You've seen me you've seen the Christ

by peacefulpete 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  Ok that title was bit provocative but that's not far from my theme in this thread. Who was Paul? even separated from the pseudoPauline material attributed to him we seem to find a Stoic philosopher, a mystery cultist, a selfless martyr and a self glorifying egomaniac among other things. His Christology appears to evolve and shift which has many wondering how much of what is critically attributed to this man is really his.
  

  Rather than assume the radical it probably is best for now to pressume his thoughts evolved like everyone else's. Specifically I want to discuss phrases in Philipians that suggest that Paul saw himself (or wanted to be seen as) the primary and foremost manifestation of the Christ model. Paul seems to have perceived his Christ in a largely spiritual sense. Most all references to earthly life are seen as later interpolations though it is possible that at least some corporeal language would fill his Christ image as it had for other godmen.

  Because of this he seems to have cast himself as the inspired model of the Christ to be immitated. Now before you dismiss this read (with an interlinear) the book of Phillipians. Paul is presenting himself as the one agent that has the true meaning of the Christ and this though supernatural fate and inspiration.

  Then book opens with the usual reminder that he was they're teacher and minister who was now suffering for them. He use the odd expression in vs8 that he "longs after them in the bowels of Christ" Bowels being an idiom for desire etc. But how strange for a christian today to say that he longs to see his friends as if he were Christ. He says that in 1: 26 that advancement is granted to them via the 'Christ in him'. He then admonishes good behavior as if they are accountable to him. (cf. 1Cor 5:3,4 where he judges someone tho only 'present in spirit' and condemns 'in the name of the Christ') He continues to say (chapts 2-3)that his sufferings are paralleled with the Christ's in that he has relinquished a favoured position to suffer and die for the benefit of others. he even suggests that his death is sacrificial (2:17 cf. Col. 1:24,25 ," I rejoice in my sufferings in your behalf and I fill up in my flesh the things lacking of the afflictions of the Christ on behalf on his body, which is the church" )

  Throughout the book, Christ language is being used to an end of elevating Paul and his role to that of the emmissary of the ellusive Christ. 4:18 is strangly worded to say that gifts given to him are a sweet sacrifice to god. In this context suggesting he wanted them to think of gifts to him as given to Christ/god.

  Backing up to 3:17 we here Paul saying: "be together imitators of me" . If not making the identification of himself with 'Christ' outright he certainly is leading the readers to view him as his unique protege'. This expression is similar to statements in other Pauline works like 1 Cor 11:1 ("be imitators of men as I am of Christ") and 1 cor 4:14-16 (where he calls himself their father and they his childern should "be imitators of me".) I suspect the expression at Eph 5:1 (after relating his experience of sacrifice in chapt. 4 he says in 5:1 "Therefore be imitators of God as beloved children" once read "imitators of me.." similarly but was altered to "God" because of the discomfort with the idea of Paul's elevation.)

  To balance this discussion we are reminded that he repeatedly says self defamating things that strike us as humble and honest. Yet the overall effect is that those that were not taken aback by this new message came to view Paul as more than a simple good example, he was the model of selflessness and piety that they could only imagine the Christ to be like. (no Gospel yet) The questions are was this all a well orchestrated ruse to get admiration or was Paul one of those JCannon types that genuinely believe they are divinely appointed.
• 

  Satanus

  (no Gospel yet)

  This is a fascinating fact. How much would you say, of the pauline corpus was produced before the gospels were penned?

  S
• 

  peacefulpete

  All of the authentic Pauline material predates the Gospels. Even conservative scholarship dates Mark to 70-90 while Matt was a decade or so later and luke about 120. It is a matter of great dedate recently when the hypothtical Q was wrtten. The best opinion is (imo) that this sayings material dates to 80-90. Tho I'm recently beginning to doubt Q existed as such. Anyway, I thought I would add another interesting piece of evidence about how Paul imagined himself. Gal 1:15,16 Paul claims to have been "appointed before I was born." by God to "reveal his Son in me". He insists he got this insight into his destiny without any inpute from other worshipers. I doubt anyone would have suggested it to him.
• 

  Leolaia

  I think Paul's theology is so hard to define because he was not always consistent, his views changed over time, sometimes he took on the language and concepts of his adversaries, and his own wording is at times maddingly ambiguous. It is attractive to think that over time Paul saw his identity merge more and more with Christ; certainly by the time he wrote Philippians, Paul saw his grim destiny in light of Christ's death and suffering. And I agree that there was much self-aggrandizement and self-promotion involved. I think Paul's controversies with Jewish Christians are enlightening in this respect; the Matthean community of c. AD 80-90 viewed Paul as a wolf in sheep's clothing, as a false prophet who taught others to abandon the Law and become Law-less, and as among the "weeds" planted by the Devil alongside the faithful in the ekklesia. Paul had real credibility problems among Jewish Christians, as his rhetoric in Galatians and 2 Corinthians clearly show, and he butted heads with those "super apostles" who didn't recognize his authority. By making himself more and more Christ's "unique protege," and speaking on behalf of the Lord, Paul would have been able to insulate his own flock from competitors.

  But I don't think Paul identified himself completely with Christ. At least near the midpoint of his epistolatory activity, he emphasized that his sufferings were secondary to Christ's ("Was Paul crucified for you?") and made a big point about not baptizing his disciples in his own name (1 Corinthians 1:13-15), and as for his view at the endpoint of his ministry, Philippians 3:10 states succinctly his perspective on imitating Christ through death: "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death". I think Paul felt he had a special, unique experience in "becoming like Christ," and yet this is a corollary to his more general theological views about the church: that the believer has already been united with Christ in his death (Romans 6:5), buried with him in baptism (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12), so that the old personality is crucified with him (Romans 6:6; Galatians 2:20), yet made alive together with Christ and raised with him (Colossians 2:12, 3:1). His status was special -- but fitting within the more general paradigm. I think his injunction of "be imitators of me" (Philippians 3:17) is reflective of both his unique status as well as the broader pattern among Christians that Paul represents.

  The traditions about Simon Magus however do give me some pause, inasmuch as Simon constitutes a lightly veiled representation of Paul in Ebionite works. According to the apologists, Simon claimed that he was the Son and that he himself was the one who suffered in Judea. On the one hand, it is possible that Simon was not just a fictional persona but a distinct personage with whom Paul later was conflated with. I find it somewhat attractive to consider that Simon Magus lay closer to the font of Johannine proto-gnostic tradition (esp. with respect to the parallels between the Jesus of John 4 and the traditions of Simon Magus) than Pauline tradition. At the present, it is an intractable mystery. On the other hand, it is also possible that Paul's erstwhile pneumatic christology (e.g. the "Spirit of Christ") was interpreted by some as explicitly claiming a sort of adoptionist status for himself. Coincidentally, I thought about this earlier today when I reread Osiek's commentary on the Shepherd of Hermas. I'm sure you recall the passage from Hermas that is widely regarded as attesting a sort of pneumatic adoptionist christology -- describing how the Holy Spirit, as the Son of God, descended into a chosen earthly vessel he was pleased to dwell in. I have always read this as a reference to the heavenly Son's adoption of Jesus as his earthly vessel and yet the commentary argues rather cogently that it doesn't just refer to Jesus -- or perhaps not to Jesus at all, but rather to the ekklesia and among individual Christians as they receive the Spirit. You may recall from my thread on James 4:5 how Hermas has an very advanced pneumatology related to some passages in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs -- attributing every individual emotion as a different spirit vying for room inside the body and how negative emotions/spirits can cause the Holy Spirit to flee, looking for a new home. I'm not saying that Paul necessarily had such a pneumatology regarding his own experience of the "Spirit of Christ," but Hermas shows that there were Christians who extended adoptionism (or quasi-adoptionism) to general anthropology and would have understood Paul as claiming that Christ was incarnate within him and speaking through him....
• 

  LittleToe

  I don't have any difficulty with Paul's words, insomuch as that's allegedly the heritage of every "Christian". My difficulty is with the idea of restricting freedom of conscience by imposing personal concepts and standards on others. The very nature of personality means that there will be great variety in expression. In addition, everyone is at a different stage in their development, as they walk the pilgrimage called "life".

  Put another way, IMHO you should be able to see "Christ" in every "Christian".
• 

  peacefulpete

  Leolaia, It is hard to reconstruct the mind of another isn't it. Especially a mind accustomed to thinking in riddles and mysteries. I agree with evrything in your comment. you didn't touch my specualtion about Eph 5:1.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Very interesting thread topic. I've enjoyed everyone's thoughts on it.

  Put another way, IMHO you should be able to see "Christ" in every "Christian".

  That expression in particular struck me. The divinty within is both gift and responsibility to be the vessel/channel for divine action within the material world.

  That the deity, or some aspect of it, is infused into the believer upon imbibing its body was key to some of the surrounding mystery religions. Since Paul did make use of some of their elements in his evolving teachings, I'm not surprised that this concept is present in some form. Who knows if Paul actually meant to take it as those religions did or the more appealing and nobler view expressed by LittleToe. If Simon Magus was completely fictitious, maybe he was the Jewish Christians' caricature and envisioned end product of such teachings?
• 

  Leolaia

  PP....I didn't quite follow your suggestion about Ephesians 5:1 because the appropriate contextual antecedent is not the general discussion of Paul's personal experience and authority (e.g. 4:1-2, 11) but the reference to God forgiving the members of the ekklesia in the prior verse: "Be kind and compassionate to each other, forgiving one another, just as in Christ God forgave you" (4:32). The theme of "becoming imitators of God" thus follows very naturally from this injunction to follow God's example, and the command to "live a life of love" in v. 2 links itself back to the injuction to "be kind and compassionate" in 4:32. Moreover, I checked Tischendorff and found no versional discrepency with this verse. The use of mimeomai "imitate" of course is unusual for Paul, which makes it one of many indicators of the sub-Pauline status of the epistle. This verb occurs 10 times in the NT, confined to (1) the generally-accepted Pauline epistles, (2) the sub-Pauline 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians, and (3) Hebrews. Only in Ephesians does the verb take theou (or another expression referring to God) as a genitive object. In the so-called genuine Pauline epistles and 2 Thessalonians, the verb almost exclusively has the first person singular and plural pronouns ("imitators of me" in 1 Corinthians 4:15, 11:1; Philippians 3:16; "imitators of us" in 1 Thessalonians 1:6, 2 Thessalonians 3:7, 9), though "the Lord" is included with "us" in 1 Thessalonians 1:6. 1 Thessalonians 2:14 is the only departure from this pattern; instead of "us", Paul uses the circumlocution ekklésión tou theou. The use of the mimeomai in Hebrews is different altogether, where it refers to those who lived according to "faith" (Hebrews 6:12, 13:7). Of course, there is no reason at all why Paul could not have used the verb in the way it is used in Ephesians; rather, it is just one piece of an overall pattern of style and usage that contrasts Ephesians with the rest of the Pauline corpus, and typically includes the use of Pauline words in a distinctively un-Pauline way.

  Little-Toe....Thanks for the spiritual perspective.

  Midget....I'm reluctant to regard Simon Magus as entirely a caricature of Paul, as this figure includes features (location near Gitton/Sychar in Samaria, meeting a woman of ill-repute outside his native country, converting a whole town in Samaria) that contrasts with what is known about Paul but which has a special relationship with the material in John 4.

  Satanus....As PP mentioned, the Pauline corpus mostly antedates the Gospels except for later interpolations, the sub-Pauline Ephesians, and the Pastorals which seem to be contemporaneous with the publication of the synoptic gospels. The authentic Pauline letters may have been contemporary with the early oral sayings tradition that was later utilized by Mark and Q, as Paul uses a number of logia that later crop up in the gospels, tho he shows much less dependence on this sapiential corpus than James. The only epistle in the NT that shows clearly knowledge of the written narrative gospels is 2 Peter, which alludes to the Transfiguration, the Baptism of Jesus, and Jesus' prophecy of Peter's death. 1 Peter 2:20-24 would at first glance appear to be dependent on the written Passion narrative in Mark and the other gospels, but it actually is dependent on the underlying exegetical tradition (like Barnabas), cf. the citation of Isaiah 53:9 in 1 Peter 2:22.
• 

  upside/down

  I don't have any difficulty with Paul's words, insomuch as that's allegedly the heritage of every "Christian". My difficulty is with the idea of restricting freedom of conscience by imposing personal concepts and standards on others. The very nature of personality means that there will be great variety in expression. In addition, everyone is at a different stage in their development, as they walk the pilgrimage called "life".

  Put another way, IMHO you should be able to see "Christ" in every "Christian".

  Boiled down, simple... and most important simple truth!

  Couldn't agree more,

  u/d
• 

  peacefulpete

  OOPs, I was recalling chapt 3 as a lead up to 5:1. Chapt 3 does sound Pauline (minus vss 8 and other interpolations). Chapt 5:1 follows chapter 3 nicely and has the father/child/imitator pattern of 1 Cor 4:14-16. OK I'm reaching.