"Another strategy would be to begin with the clause 'God is the head of Christ' (v.3) and to ask what such headship means concretely within a Trinitarian understanding of God. Paul, of course, did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity, and he often appears to operate with a subordinationist christology (cf. 15:28). If, however, we now read 11:3 through the lens of a theological tradition that affirms Christ's full participation in the Godhead, then we must ask ourselves how this affects our understanding of the analogy between 'God is the head of Christ' and 'man is the head of woman.' The subsequently developed orthodox doctrine of the Trinity actually works against the subordinationist implications of Paul's argument about men and women: it presses us to rethink the way in which 'in the Lord' men and women participate together in a new identity that transcends notions of superiority and inferiority. Such suggestions move us beyond simplistic arguments about whether Paul was right or wrong and enable us to rethink more deeply the substantive theological issues raised by his treatment of hairstyles in the worship
of the Corinthian church" (Richard Hays, 1
Corinthians, page 192).
Friday, March 09, 2018
Richard Hays' 1 Corinthians 11:3 Remarks
The following quote is taken from Richard Hays' commentary on 1 Corinthians. This material is just for general informational purposes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
With what is written here. It appears that he overlooks the part that says Christ is the head of the man. There is no way that imperfect man is equal to the Christ even in his human state. This simply shows that as Christ is the authority of Man so, God is the Authority of the Christ. Yes indeed, as it reads the apostle Paul puts forth a subordination of the Christ.
Commentators like Hays usually like to explain away the language in 1 Cor. 11:3. This includes positing an unlikely meaning for kephale (Greek word for "head") or they claim that Paul's christology and doctrine of God were still developing.
For example, commentator Marion Soards explains Jesus' role in
the New Testament in terms of divine agency (God acting through Christ who serves as the divine intermediary). According to Professor Soards, Paul does not seem preoccupied with Trinitarian concerns and apparently views God the Father as the one God of Christianity. Conversely, Jesus is called KURIOS by Paul (indicating the apostle's "uneasiness" with calling Jesus QEOS in the fullest sense of the word).
Explaining 1 Cor. 15:24ff, Soards again writes that Paul was not concerned with the Trinity doctrine, but only thinks of Jesus as the one through whom God works (i.e., Jesus is the divine agent).
Despite these omissions, Soards is a Trinitarian. Notice how Soards and Hays create distance between themselves and the Apostle Paul. They believe he was writing before a fully developed version of the Trinity appeared.
I can only think of Galatians 1:6-8 where Paul says not to teach or preach a different Jesus than the apostle already teach. So no his teachings as to who Jesus is are not in " a development stage". Thru Holy Spirit they were complete, that is why there was no need to add to how Paul taught the Christ to be. He also warned the Corinthians in the same manner, not to preach a different Jesus-1 Cor. 11:3,4. I guess when these Scholar are really not interested in promoting truth as found in God's word the bible thru his holy spirit. They come up with ideas to fit their preconceived beliefs on who Jesus is. As we know Paul under inspiration preached a complete and accurate understanding of who Jesus is. The Apostate thought that came after the 1st century is not considered by true followers of God. That is why Soards and Hays distanced themselves from the Apostle Paul and divine truth.
Galatians 1:6-8; 2 Cor. 11:3-4 are good points. Of course, Trinitarians manipulate those scriptures and apply them to us. However, the metaphysical layering required to support the Trinity doctrine shows why it's not scriptural.
There are commentators out there, who try to present the evidence honestly. But too many want to stick with "strongly entrenched things" opposed to the doctrine of God and Christ.
I was wondering did the 2nd to 4th century writers says that Paul Christology was still developing. If not where did the idea of his teaching of Christ was something that would need more development. As for applying the those scriptures to us,then trying to say that the same man who wrote those verses was believed in only the Father being God, so their point of view is contradictory. Straight up if they say that to me, I tell them nonsense, because first they are saying Paul didn't preach a God the son, tells in these verses not to preach different then what he teaches, then say we are the ones who are trying to teach it differently, no I don't think so.
Statements about doctrinal development certainly happened in the fourth century and later, but I don't recall the earliest church writers mentioning this point. I could be wrong.
The idea commonly set forth by some Trinitarians is that the Trinity doctrine always existed "in utero," or in seed form, but over time, the church's understanding of God would grow to maturity. Cardinal Newman wrote about this subject as well.
Jude 3-4 also comes to mind. As you say, this idea of doctrinal development in Paul can be confusing because they want to say that Paul viewed the Father, Son, and holy spirit as God, but yet he supposedly did not fully understand the relationship between all three and subordinated the Son to the Father maybe exceedinly. So some (not all) feels it's their job to "update" Paul. But as you stated, the scriptures give no warrant for such updating of apostolic doctrine.
Yes I was wondering about that, so far I've found little evidences of the early writers point of view on Paul teaching of God. Will continue to do research on the subject for now. Thank You for your input on the matter. Trinitarians spend more time making up stuff to fit their preconceived ideas about God, they overlook the scriptural point not to change the view of who Jesus is stated to be by Paul and the other Apostles. Interestingly you can't be the exact representation of someone and be that someone as well.- Hebrews 1:3. Nor can you be the image of God and be God, for Adam was created in God's image.
I've made similar arguments against Trinitarianism here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/06/eikon-in-colossians-115-christ.html
If you get a chance to read that post, you will see my reasoning against Trinitarianism, but also get to see how they try to use the image language in support of the Trinity. But hard for me to understand how the image of God can be God, even if the reasoning is that the Son is imaging the Father.
I appreciate your input too.
I agree with you on that as well, an image is always the image. As Jesus himself put it he cannot do a single thing but only as he beholds the father doing. Just like our images in a mirror, it cannot act independently of us. Be we can act independently of it. Why? because we are the real thing not an image. Jehovah God is the one true God, the God as it is said in Greek, I believe it is referred to as ton Theon, not just theos. People today especially these theologians are so disconnected from that time period, most of them cannot conceive what is involved in saying Jesus is a god. It is still divine, and Jesus is approved by Jehovah to be a God a divine being who has all authority given to him. If he has all authority, he has no limit to his authority. Authority wise they are the same accept Jesus didn't originally have the same authority otherwise it would not have to be given to him.
Philip, what you say makes perfect sense to me and I fully concur with your reasoning from the scriptures. The problem is that we're fighting almost 1700+ years of tradition (strongly entrenched things): these writers of commentaries and academic works mainly start from the presupposition that Christ is Almighty God (but not the Father or the holy spiurit), then they proceed to make their case from there. Just as I pointed out in my paper on Christ as the image of God, while it makes more sense to significantly differentiate the image from the original (the archetype), Trinitarians use verses like 2 Cor. 4:4 to make their case for the deity of Christ. As we know, things are not that complicated--a son might be the image of his father and the "image language" in the Bible is undoubtedly modeled on the father-son relationship. So John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:24-28.
deity... I not aware of exactly of how this word is used in Greek. But at Acts 17:22 the use of the term is in the plural, so I am not having a problem with Jesus being referred to as a deity seems that he would be, especially at that time, deity. So they, trinitarians seem to think that if Jesus is deity, it is significant for God Almighty. Where does that come from?
The English "deity" is ambiguous, but when Trinitarians use the word, they mean that Jesus is Almighty God--the second person of the Trinity. According to one dictionary, "deity" comes from the Greek theotes and Latin deus/deitas, then Old French, deite.
Theotes is also ambiguous--it doesn't necessarily have to reference Almighty God. But the word "deity" can be used that way.
From Merriam-Webster: "Definition of deity. plural deities. 1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity. b capitalized : god 1, supreme being. 2 : a god (see 1god 2) or goddess."
This link clearly explains what they mean by deity: https://www.theopedia.com/deity-of-jesus
Acts 17:22 uses δεισιδαιμονεστέρους, which is parsed grammatically as a comparative adjective, accusative masculine plural. ESV renders it, "very religious," but others say "extremely religious."
Post a Comment