Skip to main content

Christ but not Jesus?

In response to an earlier post on Christian preaching of the Old Testament Bob MacDonald makes the intriguing suggestion that perhaps not all NT references to Christ refer exclusively to Jesus.  I have to be honest I find this highly problematic on a number of fronts, but wasn't sure which particular texts Bob might have in mind.  When pressed he suggests Col 1:24, "in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is the church."  To me the reference to "affliction" (θλῖψις) unmistakably invokes Jesus' passion.  In the gospels this word is usually used of eschatalogical tribulation, not Jesus' suffering per se, but in Paul's letters it is mainly used to talk about suffering caused by external circumstances, e.g. Rom 5:3, 1 Cor 7:28, 1 Thess 1:6.  Not only that but in Colossians it is a particular suffering for Christ's body the church.  (This idea of the church as Christ's body frequently causes confusion, but it is simply a possesive genitive, the body corporate that belongs to Christ.)  Now in Paul's thinking who suffered for the sake of the church's salvation? Was it a nebulous formless cosmic "Christ" or was it the human Jesus, the Christ, who suffered and died "in his fleshly body . . . so as to present [the church] holy and blameless and irreproachable before him."(Col 1:23)? 

Now none of this solves the problem of what Paul finds lacking in Christ's sufferings, or how his suffering helps complete it, but that is a topic for another post.  Suffice to say I'm not convinved that the NT ever talks about Christ with out exclusively intending to denote Jesus.


  1. you make a good lexical point. I look forward to your thoughts on the other problems...
    "None of thsi solves the problem of what Paul finds lacking in Christ's sufferings..."

  2. nebulous and formless - reminds me of tohu vebohu which is where we read that the Spirit of God broods. Perhaps when we say 'Christ' or 'truths' about Christ in our various confessions, we fail to remember how 'God is Spirit' - and thus fail to see how it is 'the Anointing' that makes us in God's image. It is not a nebulous and formless Christ - but a nebulous and formless us which is the subject of the specific brooding of this Spirit.

  3. Thanks Justin and Bob.
    @ Bob, yes but even the Spirit finds concrete form as the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the slain and resurrected historical messiah of God's people. I For Paul the concrete realisation of the Spirit's presence (e.g. Gal 5, 1 Cor 12-14, Rom 12-14) is really not something that is fuzzy and vague but hard evidence of Christ's redeeming work.

  4. Jonathon - 'yes but' is a response I recognize. It shows a failure to listen - hear O Israel the Lord our God, the Lord is one. - the hearing is the hard part.

  5. Tov - ani zaqen - pardon my being so blunt. I am not in search of answers as much as I want to refine the questions. My perception is that no one has the 'answer' right - or we would not be so at each other's throats.

    Generic citations of whole chapters of Paul are not helpful. I will continue to think of the issues over the next 6 months. I am still immersed in TNK - but today I visited some Christian shrines in Israel at En Kerem - so perhaps I am being called back into some NT work.

  6. Sorry Bob, I thought you wanted to discuss the issue, I didn't realise that you weren't interested in evidence. My mistake.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Sorry about this - clearly a false start - and no finish possible in a short time. - I cannot pursue this further at the moment.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms …

Dale Martin does Mark

Dale Martin is an important and frequently controversial NT scholar. Those of us who can't make it to Yale to hear him teach can access some of his lectures, in fact his entire introduction to the NT course, through the magic of the internet.

Here he is holding forth on Mark . . .