Paul's Christology

The Apostle Paul was no Trinitarian. I do not say this to question or discredit Trinitarian theology, or to discredit Paul. He was a man of his time and place, and while the theology of the Trinity finds scriptural support (even in Paul's writings), it is much more a product of the fourth century than the first. So what did Paul believe about Jesus?

I'll restrict my exploration to Crossan's "First Paul" list: Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, 1st Thessalonians, Galatians, Phillipians, and Philemon. My feeling is that this list includes enough material of sufficient variety to give a reasonable level of insight into Paul's thinking, even if you think that Crossan's analysis is dubious. If you think this list is unrepresentative, feel free to create your own.

Here are some attributes that Paul ascribes to Jesus:

Attribute	verse count
Christ	105
Lord (κυρίος)	69
Son of God	3
Paschal Lamb	1
Rock	1
Image of God	1
God	??

The question marks about God come from the fact that Paul never says “Jesus is God” but he often speaks of “God through Jesus Christ” or “God in Jesus Christ.” How you count these is up to you, but I think that what is actually happening here is Paul saw Jesus as a human, adopted by God, in whom God chose to be uniquely present. For those who enjoy a more technical theology, this is a kind of unidirectional, non-Trinitarian, perichoresis. But I also see this as falling short of an actual identification of Jesus with God, or viewed Jesus Christ as a co-equal person with God the Father.

The closest I can find in this corpus to a statement actually equating Jesus with God is this:

Philippians 2:6-11 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross.   Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

But as the indentation suggests (and this is even clearer in Nestle-Aland's Greek New Testament), this passage takes the form of a hymn, and it's not immediately clear whether Paul wrote it, or is quoting it. My intuition is that it differs enough in Christology from what I see elsewhere in Paul that he is quoting it despite its Christology, because it supports the point he wants to make: Christ was humble, so you should be humble too.

A particularly interesting passage is the following:

1 Corinthians 15:19-28 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.

This is not easy reading, and it's worthwhile reading carefully, making sure you've sorted out each of the pronominal references. Note also the very end—“When all things are subjected to him (God the Father), then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one (God) who put all things in subjection under him (God), so that God may be all in all.” It's not easy to reconcile subjugation of Christ to God (the Father) with Trinitarian theology.

I believe that Paul never stopped believing himself to be a Jew. Yes, he had a particularly mission to the Gentiles, and yes, he was an apostle of Christ, but I believe he never viewed this role as inconsistent with his Judiasm. And so he was intellectually committed to one God, but also a heavenly host with God, which includes angels, (perhaps as a separate person) the Holy Spirit, and that he incorporated Jesus Christ within this heavenly host.

Indeed, I think that the following is particularly telling:

Romans 1:1-4 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Got that? Declared, not begotten. Indeed, in this corpus, the Greek word that is sometimes translated as begotten (γεννάω), occurs only six times, and never refers to Jesus Christ. On the other hand, “promised beforehand” suggests Jesus's role was intended prior to his birth. This, I hope, is not too scandalous, after all, Paul often places flesh in contrast with spirit, in some ways paralleling Jesus's contrast of baptism by water vs. spirit. So I suspect that Paul's theory of the origins of Jesus, were that Jesus was born of women in flesh, in the usual way, but adopted through the Spirit as the Son of God, pre-existing in intent, revealed in prophesy, but not pre-existing as a distinct person of God.

As is this:

Romans 8:34 Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.

Again, got that? Jesus is at the right hand of God, i.e., the foremost of God's companions, his principal lieutenant within the heavenly host. But the companions are not equal to the King, they are subject to the King, as Paul saw Christ subject to God.

Where do we go with this? I don't know. The Trinitarian consensus runs deeply through Christianity, and is not something to be rejected just because it wasn't worked out (or articulated) in the first few years of the Christian era. Perhaps working this out and understanding helps in understanding why there were so many heresies through the first four centuries, and that orthodoxy evolved, and was not handed down whole. Perhaps it is worth remembering that Trinitarianism is a human attempt to penetrate the great mystery of God, and the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and that while it explains much, perhaps other models have their utility too. In particular, the Christology I attribute to Paul makes the gap between Judaism and Christianity seem much narrower than it is at present, and perhaps even capable of closure. This is an ecumenical pipe dream, but what man cannot do, God can do.

Peace