Within Biblical Studies the term kyrios has caused much discussion and disagreement among Biblical scholars. This term has historically portrayed many different meanings and titles. When kyrios appears in the New Testament it has been translated as “Lord”, but in modern English, “Lord” has come to have a very divine connotation. Perhaps for the modern English speaker a better equivalent for kyrios would be “sir”. “Sir” is meant as a title of honor and respect, and so kyrios was for the Greek. Within the biblical texts, the term kyrios has been translated to mean several things. Specifically in the Synoptic Gospels, the term “lord” does not hold a divine status. Within these texts, the title of “lord” refers to a teacher or leader. Several times, Jesus is addressed as “Lord” but never in such a way as to declare divinity. Even the gospel of John with its high Christology does not equate the address of “Lord” to denote divinity. This term, used to refer to Jesus most often in John, was used as a title of respect since Jesus is often addressed as “lord” by strangers and others who did not recognize or accept him as divine. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, kyrios is used as the term to denote YHWH. The literal translation of the word does not mean God, but since the Hebrew Scriptures are careful with how and how often they use the name of God, kyrios is one of these substitutions that clearly refer to God without making the mistake of uttering his holy name. Even for the Hebrew Scripture kyrios was a substitution for the name of God, not a title reserved for God himself. It should not be automatically assumed when one sees kyrios that one is seeing a title exclusive to God.
In light of this information, Wright argues that while Paul would have known about the nuances of the term kyrios, Paul knew exactly what he meant when he referred to Messiah as “Lord”. For Wright, since Paul used the Septuagint as his source material for quotations of scripture, it should be assumed that Paul had a divine understanding of the term kyrios. When Paul used Hebrew scripture that used kyrios, Paul understood that to be a direct address to God; therefore, to connect Messiah to this term was to equate Messiah to God. If Wright is correct with this interpretation of Paul’s usage of kyrios, then Paul’s “redefinition” of Judaic monotheism was controversial indeed. Although some may see Paul’s high Christology as challenging to the idea of monotheism, Wright maintains that Paul was not challenging monotheism at all. Paul was adhering to strict monotheism while placing Messiah and Spirit into that framework.
This understanding of kyrios has caused Paul to see Messiah as the embodiment of God. No longer did God choose to work through humans like Abraham, Moses, and Elijah. The time had come within his covenantal plan for God to get directly involved. Wright believes that Paul saw the death and resurrection of Jesus as the death and resurrection of God himself. The Messiah becoming in “the likeness of sinful-flesh” and being a “sin offering” for the people of the world depicts a God of love, a shift from a harsh God of law and punishment. The Torah was meant to show the chosen people of God that even though they were special among men, even they could not live up to God’s standards. In order for man to be justified with God, it took the faithfulness of the Messiah to fulfill the covenant, not the actions of men. The fulfilling of this covenant occurred with the death and resurrection of the Messiah. This was the apocalypse so often referred to by Paul. The imminent second coming was the resolution to the climax that had already occurred. The God of Jewish monotheism was a creator God and a covenantal God, attributes that never escaped Paul. The creation of God was corrupted by evil (i.e. sin and death), and a plan had to be put in action in order to redeem the fallen creation into a new creation, and this plan was the covenant. First there was the Torah which served as a means of illustrating the imperfection of man and his unequivocal status to the righteousness of God. When it became sufficiently clear that God’s elect could not keep the righteousness of God, God sent the Messiah, the fulfillment of the Torah, to die and resurrect. By keeping with righteousness while in the flesh, as only God can do, the Messiah defeated the power of sin. By resurrecting after his execution, the Messiah had conquered the power of death. The defeat of these two forces that had corrupted God’s good creation was the climactic event of God’s covenant; therefore, the parousia was the resolution and declaration of the new creation. The covenant at this point, since it perfected creation, was meant for all creation not just the Jews. The faithfulness of the Messiah to fulfill the covenant justified all people regardless of ethnic identity, and anyone can now take part in the covenant. This universal covenant offers justification beyond the Jews and on into the Gentile nations. Since the Torah had been fulfilled, there was no need for these new members of the covenant to adhere to the rules of the Torah. The point of the Torah had been made.
God becoming incarnate and dying on the cross as a sin offering is essential to Wright’s portrayal of Paul’s theology. Wright, on page 96, stresses the importance of the cross within Paul’s theology that is often overlooked or taken for granted. The fundamental problem between God and humanity is that humanity is unable to live up to the holy and righteous standards that have been set forth by God: Torah. The death of God upon the cross solves this problem for Paul. Since man was unable to fix his own wrongs, God had to become incarnate so that He in His righteousness could make the ultimate sacrifice in a grandiose show of love for all his creation, The problem with man’s inability to become justified through Torah is solved when the death and resurrection defeat the great enemies of creation and allow people to become justified by the faithfulness of the Messiah.
Since this theology is focused around the covenant that was made through the Torah with the Israelites, Wright holds that Paul did not see his new conception as a challenge to Judaism, but rather as a challenge to the pagan world that surrounded Judaism. Paul’s inclusion of the Messiah within the essence of God, Wright argues, was perfectly in keeping with Judaism’s monotheism, but this idea of monotheism has raised some issue with the classically held belief in the oneness of God that makes up strict monotheism. If Wright is correct that Paul includes the Messiah in the Shema and other monotheistic formulas because Paul sees the Messiah not just of a similar substance but of an identical substance of God, then why does Paul never seek to expound to his followers the physics of this arrangement? Within Wright’s argument Paul makes very bold statements that Paul knows are bold, but never seeks to give an explanation for how the divine essence of God that is entirely one could share his essence with the physical world. How can God combine himself with “sinful-flesh” without challenging the oneness of God? The answers to these questions appear absent from Paul. If Wright’s view on Paul’s beliefs concerning the divinity of the Messiah is accurate, Paul has made claims that actually do challenge the monotheistic perception of God within Judaism. Although Islam is not within the discussion, Wright does mention that the idea of God incarnated within a “son” would not hold within the Islamic faith, because it challenges strict monotheism. Although Wright argues that Paul’s main focus was to the paganism that surrounded Judaic monotheism, it seems that the inclusion of the Messiah as “son”, kyrios, and equal with God would have also challenged the systems within Judaism.
Wright portrays Paul’s belief in the Messiah as undeniably equal to God. Since Paul used the concept of kyrios from the Septuagint, Wright concludes that Paul believed the Messiah to be God Himself. Wright has concisely shown this idea of Messiah as God plays well into the theology of Paul, but at times it seems as if Wright speaks through Paul. Throughout his argument Wright falls back to the other members of the covenant that appear in the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. Abraham and Moses), but Wright has failed to tie in another important figure to the narrative that Paul would have known so well. Wright has excluded Adam from the discussion; however, Paul did not. Wright provides the reader with the passage Romans 5:6-11. Wright claims that this passage exposing the love of God can only be understood if the Messiah is the “embodiment” of God. This argument makes sense at long as the reader is faithful to stop at verse 11 and not continue on onto the end of the chapter. Romans 5: 12-21 continue the story of the fallen creation and the role that Adam has played in the covenantal narrative.
If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercise dominion through [Adam], much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ (Romans 5:17 NRSV)
This passage seems to suggest that since man played a key role, man must also play a key role in fixing the problem. Creation fell through the act of one man, Adam; therefore, creation must be made whole again through the actions of one man, Jesus Christ. The oneness and holiness of God that belongs to the belief of a strict monotheism like Judaism, could not allow for God to become partially combined with the fallen, sinful flesh. Also, man must correct his own wrongs through the power of God.
18Therefore just as one man’s trespasses led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.19 For just as by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18-19)
These passages don’t quite refute Wright’s argument, but they blur the lines that Wright sought to make so clear. Wright portrays Paul as clearly viewing the Messiah as God Incarnate, but moving outside the selected passages muddles that clarity.
There are other problems with the argument that Wright makes concerning Paul and Jesus. Wright fails to directly take on the issues of Paul’s relations to other apostles, the Historical Jesus problems that arise from Paul’s theology. Paul claimed apostleship for himself as is restated multiple times within his own writings; however, Paul did not meet the requirements of apostleship set forth by the other apostles, the men who had known and travelled with Jesus. These credentials are set forth in Acts 1-21-22. The apostles sought an apostle to replace Judas Iscariot, so they looked for someone who had been with Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to his departure from the earth. Thus, this person would have been witness to Jesus before and after resurrection. Paul had never encountered Jesus outside of his mystical experience on the Damascus Road while the other apostle had seen and touched Jesus. The human side of Jesus was not important to Paul, because it was this human side of Jesus that was his handicap. Focusing on the humanity of Jesus brought to light the fact that Paul had never known Jesus unlike the apostles who sometimes opposed Paul. If a portrait of Historical Jesus were to be constructed from the Pauline Corpus, very little would be known about the figure. Pal concerned himself more with the metaphysical concepts of the Messiah than the man that was proclaimed to be that figure.
Just like Paul, Wright seems to attempt to dodge the topic of Historical Jesus. Much of what Wright claims that Paul held within his Christology is easy to understand when talking of metaphysical concepts, but try applying these concepts to a historical figure and the Christology seems to become foggy. Wright tries to make it easy for the reader to understand Paul’s high Christology by comparing the concept of God within flesh with the idea of Wisdom being an agent of God found in the Hebrew Scriptures. This works so far as the reader doesn’t consider that there wasn’t a man named Wisdom who walked the earth, gathered disciples, was executed by the state, and found his way into historical record. The high Christology portrayed by Wright through Paul helps to make the idea of God Incarnate clearer just so long as the reader doesn’t consider how this concept can fit within a historical figure.
Although at times it seems as if Wright is placing his own Christology onto Paul, Wright has created s fresh perspective for considering Paul’s theology. Wright has reminded the reader of the Jewish context of Paul. If Wright is correct that Paul only challenged paganism while only redefining the Jewish concepts around the Messiah, there seem to be many holes. Perhaps the biggest of these holes is how Wright claims that when Paul used kyrios to describe Jesus he meant it in the divine sense that could be found within older Hebrew writings. Paul’s inclusion of the Messiah into the oneness of God does not only challenge paganism, but Judaism as well. The high Christology held by as depicted by Wright, may not fit into Judaic monotheism as well as Wright hoped to purvey.
Wright’s discussion of the use of kyrios to describe Jesus Christ within the Christian scripture opens up the debate not only for Paul’s view of Christology, but also how it compares to the Christologies presented in the Synoptics and John. The confusing terms with which Paul describes the Messiah could be the basis for much discussion concerning the nature of the Messiah and how that concept fits into a historical figure like Jesus of Nazareth. The covenantal slant and justification through faithfulness that come into play when considering kyrios provide fodder for many modern Christians, especially for those who interpret Paul’s theology in opposition to Wright’s understanding. This is the beauty of the Christian scriptures. These documents have survived for nearly two thousand years, yet they still have not become stagnant. They still inspire despite all the time that has passed between Paul and N.T. Wright.
No comments:
Post a Comment