Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
And
being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became
obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
//What I've just quoted was written by Paul, in a book which is
universally considered authentic ... that is, penned by Paul's own hand.
He appears to be quoting a hymn of some sort, and in so doing, claiming
Jesus' divinity "in the form of God." Some translations even present it
as a direct claim: "Though he was God, he did not think of equality
with God as something to cling to." - NLT.
But
did Paul really think of Jesus in these terms, as God Himself coming
down to earth? Or even as a pre-existing, divine being? This is a hotly
debated topic; critical scholars are nearly unified in believing that
the idea that Jesus was God developed later in Christianity, so how
should we interpret this hymn? What does it mean about early Christian
beliefs? Earlier even than Paul, who quoted an already-existing
source expecting it to be recognized.
There are some problems with the "Jesus is God" interpretation. The text is actually quite clear that Jesus was in the form of God,
not God himself. And it is God who exalts Jesus, apparently exalting
him higher than he was before ... meaning, Jesus wasn't God beforehand.
So what was he? The scholarly opinions are legion.
Many
scholars do not think it means Christ existed before birth. They think
it is talking about Christ as the "second Adam," who was like the first
man, Adam, but who acted very differently.
The
first Adam is made in the image of God (compare to "in the form of
God"), and so is the second Adam. The first Adam wanted to be "equal
with God," and reached for the fruit of the tree of knowledge that would
make him like God. The second Adam, by contrast, denied himself that
status, humbly submitting even to death. Therefore, God exalted him to a
higher status than before.
I was reading Dunn's comments on this passage yesterday, and he took the same route. He even went so far as to deny that the passage supports Jesus' pre-existence. The thing is, the passage says Jesus came in the likeness of men or had the appearance of men. I have a hard time seeing that any other way than to say that a pre-existent being became a human being.
ReplyDeleteI think I quoted th NKJV, and "coming" isn't a common translation; it's usually "made in" or "born in." Jesus humbles himself after birth, not before. Yet he appears almost surprised to find himself in a human body! Like you say, "found in appearance as a man" implies something other than a man, just as "being in the form of God" implies something other than God. Yeah, it's a confusing passage, but I think very important to the study of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I didn't check the Greek. The way Dunn handled "born of a woman" in Galatians 4 was to say that Jesus shared the human condition, which (for Dunn) doesn't necessarily say he was pre-existent.
ReplyDeleteIn that, I agree with Dunn. But that's a little different than Paul quoting a hymn. Setting aside Paul's interpretation for now, where did this hymn come from and what does it say about the earliest Christianity? It's a little like examining the prologue to John's Gospel and trying to figure out what it meant before John reinterpreted it in the light of John the Baptists. Fun stuff!
ReplyDeleteThings get thornier when Dunn handles Colossians 1. Dunn thinks that Paul in Colossians 1 is interacting with an earlier hymn about wisdom. The thing is, Dunn tries to argue that Paul is not using the hymn to present Jesus as pre-existent. I thought that was kind of a stretch. I think he should have just said that Paul did not write Colossians, and thus Colossians 1 is irrelevant to characterizing Paul's view on Jesus' pre-existence, rather than trying to force Colossians into his interpretation of Paul.
ReplyDelete