As I continue work on my directed research project, it’s becoming more and more convincing to me that Christology in the synoptics isn’t exempt from pre-existence and divinity.
The reasons for this are twofold. If we assume the following, then it would be strongly in our favor to assume what I’m proposing to be the case.
1) Paul had great influence when it came to matters of theology on the post 67 A.D. church.
2) If we, along with the grand majority of scholars, assume that passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:47, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16, Galatians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 10:4, and Philippians 2:6-11 have within them, at least pre-existence (even though divinity is clearly seen).
I think if one accepts both of these as true, then it seems consistent that the Synoptic Gospel tradition, though possibly expressing this in different literary ways (obviously, they’re stories), should contain a high Christology. If Paul did have such a great influence as we assume and there truly is divinity and pre-existence in Paul, I don’t see how it wouldn’t easily follow. This is especially the case of Luke, who was a close partner with Paul (if assuming Acts is reliable).
My questions are the following: 1) Have we allowed the scholarly consensus on Christology determine the Christology we get out of the synoptics? 2) If so, though we can’t read Paul into the synoptics, is it possible we’ve missed something so big as Jesus’ divinity?
EDIT: When I asked if “we’ve missed something so big as Jesus’ divinity”, the we I am referring to is scholarship, not the church. Moreover, I didn’t mean to include myself in this group of scholars, considering I’m not one.
May 13, 2011 at 10:10 am
Pre-existence presupposes that you read Paul as if his concept of time and life are sequential. I have a hard time finding it possible to define either ‘pre’ or ‘existence’. So pre-existence is a double bind. Some day I will get back to the NT. I am still concentrating on the K of TNK. I just reread Ruth and I am struck at how easily she can be seen as a type of the Gentile Church. All those horrible foreigners being grafted into the Anointed that is Israel.
May 13, 2011 at 10:30 am
@Bob:
I’m not entirely sure as to what you mean, but I’ll take a stab into the dark.
Are you insisting, that for Paul, there wasn’t a difference between the time of physical existence (e.g. after being born from the womb) and the state prior to that?
May 13, 2011 at 11:21 am
Not ‘insisting’, just having a hard time defining. It’s like defining divinity. Personally, I think in vague holistic terms.
The me that is my nephesh is the whole of my earthly space-time. Somehow that is redeemed. My Boaz takes this Moabite to be his wedded wife, and the child of the promise is born (cf Galatians).
How that relates to an endless time-line is not defined. Linearity of time is an analogue that I find limiting. Space-time is curved and fully contained in glory which by mathematical analogy is a separate dimension.
There is a note about it this morning here from another theologian citing Barth and Buber.
I am not insisting on anything except I do talk about the love of God shown in Christ Jesus in whom the Anointing Spirit is demonstrated fully and transcending his own ‘nephesh’ or 4-dimensional space-time hologram through the word and tradition that we have inherited, even in its fragmented state.
May 13, 2011 at 2:11 pm
I feel like Paul, being a good Jew (and not a Platonist), rejected vehemently any notion of immortality of the soul.
But, of course, that’s just my thoughts on the matter.
May 13, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Yes – and it is part of challenge in my translation of the psalms never to use that lovely word ‘soul’.
Pingback: Pauline influence on Synoptic Christology | Euangelion
May 13, 2011 at 5:43 pm
@Bob: It seems the implications from your understanding of pre-existence make it sound like Paul believes in immortality of the soul, though.
Am I misunderstanding something?
May 13, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Really? Well I am surprised at your reading of my words since I did not mention immortality or soul in my words. I do understand resurrection in some aspects as presence. That to me is important. I say every week that I believe in the resurrection of the body – If we die with him we will live with him from the conforming of our lives to his death by the Spirit and knowing thereby the life in the mortal body that results from this engagement. (Romans 8)
May 13, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Sorry – don’t know where that smiley came from – must have been a typo! – Nice work from the hidden typist eh?
May 13, 2011 at 6:56 pm
@Bob: Maybe I read into things a bit much. Post-modern literary theory proves to be true sometimes. Hah.
It just seems that you’re saying that Paul didn’t understand the bridge between pre-existence and actual existence if I understand correctly.
Is this only in relation to Christ or all of humanity is my question.
May 13, 2011 at 7:43 pm
I am not judging Paul’s understanding but I looked at all your references and although they might suggest pre-existence, I think it is only because that’s the way we tend to think. I am not convinced it is necessary. E.g. when he says that rock was Christ – does he mean Jesus? or does he speak of the Anointing Spirit which is clearly evident throughout Tanakh? Since all time and space are present to God the Spirit, I am not surprised to see the effects of God’s Anointing in the record of the election of Israel.
Anyway – how do you spin out pre-existence from these texts – and pre-existence of what?
Pingback: Pre-Existence in the “I have come” sayings « Near Emmaus
May 14, 2011 at 3:52 pm
I am assuming by pre-existence Daniel means that Christ’s earthly life wasn’t the beginning of his person. He had some “form” in relation to God that supersedes other humans (i.e. Not just on the mind of God; more than merely conceptual).
Assuming he interacted with the Johannine tradition, it would not be at all surprising that Paul held something like a “logos” Christology (though maybe grounded in the wisdom tradition).
May 14, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Daniel: When you say “we” do you have the academy in mind? I ask only because the Church has always seen Christ’s preexistence and divinity in the Gospels, so if you have the Church in mind, no, “we” haven’t missed it. I personally see it all over the place in the Synoptics but then some scholars want to insist that I must be reading the Synoptics through Johannine lenses.
May 14, 2011 at 4:28 pm
‘Pre-existent’ meaning as of the same Spirit as the Spirit that is evident in the gifts in the TNK. I think that’s what is embedded in the doctrine of the Incarnation – that God became human in this person of Jesus in a full way with that person not finding himself out of touch with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in any way – awake and alive in this Anointing. I think that’s what I think when I think about it. I know I had to enter through the door that is himself in particular through his death, the actuality of the mercy-seat. Apart from that entry way, which it may be he did not have to take, but I did, we are alike. In his image I am created and recreated.
May 14, 2011 at 4:38 pm
re Seeing pre-existence all over the place in the Synoptics, I don’t see this word anywhere. Who is it and alive at the moment the words are spoken. Who is it that is pre-existent? God is in a sense by definition because all are present to God. I think that is what Barth is getting at at the link I pointed out. But what do you mean by Christ pre-existent and does this word mean Jesus? Or is it that the Spirit who lived in him in the days of his flesh also inspired the elect who wrote Torah, and the Prophets and the Psalms? I think scholars are asking legitimate questions and I think the ‘Christ is pre-existent’ doesn’t spin out what the NT authors are telling us.
You can take or leave my questions – I am still forming them – but I liked what Brian pointed to in his comment. Spirit is more than concept – that is too true! David would have been completely confused by our ephemeral abstractions. I think that’s what that strange verse in Jonah 2:9 is about: those who keep futile emptiness abandon their kindness. Let’s not abandon Xesed – that covenant based loving kindness that is the mercy and reproof of the TNK.
May 14, 2011 at 5:16 pm
@Nick:
Yeah, Nick. I probably haven’t shouldn’t have included myself in the “we”. I was referring to the academy. My mistake.
Pingback: Elsewhere (05.16.2011) « Near Emmaus
Pingback: Biblioblogging Carnival – Unsettled Edition | Unsettled Christianity