Corpus-Paul

["David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>]

Liz Fried has asked:

>>Did Paul think that if Jesus had not died on the cross, or
voluntarily chosen to die, that he would never have died at all and
would still be walking around today?  IF so, why did he think that?<<

>>OK, let me rephrase:  Does [James D. G.] Dunn think that Paul thinks
so?  I've been reading Dunn's Christology in the Making.<<

>>I wanted to know if Paul thought that Jesus, being sinless, would
never die, would live forever as a human being, walking around on
earth still today, if he [Jesus] had not voluntarily given himself up
to death.  This seems to be the implication of Dunn's discussion of
Christ as Adam in Phil. 2:6ff, if I understand it correctly. Do I
understand it correctly???<<

>>It seems so to me too [that if Paul thought Jesus would never die
had he not been executed, then this sounds like an inhuman, gnostic
Jesus].  In the ane immortality was the difference between being human
and being a god. To say Jesus would have lived forever implies Jesus
is a god, not human. But it seems that Dunn is saying that never to
sin means never to taste death. Since Jesus never sinned, ergo, he
never would have tasted death unless he decided to die. But I would
have thought that this decision to die occurred when he decided to be
human, prior to becoming human. But Dunn says that Christ was not
pre-existent. So he made this decision while a human. So I am at a
loss here. How could a human being -- even if sinless -- make a
decision not to ever die? Unless I don't understand, entirely
possible.<<

>>But of course they [Adam & Eve] would have [died even had they not
sinned] unless they later ate of the tree of life. It was to prevent
them from eating of it and from gaining eternal life that they were
ejected.<<

Hopefully this issue is not too old to deserve a new comment, as I
have lurked for awhile to see where it went.

There only appear to be three NT passages that suggest the Christ was
preexistent:

PHIL 2:5  Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ
Jesus,  *>*>* 6  who, though he was in the form of God, did not count
equality with God a thing to be grasped,  7  but emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  8
And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient
unto death, even death on a cross.  9  Therefore God has highly
exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every
name,*<*<*  10  that at the name of Jesus "every knee should bow," in
heaven and on earth and under the earth,  11  "and every tongue
confess" (Is 45:23) that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father

COL 1:15  *>*>*He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of
all creation;  16  for in him all things were created, in heaven and
on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or
principalities or authorities (2 Enoch 20:1), all things were created
through him and for him.  17  He is before all things, and in him all
things hold together.*<*<*  18  He is the head of the body, the
church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in
everything he might be pre-eminent.  *>*>* 19  For in him all the
fullness of God was pleased to dwell,  20  and through him to
reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, *<*<*
making peace by the blood of his cross.  21  And you, who once were
estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,  22a  he has now
reconciled in his body of flesh by his death

COL 2: *>*>* 9  For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
*<*<*

I have to admit, the highlighted phrases sure do have a gnostic sound
to them! Fullness, a divine savior myth, a form of cosmology (where
Christ serves as the demiurge), are all concepts that can be found in
gnostic literature (even in contexts independent of Christian
influence, I believe), or could be seen within a broader "gnostic"
(middle Platonic) world view. In every other Pauline letter (and other
passages in Phil & Col) the emphasis is on Christ's death and
resurrection as the mechanism for individual salvation, and these
latter are not *necessarily* gnostic concepts. While the other
passages do not *preclude* preexistence, the passages that do *could
also* reflect a later stage of Christological development than those
Christological statements found in Romans or the Corinthian letters
(originating with a Pauline school or being interpolations by an
editor).

If Dunn is connecting the concept of Christ's preexistence with the
Adam symbolism, then we might be crossing literary boundaries. The
undisputed letters (Rom, 1 & 2 Cor, Gal) do not contain statements
about Christ's preexistence. I realize that Philippians is often
(although not universally) considered "genuine," but this is hardly
the case with Colossians. Yet I understand that in Dunn's _The
Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon_ (1996) he claims that
Colossians is Pauline because it was written by Timothy under Paul's
direction. Is he not, in a way, artificially expanding the boundaries
of Pauline authorship in order to encompass themes that appeal to him
as genuinely Pauline?

ROM 5:12  Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men
sinned--  14b  [Adam] was a type of the one who was to come.  15a  But
the free gift is not like the trespass  15c  in the grace of that one
man Jesus Christ  17  If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned
through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance
of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the
one man Jesus Christ.  18  Then as one man's *trespass* led to
condemnation for all men, so one man's *act of righteousness* leads to
acquittal and life for all men.  19  For as by one man's
*disobedience* many were made sinners, so by one man's *obedience*
many will be made righteous  21b  through Jesus Christ our Lord

1 COR 15:41  There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the
moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in
glory. (Compare 1 Enoch 43:4)  45  Thus it is written, "The first man
Adam *became* a living being" (Gen 2:7); the last Adam *became* a
life-giving spirit.  46  But it is not the spiritual which is first
but the physical, and then the spiritual.  47  The first man was from
the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.  48  As was
the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man
of heaven, so are those who are of heaven.

2 COR 5:16b  even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of
view, we regard him thus no longer  19  that is, in Christ God was
reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses
against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation  21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we
might become the righteousness of God

The concept of preexistence is not inherent in the language used
above. Contrast is always made between the physical and the spiritual,
and what the author of these passages thinks are logical extensions of
these concepts (such as sin and righteousness). 1 Cor 15:45-48 speaks
of Adam, being from the dust, becoming a living being. However, he is
still a man of dust. Christ actively *became* a "life giving spirit"
(which is equated with being "from heaven" in vs 47), in contrast to
Adam passively *becoming* a "living being." 2 Cor 5:21, then, is
related to the theme in which "righteousness" is contrasted with
"law." These themes appear to be independent of any that are concerned
with preexistence, IMO.

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

PS: Sorry to have run the NT quotations together like I did. This is
partly due to the way I had them saved in a database. I think it is
interesting, though, how Christological statements strung together in
order often carry on certain themes independent of the context in
which they are found in the text, as though they were derived from
sermons for instance.