There can be little doubt that the climax of the “hymn” is found in the universal confession κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, but the four words that follow are certainly no anticlimax or afterthought, no merely formal appendage. Rather, they testify to Paul’s unwavering belief in the ultimacy of God the Father. The worship of the Son ultimately redounds to the glory of the Father, enhancing the divine prestige (cf. BDAG 257d); “wherever the Son is glorified, the Father is glorified” (Chrysostom). If the Son represents penultimacy in the divine economy, the Father represents ultimacy: at the end, God the Father will be “all in all,” utterly supreme (1Co 15:27–28). Paul can affirm not only that τὰ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (2Co 5:18) or ἐξ αὐτοῦ … τὰ πάντα (Ro 11:36), but also that εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα (Ro 11:36). Yet the Father himself has endowed Jesus Christ with the name (κύριος) that surpasses every name so that the title εἷς κύριος can be applied to Jesus (1Co 8:6; Eph 4:5). Paul has clearly reformulated his inherited Jewish monotheism so as to include Christ within the Godhead.
That last sentence above doesn't have to be a stretch, but when read in a wider context, one sees that Harris is claiming Jesus Christ has been taken into a Godhead that was once monotheistic (or monolatrous), but it's now supposed to be a triune Godhead. As Jurgen Moltmann used to say, Christianity does not allow for "radical monotheism," but it must rather be tritheistic. My point here is that Philippians 2:10-11 can be read another way: it stretches the textual/scriptural language to implicate Paul in some reformulation of his Jewish monotheism which affirmed the words of Deut. 6:4; Isa. 45:5.
5 comments:
Edgar;
I have heard it said many time that, "En arke en ho logos" the 'was', in Greek grammar, has to mean in the Greek the indefinite past. Is this true?
Thanks
No, it's not true, and I've actually blogged on that subject before. Most statements where someone claims the grammar has to mean something are usually false. The view that the logos existed from the indefinite past is a theological assertion.
I've seen this argument from Bauckham, and Wright as well ... I just can't see it at all, unless of course Paul didn't know that Kurious was a cypher for a personal name, which I can't imagine anyone would argue. I think you're being very charitable by saying it doesn't have to be a stretch.
Guess what I meant by it doesn't have to be a stretch is that early Christians did reformulate the way that scriptures from Tanakh (the Old Testament) were read. For example, Joel 2:32. However, I do not agree with Bauckham, Harris, et al. that Christ came to be equated with God (in the Godhead).
The monotheism that Paul embraced was that the 1 God alone is the proper recipient of worship. In Philippians 2 Paul ascribes worship unto the Lord Jesus. This leads to the conclusion that Jesus is God.
Post a Comment