Friday’s with Fee
More in its own interests than out of “love” for the Thessalonians, Rome had bestowed on them the status of a “free city.” The Thessalonians in turn gave back to the emperor the loyalty that this astute move was intended to secure. The significance of this emerges in Luke’s abbreviated report in Acts 17:1–10, where the explicit charge brought against Paul was maiestas (high treason)—that he was promoting “another king than Caesar.” Since devotion to Caesar meant proclaiming him as “Lord and Savior,” this is the most probable explanation for the frequency of κυρίῳ in these letters. In the Thessalonians’ current situation of suffering for Christ, Paul is constantly reminding them of who the true “Lord” really is. – Gordon Fee “Pauline Christology” p42
Great quote. “Jesus is Lord” seems to have been one of the most explosive confessions of the early church. Anyone you said this put everything on the line.
Yeah, great quote! But I’ll like to know how kyrios on a count stacks up against other Pauline Letters outside of 1 Thessalonians.
Brian,
it does gives us a much better understanding of what it meant to those early Christians when they openly said “Jesus is Lord”, and what risk they placed their lives to serve God.
TC, do you have Gordon Fee’s “Christology”
Roberth, yeah, I do.
This might be some helpful background…
In the Hebrew scriptures, God’s personal name was YHVH, but when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into the Greek, they substituted hO KURIOS (“the lord”) for God’s name.
But in the NT, (working from the Greek scriptures), Paul says that God bestows on Jesus “the title that is above every title,” (not “the name above every name”), due to his obedience, so from then on, God is known as “the father” and Jesus is referred to as “the lord.”
In the NT, God is on sort of a vacation from ruling. Jesus will be lord until the end of his 1000 year reign, when the terrorist activities are over and the whole world cringes and is submissive at the thought of the God, thanks to the famines and pestilences a nd wrecked ecology that Jesus accomplishes as a kind of “Bin Laden in the sky”.
After the thousand years, though, Jesus sheds the title of “lord” and returns to being just one of the many humans that will live forever in the middle east. At that point, God alone will be lord:
1 Cor 15:
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
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.
WE,
I agree up to the very last point though one presupposition we do not share is that this imagery does not include the incarnation. Paul often has a restored Eden in mind. Adam and Eve where intended to rule creation as regents of God taking creation toward God rather than away. In the incarnation the Son does this very thing by bringing creation into its full relationship with the Creator successfully accomplishing to purpose of humanity in the first place. Nevertheless, it is the God-man who brings the rule of God to earth while fulfilling the purpose of humanity.
This passage is not adoptionistic. Rather, it is showing that the Son does fulfill the purpose of Adam. I am not sure if we should read this as a literal millennium or not but I agree that the earthly reign of the Son does have a specific purpose.
>>>I agree up to the very last point
Do you mean: “At that point, God alone will be lord:”? You don’t have the luxury of disagreeing with that point, only of rejecting it:
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.
I mean, one I said in my point is merely a rephrasing of verse 28. That is what it says. Explicitly. There is no other way to take these words. Have you an alterate reading?
The only version I’ve seen nervy enough to boldly mistranslate this is the NLT:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&c=15&v=28&t=KJV#vrsn/28
>>>though one presupposition we do not share is that this imagery does not include the incarnation.
Right. I bring no presuppositions to the text.
>>>Paul often has a restored Eden in mind.
No. He has the covenant with Abraham in mind – the “promised land”:
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
>>>…Nevertheless, it is the God-man who brings the rule of God to earth while fulfilling the purpose of humanity.
The scriptures say that that role was to be filled by man – the “son of man” (human being):
Heb 2:
5 ¶ For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
>>>This passage is not adoptionistic. Rather, it is showing that the Son does fulfill the purpose of Adam. I am not sure if we should read this as a literal millennium or not but I agree that the earthly reign of the Son does have a specific purpose.
I see no reason not to read the 1000 years as 1000 years. I believe it is intended to be taken as written. Revelation is the graphical version of 1 Cor 15:25etc
No, that Jesus becomes just one of many eternal humans. Furthermore, it doesn’t say that Jesus sheds the title “Lord” only that the Christ as regent King representing humanity will have fulfilled Adam’s purpose by restoring all things to the Father making the purpose of Creation one that has been fulfilled.
The idea of reading a text without presuppositions is not possible. Furthermore, anytime we read a body of work from a single author we import categories he has used elsewhere. Therefore, when Paul doesn’t say this or that about a subject in one place that he has said about it in another place we should dismiss that he has it in mind even when not directly mentioned.
The promised land motif is a restored Eden motif. This is why Paul reinterprets Abraham’s gift of the land as the gift of the entire world in Rom. 4.13 (τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου). It was not to be a sliver near the Mediterranean but all of creation. This is why Rom. 8.18-23 envisions the revealing of the sons of God (an Adamic term) as bringing relief to the cursed creation.
>>>No, that Jesus becomes just one of many eternal humans.
I always like to suggest that people drop the term “eternal” in favor of the more accurate (to “eis aiwn”). “Eternal” has developed new baggage in English usage.
But, stripped of his title of “lord” and becoming a fellow “subject” and being a son of man (human) what else is he? Every title and regency belongs only to God forever. That means Jesus no longer has **any** royal or governmental distinctions – else God will not be “all in all.”
>>>Furthermore, it doesn’t say that Jesus sheds the title “Lord” only that the Christ as regent King representing humanity will have fulfilled Adam’s purpose by restoring all things to the Father making the purpose of Creation one that has been fulfilled.
Not at all. The purpose of creation was never a thousand year rally around Jesus. It was ever centered around the everlasting rule of God himself. Jesus was merely the human agent described in Psalm 8 to “still the enemy and avenger”:
Psalms 8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
>>>The idea of reading a text without presuppositions is not possible.
Yes, but I don’t bring a presupposition of “The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity” and that is a monumentally huge difference.
>>>…The promised land motif is a restored Eden motif. This is why Paul reinterprets Abraham’s gift of the land as the gift of the entire world in Rom. 4.13 (τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου).
I don’t see any connection.
>>>It was not to be a sliver near the Mediterranean but all of creation. This is why Rom. 8.18-23 envisions the revealing of the sons of God (an Adamic term) as bringing relief to the cursed creation.
The garden was a specific garden planted by God’s own farming:
Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
No, the history of the scriptures moves from garden to city:
Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
God will be “all in all” with Christ remaining Lord if you maintain the incarnation. We must balance the tension between Christ as the mediator between God and humanity which Christianity has traditionally interpreted as functioning because Christ is the God-man (a view which you reject and I maintain without any likelihood that either of us will budge). In this passage Christ has made God all in all as the glorified Creator over creation by doing what Adam could not do. This does not remove deity from Christology but I believe only affirms it.
While it is true that Christ is the human agent of God’s rule I reject your adjective “merely”. Again, we will not agree on this and I am fine with that. I affirm what you say about Christ as God’s human agent but I do not think that staying there is a holistic Christology. You must ignore (or in your case grossly reinterpret) many passages to pigeonhole Christ into being simply a exalted man.
Again, even with creation moving from garden to city this does not deny the reality that Eden was the starting point and that Paul saw the promised land as a continuation of Eden for Abraham and Israel that would be expanded to include the entire earth. That a city is the predominate image doesn’t negate this at all no more than that Jerusalem was the center of Jewish life negates that they saw the land as theirs given to them by God.
>>>God will be “all in all” with Christ remaining Lord if you maintain the incarnation.
But the text says that Jesus must and will step down in *order* that God may be all in all. This, then, is incompatible with him being God or any kind of ruler. The phrase “that God may be all in all” means, if it means anything, that “God alone will rule, and God will rule alone.”
>>>We must balance the tension between Christ as the mediator between God and humanity which Christianity has traditionally interpreted as functioning because Christ is the God-man (a view which you reject and I maintain without any likelihood that either of us will budge).
Moses was the mediator of the Sinai covenant. Does that make him part of “The Blessed Trinity”?
>>>In this passage Christ has made God all in all as the glorified Creator over creation by doing what Adam could not do.
Yes, he does two things:
* he acts as a “terrorist from the sky” inflicting terror on God’s enemies, as God puts everything under Jesus’ feet;
* he then steps down;
These are the ways that Jesus prepares God’s eternal rule.
>>>This does not remove deity from Christology but I believe only affirms it.
It is not a real argument, just a justification for your addiction to the praise of the pedophile ecclessiastical structure called Christianity. If you were to refuse the trinitarian number on your forehead and right hand, you would not be permitted to buy or sell.
>>>…Again, even with creation moving from garden to city this does not deny the reality that Eden was the starting point and that Paul saw the promised land as a continuation of Eden for Abraham and Israel that would be expanded to include the entire earth. That a city is the predominate image doesn’t negate this at all no more than that Jerusalem was the center of Jewish life negates that they saw the land as theirs given to them by God.
Actually, the new Jerusalem’s dimensions are given in Revelation. Outside of its gates are the wicked. They will continue to live, bringing tribute to God:
Rev 22:
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Revelation 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
Pedophile ecclesiastical structure? You’ve lost me. You make this conversation useless. That would be like me dismissing you as a reprobate blinded by Satan rather than attempting to maintain a discussion. I see why so many have gone on to dismiss you on their blogs. I’m moving on so I suggest you do the same since this conversation has become useless to both of us.
If someone disagrees with you this does not make you objective and the other deranged. I hate to break that to you.
>>>…If someone disagrees with you this does not make you objective and the other deranged. I hate to break that to you.
As I said, you don’t have the luxury of disagreeing with me, when facts are as obvious as the nose on your face; You can only bow out.
Well, I am glad I could make it easier for you go lay your head on your pillow tonight as the victor! You’re the champ!