I have been spending some time in Paul's letters and would like to start a discussion on his perspectives of God, more specifically the trinity. I am going to make this statement and then try to back it up with my observations. It is through my readings of his letter that I believe or have begun to believe that Paul is at least binitarian. Let me clarify what i mean by that.....I think that Paul is binitarian with a developing or less emphasized confession of the deity of the Holy Spirit. With that said I will admit that my investigation to this point is "new-born" and I am trying to develop it more. So let me try to support my statement first through a series of post:
1. The greetings:
.....to all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. - Romans 1.7
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. - 1 Corinthians 1.3
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. - 2 Corinthians 1.2
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ - Galatians 1.3
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. - Ephesians 1. 2
To the saints and faithful brothers1 in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. - Colossians 1.2
Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. - 1 and 2 Thessalonians 1.1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, 2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. - 1 Timothy 1.1-2
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus, 2 To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. - 2 Timothy 1.1-2
To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. - Titus 1.4
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. - Philemon 1.3
These are all the intros that Paul uses in his letters....obviously some are repetitive but you get the point. Paul has a clear understanding of the deity of God the Father and Jesus Christ, but he interestingly lacks the Holy Spirit as a part of all his greetings . This does not even take into consideration the closings that he uses, that often look much like his greetings. This was ultimately the first observation that drove me to begin to look at Paul's perspectives on the Godhead.
-r
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Been reading some CF Moule? That Paul wishes to emphasize the diety of Christ is not at the expense of the deity of the Spirit, who Paul specifically calls Lord in 2 Cor 3:17-18 - Paul also uses a trinitarian framework in Ephesians 1:3-14. Paul's lack of reference to the Spirit should not be seen as a lack of understanding but a particular focus by which Paul wishes to accustom his readers to the reality of the high status of Christ with the Father.
Jared, thanks for your insights. I agree with all that you say....and I think that is why I was careful to not say Paul was binitarian but that he is at least that if not more. I have been looking at those passages as well and am being more and more persuaded to believe that Paul is in fact fully aware of the deity of the Godhead. Thanks for your help and kind discussion.
By the way I love CFD Moule and his work with the greek text.
Ryan,
I like this discussion. I think this is one area where many people in the modern era attempt to read the categories of the post-Scholastic dogmatics back onto the text instead of letting the text speak for itself.
There is little doubt that the Spirit is divine and that it is given attributes (both communicable and incommunicable) that are reserved for God alone, therefore making him part of the Trinity.
But when the focus is narrowed to, in this case, Pauline theology there is a noticeable absence of the Spirit as well as other categories and topics that come up in dogmatics. For instance, Paul does not write one single word about the Virgin Birth, yet that was a HUGE part of the whole "conservative vs. liberal Battle for the Bible" in the past century.
Because of the particular and occasional character of Paul's letters, the focus is going to be altogether different than modern dogmatics. Paul is showing how the Gospel comes alive and transforms lives in very practical ways for first century Christians. Dogmatics attempts to describe God and Scripture decontextualized from the occasional character of Paul's letters and in conversation with the rest of Scripture.
I'm not quite sure it would be fair to anachronistically throw post-Scholastic dogmatic categories back onto Paul's letters and then claim that he held 'such and such' a theology. Rather, I think it might be more fair to notice Paul's focal points in order to better understand his letters and the occasion which he was writing towards in those variegated contexts.
I often wonder how much we actually miss of Paul's teaching because we are reading him through modern theological paradigms instead of first century Palestinian ones (Sanders, Dunn, and Wright have helped me out a lot with this).
Not sure if that helped or pushed on the conversation. Just some of my thoughts.
We've not explored the much more detailed work of Gordon Fee's God's Empowering Presence, nor his biblical contributions in The Trinity, eds. S. Davis, D. Kendall and G. O'Collins (Oxford). Fee, a Pentecostal scholar, focuses esp. on Paul. Actually there is a host of biblical studies on the Holy Spirit.
But surely we must understand that as the Spirit worked among the apostles he was leading them into all truth not immediately but gradually, unpacking the deeper meanings of both the teaching and experience of the early church.
By the way, the video of Driscoll is no longer an operational link. Might be interesting to plug in Rob Bell.
"But surely we must understand that as the Spirit worked among the apostles he was leading them into all truth not immediately but gradually, unpacking the deeper meanings of both the teaching and experience of the early church."
I like this statement. It resonates with my curiosity to how much the Biblical authors truly understood at one moment. Surely, they were inspired and penned the words of God, yet they were not all-knowing in their humanity.
In response to Jared, I don't think Ryan meant that Paul was purposely being binitarian in his greetings. I agree that his emphasis on Christ's deity does not have to imply the deemphasis of the Spirit. However, I appreciate Ryan's observations as to what the text actually says. I think, perhaps, he meant that Paul might have been learning and developing his understanding of the Holy Spirit.
I have repaired the Driscoll link and a Rob Bell link is sure to follow...thanks for your thoughts.
-j
My husband is a separate entity apart from my son. Even so it is with God and Jesus. Not that Jesus is less than God, but he is separate. God sent Jesus to be our atonement, since we couldn't be "good enough". Jesus had his own thought process and he "found it not robbery to be equal with God" He also prayed to God while he was on this earth.
In that same groove... I can feel my husband's spirit when he is around. I can tell if he is upset or happy, but his spirit is not a separate entity. God and Jesus are one in thought, purpose, goals, just as our family usually is. You can feel their Spirit and that takes on many forms, just as God overshadowed Mary, or overshadowed Jesus in the form of a dove, etc.
I guess you could say I'm a Binatarian too.
Heretic in the Greek means to be able to choose. I'm grateful for free will and the ability to study the Bible for myself.
So the question is... will you believe what Constantine wanted you to believe, or will you search it out for yourself??
Post a Comment