The Christology of Paul
The absence of any explicit inferences to the full
divinity of the messiah in the earliest strata of Christian literature does not
automatically link the first followers of Jesus to a low Christology or to the
tradition of the human messiah, Son of David. Indeed, there never was in
Christianity something like a low Christology centered on the view of Jesus as
a human messiah. Since its earliest beginnings, the Jesus movement found cohesion
in the belief of Jesu as the Son of Man, an exalted heavenly, divine messiah,
the forgiver on earth and the would-be eschatological Judge. However, while
exalting Jesus as a divine being and venerating him accordingly, the first
followers of Jesus never considered the hypothesis that their messiah could be
uncreated. This possibility was simply not part of the Jewish messianic debate
at the time.
Paul was no exception. His Christology does not radically
depart from the Enochic (and Synoptic) pattern. Paul also was very careful
never to attribute to the kyrios (Lord) Jesus the title of theos (God),
which was unique to the Father. “Indeed, even though there may be so-called
gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods [theoi] and
many lords [kyrioi]—yet for us there is only one God [theos], the
Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord [kyrios],
Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor
8:5-6). And in fact the basic distinction between the Father and the SON was
not a matter of divinity; both were reckoned by Paul among the (more or less)
divine beings. The Father is the only God (theos) not simply because he
is more divine but because he is the uncreated Maker of All, while the (less
divine) Son (kyrios) is the instrument the Father used to create the universe.
Paul knows a tradition that claimed Jesus “was
descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3), but he fully shares the
belief of the early followers of Jesus who attributed to their messiah not only
messianic features but also a much higher degree of divinity, corresponding to
his heavenly nature and salvific functions. Like the synoptic Son of Man, the
Pauline Son-kyrios belongs to the heavenly sphere but is separated from
and subordinate to the Father-theos. After completing his mission of forgiveness
through his self-sacrifice, “the son himself will be subjected to the one who
put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor
15:28). If Paul does not use the term Son of Man (even in contexts such as 1
Thess 4:16-17, where the allusion to Dan 7 would have made it obvious), it is
because the title would have interfered with the parallelism he established
between Adam and the new Adam, by suggesting the subordination of Jesus ben
Adam to the first Adam. Therefore, to preserve the parallel, “son of God” is
used. As the obedient son, Christ is compared to the disobedient son, Adam,
whose nature and dignity he shares as the other “son of God” (see Luke 3:38).
Both were created in the image and likeness of God, each taking upon himself
the “form” of God. Adam and Jesu, however, are separated by a different fate—that
is, one of guilt and transgression in the case of Adam and the other of
obedience and glory in the case of the new Adam. The lowering (kenōsis)
of Adam is a punishment caused by his disobedience, while in Jesus the lowering
(kenōsis) is a voluntary choice for accomplishing his mission of
forgiveness and is followed by his elevation and glorification (Phil 2:5-11) to
a divine status that is higher than he was before. The veneration of Jesus is evidence
of Jesus’s divine status, not of his uncreated status; it is the veneration of
the Son of Man at the time his name is manifested. (Gabrielle Boccaccini, Paul’s
Three Paths to Salvation [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2020], 98-99)