Feb 04
Wisdom fails to pay the Fee for christological entry
I’ve been meaning to find some time – and failing miserably – to interact with Gordon Fee’s Pauline Christology. In particular I want to take a long hard look at his attempts to place Wisdom christology beyond use. I must say that I approach this idea with no expectation of being convinced by Fee. This is not only because of the superficially (at least) obvious statements such as “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:24). It is, rather because I think that using the idea of the wisdom of God for Christ is also for Paul part of an overall package of Christ versus Torah as pattern of obedience, and identity-giver to God’s people.
It is not that Paul, looking around for ideas by which to express his christological views, happens on a possible OT / LXX personification as a great wheeze. Rather, seeing Christ as the one in whom Torah’s life-giving, God-mediating, identity bearing role is fulfilled, he takes over the language about Torah that was beginning to develop. Wisdom language and thinking is something one would expect to see in Paul’s christology, not because it was a handy peg to hang ideas on, but because it is an integral part of Paul’s overall development of a christocentric understanding of God with his people.
I would be interested in hearing what others make of this idea of Fee’s and of his arguments, while I’m still finding time to give it some thought.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
The suggestion certainly makes sense. The language of Wisdom personified is connected with the Torah in Baruch and Ecclesiastes, as well as being depicted in other ways in literature in this period that don’t reflect the focus on law (e.g. in Wisdom of Solomon, or 1 Enoch). The application of the language of Wisdom personified to Jesus in Colossians 1:15-20 (regardless whether it comes from Paul, or is a pre-Pauline or Pauline or post-Pauline hymn) is best regarded as a claim that Wisdom is focused in Jesus rather than Torah. Ephesians (whether by the same author or not) probably shows how the same basic affirmations would be made or understood in prose rather than poetry.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Torah was life giving to Paul? He seems to say otherwise in Romans. Did I misunderstand you (or Paul)?
Blessings,
Bryan L
February 5th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Yes, Bryan. Before his “conversion” I think that’s how he saw it.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
So if I understand you correctly you are saying that before Paul’s conversion he saw Torah as life giving and mediatorial and probably used the language of Wisdom to communicate this idea. But after his conversion he no longer saw Torah as life giving (or mediatorial) but instead now just the opposite. Yet he then took the language about Torah and then applied it to Christ instead so that now Christ was life giving and the mediator between us and the Father? Am I understanding you correctly?
Blessings,
Bryan L
February 5th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Yep, more-or-less, though I’d need a lot of posts to deal with all the ramifications and complexities. That is, however, the heart of it.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I guess the question that comes to mind then is what does it mean to say that Paul holds to a sort of Wisdom Christology? If wisdom was related to Torah and Paul no longer believes the things he did about Torah then how is Paul holding to a Wisdom Christology even if he is using some of the same language that was used.
Also I think the big question I have is if Paul holds to a Wisdom Christology where is it in his letters? It seems to be hiding or something. Even in the 1 Corinthians passages wisdom doesn’t seem to be used the way wisdom is when it is praised. In fact Paul seems to use wisdom in a sarcastic sort of way.
I’d be looking forward to some posts on Wisdom Christology (if you decided to) as truthfully I’m not ever sure what people mean by it or what they are implying by saying Paul held to a Wisdom Christology.
Blessings,
Bryan L
February 5th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Bryan and Doug, I think it comes down to viewing Torah/nomos (not a precisely overlapping pair, but it’ll do for now) not as wisdom itself but as an expression of God’s wise intention for the human race, Israel first. The wisdom of the entire instruction belongs to God/Christ, while the law in its didactic role is only a partial explication of that wisdom. Christ, in essence, is the true and fullest Wisdom. Relatedly, there’s the sarcastic use of “wisdom,” the sophos of the Greeks, and that’s mixed up in there too. I don’t know where Fee goes with it, but that’s how I’ve always seen it. If he’s close to that, I’d vote for a closer look, at least….
February 5th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I really do need to find the time to engage with Fee. There are lots of interesting questions here.