Crucifixion of a slave?

[robert j]

To your suggestion, if the author’s intention was to characterize Jesus here as “was a slave” using the term morphe, wouldn’t it follow that the author’s intention would be the same with God? That is, was actually God. Are you willing to apply that same connotation of morphe with God here?

I am, yes. I believe that, for Paul as for other very early Christians, Jesus = Yahweh in some way. Prerogatives and powers which in the Hebrew scriptures belonged to Yahweh now belong to Jesus (to the extent that, where the LXX applied "the Lord" to Yahweh, Christians now apply "the Lord" to Jesus). So Jesus is, at least in some way, equal to God.

There's a fair bit of day-light between "at least in some way, equal to God" and "was actually God".

I think the servant/slave in Philippians 2:7 is to be understood as servant/slave of God, humbling himself & obedient unto death to God (2:8), even if Christ was in position to be equal to God (2:6).

Bear in mind that θεὸς can mean either God (the God) or god (a god), and that the definite articles can make a difference:

Are you saying that in Philippians 2:6, Jesus Christ was being described as "a god", but not as the God (2:9), not as Father God (2:11) ?



It’s easy to get caught up in the semantics of Trinitarian language, hypostasis, multiple personality disorder, and angels dancing on the head of a pin. Regardless ---

I have no problem with seeing Jesus Christ in Paul’s system as a divine aspect of God the Father --- as an agent of God and conduit to God --- but not as a unity with God, not in the sense of being one, not as one-and-the-same.

Paul’s Jesus Christ is a separate aspect and actor. He had his own work to do. Perhaps at some beginning of time, there was a unity in Paul’s system. But if so, Paul does not reveal such a beginning unity in his letters (that I am aware of). It would make for a neat symmetry though, because Paul does provide a unity at “the end”.

In 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, “at His coming”, for those of Christ “all will be made alive”. “Then the end”. Christ hands the kingdom over to “the God and Father”, abolishes all dominion, authority and power, abolishes death, and subjects all things including the Son Himself to the Father --- so that God might be “all-in-all”. An apparent unity.

[Ben C. Smith]

To your suggestion, if the author’s intention was to characterize Jesus here as “was a slave” using the term morphe, wouldn’t it follow that the author’s intention would be the same with God? That is, was actually God. Are you willing to apply that same connotation of morphe with God here?

I am, yes. I believe that, for Paul as for other very early Christians, Jesus = Yahweh in some way. Prerogatives and powers which in the Hebrew scriptures belonged to Yahweh now belong to Jesus (to the extent that, where the LXX applied "the Lord" to Yahweh, Christians now apply "the Lord" to Jesus). So Jesus is, at least in some way, equal to God.

There's a fair bit of day-light between "at least in some way, equal to God" and "was actually God".

Yes, I am fudging my words more than I should, but part of the reason is that "form of God" can be a bit fudgy, too.

Until someone can disabuse me of this notion, my working premise is that Paul (along with most early Christians) thought of Jesus as Yahweh; and Yahweh had a father, called God the Father (or El Elyon in the Hebrew scriptures). This is the argument of Margaret Barker, and it explains a lot to me. I probed about her thesis here some time ago: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2588, but received no responses.

On this accounting, Jesus/Yahweh = god, but not the God, God the Father. Jesus/Yahweh = the son of the God.

Ben.

ETA: Even if you do not wish to accept Margaret Barker's thesis, I think that the Jesus Hymn might be explained as follows:

• Jesus (before his descent) = in the form of God (a hypostasis of God the Father); not actually God Himself, but there is no way humans could tell the difference.
  Jesus (after his descent) = in the form of a slave; not actually a slave (because he can get out at will), but there is no human way to tell the difference.
  Jesus (after his descent) = in the likeness of humans; not actually a human (because he is really divine), but there is no human way to tell the difference.

[robert j]

Ben, thanks for your response. I'll give Margaret Barker's thesis, as you presented it in that other thread, some thought.

[outhouse]

my working premise is that Paul (along with most early Christians) thought of Jesus as Yahweh; and Yahweh had a father, called God the Father (or El Elyon in the Hebrew scriptures).

El was the "father" deity more so the Elyon "most high"

I don't view Paul as a henotheist/polytheist, or that community would have made it much more clear in their context. AS a matter of fact, I'm quite sure he was just using the text of Judaism that was redacted to monotheism which used both terms for the same god after such redactions.

Originally El was the father deity married to Asherah, Yahweh and Baal the children. Monotheism was not fully seated until 200-400 BC by my best account.

We see early Israelite cultures compiling Yahweh and El as early as 800BC and even giving Els wife Asherah to Yahweh during this period.

El Elyon god most high, Elohim all fall under the redacted text of monotheism now defined as Yahweh, anything else would be blasphemous.

Pauline text shows nothing that states henotheism when we know the text those communities used both terms for one god.

[Charles Wilson]

my working premise is that Paul (along with most early Christians) thought of Jesus as Yahweh; and Yahweh had a father, called God the Father (or El Elyon in the Hebrew scriptures).

El was the "father" deity more so the Elyon "most high"
I don't view Paul as a henotheist/polytheist, or that community would have made it much more clear in their context. AS a matter of fact, I'm quite sure he was just using the text of Judaism that was redacted to monotheism which used both terms for the same god after such redactions.
Originally El was the father deity married to Asherah, Yahweh and Baal the children. Monotheism was not fully seated until 200-400 BC by my best account.
We see early Israelite cultures compiling Yahweh and El as early as 800BC and even giving Els wife Asherah to Yahweh during this period.

https://www.amazon.com/Cult-Asherah-Anc ... ds=asherah

Heavily footnoted Analysis of Asherah showing Historical Development of Asherah and El. See Conclusion for Summary.

[outhouse]

Pauline communities placed so much value on the text of Judaism they plagiarized, not knowing the old text was redacted to monotheism that left many traces of polytheism. This is what we see. This is what I think you see.

The prose Pauline communities wrote in were overselling their authority and going over the top to get their point across about this new theology, yet they do not try and sell grandpa El as Yahwehs father anywhere at any time.

Now I cant say that later scribes redacted out any signs of Pauline henotheism, but its highly doubtful. Monotheism to one god was what these people were all about, and we see them juggling this very topic and how they handled it with Jesus relationship to Yahweh in a 300 year debate. El, Elohim, Adonai, Yhwh, Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, Shaddai, and Ẓeba'ot are the typical 7 names of god yet there are man attributes that can be traced in context to these. Yet only YHWH had a death penalty for blasphemy.

[outhouse]

Heavily footnoted Analysis of Asherah showing Historical Development of Asherah and El. See Conclusion for Summary.

She shows much of what I already understand the evolution of the concept of Asherah over time from previous deity to Israelite deity that evolved into a cult object.

Thank you very much for the read, always a good thing to understand more fully.