Paul’s Christology
This week, I revisited the lesson on Philippians from last month to learn about Paul’s Christology. In particular, the incarnate Christ as Philippians 2 seems to tell us Paul's position on the deity of Christ and his pre-existence. Philippians 2 starts as a practical verse of encouragement to the church at Philippi. Paul's encouragement includes being of the same mind, with the same love, and with the same humble spirit as Christ was referring to Jesus.
“complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,”
NT pod eps 42, was on this subject of the incarnate Christ and Paul's theology on this subject. Mark Goodacre mentioned that some scholars have taken a new approach to interpreting Paul’s theology of the incarnate Christ as it is written in his passages. Mark Goodacre, refers to the work a scholar Jimmy don on this subject. Jon’s approach is that Paul rather than referring to the pre-existence of Christ is actually making a comparison between Adam and Christ. The idea of the first Adam and the second. The first Adam is Adam from Genesis and the second adam being Christ in the form of a man. Mark did mention that this idea did not gain a lot a favor in the scholarly arena due to a few reasons one of which where paul makes multiple references to the incarnation of Christ. Ex, 1 corinthians 8:6 “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, the most important reason I felt should have been mentioned was left out. it is the Simply context of the passage. The chapter was a practical exaltation to be like Christ. Although it is true there are similarities between adam and Jesus symbolically being a representative of all of mankind. The similarity ends when it comes to righteousness. Jesus is the redemptive second adam and Adam is the unrighteous first Adam responsible for the fallen state of the world.
Overall I thought it was interesting how scholars don't have a consensus on subjects like this. I think it's interesting the academia is not always monolithic on Issues such as these. There is room for disagreements.
