Since Paul’s soteriology is all about what Christ has done on our behalf, one can make sense of what this means for him only in light of his basic presupposition about who Christ is: the crucified Messiah, whose death and resurrection procured eternal redemption for us, who is now reigning as Lord in heaven awaiting his Parousia, the Day of the Lord. But the Son of God is also from eternity—co-creator of the universe and present with Israel in the desert—whose reign as Lord means that believers “call upon his name,” that they are sent and equipped by him for ministry, that they go or stay in keeping with his will, and that they will be judged by him at the end. This is hardly the stuff of adoptionism!
Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study, 86.
B”H
You’re not going to be happy when you see Fee argue against the son being eternally subordinate to the Father (at least I seem to remember him arguing that way)
: )
Bryan L
By: Bryan L on October 12, 2008
at 9:21 pm
Bryan: I don’t remember him arguing about the eternal relationship in either his 1Corinthians commentary or Pauline Christology. If memory serves he says that the subordination that we see is in the economy of salvation and that it is functional and not ontological, but I can’t remember him mentioning anything about subordination before the incarnation. But if he does I’m sure I’ll come across it sooner or later.
By: Nick Norelli on October 12, 2008
at 10:25 pm
I seem to remember it in his section on 1 Corinthians where he argued that eventually the son will no be subordinate to the Father (and may not have been before the incarnation).
Maybe I’m mistaken.
Bryan L
By: Bryan L on October 12, 2008
at 10:29 pm
Bryan: Might could be. I’ll have to go back and give it a look. You’re talking about Pauline Christology right?
By: Nick Norelli on October 12, 2008
at 10:38 pm
I happen to have Fee’s 1 Corinthians commentary checked out from the library if I can be of help.
Jeff
By: Scripture Zealot on October 12, 2008
at 11:06 pm
Jeff: I own the commentary but if you want to dig up the references for me then feel free. :)
By: Nick Norelli on October 12, 2008
at 11:17 pm
But the Son of God is also from eternity—co-creator of the universe and present with Israel in the desert
Amen! We need more of that! I tried to make this point recently in relation to christological interpretation of the Old Testament. Most people reject it because they have a deficient understanding of the identity of the Person that Christians try and find there.
This issue isn’t simple though. There’s a move that needs to be negotiated from the literal to the spiritual sense and back again.
Can you recommend anything on Christological interpretation? I’ve got C. Wright’s Knowing Jesusthroughthe Old Testament but haven’t read it yet.
By: Phil Sumpter on October 13, 2008
at 3:01 am
Phil: I have the book you mention but have only read the first few pages. I didn’t care much for his Knowing God the Father Through the Old Testament so I’ve been reluctant to really dig into this one. It’s more devotional than I’d like it to be. But I think you’d find Donald Juel’s Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity helpful reading. I’ve recently ordered a used copy but you can preview some of it from the link I provide.
By: Nick Norelli on October 13, 2008
at 9:28 am
Thanks great, I’ve added it to my expanding reading list!
By: Phil Sumpter on October 13, 2008
at 9:35 am
Phil: Any time, and thanks for your series of posts, I’ve really been enjoying them!
By: Nick Norelli on October 13, 2008
at 9:37 am
Jeff: I own the commentary but if you want to dig up the references for me then feel free.
My fee is pretty high for that.
Jeff
By: Scripture Zealot on October 13, 2008
at 12:06 pm
Jeff: Nice pun. :)
By: Nick Norelli on October 13, 2008
at 4:21 pm
I knew you’d get it.
Jeff
By: Scripture Zealot on October 13, 2008
at 7:35 pm
In his 1 Corinthians section of Pauline Christology he argues that the subordination texts are speaking about the economy of salvation and they tell us nothing about Christ’s person but instead his role. I also seem to remember him saying something about how the early church had a hermeneutic that saw Jesus as not subordinate to the father and read the NT through that hermeneutic. I can’t seem to find that though. Maybe I’m imaging it or maybe it was in a different book. Maybe it was Giles who I read say that. If so my bad.
Bryan L
By: Bryan L on October 13, 2008
at 8:02 pm
Jeff: Yeah, I’m quite sharp you know. ;)
Bryan: That first part was my understanding of Fee’s position. The latter part I have not come across.
By: Nick Norelli on October 13, 2008
at 8:29 pm