about each one.

No that is not correct. These are not synonymous parallels - intentionally different words are used by Paul. The one God who is the Father is the source of all things. "From him are all things". The Lord Jesus is the mediator of all things 'through him are all things'. The parallels to Jewish Wisdom literature are apparent. Christ is taking the role of God's wisdom(Proverbs 3:19; 8). God made the world through Wisdom. The Wisdom made nothing on its own. John does the same with the logos.

What we find is that nowhere is Paul explicitly making clear that Jesus is YHWH, the God and Father of Israel. He is using other terms which lead us away from such a conclusion.

[jimwalton]

> 'form of God' is equivalent to 'image of God'

I strongly disagree. Morphe in Phil. 2.6 speaks of Jesus' preëxistence and the form in which he appeared in heaven before his incarnation. Paul is using it to express that He has God's attributes.

Marvin Vincent: Morphe here means that expression of being which is identified with the essential nature and character of God, and which reveals it.

James White: He existed eternally in the very form of God. He did not enter into this state, but existed eternally as Deity, equal with God the Father.

Dennis Jowers mentions 3 possibilities:
1. In the sense of eikon. In Paul the eikon is something inseparable from the person. He employs such language precisely to locate Christ within the being of God; it denotes "the thing itself" or "the genuine article."
2. In the sense of "visible appearance." "In the form of God," then, means he is relegating Christ to the status of a visible manifestation of divine glory.
3. Paul means "a realm" or "field of movement." What he means is that the form of God is the field of movement in which the encounter between God and Christ occurs; the form of a servant is the field of activity of the servant, the worldwide sphere of encounter between the serving Christ and the humanity he serves.

Joseph Hellerman: The expression pictures the preexistent Christ as clothed in garments of divine majesty and splendor.

There is no notion of an Adamic Christology.

> 1 Corinthians 15:25 makes the point. Jesus is the 'Lord' of Psalm 110:1 whom YHWH exalts to His right hand - 'YHWH said to my Lord,...'

This is correct. I agree with you.

> 1 Cor. 8.6

To some extent you are correct, but with clarification. As we learn from other, Jesus was the agency through which God created the world: Jn. 1.3; Heb. 1.2; Col. 1.16. The Colossians text, however, puts Jesus as equivalent to YHWH as not merely the agency but the Creator himself. We need to take the whole teaching of Scripture, and not just one piece, if we want a full understanding.

> The parallels to Jewish Wisdom literature are apparent.

I agree.

> The Wisdom made nothing on its own.

Colossians 1.16 pushes us further than this statement claims. "For in him all things were created" – ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα. Then at the end of the verse: "all things have been created through him and for him" — τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται.

> He is using other terms which lead us away from such a conclusion.

Not so. He never leads us away from that conclusion, but always nestles the two together in standard trinitarian form: Jesus was a unity with God and also a separate person from the Father.

[Tiger]

Hey. I'm glad that you replied back to me. If you are saying that Jesus is YHWH, then you are saying that Jesus is our Father. Since the Trinity consist of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, then you are saying that the Trinity is consist of Jesus, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

That's because YHWH is our Father, he is our creator. Isaiah 64:8 "But now, Yahweh, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you our potter; and we all are the work of your hand."

In John 10:30, Jesus didn't say I am the Father. My wife and I are one. Does that make me a woman or a wife? Of course it doesn't. Jesus also prayed that his disciples would be one just as him and the Father are one. He also prayed that his disciples be one in them.

John 17:21 "that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us..." John 17:22 "And the glory which Thou hast given me I have given them, that they may be one, just as we are one:"

So if you are saying that John 10:30 make Jesus to be the Father, then John 17:21-22 is saying that Jesus' disciples are also the Father.

Philippians 2:6 "who, existing in the form of God, didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped," First the word "form" means "morphé" in Greek. Morphé means shape, outer appearance, form. That same word was use in Mark 16:12 when Jesus appeared in a different FORM to two of his disciples. That means Jesus outer appearance was different, not his essence. The two disciples didn't recognize Jesus.

Second "didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped". It doesn't say that Jesus was equal with God. It is saying that even though Jesus had the appearance of God, he didn't consider equal with God. In Phil 2:1-5, it was talking about not to be selfish, have selfish ambition or use something for your own advantage. Jesus didn't have any selfish ambition, he didn't use his abilities for any self-gains, he didn't put himself above anybody else. Jesus preached that the Father is greater than him, he fed the hungry, heal the sicks, made blinds see, etc... Jesus didn't go around and pretending to be God or make people believe that he is God in the fresh. Most people can't grasped that. Most people would had taken advantage of that for their own gain. That is what Phil 2:6 was talking about.

Now about John 1:1. Jesus wasn't considered as the same God as YHWH. I don't believe that Jesus was literally the WORD in John 1:1. WORD in John 1:1 means LOGOS. LOGOS means thoughts, ideas, reason, word, speech, etc.. It literally means WORD. A speech is not a person.

In 1 John 1:1-2, the WORD(LOGOS) is the Word of Life. "(and the life was revealed, and we have seen, and testify, and declare to you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was revealed to us)" Do you notice that the Word of Life was called an IT? Jesus wasn't literally the word but he spoke the word. That word is the Word of life. But everything that Jesus taught/spoke was from the Father himself, not directly from Jesus.

[jimwalton]

Jesus and the Father are no identical, but they are a unified nature. As per standard trinitarian theology, there is one God who exists as three persons. Let's look at the texts.

John 10.30. The Greeks had more than one word for "one". If he had wanted to say they were one person (Jesus, Jesus, and the HS), he would have used the word *heis*. But that isn't what he does. He uses the word *hen* (ἕν), meaning they are one in essence or nature. Look at the context around the verse. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own unique Father (Jh. 5.18). Jesus then admitted and proved the claim (5.19-30). Now he state it directly in this saying that he repeats later (17.11, 21). The Pharisees understand perfectly well what we means, and mean to kill him for blasphemy.

Jesus wasn't representing himself and God as one person (Jesus, Jesus, HS), but of inward unity and function. In the Bible, the Trinity distinguishes between the principle of divine action and the subject of divine action. The principle of all divine action is the one undivided divine essence, but the subject of divine action is either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. The Father can send the Son according to his power, and the Son can be incarnated according to his nature without dividing the divine essence.

John 17.21. This is not to say that the unity between the Father and the Son is the same as that between believers and God, but it does mean that there is an analogy. The believers are to be one in character and spirit by virtue of a common faith, a mutual love, shared purposes and goals, and a collective direction.

Phil. 2.6

Morphe in Phil. 2.6 speaks of Jesus' preëxistence and the form in which he appeared in heaven before his incarnation. Paul is using it to express that He has God's attributes.

Marvin Vincent: Morphe here means that expression of being which is identified with the essential nature and character of God, and which reveals it.

James White: He existed eternally in the very form of God. He did not enter into this state, but existed eternally as Deity, equal with God the Father.

Dennis Jowers mentions 3 possibilities: 1. In the sense of eikon. In Paul the eikon is something inseparable from the person. He employs such language precisely to locate Christ within the being of God; it denotes "the thing itself" or "the genuine article." 2. In the sense of "visible appearance." "In the form of God," then, means he is relegating Christ to the status of a visible manifestation of divine glory. 3. Paul means "a realm" or "field of movement." What he means is that the form of God is the field of movement in which the encounter between God and Christ occurs; the form of a servant is the field of activity of the servant, the worldwide sphere of encounter between the serving Christ and the humanity he serves.

Joseph Hellerman: The expression pictures the preexistent Christ as clothed in garments of divine majesty and splendor.

"Didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped.... It is saying that even though Jesus had the appearance of God, he didn't consider equal with God."

Oh, that's not it at all. One need not clamber after something one already has in one's possession. He was already in the form of God, i.e., he shared the essential nature and character of God. As such, it was no threat for him to lay aside certain prerogatives of his deity (empty himself) to be made in the form of a servant and subject himself to death. He didn't have any selfish ambition, as you say, and so his equality with God was safe when he disguised himself in human flesh.

> Jesus didn't go around and pretending to be God or make people believe that he is God in the flesh

He most certainly did. John 10.30; 14.7, 9; Mark 2.7-11, etc.

John 1.1

"In the beginning" - The Logos was pre-existent and at the root of the universe. There was never a time when the Logos was not. There was never anything that didn't depend on him for existence. He was the divine first cause, the efficient first principle, no different than God himself.

Logos: Heraclitus used it for the principle that controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world and Marcus Aurelius used *spermatikos logos* for the generative principle in nature. John was using it to point to the truth that it is the very nature of God to reveal himself, and this is how he did it.

"Was with God": Eternal existing in perfect fellowship with YHWH.

"Was God": The Logos was (continuing action in past time) eternally God. John is showing us who the Logos is. It's an assertion of deity.

> Do you notice that the Word of Life was called an IT?

????

John 1.2: Οὗτος. "The same; this one."
John 1.3: "Through HIM...without HIM"
John 1.4: "In HIM was life..."

John 1.14: The Logos was made flesh...and we saw HIS glory.

The Logos is Jesus, the revelation of God, eternally existing in perfect fellowship with YHWH as well as one in essence and nature with YHWH.

[Ratfink]

Thanks for the great response.

I want to start with Colossians 1:16 because I do not think it suggest Christ is Creator(Isn't God called Father specifically because He 'Fathered' all things?). Colossians 1:16, like John 1, uses the divine passive - meaning, theos God is the assumed actor. en can mean 'by' or 'in'. But Christ still isn't the actor. The end of the verse gives it away - this is the same Wisdom Christology as in the rest of the NT 'all things dia through him'... To say 'all things were made by him' can still mean 'God made all things using Christ'. So there is no need to see an innovative understanding of creation here. Christ has not become God the Father of all things.

> There is no notion of an Adamic Christology.

Alright. I guess I have my work cut out for me then haha. If you are interested in christology, try to get a hold of James Dunn's Christology in the Making. You won't agree with it but that can be a good thing for your own arguments.

To start off with I think there are some holes in the idea that the hymn posits Christ as pre-existent God. Why would God the Father need to exalt this man and give him the name 'Lord' if he was Lord and God since the beginning of time? Why are these acts of the Father necessary when Christ is fully God? Why is it not said that God 'gave him back' what he had emptied?

So my argument is that this hymn is in its entirety an Adam typology. Melding Psalms 8:6 and 110:1, Christ is being shown as the faithful man who regains for humanity what was lost by Adam - dominion over creation.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,

Okay Paul begins by stating the reason for telling this story - that us humans can aspire to be like Christ. Can we aspire to be like a God who emptied himself and became a human? no. Can we aspire to be a servant to others? yes.

"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

So morphe is used elsewhere in the Daniel and the transfiguration to describe a change in outward appearance. And of course this poem will contrast "form of God" with "the form of a slave". Adam, very similarly was made in the image of God. He was set as king over creation. Likewise, as God's elected son who did not sin, Jesus had such authority but chose not to use it. Adam grasped at the fruit in order to be like God. Jesus did not.

"And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."

Alright, I think this language naturally looks like incarnation language. But if we are following the Genesis story of Adam, I believe what is happening is Jesus is taking onto himself unnecessarily and voluntarily Adam's fallen state. He took on corrupt and weak flesh rather than the true body of Adam, the body in the image of God. And then, not wanting equality with God, he became so obedient to God that he died on a cross. For this, God gave him(and everyone in Christ) dominion over creation. He saved fallen Adam and became Lord of all peoples.

What I think makes this conclusion correct is that Paul elsewhere describes a similar transfer.
Romans 8:3
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
2 Corinthians 5
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

In these we find Christ as one who took upon himself the sinful state of Adam. Though he was God's Son(as Adam was) he took on Adam's current fallen state - even to the point of death. He lived through and through Adam's fallenness that he might bring Adam with him in exaltation. Since there is no clear expression of the pre-existent person Jesus in Paul, this seems like a perfectly adequate and preferable interpretation of our Pauline texts.

[jimwalton]

> The end of the verse gives it away

The end of the verse doesn't "give it away," it rounds out the picture created by the first part of the verse. Christ was both the first cause, the principal agent, as well as the intermediate and sustaining agent, of creation. He shared the nature of YHWH in the person of the Son.

> Why would God the Father need to exalt this man and give him the name 'Lord' if he was Lord and God since the beginning of time?

What exaltation was possible afterwards that he didn't have before? Well, what did he take back to heaven that he didn't have prior to his death? Clearly his humanity. He returned to heaven as the Son of Man as well as the Son of God, having completed the task of salvation that was incomplete before his death and resurrection.

Here's a fun analogy: Georg Cantor (I think) postulated that some infinities are bigger than other infinities. In fun, how many numbers are between 0 and 1? An infinite number. But how many numbers are between 0 & 2?

Suppose we take that analogy and apply it to the exaltation of Christ. He was exalted to the highest place before his incarnation, since he was Lord of all, but he was exalted to a greater highest place (a larger infinity) after his incarnation.

> us humans can aspire to be like Christ. Can we aspire to be like a God who emptied himself and became a human? no. Can we aspire to be a servant to others? yes.

Agreed.

> Adam, very similarly was made in the image of God. He was set as king over creation. Likewise, as God's elected son who did not sin, Jesus had such authority but chose not to use it. Adam grasped at the fruit in order to be like God. Jesus did not.

This is very interesting, but there's nothing in the text to take us in this direction or to this place. While it's a cool sounding theory, it's a fabricated one and not one that is textually warranted. Just like lots of people like to think of (Genesis) Joseph as a type of Christ, and there are many parallels, but the Bible never identifies Joseph as a type of Christ, and so it's not legitimate exegesis.

> Jesus is taking onto himself unnecessarily and voluntarily Adam's fallen state. He took on corrupt and weak flesh rather than the true body of Adam, the body in the image of God. And then, not wanting equality with God, he became so obedient to God that he died on a cross. For this, God gave him(and everyone in Christ) dominion over creation. He saved fallen Adam and became Lord of all peoples.

This is close, but no cigar. Jesus was taking onto himself Adam's fallen state, and it was voluntary, but it was also necessary. He did take on weak flesh, but there's nothing in the text to declare that it was instead of the true body of Adam—that's foreign to the text. You can't just pull in things like this when you're exegeting, without warrant from the text itself, which is absent. Then the last part (from "And then, not wanting equality...) is just incorrect thoughts that resulted from unwarranted premises. A change in direction in the middle sent you to the wrong house.

Romans 8.3, Gal. 4.4, and 2 Cor 5 are all legitimately talking about Christ's incarnation and his taking on the sin of the world, but nothing about "rather than the true body of Adam, the body of the image of God." That's where you took a detour.

As far as the pre-existent Jesus in the writings of Paul, I think Ephesians 1 gushes with it. Philippians 2.6: What did he make himself nothing from? When was he "in very nature God" if not before his "being made in human likeness"? What about Colossians 1.17? Those are just some. I'm confident you're mistaken on this point as well.