Blog Archives - Conway Christian Resources

The Importance of Theology

No matter what some people may think the study of Theology is of the utmost importance not just for academic Christians but all believers who seek to do the work of spreading the Gospel. The study of theology is a necessity because at its core “theology is faith seeking understanding”[1] and it provides a framework so we can not only comprehend our faith but know how to communicate it to others effectively.

Theology today is the culmination of over 2,000 years of study, history, experiences, turmoil, and intellectual growth as men and women attempt to give human language to matters which are beyond human comprehension. Despite the opinion of some, theology provides several key benefits for the church and the believer: it provides a process of systematic reflection, it helps to decouple us from our cultural biases, it gives us an overarching framework to see the Bible through and it gives language to better communicate our mission. Theology then is a compliment to mission and not an enemy of it, for without understanding there can be no success in delivering the message found within our mission to the world. For at the heart of the matter is the truth that every Christian is a theologian.

It is A Process of Systematic Reflection

We must begin with the idea that “theology is a kind of secondary and systematic reflection of the faith that we profess.”[2] Theology does not supersede or replace the Scriptures but rather it provides an array of tools to study and understand the scriptures in light of thousands of years of history. The ideas and spiritual struggles of previous generations continue to have value as human nature at its core has not changed and the great questions of life remain largely the same.

When used properly theology, and especially systematic theology acts as a processor of information much like a computer’s CPU. We can link together the different disciplines of study such as Biblical studies, anthropology, history and many other fields together in our search for understanding. It demonstrates not only how a verse was impacted by its history but also how history was impacted by a biblical verse or doctrine.

We could say that “basically, systematic theology is the reflection on and the ordered articulation of faith.”[3] No matter what some people may think there is no conflict between faith and theology because it is theology which helps us to articulate our faith to other people. Yes, there have been times when the Scriptures and theology as a whole has been taken to the academic extreme but those excesses do not cancel out the mountain of benefits theology provides not just for the academic but also the average believer. The truth is that “we want Christian practice to be theologically grounded”[4] but at the same time we also want theology to be practically grounded as we go from “from trusting God to understanding God.”[5]

It Helps Decouple Us from Cultural Biases

Each generation of the church must wrestle with the idea of how to be relevant to the world around it and how to best communicate the gospel. While it can be tempting to either remain unchanged or to embrace new culture to an unhealthy degree, theology when applied properly can aid us in avoiding either of these extremes. The concept of apostolic continuity applies to this subject as no matter the changes in culture we are still bound to the core teachings of Christ. Although we must learn how to translate those truths into the language, place and culture we are in, all the while being aware that “all theological assertions are historically conditioned.”[6]

When used properly theology can not only give us added language to communicate with but it also acts as a filter to strip out unnecessary doctrines, beliefs and traditions. Much like how the Protestant Reformation sought to eliminate what they saw as extra-biblical practices so modern theology acts in a similar manner. Proper theology then is the cure for Traditionalism which adheres to “lifeless conformity to past theological formations. Using dry language that has no meaning for people anymore.”[7]

The study of theology could be looked at as the study of what is actually important in the scripture and how we can be free of superstitions or doctrines which are grounded more in culture, politics, history, experience than on the scriptures themselves. This is especially true because “the Bible doesn’t address all our questions directly, as systematic theological perspective helps us to understand the Bible.”[8] As we see in our generation there are moral and cultural issues which were inconceivable thousands of years ago so theology must step in to provide guidelines and clarity on how to best live in this world which is so far beyond what the apostles and writers of scripture could ever imagine.

Theology Provides an Overarching Framework to Understand the Scriptures

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience provides for us a glimpse of the different facets of our faith and how all of them must be active in the life of a believer. So it is with theology, and especially systematic theology which seeks to bring all of the streams of study into a single river of understanding. Theology is a rational discipline according to Thomas Aquinas, as “Faith goes beyond reason” and “Reason has the role of building upon what is known by revelation, exploring what its implications might be.”[9]

With all of the competing disciplines such as Biblical Studies, Philosophical Theology, Historical Theology, Practical/Pastoral Theology, Mystical Theology and Apologetics fighting for control of the primary interpretation of scripture it can be daunting to understand what a verse or concept is actually saying to not only its original audience but to us today. However, with systematic theology we receive the tools to glean from all of these other disciplines in order to produce an informed interpretation or understanding of a scripture or a religious concept.

From this larger unified framework of theology we also find what is needed to protect us from allowing experience, allegory, general revelation or philosophy from taking priority over the teachings of scriptures in not only individual lives but also in the larger church. These mostly personal matters can add color to our understanding of scripture but they are not the canvas of theology we paint upon.

Theology Gives Language to Our Mission

It is one thing for me to go out in the zeal of mission and say that “Jesus saves,” but those words are irrelevant if it is unknown what they mean. Does Jesus save me a seat on the bus, or does He save me 15% on my insurance by switching to Geico? Mission without theology is just empty activity. From the study of theology, we can give clarity to matters such as atonement and all of the other matters we desire to speak about in our mission.

Going about mission without a solid theological understanding reduces evangelism to an exercise in humanism which seeks to better humanity. As opposed to the revelation of the death and resurrection of Christ which is made all the more real through proper exegetical analysis which shows the prefiguration of Christ in the Old Testament and can explain the “bread crumbs” left by God over the centuries. Theology also shows us why we are in need of a savior and in our best attempts allows us to say what we are redeemed from, why God would do such a thing and why we can have assurance that these things are true. While the endeavor of mission can produce converts only the proper application of theology can produce disciples.

[1] James Pedlar

[2] James Pedlar

[3] Stanley J. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imageo Dei (Louisville, KT; Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 1.

[4] James Pedlar

[5] Alister E.McGrath, Christian Theology: An introduction, 25^th anniversary edition (West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2017), 84.

[6] Stanley J. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imageo Dei (Louisville, KT; Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 6.

[7] James Pedlar

[8] James Pedlar

[9] Alister E.McGrath, Christian Theology: An introduction, 25^th anniversary edition (West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2017), 127.

The Importance of Theology Cameron Conway is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Are you looking to develop your relationship with God and better understand the Bible? Pick up a copy of one of my books today.

Understanding Who You Are: A Survey of 21st Century Christian Beliefs
Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook
Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE

Six Minutes of Grace: The Key To Finding Happiness and Purpose
Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook
Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE

Six Minutes of Grace Journal
Amazon.com paperback | Amazon.ca paperback

Posted on July 14, 2021April 28, 2021 by Cameron Conway — 2 Comments

How to Understand and Apply Philippians 2:1-11

Look busy Jesus is coming. Unfortunately for many Christians this is their worldview whether they are conscious of it or not. It is an expectation to do something, if not anything to occupy their lives until the day when Jesus returns to Earth. However, the writings of the New Testament and especially the Epistle to the Philippians paints a very different picture of how the Christian is to live and behave while they are in this world. One of the chief places to witness how the teachings of Jesus are synthesized into applicable actions and clear-cut expectations are through the writings of the Apostle Paul which are his field manuals to various up and coming Christian congregations.

The Epistle to the Philippians is one of those letters which is purposed to establish the expectations and responsibilities of the faith. In this letter Paul seeks to address a congregation struggling to learn what it means to be a Christian. What then did Paul expect of the Philippians and subsequent generations of Christians in terms of how they were supposed to live out their beliefs in light of the hope of Christ’s “already but not yet” victory? It is my intention to present how Philippians 2:1-11 demonstrates how the true Christian life is one marked by the same unity, humility and servanthood Jesus demonstrated before he was exalted to the place of authority in Heaven where he awaits the day when all of creation will bow before him in submission.

The Background of the Epistle to the Philippians

The Town of Philippi

To better understand the words spoken of by Paul to the Philippians we first need to examine the social background of that particular church. The town of Philippi[1] was established in 356 B.C. by King Philip II of Macedon the father of Alexander the Great and remained under Hellenistic control until the early days of the Roman Empire. Known as the site of one of Octavian’s (Augustus) victories against Cassius and Brutus in 42 B.C. it was later renamed Colonia Iulia Augusta Philippensis. The Roman influence went far beyond a memorial or a name change as the Emperor rewarded many of his soldiers with plots of land within the city’s territory. Due to the influx of retired Roman soldiers and government officers cultivating the city Philippi was “legally set up and run as if it were a miniature of Rome, following Roman laws and customs.”^[2]

Latin became the primary language in the region and the people enjoyed the status of citizens of Rome along with all of its benefits such as tax exemption and Pax Romana and its responsibilities such as adherence to the Imperial Cult. Philippi then was a religiously pluralistic place where Greek, Phrygian, and Egyptian temples existed but “the imperial cult was the most prominent in the city.”^[3] Given these Imperial influences it is no wonder then that “none of the Christians we know by name who are associated with Philippi have Jewish names—rather they are all Greek and Latin names.”^[4]

This presents Paul’s letter in a light which is steeped in a culture which would have been similar to his upbringing in Tarsus with its Roman overtones. It is no wonder why Paul’s emphasis to the Philippians on unity and service was such an important matter is it would have matched their pre-Christian outlook on life. Although rather than the unity of the empire it would have been the unity of the church. Furthermore, rather than an obligation to offer service to the earthly ruler Caesar they would be now be offering service to the Heavenly ruler Christ.

Paul’s Purpose for Writing Philippians

It is generally held^[5] that the Apostle Paul wrote this letter to the Philippians thanks in part to corroboration from early church fathers such as Polycarp in his own letter to the Philippian church.^[6] Although there are some such as Ferdinand Christian Baur who “argued that the letter used Gnostic ideas in 2:6–11”^[7]and that the letter was developed out of Paul’s thoughts in the Corinthian letters. While there is a general consensus on the authorship there are doubts about the formation of the letter as some see a single work, others as two combined letters which separates 3:2-4:1 from the remainder of the letter. Finally, some see Philippines as three letters which further separates 4:10-20 from the remainder of the work.

The epistle to the Philippians stands apart from other letters as it is presented as a friendship letter which fulfills the historical elements of such a letter.^[8] In this appeal through friendship Paul was trying to remedy the growing amount of disunity found in the congregation. While Paul himself was imprisoned in Rome around A.D. 49 he appealed to this congregation to overcome the matters of selfish ambition, desire for personal prestige and concentration of self^[9] and to better reflect the life and truths of Christ in their midst.

Philippians 2 in Context

Philippians 2:1-11 stands out from the rest of the book as it appears that Paul may not have written a portion of it, as “the majority of scholars accept Phil 2:6–11 as a pre-Pauline hymn, based on the structure and language of the passage.”^[10] The evidence for this stems in part from “when the verses are read aloud, the stress falls in such a way as to give a rhythmical cadence to the lines.”^[11] Additionally the hymn appears to have a more Semitic structure to it compared to most of Paul’s more Hellenistic writings along with “the use of words which are not found again in Paul’s writings.”^[12] Philippians appears to possess 42 words which are not found in the remainder of the New Testament and 34 words which are not found elsewhere in Paul’s writings.

Despite these variations between the Christological hymn and the remainder of the book there does remain lexical ties which lead some to reinforce Pauline authorship of the hymn.^[13] We can see that Philippians 2 consists of 1:1-4 which is a four-part conditional clause written in a chiastic structure (ABBA)^[14]and is followed by a creedal hymn. These sections combine in order to display the responsibilities and expectations which Paul had placed upon the community to ensure their unity amongst themselves and in reinforcing the necessity of their continual service to Christ the true King.

Understanding Philippians 2

Unity

Paul begins his friendly exhortation by calling on the Philippian Christians to come to the place of unity where they have “one mind” with another. Paul achieves this imagery by using the word φρονέω, a word commonly used by Paul which describes a “single-minded commitment to something and the conditions for such commitment.”^[15] For the Philippians they are being challenged to embody and exemplify the same type of φρονεῖν which Jesus demonstrated with the disciples and in his earthly relationship with the Father. This is then a call to “oneness of mind in commitment to the Kyrios, which does not, however, mean uniformity”^[16] rather it is unifying not personal characteristics but cooperation in the larger evangelistic mission.

For this unity to become a reality Paul introduces the need for love to be present and not just any love but “a love that rejoices in what is best for others… This kind of love will not result in selfish behavior that sinfully exploits others.”^[17] An exhortation which was needed given the apparent strife among some members of the church and Paul’s earlier appeal in 1:9-10 “that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ.”[18]

Paul understood that “unity is a by-product of the great truths on which the gospel rests, but he did not see it as coming about automatically or effortlessly.”^[19] In order for this congregation to grow and thrive it needed to address these issues lest they see their strifes morph into schisms and unnecessary ridicule of the church by outsiders. To bring about the necessary unity the people were going to have to live according to the ways of love which could only be confirmed through their actions of humility.

Humility

In 2:3 Paul speaks of doing “nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” This is a form of humility which is grounded in the example of Christ which Paul later explains. On a technical level Paul chose to employ the word ταπεινοφροσύνη in this instance, a word which has a history in Hellenistic writings as

“the basic meaning to be ‘low,’ ‘flat.’”^[20] While this image conveys a lessening of a person it fails to fully grasp the theological idea Paul is presenting. Beyond the idea of self-abasement this concept of humility is based on the understanding that:

According to Phil 2:3 ταπεινοφροσύνη is the fundamental attitude of Christians in view of the unity of the church. It stands over against any attitude of selfishness and conceit, which disrupts and destroys church life. Humility counts others better than oneself — regardless of social standing. Those who are humble seek not their own advantage but the opportunity to serve others (v. 4).^[21] By demonstrating this type of interpersonal humility, the unity and oneness of mind among the people would be brought to light.

Paul’s chief concern here was that the people’s conduct did not reflect the realities of the Gospel which was a life code that went far beyond the ways the people grew up in. As “true biblical humility was frowned upon in the ancient world as despicable because it was misunderstood as abject cringing before one’s fellow-men.^[22] The understanding is that the community itself will benefit the greatest when the people are not attempting to create their own sub-kingdoms. The concept of love returns as through the Holy Spirit believers have their hearts and motivations transformed so they better match those of Jesus.

Servanthood

For Paul the natural ability of the people to demonstrate humility was not the benchmark they were to follow. Rather it was the example of Christ who took on the form of humanity through the miracle of the kenosis which fulfilled the ultimate act of humility. For the Christians at Philippi “this act of kenosis is an act of obedience; obedience unto death, but a death that leads to new life.”^[23] Christ was able to step away from his heavenly abode and live among us not as a demi-god but as one who was man but still in the form and likeness of God. For Jesus he maintained the form of God or in Greek he maintained the μορφή the “the essence of a person or thing”^[24] yet washed the feet of the disciples and submitted to the power of death for those very same Philippians.

This expectation of humility through servanthood should come as no surprise as throughout the Old Testament obedience is the reciprocal demand of being in covenant with God. No longer is it service to the temple through sacrifices but service to others through our actions of love, humility and servanthood with Christ the ultimate prototype of those actions. “The notion that Jesus became a slave or servant means that he became the Father’s servant to carry out his will, even if that will mean death by crucifixion for the servant.”^[25]

The concept of servanthood then is not an undesirable concept but now it becomes a way to imitate Christ, their new Heavenly ruler. The God Jesus took on “the very natureof a servant, being made in human likeness” and in doing so he fulfilled Isaiah 53:12. This presents a challenge and a firm example that the Philippians were also to walk in a similar degree of humility as they practiced and followed Christ’s example of servanthood.

Exaltation

At this point Paul diverges from what he expects from the Philippians and begins to demonstrate the blessings, benefits and glories Jesus received in response to his humility and servanthood. From the grave which Jesus’s humility and servanthood placed him into he later rose and was exalted at the right hand of God. No longer as the second YHWH who walked with Adam, Cain, Abraham, Samuel and Jeremiah, but now as supreme ruler of the cosmos. This term exalted used in Philippians 2 comes from the Greek word ὑπερυψόω which is translated as “super-eminentlyexalted”^[26] or “to raise someone to the loftiest height.”^[27] This verbal form of this stem is only found in this place in the New Testament, but it is found in Psalm 97:9 (LXX). While the adverb form of this word used in Ephesians 1:21, 4:10, and Hebrews 9:5 is used to speak of things which were “above.”

This exaltation Paul speaks of includes with it the eternal blessings for obedience which benefits both Christ and those who follow him. Through his actions we see that “the obedience of Christ did not force the hand of God… The action of God is but the other side of that obedience, and a vindication of all that the obedience involved.”^[28] Jesus was tempted in this world as we are therefore we are able to declare that he could be greatly blessed because of his faithfulness to the commands of God. Exaltation then not only returns Jesus to Heaven but also places him at the right hand of God, not awaiting coronation but now sitting in the courts of Heaven.

Authority

From the place of exaltation Jesus takes hold of the authority given to him by God, the Ancient of Days has inaugurated the Kingdom of the Son of God. It is an authority which is encapsulated in a single name, the name of Jesus. Yet the letters themselves do not create power but rather they reflect the actions and victory accomplished by Christ. Otherwise there would be nothing separating the heavenly Jesus from others bearing the same name, which would have been a problem in the first century.

On a technical level the name Jesus originates from the Hebrew name Yeshua (Ye’hoshua) which is properly translated into English as Joshua. This original name carried the meaning of “YWHW saves/delivers”^{^[29]} which speaks to the purpose of Christ’s coming. The authority in the name then is seen as the declaration that through the Christ God (YHWH) has provided spiritual deliverance to the people and access to a heavenly promised land. Along with this title of Savior/Deliverer Jesus is referred to as κύριος a word which to the Philippians “denotes rulership based upon competent and authoritative power, the ability to dispose of what one possesses.”^[30] Yet for Paul this word branches off from the Hebrew word adonai which was the substitute word used to speak of YHWH.

While the Philippians would have been comfortable referring to Caesar or even other gods as κύριος the declaration that Jesus was κύριος was dangerous to openly declare. To call Jesus κύριος “meant that he was the Master and the Owner of all life; he was the King of Kings; he was the Lord in a way in which the gods of the old religions and the idols could never be; he was nothing less than divine.”^[31] Jesus then is presented in Paul’s writings as the one who rules over all and seeks to expand the territory of his kingdom through those he places his name upon.[32]

Submission

From this place of authority Jesus awaits the day when “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” This eschatological day spoken of in Isaiah 45:23 in which all intelligent created beings in all three planes of existence come before the inaugurated and recognized king so they can bow before him in submission. Some will bow out of love and obedience while others will bow out of fear and condemnation. “Paul is not speaking here of voluntary obedience,”^[33] but is rather painting a picture of the conquered submitting to their new king, some people will welcome the deliverance while the rebels will fear its coming.

Furthermore “it is necessary to understand that the writer is here asserting that homage is to be paid to Jesus as Lord, not through Jesus to God.”[34] This is not an indirect submission by humans, angels and demons[35] to YHWH but a direct recognition of Jesus as the ruling King. This exhortation given to the Philippians once again elevates Christ above Caesar and gives hope for a future day when all things will be made right. The unity, humility and servanthood of Christ has resulted in his exaltation, appointment of authority and requirement for all to submit to him. If Christ can achieve all of this through humble means then the Philippians would be forced to concede that they to must follow in these same footsteps if they wish to flourish as a unified congregation. These people are those who have already bowed before Christ and are to follow Christ’s example and Paul’s teaching so they all together can bring glory to God. “The Father’s glory is not diminished but enhanced by the work of Christ on the cross”^[36] and through the expansion of the Son’s territory within the hearts of people.

Applying the Text Today

The Christian’s Responsibility

In many ways the “values Paul articulates in Philippians is not only at variance with the values of ancient Roman Philippi; it is at variance with the tendencies and inclinations of the fleshly impulses of all humans anytime and everywhere.”^[37] This makes the possible applications of Philippians 2:1-11 a universal endeavor as the exhortations towards unity, humility and servanthood are constants of the Christian faith. In our age matters such as strife and selfishness endure and continue to damage the lives of Christian and the well-being of entire congregations. The responsibilities which Paul has assigned to the Philippians then are still in effect in our modern day.

For this purpose we will combine the ideas of unity and being of “one-mind” and demonstrate how a person and a congregation can fulfill these mandates. When it comes to the concept of unity we must see it as a unity of purpose and mission. Far too often the misguided ideas of unity in the church better resemble science fiction archetypes such as Star Trek’s Borg and their hive consciousness. Christians also unknowingly drawn upon the metaphysical concept of the “overmind” or the failures of the Shepherding movement. In all of the above cases the concept of unity is replaced with the mandate of absolute obedience and strict conformity whereby all people think, dress and act the same. In terms of what Paul is presenting in this text it is rather a unification of purpose and mission which is being addressed. The Philippians were not exhorted to live as Jews, or Antiochians but rather they were to demonstrate allegiance to Christ which was matched up with their actions.

For us today this can be a reality as believers join together as they follow the guidance of Christ and Paul and seek to work together for the common good of the Kingdom of God. This is why matters such as strife and self-promotion were rejected as in these cases the induvial seeks to elevate themselves above the kingdom community or they seek to live outside of it while maintaining its benefits. This then does not preclude disagreements or debates over secondary doctrines, rather it provides the means to engage in these matters without irreparable harm to the larger community. The unifying goal is to continue the work of Christ on this world and those who follow Christ are to replicate the same unity which Jesus demonstrated with not only the Father but the disciples as well.

From this place of unity comes the added responsibility of living in a humble manner with other believers and even with the world at large. Yet to benefit from this our worldview must change because,

Jesus viewed us—his church—as a collectivist community. He came to establish a people of God, over which he would reign as king. It is not really “me and Jesus.” He will reign in my heart because he will reign over all creation (Phil 2:10). In the West, it may help if the church started thinking more in terms of we than me.^[38]

This form of humility is not an attitude which says “I have no worth” but instead it is an attitude which says “this other person has just as much or more worth than I do.” The matter is not about self-abasement but of mutual exaltation whereby the community works together not to punish the able but to elevate the weak so all can faithfully serve Christ and not just a select few.

Paul used language which was “deliberately extreme to shock the audience into following Christ’s example of self-humbling and self-sacrificial service, as a cure for party spirit, rivalry, or tensions in the community.”^[39] Matter such as these remain in our day and age which brings about an even greater need for true humility which operates through servanthood to change the hearts of people to seek ways to benefit other people so that the Kingdom as a whole can blossom. Our responsibility then as Christians according to Philippians 2:1-11 is to be an active force which stands together in unity to achieve the communal goal of expanding the kingdom of God through a paradigm of humility which is exemplified by a form of servanthood demonstrated by Christ.

The Christian’s Expectation

We cannot bear the burden of responsibility fully unless we firmly grasp the benefits which come from obeying these commands. To the Philippians and the modern Christians, the eschatological expectation remains the same. While the means and charts vary the common thread remains that we believe in Christ who while seated at the right hand of God in full authority still remains at arm’s length of total rulership of the world. It is the embodiment of the parable of the minas which speak of the ruler who left for a time and appointed his servants to work until he returned.

The expectation of Christ’s conquest of the world and of the universal submission to him must bring about greater motivation to live out the responsibilities laid out by Paul. We live humbly yet we are higher than our previous disposition because of what Christ has done for us. We live as servants since we are the disciples and subjects of the greatest servant who is seeking to bring new servants into his household in order that as many people as possible can joyfully bow before him at the end of the age.

The Work of Responsibility Brings with it the Benefits of Expectation

To process the companionship between the responsibilities and expectations laid out by Paul we could apply a chiastic structure (ABCCBA) to this argument. When we follow the commands to live in Unity as a group of Christians we are working towards the ultimate Submission of the world. Our actions of Humility bring about a greater outpouring of the Authority of Christ which is demonstrated in this world as we follow in these footsteps and pray for his providential intervention. Finally, our Servanthood becomes the greatest witness for Jesus’s Exaltation. His servanthood brought about eternal and unchanging exaltation, but our daily actions of servanthood bring about the continual exaltation of the name of Jesus upon the earth. In short unity brings submission, humility brings authority and servanthood brings exaltation.

The crucifixion in a metaphorical sense established the ocean and our actions act as rivers to bring others to it. All those who through strife, pride and selfish ambitions instead carve out metaphorical rivers that lead the people to stagnant ponds with no life. Through our faithfulness we are given the ability to share in the benefits of Christ as we become co-champions with him.

Conclusion

Through Paul’s writings and the Christological hymn utilized in Philippians 2 we are witnesses to the fact that the Christian life is one marked by the same unity, humility and servanthood Jesus demonstrated. Paul speaking to a Roman audience laid out their responsibilities in terms they understood to show how they had fallen short in living out lives which lined up with the example of Christ. They were to live out their live in that prescribed manner because Christ was already exalted as the true ruler of not only heaven but the world as well. Jesus is now ruling his kingdom and awaiting the day in which all people, angels and demons will bow before him at the end of the age.

In light of this expectation we as believers are given a life code to live by to ensure that we and as many people as possible can stand before Christ that day and willfully and joyfully bow before him. While those who rebelled against him, persecuted the church and rejected adhering to lives of unity, humility and servanthood are diminished while those who made themselves low in Christ are exalted.

The church is to be a unified community who through true humility and a willingness to serve establish the kingdom on earth not out of fear but out of hope of their ultimate expectations. When the responsibilities of unity, humility and servanthood are combined with the expectations of exaltation, Christ’s authority, and universal submission to him then and only then can Christians flourish in this world. The message of Philippians 2:1-11 is not an exhortation to look busy because Jesus is coming, but instead to faithfully work together because of what Christ has already done for us.

[1] Known as Krenides in modern times.

^[2] Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2011), 5.

^[3] G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 2–3.

^[4] Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2011), 5.

^[5] G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 15.

^[6] Joseph Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 178.

^[7] John T. Fitzgerald, “Philippians, Epistle to the,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 319.

^[8] G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 7.

^[9] William Barclay, The Letters to Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, 3rd ed. fully rev. and updated., The New Daily Study Bible (Louisville, KY; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 37.

^[10] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Php 2:1–11.

^[11] Ralph P. Martin, Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 11, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 114–115.

^[12] Ibid, 115.

^[13] Harold W. Hoehner, Philip W. Comfort, and Peter H. Davids, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Philemon., vol. 16 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 171.

^[14] Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2011), 118.

^[15] Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990–), 438.

^[16] Ibid, 439.

^[17] James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 485.

[18] Scriptures taken from ESV unless otherwise noted.

^[19] J. A. Motyer, The Message of Philippians, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 105.

^[20] Walter Grundmann, “Ταπεινός, Ταπεινόω, Ταπείνωσις, Ταπεινόφρων, Ταπεινοφροσύνη,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), vol. 8, 21.

^[21] Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990–), 334.

^[22] Ralph P. Martin, Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 11, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 101.

^[23] Markus Locker, “Seeing the Unseeable—Speaking the Unspeakable: From a Kenosis of Exegesis toward a Spiritual Biblical Theology,” ed. Paul Elbert, Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research 4 (2012): 12.

^[24] Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430–431.

^[25] Harold W. Hoehner, Philip W. Comfort, and Peter H. Davids, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Philemon., vol. 16 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 175.

^[26] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 364.

^[27] Harold W. Hoehner, Philip W. Comfort, and Peter H. Davids, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Philemon., vol. 16 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 170.

^[28] Moisés Silva, “Philippians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 837.

^[29] Earle L. Wilson, Alex R. G. Deasley, and Barry L. Callen, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians: A Commentary for Bible Students (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 2007), 189.

^[30] Ralph P. Martin, Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 11, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 113.

^[31] William Barclay, The Letters to Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, 3rd ed. fully rev. and updated., The New Daily Study Bible (Louisville, KY; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 46.

[32] see Revelation 3:12.

^[33] Moisés Silva, “Philippians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 837.

[34] Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, et. all. Word Biblical Commentary. Volume 43: Philippians (Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan Academic, 2015), 127.

[35] See 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Colossians 1:16.

^[36] Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 26.

^[37] James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 484.

^[38] E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 110.

^[39] Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2011), 149.

How to Understand and Apply Philippians 2:1-11 Cameron Conway is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Posted on July 7, 2021April 28, 2021 by Cameron Conway — Leave a comment

What Does it Mean to be a Friend of God

The author of the Gospel of John has laid out a narrative which seeks to introduce the purpose, ideas and nature of Jesus to a widespread audience made up of Jews and Gentiles. From this understanding we can see how the author uses events such as the Farwell Discourse to demonstrate how one is to follow Christ and how they are to live in this world which is awaiting total redemption. Yet within the Farwell Discourse lies a brief exposition where Jesus equated his faithful disciples as friends. Therefore, what does it mean on both on a practical and a theological level to be considered a friend of God according to John 15:9-17?

It is my intention to demonstrate how the Old Testament, Jewish culture and Greco-Roman philosophy influenced the original understanding of John 15:9-17 and provides insights into how we can apply this text today. John 15:9-17 historically demonstrates how being friend of God is a one-way designation given to obedient disciples who fulfill the mandate of “bearing fruit” through the expansion of the kingdom of God by preaching, discipleship and loving others according to the revelations they have received through a close relationship with Jesus. In a modern context the people who can be considered friends of God are Christians who work obediently and faithfully alongside the Holy Spirit to bring about long lasting spiritual fruit in this world.

John 15:9-17 Within the Narrative of the Gospel of John

The passage in question is found in the second half of what is known as the Farwell discourse which spans from chapter fourteen through to chapter seventeen. The author dedicated such as large part of his gospel to this event as it provides the final instruction of Jesus given to the disciples before his subsequent arrest and crucifixion. In many ways these are “death bed” instructions given in a manner similar to Joseph demanding his bones be brought to the land promised to Abraham in Genesis 50:25.

This exposition then is Jesus’s attempt to prepare the disciples for life after the resurrection and to encourage them to go about continuing the work he began on earth. John 15:15 highlights the discourse on friendship is located between the parable of the vine and the admission to prepare to endure persecution with the help of the Holy Spirit. This section on friendship then is the climax of the disciples pre-Pentecost journey where they are recognized as being no longer the servants or followers of Christ but now have been promoted to a deeper relationship as through “the impact of fresh revelation, ‘servants’ give way to ‘friends’”.^[1]

To better understand this section and the overall concept of friendship with God we need to recognize two overarching concepts in the Gospel of John: friendship and love. In relation to the totality of the gospel the author speaks of the concept of friendship in other places such as in 3:29 which speaks of the friends of the bridegroom. Furthermore in 11:11 Jesus referred to Lazarus as “our friend”[2] who has fallen asleep. The final instance is in 19:12 where the Jewish leaders accuse Pilate of not being a true friend of Caesar. These verses speak to a level of interpersonal interaction a familiarity which goes beyond the idea of a passing neighbor and to something of greater significance.

The second key recurring in the Gospel of John is love which is expressed by God to the world (3:16), to Jesus (3:25, 10:17), and to the disciples (13:34). This love from God is expected to be reciprocated by the disciples and followers of Christ towards other people (15:12). Jesus then is the example of love and John 15 love is presented in “the aorist tense, depicting his love as a complete action, denoting perhaps the entire demonstration of Jesus’ love for his disciples.”^[3] The emphasis placed on these concepts in the Gospel of John speak of a reciprocal relationship which is not based on feeling but instead on action.

Understanding the Meaning Behind “Friend”

The modern concept of a friend and friendship in general is one which is mostly foreign to the culture leading up to and comprising the original audience of the Gospel of John. To better understand the usage of the term friend sued by Jesus through the author of the gospel we need to understand the way the Greeks understood this work. The Greek word used in John 15:15 is φίλος and it is seen as meaning “a person with whom one has a close bond or friendship or to whom one is under a basic obligation.”^[4] In a broader sense φίλος was also used by the Greeks to demonstrate a personal friend, a loved one in a homo-erotic sense, the lover, the favourite (esp. of the gods), an ally, followers” of a political leader, and clients who cluster around a prominent and wealthy man.^{^[5]}

For the author of the Gospel of John the choice to use the word φίλος was not an arbitrary one as it was commonly used in the Septuagint to translate of the Hebrew word רֵעַ. In Hebrew רֵעַ was used to define both the ideas of friendship and being a neighbor to a person. However there does appear to be a divergence from the Septuagint’s and the Gospels use of friend in relation to the Hebrew connotation. As the “Alexandrian translators, who naturally thought of friendship in Hellenistic categories, arbitrarily introduced φίλος for רֵעַ at many points”^[6] rather than the word πλεσιν which is more in line with the Hebrew understanding of being a neighbor. We see then that the Greek overtones of friendship are driving us more towards an understanding which is foreign both to modern understanding and to the ancient Jewish cultural context.

Old Testament Precedents Concerning Friendship

To better understand the concept of friendship which is being advanced by Jesus and the author of the Gospel of John we next need to look back to the Old Testament and see how this idea originates and develops. When we look at the dynamic of being a “friend of God” the first person which fits that description is the patriarch Abraham. In 1 Chronicles 20:7 the author speaks of how God drove the Canaanites from the land in which was given to the “descendants of Abraham your friend.”[7] This title is also attributed to Abraham in Isaiah 41:8 where the prophet speaks of Israel being the “offspring of Abraham, my friend” or in a literal sense “my loving one/who loved me.”^[8] This recognition of this higher status of Abraham continued in the intertestamental period with Jubilee 19:9 and into the New Testament in James 2:23.

With Abraham the Old Testament paints a theological picture of a person who was chosen by God for a purpose and reciprocated that calling through faithfulness and obedience. Paul speaks rightly of Abraham in Galatians 3:6-9 who through obedience and faith received the gift of righteousness, that is the right to stand near to God in relationship. In Genesis Abraham is seen as one who had the privilege to speak with God concerning his plans in the world. In Genesis 18 we see that Abraham’s relationship with God allowed him to elevate past the level of servant and to know what his master was doing and the ability to influence those decisions. Furthermore, Abraham is rewarded with a promise that through his descendants that the entire world will be blessed because of his active relationship with God.

The second key example of a person being a friend of God in the Old Testament is Moses who is described in Exodus 33:11 as the one who spoke with God “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” Much like Abraham this elevated status given to Moses was in response similar factors such as being chosen as an instrument of God, continual faith in God’s plans, in his continual obedience[9] to God. Conversely the “golden calf incident caused a clear rift between God and his people, but Moses was God’s loyal servant and friend. God was distancing himself from Israel, but growing closer to Moses.”^[10] Unlike the people Moses was granted access to God’s plans and purposes and allowed to not only listen but to intercede. This relationship then becomes part of the underlying structure of what we see in John 15:15 where Jesus implies “that the mark of the friend (as opposed to the servant) is that he knows the purpose and meaning of the commands given to him.”^[11]

Aside from the idea of friendship between God and man the Old Testament also offers insight into the interpersonal concept of friendship between people. One of the strongest examples of interpersonal friendship is the relationship between Jonathan and David which is highlighted in 2 Samuel 1:26. Here David laments the loss of his friend by stating how “your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.” In this simple example of friendship, we see a great deal of trust and active faithfulness which resulted in Jonathan protecting David from the Saul and David later seeking out to bless Mephibosheth on account of his friendship and covenant with Jonathan.

This example factors into the John 15:15 as it demonstrates the long-lasting benefits and blessings a person can receive on account of the covenantal friendship or “the knitting of souls”^[12] between others. We can summarize then that according to the Old Testament “friendship implies the sharing of information about oneself. Psalm 25:14 links the friendship of God with the fact that God makes his covenant known to his friends.”^[13] From a place of friendship comes access to revelation and promises from God which carries with it a responsibility to contribute to the fulfillment of those promises while maintain hope that those same promises will be fulfilled by God.

Cultural Backgrounds of Friendship

Second Temple era Jewish Cultural Influences

Beyond the bounds of the Old Testament there are several other significant Jewish cultural factors which influence our understanding of the idea of friendship the author of John was conveying to his readers. During the Second Temple era several pseudographical and apocryphal books were created which held a certain amount of respect in the Jewish community. One of those books was the Wisdom of Sirach which followed the narrative style of Jewish wisdom literature. This book addressees the concept of friendship in 6:16-17 and declares:

A loyal friend is like a medicine that keeps you in good health. Only those who fear the Lord can find such a friend. ¹⁷A person who fears the Lord can make real friendships, because he will treat his friends as he does himself. (GNT)

Sirach demonstrates the importance of friendship and makes an interesting connection between the availability of friendship and one’s relationship with God. In the Gospel of John this concept is taken to the next level as the “loyal friend” being described is not a human but God himself.

Other places such as 3 Maccabees 5:19, 44 also speak of the idea of friendship but in this context it follows a more Hellenistic understanding. Here friendship is less about a mutual relationship and has to do more with being an associate or and advisor to a king. This example furthers the idea that one of the more “important aspect of ancient friendship was the sharing of information and confidences.”^[14] This sharing of information ranges from relationships between a king and his advisors and even between a Rabbi and his disciples.

One place where Jewish culture differed from Hellenistic influences can be seen in the willingness to die for one’s friend.Antiquity shows examples such as Tigranes the king of Armenia declaring that he would give his own life to rescue his wife from Cyrus the king of Persia in an event which unexpectedly forged a new friendship between both men.^{^[15]} Despite this high moral value Greeks placed upon on such actions Jewish contemporaries of John such as “Rabbi Akiba argued that one’s own life took precedence over another’s.”^[16] This cultural understanding then adds greater significance to Jesus’s words in John 15:13 as to die for the law was noble but it was not so for another person.

Despite the apparent Jewish upbringing of the author of the Gospel of John we must concede that many of the original readers of that gospel would have been Hellenized Gentiles and Diaspora Jews. Therefore to understand Jewish culture in the first century we must consult the writings of Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – AD 50) to better Jews outside of Palestine, and of those in the early church.

When it comes to the concept of friendship Philo stresses “that cleaving to God is a spiritual process that leads to true friendship and love of God, which leads in turn to eternal life next to him.”[17] This cleaving to God is later seen in his comments about Moses’s relationship with God and explains how God’s “frankness of speech is akin to friendship.”^[18] In terms of a similar relationship between Abraham and God Philo comments:

He alone is nobly born, for he has registered God as his father and become by adoption His only son, the possessor not of riches, but of all riches, faring sumptuously where there is nought (sic) but good things, unstinted in number and sterling in worth, which alone wax not old through time, but ever renew their youth;^[19]

The overarching idea then presented by Philo that “a full union with the transcendent creator is not only possible but in fact the pinnacle of Mosaic Law.”[20] Although this pinnacle was not reached until the incarnation and resurrection of Christ who made this union and friendship truly possible to a wide range of people.

Hellenistic Cultural Influences

Given the spread of Christianity into Hellenized parts of the Roman Empire we must assume that given the universal nature in which the Gospel of John was written there would have been some allowance given that many of its original readers would have been steeped in Hellenistic culture. Therefore, it is important to examine the larger Hellenistic concepts of friendship and determine which if any can have bearing on the larger idea of friendship. As we have already seen the general concept of φίλος was relatively foreign to the Jewish vernacular, so it is necessary to trace this concept back to its source and see how it influenced what was recorded in the gospel. Often this idea of friendship was equated with royal patronage as we see with those allowed into inner circle of Alexander of Macedon; “the king honoured the physician with magnificent gifts and assigned him to the most loyal category of Friends.”[21] While this view of friendship was quite common in Roman culture the Greeks also extended this idea to include people who were social equals and those in a client-patron relationship even if they were part of different social classes.

One common denominator stands out in Greek friendship that no matter “one’s social level, reciprocity stands out as the key feature of friendship.^[22] This reciprocity ranged from favors and services and could be seen to include even the death of one to protect the other. Aristotle spoke of this ultimate sacrifice by saying “But it is also true that the virtuous man’s conduct is often guided by the interests of his friends and of his country, and that he will if necessary lay down his life in their behalf.”[23] Aristotle goes on to speak highly of the concept of friendship between people going as far as to say, “it is thought that a good man is a friendly man, and that friendship is a state of the moral character.”^[24] This view on friendship is later coupled with the idea that such friendships are being based on goodness, utility and pleasure.^[25]

When it comes to the possibility of a friendship between mankind and the god(s) Aristotle believed that this was no more likely than a man could be a friend to his slave or his tools. The philosopher saw the vast differences between man and the gods and concluded that “but when one becomes very remote from the other, as God is remote from man, it (friendship) can continue no longer.”[26] This viewpoint however was not accepted across all facets of Greek philosophy as Epictetus commented “did not Socrates love his own children? He did; but it was as a free man, as one who remembered that he must first be a friend to the gods.”[27]

For the readers of the Gospel of John they would have been confronted with the understanding of the separation between people and the God’s advanced by Aristotle and the bridging of such a gap by Jesus in his offer of friendship. In the Greek viewpoint Jesus was fulfilling the role of a friend in dying for his followers which are prophetically referred to as a new nation. It can be concluded then that the Greek ideas of friendship are generally compatible with the narrative set in the gospel. Although the limited form of friendship is taken to a higher level the expectation of reciprocity expected from the followers of God will form a core pillar of the idea of being a friend of God.

The Impact of John 15:9-17 on its Original Audience

What the original readers of the Gospel of John may have first noticed is that Jesus in this passage “were addressed to a group that was not going to act very friendly… What sort of thing must Jesus think friendship is if he used it so confidently of these people?”[28] In terms of the narrative of John just a few hours after Jesus granted to title of friends to the disciples they ran away from him and Peter went as far as to deny him three times. Despite the short-term failures of the newly minted friends of God there remains a great deal of theological insight the original audience of the Gospel would of gleaned.

Initiated by Jesus

Jesus states in John 15:16 that he was the one responsible for choosing the disciples to be his students and companions. This language would of evoked the memory of the likes of Abraham and Moses the friends of God who to had been chosen to advance the plan of redemption and to announce a new inauguration of a covenant. This selection of the disciples is not seen in a light of slavery but instead of love and Jesus affirms love for them if they continue to follow his commands, a similar offer made to Israel in the wilderness.

Jesus then is taking responsibility for the initiation of the relationship but places upon the disciples an obligation to fulfill their part of the relationship. Not in a client-patron manner but a progression from teacher-student to a closer relationship which would continue not in face to face encounters but through the coming Holy Spirit. Through this unmerited favor shown through Jesus we see that “God has initiated everything about this friendship, leaving those brought close to him to respond in faithfulness as they draw on the example of the Father and his sent one.”[29] For those reading this section they would be encouraged that they too have been set aside by God and they to through the Holy Spirit can come to a deeper place of knowing Christ.

Friend of God: A One-Way Designation

What stands out from this offer of friendship is that at no point does anyone declare they themselves are a friend of God. Here we see Jesus declare that he is their friend but the disciples (and later followers) do not make the same reciprocal comment. This is because “Jesus the Son is never our peer either! He calls the disciples his ‘friends’ in order that they might know and do the will of his Father.”^{^[30]}The original readers would of recognized that this “friendship is not mutual in the same way as human friendships usually are.”^[31]

Jesus and Jesus alone is the one giving commands while the disciples, although being friends, are the ones expected to fulfill those commands. In this sense even the concept of prayer can fit into this idea as God is not bound to fulfill all of our own desires and he encourages us to pray according to his will. While we can petition God as Abraham did over the fate of Sodom we cannot command God to do things contrary to his will. This left the disciples and the original audience to grasp the idea that while they have greater access to God they are still expected to submit to the King.

Love and Obedience

Leading up to the declaration of friendship made by Jesus he first expounds the necessity for love to be present within his followers. Using first the example of himself first loving them he sets the stage for part of their responsibility as friends of God. In John 15:12 Jesus give the explicit command to “Love each other as I have loved you.”

The type of love and intimate union being modeled in this passage is “ not merely a mystical experience but a relational encounter, for he gives it content with the term ‘love’”[32] For the early followers they would of perceived this being a command to follow in order to demonstrate their faithfulness and allegiance to Jesus. Love is an action which is required to demonstrate the reality of one’s conversion to Christ. We see this demonstrated in John 13:35 where Jesus declares “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Expectation to Go and Bear Fruit

Along with the exception for the disciples to love one another Jesus also placed upon those who are called friends the responsibility to continue his work upon the Earth. Following the declaration of being friends Jesus returns to the language of the parable of the vine and commands the disciples to go out and bear fruit. One of Jesus’s primary goals during his ministry was to bring glory to the Father and now Jesus appoints those he calls friends to continue that very same work.

Much like the test of fruitfulness given to the branches of the vine in John 15:1-6 so to are the friends of God expected to take what they receive from Christ (spiritual sap) the vine and to bring about the expansion of the Kingdom of God upon the earth. Understanding this context, we see why “Father would answer their requests in order to accomplish that mission”^[33]

and why Jesus would offer the “the full sharing of confidential information”^[34] The goal of a friend of God then is to go about in love and produce spiritual “fruit that will last”[35] in the Earth which results in added friends of God who go about and do likewise.

Possible Applications of John 15:9-17

Traditionally this section from the Gospel of John has been interpreted in a variety of ways. John Chrysostom emphasized the aspect of heavenly revelation: “and since to speak of secrets appears to be the strongest proof of friendship.”^[36] While Augustine focused on the concept of obedience: “that it is the duty of servants to yield obedience to their master’s commands.”^[37] Finally Ambrose of Milan spoke of our unity with Christ: “to unfold to him our secrets which we hold in our own hearts… He who is of one mind with Him, he too is His friend.^{”^[38]}

In a modern context we can apply this verse through two primary avenues. First of which is in the development of our personal relationships with Christ through the Holy Spirit. By which we receive insights and illumination from the scriptures which aid us in living according to the commands of Christ, as a good friend of God is one who is obedient. We to have the same offer of revelation and relationship available to us today if we are willing to demonstrate obedience and commitment to Christ.

Secondly, we are to continue the work of Jesus upon the earth, through ministry, preaching, teaching, love and a host of other means. We to are bound to the commands to love others and to bear fruit that will last upon this Earth as we draw from the vine. In fulfilling those commands, we to can have assurance that God will hear our prayers which are in line with his will and that he will provide the revelation needed to fulfill that mandate.

Conclusion

To be a friend of God according to not only John 15:9-17 but also the cultural undertones which permeate the Gospel of John is not a matter of mystery but of concrete action. Those who are willing embrace this status of friend of God have hope if they are prepared to live a life of obedience to the commands of Christ. Which includes the mandate of bearing fruit through the expansion of the kingdom of God by preaching, discipleship and loving others according to the revelations they receive through a constant fellowship with the Holy Spirit. While we are never an equal with God in this relationship, we are offered the opportunity to go beyond a distant relationship with a heavenly teacher and instead come into intimate fellowship with him. That is if we are faithful in our commitment to bring about the commands of our King in this world as he goes about bringing glory to God and creating additional friends of God.

^[1] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 510.

[2] All scriptures used in this paper are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.

^[3] Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 4, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 315.

^[4] Justin Langford, “Friendship,” ed. Douglas Mangum et al., Lexham Theological Wordbook, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).

^[5] Gustav Stählin, “Φιλέω, Καταφιλέω, Φίλημα, Φίλος, Φίλη, Φιλία,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 146–147.

^[6] Ibid, 156.

[7] Hebrew: אָהֵב LXX: τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ

^[8] J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 20, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 286.

[9] With the exception of the incident at Meribah in Numbers 20.

^[10] Anthony T. Selvaggio, From Bondage to Liberty: The Gospel according to Moses, ed. Iain M. Duguid, The Gospel according to the Old Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2014), 145.

^[11] R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 234.

^[12] see Deuteronomy 13:6.

^[13] Leland Ryken et al., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 309.

^[14] Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 4, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 317.

^[15] Xenophon, Xenophon in Seven Volumes, 5 and 6, trans. Walter Miller (Medford, MA: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; William Heinemann, Ltd., London., 1914) 3.1.37.

^[16] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Jn 15:12–13.

[17] Afterman, Adam. “From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union.” The Journal of Religion 93, no. 2 (2013): 191. Accessed April 6, 2020. doi:10.1086/667598.

^[18] Philo, Philo, trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and J. W. Earp, vol. 4, The Loeb Classical Library (London; England; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann Ltd; Harvard University Press, 1929–1962), 295, Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres, Book V, verse 21.

^[19] Ibid. 473, De Sobrietate 11:56.

[20] Afterman, Adam. “From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union.” The Journal of Religion 93, no. 2 (2013): 189-190. Accessed April 6, 2020. doi:10.1086/667598.

[21] Diodorus, Siculus, 17.31.6, Perseus Digital Library, accessed April 8, 2020, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0084%3Abook%3D17%3Achapter%3D31%3Asection%3D6

^[22] Justin Langford, “Friendship,” ed. Douglas Mangum et al., Lexham Theological Wordbook, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).

[23] Aristotle, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 19, translated by H. Rackham (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1934), 1169, Nicomachean Ethics Book 9.9.

^[24] Aristotle, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Translated by H. Rackham., vol. 20 (Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1981), Eudemian Ethics Book 7.

^[25] Ibid.

[26] Aristotle, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 19, translated by H. Rackham (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1934), 1169, Nicomachean Ethics Book 8.7.

[27] “Epictetus Diatr. 3.24.60, Perseus Digital Library, accessed April 8, 2020, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0236%3Atext%3Ddisc%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D24

[28] Peter Dula, “The Politics of Friendship in the Gospel of John.” In Reading Scripture as a Political Act: Essays on Theopolitical Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Tapie Matthew A. and McClain Daniel Wade, by Fowl Stephen E. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, Publishers, 2015), 43. Accessed April 5, 2020. doi:10.2307/j.ctt155j37g.6.

[29] Darrell L. Brock and Benjamin I. Simpson, Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 633.

^[30] Robbie Castleman, “The Last Word: My Father and Common Grace,” Themelios 29, no. 3 (2004): 44.

^[31] Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 4, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 317.

[32] Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary vol. 2 (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 1003.

^[33] Edwin A. Blum, “John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 326.

^[34] Joseph Dongell, John: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 1997), 185.

[35] John 15:16

^[36] John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. John,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. G. T. Stupart, vol. 14, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 282.

^[37] Augustine of Hippo, “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John,” in St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. John Gibb and James Innes, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 351.

^[38] Ambrose of Milan, “On the Duties of the Clergy,” in St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. H. de Romestin, E. de Romestin, and H. T. F. Duckworth, vol. 10, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1896), 89.

What does it mean to be a friend of God Cameron Conway is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Are you looking to develop your relationship with God and better understand the Bible? Pick up a copy of one of my books today.

Understanding Who You Are: A Survey of 21st Century Christian Beliefs
Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook
Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE

Six Minutes of Grace: The Key To Finding Happiness and Purpose
Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook
Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE

Six Minutes of Grace Journal
Amazon.com paperback | Amazon.ca paperback

Posted on June 30, 2021April 28, 2021 by Cameron Conway — Leave a comment

The Life And Influence Of Clement Of Rome

For the past two thousand years Christians have been wrestling with the notion of how to best communicate the truths of Christ in the world of “today.” As the ebbs and flows of culture and worldview shift through each generation we are constantly faced with the task of remaining true to the doctrines of scripture while at the same time figuring out how to apply those truths. For us to better understand how to do this it could be best to look at how the church in the first post-apostolic generation found their theological and practical footing in the world around them.

To come to an understanding of how the church is to operate beyond the era of the Apostles we must go back to the beginning and observe one of the earliest post-apostolic writers and figureheads of the church in that era, Clement of Rome. By learning how that second generation of the church interpreted the scriptures and lived out their lives we discover a compass by which we can better navigate our own faith within this era of history. Therefore, we must ask the question of who was Clement of Rome and what impact did his epistle to the Corinthians have on the Christian community of his era?

Setting the Stage

Before we can come to a better understanding of the man Clement of Rome we first need to reconstruct the world he lived in. In many ways the world of Clement was no different that the world we see presented in the book of Acts. Rome remains supreme throughout the Mediterranean and parts of the Near East, although there was much turmoil along Germanic borders. In this era Rome inched closer to the zenith of its power under a mix of benevolent and tyrannical rulers. It is at this point in which Domitian laid claim to the throne in 86AD following the death of his older brother Titus, the same Titus who oversaw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Unlike his father Vespasian and his brother Titus, “Domitian’s personal ambition coupled with the worship of the Roman state created a new politico-religious atmosphere inimical to the growing church.”^[1] He revitalized the Imperial cult as a means to consolidate his power and unify Roman religious practices. Domitian even went as far as to demand the funds (temple taxes) which used to go to the Temple in Jerusalem be reallocated to Rome.[2] Domitian was seen as a tyrant by many but managed to maintain the allegiance of the army, that is until his murder in 96 AD. The death of Domitian ended the dynasty of Vespasian and ushered in the short reign of Nerva from 96-98 AD and the relatively longer reign of Trajan from 98-117 AD which saw Rome reach the climax of its territorial control.

On the outskirts of the power and politics of Rome we find that the church which began under the likes of James, Barnabas, Peter and Paul was continuing to grow despite persecution and conflict. In the era of Clement the church is faced with discerning how they are to live out their faith following the deaths of Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles, with the exception of John. With the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD the “capital” of the church had moved to Antioch in Syria and “by the end of the fourth century Antioch was a city of half a million people and half of these were Christians.”^[3] Other centers of influence such as Rome, Ephesus, Corinth and Alexandria were also developing as centers of Christian influence.

Upon the established roads and shipping lanes of the Roman Empire the church continued to grow and thrive. Yet this growth was not without pain or conflict as in this era the church was occupied with resisting religious syncretism (i.e. Corinthian Christians eating in pagan Temples), the remnants of the Judaizers, Gnostics incursions, and renewed emphasis on the Imperial Cult and Roman Pantheon and emergence of early heretics such as the Nicolaitans, and the followers of Cerinthus. In many ways “the early Christian was almost bound to divorce himself from the social and economic life of his time”^[4] as the culture around them was in many ways contrary to the teachings of Christ. Because of these challenges the church at this time was forced to better organize itself and establish a form of hierarchy and communication between its major centers.

With the continued growth of the church and the reforms under Domitian being enforced eventually the two forces collided. In a persecution not seen since the era of Nero we find the foundations of the latter life of Clement. The church historian Eusebius records that:

Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God.^[5]

Domitian persecuted not just Jews and Christians[6] but also family members on charges of atheism, going as far as executing his cousin Flavius Clement.^[7] Yet it also appears that Domitian was benevolent to the likes of the Jewish historian Josephus^[8] during this era of persecution which reached its climax not long before Clement wrote his epistle to the Corinthians.

Who Was Clement of Rome?

With the setting established we may now begin our investigation into who Clement of Rome[9] was and what his role within the church involved and how he left an impact upon it. It is believed that Clement was born around 30 AD and lived until 100 AD as his death is mention by Jerome who states, “he died in the third year of Trajan and a church built at Rome preserves the memory of his name unto this day.”^[10] This timing implies that Clement was a contemporary of the Apostles in his early life and co-laborer with the likes of Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp later in life. Clement’s ministry can be seen then as being one of the bridges between the apostolic age and the age of the martyrs.

When it comes to establishing the identity of Clement there is debate whether he was the same Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3 by Paul. Early Christian “writers such as Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome^[11] supposed this Clement to be the apostolic father known as Clement of Rome. Modern scholars, however, believe this identification is highly unlikely.”^[12] This conflict between ancient opinions and modern conjecture clouds the possibility of Clement of Rome being the aforementioned companion of Paul yet it does not diminish his standing in the church during this era.

The platform by which Clement was able to deliver his epistle to the Corinthians came from his appointment as bishop of Rome. There is debate⁷ whether he was the second or fourth bishop after Peter, this stems from the notion that “Linus and Cletus could not have been Bishops of Rome, for they were merely coadjutors of the Apostles during their lifetime… and thus he (Clement) should unquestionably be made the first of the Roman bishops.”^[13] Despite the debate of whether Clement was second or fourth bishop of Rome, Clement’s presence in Rome and his appointment presents the possibility that he was an acquaintance of the apostle Peter^[14] who died in 66 AD in the same city. Recognition of Clements rank as bishop can be found in “the Shepherd of Hermas, a work not later than the episcopate of Pius (a.d. 141–156), the writer of which claims to have been contemporary with Clement.”^[15]

The Epistle to the Corinthians

Being one of the early bishops of Rome was not all that Clement was known for, perhaps his greatest contribution to the early days of the post-apostolic age of the church comes in the form of his epistle to the Corinthian church. The epistle opens with a reference to a persecution^[16] which is most likely the one perpetrated by Domitian rather than Nero.

It appears from chapter 5 to be later than the persecution in the time of Nero, and from chapters 42–44 it is clear that the age of the apostles is regarded as past. It can therefore scarcely be older than 75–80 a.d. On the other hand chapter 44 speaks of presbyters who were appointed by the apostles and were still alive, and there is no trace of any of the controversies or persecutions of the second century.^[17]

These additional factors along with other circumstances led many to believe that the epistle was written around 96 AD^[18], and perhaps as early as 94 AD^[19]. If this dating is correct it would mean that the epistle was written at roughly the same time as the later estimated dating of the book of Revelation.^[20]

Given the apparent dating of this epistle it would make it “probably the earliest extant Christian epistle outside the NT.”^[21] In part to this early date and its popularity among various churches in the following decades it is no wonder why it was included in various early collections of scriptures^[22] along with the likes of Shepherd of Hermas, and Epistle of Barnabas.The validity and popularity of this early document is given extra weight by Eusebius’ comments:

There is extant an epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own.^[23]

As we begin to examine the epistle, we are presented with a Corinthian church which is forty or so years removed from Paul’s letters to it. In many ways we can see this as the second generation of the Church in Corinth. This letter then gives us a glimpse into how the church grew and changed in the light of Paul’s three epistles which were sent to it. Unfortunately, it appears that very little changed in the Corinthian Church in the years between Paul and Clement as once again a schism had broken out which needed a remedy. What is interesting here is that instead of an apostolic office offering council we instead see the church in Rome through Clement attempting to intervene in the crisis. “The Roman Church now intervenes because of Christian concern over this distressing situation, not because it claims authority over other churches.”^[24]

The issue at hand at Corinth stems from a rebellion by younger members of the congregation who were attempting to steal authority from their elders (presbyters). Others^[25] view the issue as having to do in part with these younger men being unsatisfied with the financial provisions which were being sent to them by the church in Rome. Clement in his own words highlights the schism which had arisen early in the letter:

It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most stedfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters.^[26]

This dispute in Corinth presented the church an opportunity to continue to refine its process of establishing a sense of order and episcopal succession following the apostolic age. This epistle then becomes an added source outside of Paul and Peters epistles which could be used to better govern the church even in times of dispute.

Aside from the schism Clement’s epistle addresses a host of other topics such as a renewed call to holy living and the eradication of envy from the hearts of his readers. Clement attempts to achieve this through the use of rhetoric and instruction. Clement “tells no stories from the Gospels about Jesus’ wonders but appeals, rather, to Jesus’ words of moral instruction.”^[27] In many ways Clement follows in the footsteps of Paul in how he presents his ideas in a logical way which appeals to the scriptures and calls on the people to live according to Christ’s standards.

The epistle covers a variety of topics in order to hammer home its original purpose of bringing the rebels to repentance (ch. 48-53) and resetting the spiritual foundation of the Corinthian church. The epistle covers matters such as the deaths of Peter and Paul (ch. 5), God’s desire for people to repent (ch. 8), examples of faithful people in the Old Testament (ch. 9-12), faith vs. good works (ch. 32-34) and the need for order and structure in the church (ch. 40-41).

Clement is able to ground his key arguments with a heavy use of the Old Testament (LXX) scriptures which make up almost a quarter^[28] of the epistle’s contents and references books such as Psalms, Isaiah and Deuteronomy. The epistle also contains a variety of quotations from New Testament books such as Matthew, Romans, 1 Corinthians, James and Hebrews. The use of these books by Clement demonstrate how these “books that later became part of the NT canon were circulating among the churches by the end of the first century.”^[29] Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians then can be seen as a great theological work which establishes a precedent of relying heavily on what would be known as both the Old Testament and the New Testament albeit with “Hellenistic cultural influences which have merged with the Judaeo-Christian element.”^[30]

The Legacy of Clement of Rome

It appears that it did not take long for Clement’s epistle to gain popularity and favor within the larger Christian church. The likes of Irenaeus,^[31] Clement of Alexandria^[32] and Origen^[33] attest to the lasting influence of Clement’s work. In the Corinthian church itself we have evidence that this epistle was read regularly for decades^[34] and perhaps even longer. It is an epistle which stands apart from its post-apostolic contemporaries and is free from“the curious exegetics of Barnabas, the theological crudities of Hermas, the fervid sacerdotalism of Ignatius; and it is a comparison which may serve to show the emergence of the characteristic Roman Christianity.”

Perhaps in an unorthodox manner we can establish the popularity and influence of an early writer such as Clement by the pseudographical works attributed to them later on. While the first epistle to the Corinthians is attributed to Clement several other works have had his name (for various reasons) attached to them. These works include 2 Clement, the Recognitions of Clement, various letters to James (the brother of Jesus) and a pair of epistles dealing with the matter of virginity. With this wide use of Clement’s name in pseudographical works it becomes clear that he was held in high esteem in the decades and centuries following the apostolic age.

Conclusion

After investigating the historical setting of Clement in the latter part of the first century and witnessing the purpose and contents of his epistle to the Corinthians we finally begin to grasp the importance of Clement and his epistle in not only his era but also the following generations. Clement was seen as the first major successor to Peter as bishop of Rome and utilized his position and extensive knowledge of the scriptures to present an epistle to aid the struggling Corinthian church. In doing so he established a better format of deploying organizational force within the church while also exhorting the people to continue in the teachings of the apostles who only a generation earlier had begun to change the world.

Clement then is seen as the first pillar of the post-apostolic church who validated the continued use of the Old Testament, demonstrated use of what would become the New Testament and established what would be the hallmark of Roman Christianity: an intellectual approach based on reason and rhetoric in order to renew and refine the inner spirit of those who follow Christ. Therefore, it seems best to end with the words of Clement and his exhortation to a church founded by Paul but kept alive through his spiritual successors.

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.^[35]

^[1] Merrill Chapin Tenney, New Testament Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 324.

[2] Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation 2^nd edition (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2010), 46.

^[3] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Updated 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1995), 29.

^[4] Shelley, Church History , 40.

^[5] Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 147.

[6] Christianity was not recognized as an official religion at this time since it was firmly divided from Judaism.

^[7] James Stevenson, A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337 (London: SPCK, 1987), 6.

^[8] Josephus, The Life, Against Apion, ed. T. E. Page et al., trans. H. J. Thackeray, vol. I, The Loeb Classical Library (London; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann Ltd; Harvard University Press, 1966), 157–159.

[9] aka Clemens Romanus.

^[10] Jerome, “Lives of Illustrious Men,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Ernest Cushing Richardson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 366.

^[11] Ibid, 366.

^[12] Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, Thomas Nelson Publishers, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1995).

^[13] Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “Decrees of Fabian,” in Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, the Clementina, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 8, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 641.

^[14] Ibid, 122.

^[15] George Salmon, “Clemens Romanus,” ed. William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines (London: John Murray, 1877–1887), 554.

^[16] Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 5.

^[17] Pope Clement I et al., The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Kirsopp Lake, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1912–1913), 4–5.

^[18] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 363.

^[19] Henry Bettenson, ed., The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius, trans. Henry Bettenson (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 2.

^[20] Merrill Chapin Tenney, New Testament Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 338.

^[21] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale Reference Library (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 292.

^[22] Rick Brannan, “Apostolic Fathers,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

^[23] Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 147.

^[24] Henry Bettenson, ed., The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius, trans. Henry Bettenson (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 2.

^[25] Laurence L. Welborn, “Clement, First Epistle of,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1059.

^[26] Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 18.

^[27] Luke Timothy Johnson, Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009), 195.

^[28] Matthew A. Wilcoxen, “Clement, First Letter of,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

^[29] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale Reference Library (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 293.

^[30] Manlio Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 12.

^[31] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 416.

^[32] Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 428.

^[33] Origen, “De Principiis,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 273.

^[34] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Updated 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1995), 61–62.

^[35] Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 13.

The Life And Influence Of Clement Of Rome Cameron Conway is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Are you looking to develop your relationship with God and better understand the Bible? Pick up a copy of one of my books today.

Understanding Who You Are: A Survey of 21st Century Christian Beliefs
Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook
Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE

Six Minutes of Grace: The Key To Finding Happiness and Purpose
Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook
Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE

Six Minutes of Grace Journal
Amazon.com paperback | Amazon.ca paperback

Posted on June 23, 2021April 28, 2021 by Cameron Conway — Leave a comment

What was the Role of Jesus before the Incarnation

Where was Jesus before the incarnation? For many this is an unpopular question to ask even in light of contemporary viewpoints on the Trinity. Typically, Christians believe that Jesus suddenly sprang into action in the Fall of 5BC when he was born in a manger and became Immanuel (God with us) and was called Jesus (YHWH saves). However, a grander look at the Old Testament presents to us a different view of what we would call the second member of the Trinity. Not as one waiting in line to be incarnated but rather as an active and integral part of God’s interactions with His covenant people and creation in general.

My goal today is to demonstrate how Michael Heiser and others with a similar viewpoint understand Jesus as the culmination of the now heretical (in Jewish theology) view of the second YHWH, who interacted physically with God’s chosen people in the centuries prior to the incarnation in a way which preserves the Jewish Shema, the Christian concept of the Trinity and larger Ancient Near East religious narratives.

The Revealing of a Second YHWH

In the beginning we encounter in the garden of Eden not an ethereal deity floating amidst the garden in the “cool of the day,” but one who walked beside His creation. From this point on we have many instances of the supreme, omniscient, omnipotent God and creator interacting with His creation. How God goes about this however is a matter of debate, do we see God as all places at all times or do we see Him as a singularity at limited places at limited times, or in the language of the Trinity is it somehow both?

If we are to follow Trinitarian language, we would ascribe the first member of the Trinity (the Father) as the one being all places at all times in the fullness of eternity. We then could see the second member of the Trinity (the Son in New Testament language) as being a limited corporeal (viewable by natural eyes) version or expression of God which is able to coexist and interact with creation while maintaining the fullness of His divinity without unleashing His full presence and glory. It is still God yet a distinct person who takes on the role of a physical mediator or point of contact between the heavenly realm and the natural realm and is distinct from the Holy Spirit who is a spiritual/ethereal point of contact between the two realms.

The concept of an intermediary figure is not a new one as Jewish scholarship has shed light on this concept through the lens of,

various intermediary figures, such as angels and personified divine attributes, and the exalted role attributed to human figures such as Enoch, Moses, and Abel. It is thus quite possible that early Christianity’s view of Jesus, even the more developed Christology of John’s Gospel and later theologians, may owe more to Christianity’s Jewish roots.[1]

Furthermore, Benjamin Sommer states,

No Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one.[2]

This proposed understanding can remain valid through a Christian theological worldview as this intermediary is presented not as a created being assuming the attributes of God but rather we see according to Heiser, “God understood that only he could be trusted with perfectly accomplishing his own will.”^[3] Thus the necessity of God utilizing Himself in the form of a second YWHW or though the Christian understanding of the Trinity becomes paramount. This is especially true for Heiser who seeks to reintroduce the Jewish supernatural worldview which includes a divine council of elohims[4] to modern theology, with Christ now being the head of this council.

The Second YHWH “heresy” in Judaism

While it may be tempting to contain this argument within Christian theology there is a need to delve into the Rabbinic arguments which surround this concept of a second more corporeal YHWH who was present in the Old Testament. The best modern source of this debate comes from Alan Segal and his work The Two Powers in Heaven, there Segal states, “It became clear that ‘two powers in heaven’ was a very early category of heresy, earlier than Jesus.”[5] This shows in part that the theological foundation stones used by the church were not spontaneous but came from an older tradition which was hotly contested by intertestamental Rabbis. Research shows us that “there is significant evidence (uncovered in large part by Segal) that in the first century many— perhaps most— Jews held a binitarian doctrine of God,”[6] one in which Christians were able to understand through the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation.

Heiser points out that “In regard to the rabbinic material, Segal took note that the rabbinic justification for a second power, a second YHWH figure, was linked to passages such as Exodus 15:3 and Daniel 7:13. The former text portrayed YHWH, the God of Israel, as “a man of war.” The latter identified a second figure in the throne room of Israel’s God (the “Ancient of Days”) as a “human one” who bore the epithet of the cloud rider, elsewhere used only of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible.”[7]

Originally for some Rabbinic scholars the original issue was that the visible YHWH began to be ascribed to the likes of David and other “exalted” patriarchs, biblical angelic beings such as Michael and even extra-biblical beings such as Metatron and the fear was that these created beings would be elevated to the level of YHWH and in effect to either usurp or falsely claim YHWH’s power and position in heaven. It is no wonder then that following the resurrection this debate was sparked among Rabbis once again to discredit the Christian teaching that Christ was now equal with YHWH through this exalted status as the one seated at His right hand.

The matter is not that God became corporeal as it was generally accepted by Rabbis in the intertestamental era as “For the Tanakh… God has always been a corporeal being. For Christianity, in contrast, God deigned to take on a body at a particular moment in time; existence in a body was not part of the eternal essence of divinity. In short: Christians believe in incarnation, whereas the Tanakh simply believes in embodiment.”[8]

Ugaritic Roots of Second YHWH

While the controversy about this expression of God was expounded following the resurrection the debate goes back far further into the history of Israel. There is debate that this bitrintarin or co-regency model may have been inspired or reflected in the Ugaritic religious belief which permeated the Levant before and after Israel came out of Egypt. In the Ugaritic model Heiser points to how there is a divine council which “featured a co-regency involving a high sovereign deity (El) who ruled heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed co-regent deity (Ba’al). The co-regent Ba’al, referred to as “king of the gods” outranked the other deities in council, including the “sons of El” and divine messengers.”[9] From this revelation we can make several arguments, either the biblical account was inspired by the Ugaritic account, the biblical account was catered to counter or supersede the Ugaritic account or finally it may be a matter of a shared cultural starting point such as the tower of Babel incident.

No matter which hypothesis is correct the “end result was a binitarian or ditheistic portrayal of YHWHas both high sovereign (the “El role”) and the co-regent (the “Ba’al role”).[10] However, it is presented in the Old Testament as having YHWHoccupying both roles. It is no wonder why later on “Christ followers from within Judaism perceived in this co-regency structure a biblical precedent for the belief in Jesus as YHWHincarnate that maintained loyal monotheism to the God of Israel.” [11]

Jesus Before the Incarnation and the Angel of the LORD

With the Christian, Jewish and Ugaritic foundations laid out we can now begin to see how God through the second member of the Trinity which is equated with the preincarnate Christ interacted with creation at critical points in the development of the “redemption narrative.” Since God in this case could trust no one but Himself to accomplish the task through the guise of the word of the LORD, the Angel of the Lord or even the name of the LORD. In the case of Abraham in Genesis 22 we encounter a blurring of the lines between YHWH and His messenger. “The Angel speaks to Abraham in verse 11, and so is distinguished from God. But immediately after doing so, he commends Abraham for not withholding Isaac “from me.” There is a switch to the first person which, given that God himself had told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22:1–2), seems to require seeing YHWH as the speaker.^[12] For Heiser his view on the preexistence of the Trinity begins to be displayed in these earlier Genesis stories. He advocates strongly in favor that many (not all) instances of the angel of YHWH point towards the visible second member of the Trinity who became Jesus of Nazareth.

Going forward in the narrative the blurring of the lines between the angel and YHWH become even more complicated throughout the life of Jacob; both during the wrestling narrative and in his blessing of Joseph’s children. Heiser in a detailed study of the concept of Elohim highlights what transpires in Genesis 32:20 as Jacob speaks of seeing God (Elohim) face to face and his later comments in Genesis 48:15-16 how the angel (malak) is responsible for his deliverance and goes on to link those statements with Hosea 12:4-5 where “Hosea quite clearly refers to this particular malek as elohim… One must either interpret Gen 48.15-16 as an identification of the God of Israel as malek or grant that a particular malek is here considered a deity and identified with the God of Israel.”[13]

“By the time readers reached the exodus deliverance, YHWH and His angel had been closely identified with each other”[14] thanks to the language demonstrated throughout Genesis. When we come to the encounter between Moses and YHWH in Exodus 3 there is enough of a theological precedent to show the seriousness of the encounter. In this encounter we see interchangeable language used between YHWH and the angel and the possibility that it was more than a flame in the bush but the physical appearance of the Angel of the LORD who was in this instance the second member of the Trinity. Since Moses was commanded to remove his sandals due to the holiness of the encounter, something not seen with Gabriel appearing to Mary or Elizabeth.

Later in Exodus 23:20-22 the same angel reappears again but once again it seems to be no common angel as “this angel has the authority to pardon sins or not, a status that belongs to God. More specifically, God tells Moses that the reason this angel has this authority is “my name is in him” (v. 21).”^[15] Even at a surface glance this language is also clearly attributed to Jesus as being the one able to pardon sins, judge the people and having God’s name upon Him. We also cannot forget that the meaning of the name chosen by God and communicated through Gabriel for the incarnation of the second member of the Trinity was YHWH delivers (Joshua/Jesus).

Early Window into the Trinity

With everything we have witnessed about the Angel of YHWH and these interactions between the divine and His creation one begins to question the adherence of Israelites to their monotheism. The use of elohim and the appearance of a being who seems to share YHWH’s attributes may spark some theological confusion. Heiser comments, “one would assume in the context of a zealous monotheistic revolution that a term like elohim (‘gods’) would be used with great care after the biblical period so as to avoid any hint of earlier, subsequently offensive, polytheism. But this is precisely what does not happen.”[16] Instead we see that this kind of language, interpretation and expansions by the prophets continues unaltered, either in the language of the Angel of YHWH, theophanies and even in divine council language.

Among Old Testament Israelites we witness a “kind of practical monotheism, requiring a whole pattern of daily life and cultic worship formed by exclusive allegiance to the one God, presupposes a god who is in some way significantly identifiable.[17] While the Israelites (usually) remained devout to the idea of a single supreme deity and expression of Him thereof “it appears that the only real exception to this rule is found in some traditions involving the Son of Man…the Son of Man is said to exercise judgment on God’s behalf, having been placed on God’s throne… One could argue that this theology is actually generated directly from the implications of Dan. 7:13–14.”^[18]

The Ancient of Days language along with the claim of being the cloud rider is what drove the Pharisees over the edge in their illegal trail against Jesus. As Jesus called Himself equal with God and being the one who was coming on the clouds and having the right to sit at YHWH’s right hand. This is language familiar to the Pharisees on two fronts: as God’s promise of His coming Messianic reign, and as the superseding of Canaanite/Ugaritic language of Ba’al being the great warrior and cloud rider.

Unlike Canaanite/Ugaritic belief what is being advanced in this theology is God once again entrusting Himself through the person of the second member of the Trinity later incarnated into Jesus as being the one who had the right to rule and reign in His power. The Trinity then becomes the focus as God is not exalting a natural created being or a divine council member.^[19] While “in the Old Testament we do find, however, the provision of a functioning network and community for Yahweh in the divine council. He stands alone, but he does not work alone (i.e., no pantheon, but a functioning council).”[20] Instead we witness YHWH injecting Himself into creation so that the relationship and lines of communication can be restored through the culmination of the resurrection.

The Man, The Name, The Logos

In many instances of in the Old Testament such as Psalm 20 the use of the word “Name is clearly cast as an entity, as Yahweh himself, In other passages, “the Name” functions as a substitute word for Yahweh.”^[21] In John 5:43 Jesus speaks of coming in His Father’s name and later in John 10:25 Jesus speaks of how He does His mighty works through His Father’s name. When we go beyond the Western idea of a name as being an identifying mark and move to an Ancient Near Eastern view of a name giving function, identity, purpose and authority our understanding begins to change. Jesus is not just saying a magic formula but instead is the embodiment of the fullness of YHWH and by speaking of His name He is speaking of His essence. It is no wonder why the patriarchs would “call on the name of the LORD” (Gen 26:25). They were not invoking a recollection of a deity’s identity but calling for manifestation and presence of YHWH, or at the very least commemorating where that name appeared to them.

In Exodus 34:5 YHWH came down from the cloud and proclaimed His name, that is His presence, to them but in the Gospels we see Jesus and the presence of God moving about because it is the same person in Exodus 34 and in John 1. What all of this points to is that Jesus is YHWH and has manifested Himself to creation even before the incarnation. It shows us that “Jesus is no mere servant of God but participates in the unique divine sovereignty and is, therefore, intrinsic to the unique divine identity, he must be so eternally… for Jewish monotheists, no room even for servants of God to carry out his work at his command.”[22] Larry Hurtado confirms these assumptions by Bauchkam and Heiser by demonstrating:

(1) Jesus is exalted to a particular position, second only to the one God. (2) In this position, he acts by divinely granted authority and as God’s principal agent in the execution of God’s will. (3) He is directly associated with the one God and likened to him in certain ways (e.g., he is given the “name above every name”).[23]

Even the Apostle Paul realizes the implications of this, and it has been argued[24] that 1 Corinthians 8:6 was his reformation of the Shema to demonstrate Christ’s divinity. There “he is arguing that the early Jewish definition of God could include the person of the Son without a violation of monotheism.”^[25]

Conclusion

What we have witnessed from Michael Heiser and others is how if Jesus is divine and eternal then His role in the history of creation did not begin in 5BC. Rather we can argue that Jesus the second member of the Trinity has always been the point of contact between YHWH and creation at key moments in history. Appearing either as embodied YHWH, the Angel of YHWH (at times) the name of the YHWH, or even the Word of YHWH (1 Samuel 3).

Through the Rabbinic history and even the Ugaritic material we see the foundations of a co-regency model and type of bitrintarian fluidity which the early Christians recognized and used as proof of Jesus’s claims of divinity. Heiser through his attention to the Intertestamental theological records and Ancient Near Eastern studies provides a compelling framework to recognize the Trinity in a greater way in the Old Testament without sacrificing monotheism. Instead Heiser has returned our attention to YHWH as the one seeking to reconnect with humanity through the person of the second member of the Trinity.

[1]James F. McGrath, The Only True God : Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context (Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 9, ProQuest Ebook Central.

[2] Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) 135. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=286479&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

^[3] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 240.

[4] Non-fallen created spiritual beings of a lower rank than YWHW

[5] Daniel, Boyarin,“Two Powers in Heaven; or, The Making of a Heresy,” pages 331-370 in The idea of biblical interpretation : Essays in honor of James L. Kugel, edited by H. Najman, et al., (BRILL, 2003), 333, ProQuest Ebook Central

[6] Boyarin, 334.

[7] Michael S. Heiser. “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 26, no. 2 (2016): 196.

[8] Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) 135. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=286479&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

[9] Michael S. Heiser. “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 26, no. 2 (2016): 197.

[10] Heiser, 198.

[11] Heiser, 225.

^[12] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 136.

[13] Michael Heiser, “Should אלה ים (ʾĕlōhîm) with plural predication be translated “gods”?” The Bible Translator vol. 61, no. 3 (July 2010): 127.

[14] Michael S. Heiser. “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 26, no. 2 (2016): 218.

^[15] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 143.

[16] Michael S. Heiser, “Monotheism and the Language of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Tyndale Bulletin 65.1 (2014): 90.

[17] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel : God Crucified and Other Essays on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Authentic Media, 2008), 6, ProQuest Ebook Central.

^[18] Ben Witherington III and Laura M. Ice, The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 69.

^[19] Theodore Hiebert, “Theophany in the OT,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 510–511.

[20] John H.Walton, Old Testament Theology for Christians : From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief (InterVarsity Press, 2017), 38, ProQuest Ebook Central,

^[21] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 144.

[22] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Essays on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Authentic Media, 2008), 26, ProQuest Ebook Central.

[23] Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. Vol. Third edition (T&T Clark Cornerstones. London, UK: T&T Clark, 2015), 103, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=1030749&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

[24] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Essays on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Authentic Media, 2008), 213, ProQuest Ebook Central.

^[25] Ben Witherington III and Laura M. Ice, The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 67–68.

What was the Role of Jesus before the IncarnationCameron Conway is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Are you looking to develop your relationship with God and better understand the Bible? Pick up a copy of one of my books today.

Understanding Who You Are: A Survey of 21st Century Christian Beliefs
Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook
Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE

Six Minutes of Grace: The Key To Finding Happiness and Purpose
Amazon.com paperback, eBook | Amazon.ca paperback, eBook
Indigo, iBook, Nook and more HERE

Six Minutes of Grace Journal
Amazon.com paperback | Amazon.ca paperback

Posted on June 16, 2021April 28, 2021 by Cameron Conway — Leave a comment

It is A Process of Systematic Reflection

It Helps Decouple Us from Cultural Biases

Theology Provides an Overarching Framework to Understand the Scriptures

Theology Gives Language to Our Mission

Share this:

Like this:

The Background of the Epistle to the Philippians

The Town of Philippi

Paul’s Purpose for Writing Philippians

Philippians 2 in Context

Understanding Philippians 2

Unity

Humility

Servanthood

Exaltation

Authority

Submission

Applying the Text Today

The Christian’s Responsibility

The Christian’s Expectation

The Work of Responsibility Brings with it the Benefits of Expectation

Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

John 15:9-17 Within the Narrative of the Gospel of John

Understanding the Meaning Behind “Friend”

Old Testament Precedents Concerning Friendship

Cultural Backgrounds of Friendship

Second Temple era Jewish Cultural Influences

Hellenistic Cultural Influences

The Impact of John 15:9-17 on its Original Audience

Initiated by Jesus

Friend of God: A One-Way Designation

Love and Obedience

Expectation to Go and Bear Fruit

Possible Applications of John 15:9-17

Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

Setting the Stage

Who Was Clement of Rome?

The Epistle to the Corinthians

The Legacy of Clement of Rome

Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

The Revealing of a Second YHWH

The Second YHWH “heresy” in Judaism

Ugaritic Roots of Second YHWH

Jesus Before the Incarnation and the Angel of the LORD

Early Window into the Trinity

The Man, The Name, The Logos

Conclusion

Share this:

Like this: