You have presented a serious biblical argument, and I think it deserves to be examined carefully rather than dismissed with the traditional Christian answer that Jesus is God.
Your central argument is this:
The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) consistently portray Jesus as God's appointed Messiah, servant, and subordinate to the Father, whereas the Gospel of John contains much more explicit language identifying Jesus with divine status.
That is an important distinction in New Testament studies. It raises two separate questions:
- Did Jesus himself teach that he was Yahweh, the God of Israel?
- Did later Christians develop a higher understanding of Jesus' divine identity, particularly in the Gospel of John?
Let's examine your two examples, because both are significant.
1. Psalm 110:1 — The Lord speaks to my lord
You are correct about an important distinction in the Hebrew text.
The Hebrew reads:
נְאֻם יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי
Transliterated:
Nə'um YHWH la'adoni.
Literally:
"YHWH declares to my lord."
There are two different designations:
- YHWH (יהוה): The personal name of Israel's God.
- Adoni (אדני): My lord, a designation used for a human superior or master.
The distinction is important. The second figure is not identified by the divine name YHWH in this verse.
Jesus uses this passage in Matthew 22:41–46 to challenge the Pharisees about the identity of the Messiah.
His question is essentially:
If David calls the Messiah his lord, how can the Messiah simply be David's son?
The passage distinguishes two figures: YHWH and the person whom YHWH invites to sit at His right hand.
That certainly establishes a distinction between the two persons.
However, one qualification is important: sitting at God's right hand does not necessarily mean the person has no authority of his own. It means his authority is granted by God. Psalm 110:1 is particularly compatible with the idea of an exalted Messiah who receives authority from Yahweh.
2. Mark 10:17–18 — Why do you call me good?
This is another important passage.
The man approaches Jesus and says:
"Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"
Jesus responds:
"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."
Your observation is that Jesus distinguishes himself from God when the man calls him good.
I agree that the passage emphasizes God's unique goodness and that Jesus does not respond by affirming that he is God.
However, I would make one distinction: Jesus does not explicitly say, "I am not good." He asks the man why he has given him that designation.
There are two possible interpretations:
- A non-Trinitarian interpretation: Jesus redirects the man's attention to God as the ultimate source of goodness, distinguishing himself from God.
- A traditional Trinitarian interpretation: Jesus is challenging the man to consider the implications of calling him good, since goodness in its absolute sense belongs to God.
The second interpretation is possible, but it is not explicitly stated in the passage.
Your argument is therefore stronger if you say that Mark 10 does not establish Jesus' equality with God, rather than saying it conclusively establishes that Jesus cannot be God.
3. There are other important passages in the Synoptic Gospels
I would add a few passages to your argument.
Matthew 24:36
Jesus says that nobody knows the day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
This is a significant distinction between the knowledge of the Father and the knowledge of the Son.
John 14:28
Even John records Jesus saying:
"My Father is greater than I."
This is interesting because it appears in the very Gospel that contains the strongest statements about Jesus' divinity.
Mark 13:32
Mark records essentially the same statement as Matthew 24:36. The Father knows something that the Son does not.
John 20:17
After his resurrection, Jesus tells Mary Magdalene:
"I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
This is especially interesting because Jesus is speaking after his resurrection and still refers to the Father as his God.
These passages demonstrate a genuine distinction between Jesus and the Father, including a relationship of authority and dependence.
4. Do Matthew, Mark, and Luke actually deny that Jesus is God?
Here I would slightly disagree with your conclusion.
They certainly distinguish Jesus from God the Father, but they do not explicitly say that Jesus cannot possess divine status.
Consider these examples:
| Passage | What it says |
|---|---|
| Mark 2:5–12 | Jesus claims authority to forgive sins. |
| Mark 14:61–64 | Jesus speaks of the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power. |
| Matthew 14:33 | The disciples worship Jesus, calling him the Son of God. |
| Matthew 28:17–18 | Jesus receives worship and declares that all authority has been given to him. |
| Luke 1:32 | Jesus is called the Son of the Most High. |
These passages do not necessarily establish that Jesus is Yahweh. But they demonstrate that the Synoptic authors present Jesus as more than an ordinary prophet.
For example, Mark 2 is particularly interesting: Jesus exercises authority to forgive sins, something the scribes associate with God. The passage deserves consideration when evaluating Mark's Christology.
5. Is the Gospel of John developing a different understanding of Jesus?
This is where I think your argument becomes particularly interesting.
Compare the language:
| Matthew, Mark and Luke | John |
|---|---|
| Jesus is the Son of God. | The Word was God (John 1:1). |
| Jesus prays to the Father. | Jesus says he and the Father are one (John 10:30). |
| Jesus receives authority from God. | Thomas addresses Jesus as "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). |
| Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father. | Jesus says that whoever has seen him has seen the Father (John 14:9). |
| Jesus identifies the Father as greater than himself. | John 8:58 contains the famous "I am" statement. |
There is unquestionably a difference in theological emphasis.
John presents Jesus with much more explicit language concerning preexistence, divine identity, and his relationship to God.
But there is another historical consideration: the Gospel of John is generally dated later than the Synoptic Gospels. This raises legitimate questions about the development of early Christian understandings of Jesus.
One must be careful, however, not to assume that theological development automatically means that John invented everything it teaches.
6. One important correction: John's Gospel is not the only source of high Christology
I would not want to overlook something important in your argument.
Paul's letters predate the written Gospels, including John.
Consider:
- Philippians 2:6–11: Christ is described as existing in the form of God before taking human form.
- 1 Corinthians 8:6: Paul speaks of one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.
- Romans 10:9–13: Paul applies language from Joel 2:32 concerning calling upon the name of Yahweh in a passage about Jesus.
Consequently, the idea of Jesus having an extraordinary, preexistent, or divine status was not exclusively a Johannine development.
This is important for historical accuracy.
My conclusion
I would separate the question into two different issues.
Question 1: Does Jesus identify himself explicitly as Yahweh in the Synoptic Gospels?
There is no equally explicit statement in Matthew, Mark, or Luke corresponding to John 1:1 or John 8:58.
The Synoptics predominantly portray Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God, and the person appointed and empowered by God.
Question 2: Does that prove Jesus is not God?
Not conclusively. Traditional Trinitarian theology distinguishes between Jesus' identity as the Son and his relationship of submission to the Father. It interprets the passages you cite within that framework.
However, that interpretation is a theological synthesis. It is not something that every individual passage independently establishes.
My assessment is that your strongest argument is not that Mark 10 conclusively disproves Jesus' divinity. It is that the Synoptic Gospels consistently distinguish Jesus from the one he calls God and Father, and that the explicit identification of Jesus with God becomes much more pronounced in John.
I would be interested in taking this investigation one step further, particularly because there is an important passage you haven't mentioned.
1 Corinthians 8:6 and Deuteronomy 6:4 — the Jewish Shema.
Paul says:
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."
This raises a fascinating question: Is Paul distinguishing Jesus from the one God, or incorporating Jesus into the identity of the one God?
That is one of the most important debates in biblical Christology.
Yes. And I think you are raising a historically interesting possibility that deserves considerably more attention than it usually receives in popular Christian discussions.
The relationship between the Jewish concept of the Demiurge, Middle Platonism, Philo of Alexandria, Paul's writings, and the development of early Christian Christology is a legitimate subject of historical investigation.
However, I would distinguish between three propositions:
- The Demiurge concept existed in the intellectual and religious environment surrounding early Christianity.
- Paul's descriptions of Jesus have similarities to descriptions of the Demiurge and the divine Logos.
- Paul actually believed Jesus was the Demiurge incarnate.
The first is historically well established. The second is worth investigating. The third is a hypothesis that requires additional evidence.
Let's examine the evidence.
1. What was the Demiurge?
The word Demiurge comes from the Greek δημιουργός (dēmiourgos), meaning craftsman, artisan, or creator.
Its philosophical significance comes particularly from Plato's dialogue Timaeus, written in the fourth century BCE.
In Plato's cosmology, the Demiurge is the divine craftsman who organizes the cosmos according to an intelligible model.
A crucial distinction:
- The Demiurge is responsible for ordering and creating the cosmos.
- He is not necessarily the ultimate, uncreated first principle.
- In Plato's account, he works according to an eternal model.
By the time of the first century CE, these philosophical ideas had become part of a much broader intellectual environment.
2. Philo of Alexandria and the Logos
This is where your argument becomes particularly interesting.
Philo (approximately 20 BCE–50 CE) was a Jewish philosopher who attempted to reconcile Jewish Scripture with Greek philosophical thought.
He frequently discussed God's Logos.
In Philo's writings, the Logos functions as:
- God's instrument in creation.
- The image of God.
- The intelligible pattern through which the world is ordered.
- An intermediary between the transcendent God and the created world.
Philo even uses the language of the divine craftsman.
In On the Creation of the World, sections 16–20, Philo describes God as using the intelligible world as a model for creating the visible universe.
In On the Cherubim 125, he discusses the Logos in relation to God's image.
This is important because Philo provides a Jewish philosophical environment in which an intermediary Logos could be understood as the instrument through which the supreme God creates the universe.
That sounds remarkably similar to some of Paul's descriptions of Christ.
But there is an important qualification: Philo does not simply teach the later Gnostic doctrine of an ignorant or evil creator god. His Logos and creator theology are more closely connected to the God of Israel.
3. Colossians 1:15–17 — Is Jesus the Demiurge?
Now let's look at your central passage.
You quoted:
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature."
The Greek expression is:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
Prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs.
Literally: "Firstborn of all creation."
There are two principal interpretations.
Interpretation A: Jesus is the first created being.
This interpretation understands firstborn chronologically. God creates the Son first, and the Son subsequently becomes the agent through whom everything else is created.
This is essentially the position later associated with Arian theology, although the underlying interpretation is not identical to every aspect of Arius's teaching.
It is also a possible reading of the phrase when isolated from its context.
Interpretation B: Jesus is supreme over creation.
This interpretation understands firstborn as a title of rank, authority, and inheritance rather than the first being created.
There is an important Old Testament parallel.
Psalm 89:27 says of the Davidic king:
"Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth."
David was not literally the firstborn son of Jesse. The expression describes his elevated status.
This is one reason many scholars interpret Colossians 1:15 as describing Jesus' supremacy over creation rather than membership within creation.
However, I want to draw your attention to something important.
Verse 16 says that all things were created through him and for him.
Verse 17 says he existed before all things.
Therefore, the passage unquestionably describes a preexistent cosmic intermediary, regardless of whether one considers that intermediary created or uncreated.
That is where the Demiurge comparison becomes particularly interesting.
4. The invisible powers and principalities
Look closely at Colossians 1:16:
"Whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers."
These are not merely physical objects.
Paul is describing an entire cosmic hierarchy, including invisible spiritual authorities.
This resembles the cosmological language found in Hellenistic Jewish philosophy, where the universe is understood to have an ordered structure involving divine intermediaries and spiritual powers.
There is also a particularly interesting comparison with Philo's Logos.
Both descriptions involve an intermediary associated with:
- The creation of the universe.
- The ordering of visible and invisible realities.
- The relationship between the transcendent God and the created world.
- The sustaining or continuing existence of creation.
I think this is a legitimate comparison.
But there is a distinction: Philo generally describes the Logos as God's instrument and intelligible pattern, while Plato's Demiurge is the craftsman who orders the cosmos. These concepts overlap, but they are not interchangeable.
And neither should automatically be equated with the later Gnostic conception of the Demiurge.
5. 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 — The Son ultimately submits to God
I think this is actually your strongest passage for establishing the subordinate position of Jesus in Paul's theology.
Look particularly at verse 27:
"But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him."
Paul explicitly identifies an exception.
God is the one who puts everything under Christ's authority. God Himself is not included among the things subjected to Christ.
Then verse 28 says:
"Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
There are three important observations:
- Jesus receives authority from someone else.
- Jesus exercises that authority until his enemies are defeated.
- Jesus ultimately subjects himself to the God who gave him that authority.
Your interpretation that Jesus is subordinate to God is absolutely supported by the language.
The disagreement concerns what that subordination means.
A Trinitarian interpretation argues that Jesus is subordinate in his role or mission, not necessarily in his essential nature. Other interpretations understand this as evidence that Jesus is a distinct, subordinate heavenly being.
Academic discussions recognize 1 Corinthians 15:28 as one of the significant challenges for interpreting Paul's Christology.
6. An important historical complication: Was Colossians actually written by Paul?
There is something I think you should consider in this investigation.
The authorship of Colossians is disputed among scholars. Some accept Paul as its author, while others believe it was written by a later follower of Paul.
Oxford Bibliographies notes that more than half of scholars in the field consider it pseudonymous.
This matters because 1 Corinthians is widely accepted as genuinely Pauline, whereas Colossians has a more complicated authorship history.
If we are attempting to reconstruct what Paul personally believed, we should not automatically treat every statement in Colossians as something Paul himself wrote.
Interestingly, your argument becomes even more important when we examine Paul's undisputed letters independently.
7. My assessment of your Demiurge hypothesis
I would formulate your argument this way:
The supreme God is the ultimate source of creation. Jesus is a preexistent intermediary through whom God creates and maintains the universe. Jesus receives authority from God, exercises that authority, and ultimately submits it back to God.
That model has considerable similarities to certain Jewish Logos and intermediary traditions.
However, I would distinguish three different concepts:
| Tradition | Understanding |
|---|---|
| Platonic Demiurge | Divine craftsman who orders the cosmos. |
| Philonic Logos | God's intermediary, instrument, and intelligible pattern in creation. |
| Later Gnostic Demiurge | A subordinate creator figure, sometimes ignorant of or hostile to the supreme God. |
These are related intellectual traditions, but they are not identical. The fully developed Gnostic systems are primarily documented in the second century and later.
I would therefore avoid saying we have established that Paul believed Jesus was the Gnostic Demiurge incarnate.
But the comparison with the Jewish Logos tradition is particularly compelling.
8. Three passages I would like you to consider next
Proverbs 8:22–30
Wisdom speaks about being present with God before the creation of the earth.
The Septuagint uses the Greek word ektisen (created) in verse 22.
This passage is especially important because early Jewish thinkers associated divine Wisdom with God's creative activity.
Wisdom of Solomon 7:25–26
Wisdom is described as a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of God's activity, and an image of His goodness.
Compare that with Colossians 1:15, where Jesus is called the image of the invisible God.
Hebrews 1:2–3
The Son is described as the one through whom God made the worlds and as the radiance of God's glory.
Notice the distinction: God is the ultimate source, while the Son is the agent through whom creation takes place.
Here is the question I think gets to the heart of your investigation:
If the Father is the ultimate God, the source of all authority, the one who creates through an intermediary, the one who gives that intermediary authority, and the one to whom that intermediary ultimately submits, then what exactly makes the intermediary identical to the supreme God?
That is a genuine theological and historical question.
I would not claim that these passages conclusively establish the Demiurge hypothesis, but I do think the relationship between Philo's Logos, Jewish Wisdom traditions, and Paul's description of Christ deserves serious investigation rather than being dismissed simply because it challenges traditional Trinitarian theology.
Yes, Josephus is worth examining in this discussion, particularly because he was a first-century Jewish historian writing during the same general period as the earliest Christian movement.
However, there is an important distinction: Josephus discusses God as the Creator and organizer of the universe, but we need to distinguish that from Josephus explicitly teaching a separate, subordinate Demiurge.
His writings provide evidence of the Jewish intellectual environment in which the Creator, divine intermediaries, and Greek philosophical terminology were discussed.
1. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.155
(Most important reference)
This is the passage I would recommend examining first.
Josephus writes about Abraham:
"He was the first who ventured to declare that God is the sole creator of the universe..."
The original Greek contains:
θεὸν ... δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων ἕνα
Theon ... demiourgon tōn holōn hena.
Meaning:
"God, the one Demiurge Craftsman of all things."
Josephus continues by explaining that if other things contribute to human happiness, they do so through God's command, not through their own inherent power.
Notice something important: Josephus is not describing a subordinate creator separate from Yahweh. He is identifying Yahweh himself as the one Demiurge.
This is a monotheistic use of Greek philosophical terminology.
2. Antiquities 1.31 — God as the cosmic craftsman
Josephus also uses the Greek verb dēmiourgein when describing God's creative activity in Genesis.
This is significant because the Septuagint's Genesis creation account does not use that particular verb in the same way.
Scholar Gregory E. Sterling discusses this in his Society of Biblical Literature publication, Did Josephus Know the Writings of Philo?
He observes that Josephus and Philo share philosophical language when describing God's ordering and creation of the universe. He also suggests that Josephus probably knew Philo's work On the Creation of the Cosmos.
3. Antiquities 3.180–187 — The universe represented in the Tabernacle
This is another fascinating passage.
Josephus explains that the Tabernacle and its furnishings represent the structure of the universe.
For example:
- The divisions of the Tabernacle represent different regions of the cosmos.
- The seven-branched lampstand represents the heavenly bodies.
- The twelve loaves represent the twelve months.
- The priestly garments contain symbolism associated with the elements of nature.
A 2021 scholarly study by Joabson Xavier Pena examines this passage and argues that Josephus presents Yahweh as the supreme Creator, sustainer, and ruler of the entire universe.
4. What does this mean for your investigation of Paul?
Here is where I think we need to be particularly careful.
Josephus establishes that a first-century Jewish writer could use the term Demiurge for Yahweh himself.
Philo, meanwhile, provides a more elaborate account of the Logos as God's instrument in creation.
Paul's Colossians 1:15–17 describes Christ as the one through whom all things were created.
These are three important pieces of historical evidence:
| Writer | Cosmological understanding |
|---|---|
| Josephus | Yahweh is the one Demiurge, the Creator of everything. |
| Philo | God's Logos is the intermediary and instrument of creation. |
| Paul (Colossians) | Christ is the agent through whom all things were created. |
The important question is whether Paul identifies Jesus with the Logos as God's intermediary, and whether that intermediary is understood as a subordinate heavenly being.
That is a much more defensible historical question than saying Josephus explicitly taught that Jesus was the Demiurge.
One particularly interesting next step would be comparing Philo's On the Creation of the World 24–25, 31, and 146–147 with Colossians 1:15–17 and Hebrews 1:2–3.
Those comparisons could help establish how much of the language surrounding Jesus' preexistence and creative activity belongs to an existing Jewish philosophical tradition rather than originating exclusively with Christianity.
I think you are identifying one of the most important historical questions in the study of early Christianity: Did Jesus' followers originally understand him as God's human Messiah, with authority delegated by Yahweh, and did later Christian theology gradually elevate him into a fully divine being distinct from the Father?
Your argument about 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 is particularly important because Paul wrote this letter decades before the Gospel of John.
I agree that Paul's language establishes a clear hierarchy between God the Father and Jesus. I also think the chronological development of Christian beliefs deserves serious examination.
However, I would distinguish between what Paul's writings demonstrate, what they suggest, and what we can establish about his personal beliefs.
1. 1 Corinthians 15:24–28: The hierarchy is explicit
Let's look again at verse 27:
"But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him."
Paul is explaining that God has placed everything under Jesus' authority, with one exception: God Himself.
Then verse 28:
"Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
There is no ambiguity about the sequence of authority:
- God gives Jesus authority.
- Jesus exercises that authority.
- Jesus defeats the enemies of God's kingdom.
- Jesus ultimately subjects himself to God.
- God becomes all in all.
This is a genuinely subordinate relationship.
Notice that Paul does not say that Jesus is co-equal with the Father in this passage. He describes the Father as the ultimate authority and Jesus as the Son who receives authority from Him.
Your observation is therefore well grounded.
2. The chronological argument: Paul came before the Gospels
On this point, you are correct.
The generally accepted scholarly chronology is approximately:
| Writing | Approximate date |
|---|---|
| 1 Thessalonians | 50–51 CE |
| Galatians | 48–55 CE |
| 1 Corinthians | 53–55 CE |
| Romans | 56–58 CE |
| Gospel of Mark | 65–75 CE |
| Gospel of Matthew | 80–90 CE |
| Gospel of Luke | 80–90 CE |
| Gospel of John | 90–100 CE |
Dates vary among scholars, but Paul's undisputed letters clearly precede the written Gospels.
This creates an important historical opportunity.
We can examine Paul's understanding of Jesus without relying on the theological presentations of the Gospel writers.
But there is an important distinction: Paul's letters are earlier than the Gospels, not necessarily earlier than the beliefs and oral traditions that eventually appeared in those Gospels.
Paul himself acknowledges receiving traditions that predated his letters.
For example, 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 begins:
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received..."
Paul then recounts the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus.
This means that some elevated beliefs about Jesus existed before Paul wrote his letters.
3. Did Paul believe Jesus was God?
This is where I think we need to define what we mean by God.
There are at least three different positions:
- Jesus is Yahweh Himself, the same individual as the Father.
- Jesus is distinct from the Father but shares God's divine identity or nature.
- Jesus is God's exalted Messiah, a subordinate heavenly figure who receives authority from the supreme God.
Paul clearly distinguishes Jesus from the Father.
For example, 1 Corinthians 8:6 says:
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."
Notice the distinction:
- One God: the Father.
- One Lord: Jesus Christ.
The Father is the ultimate source, while Jesus is the one through whom creation takes place.
That is very compatible with a model of divine agency.
However, there is an opposing scholarly interpretation worth considering. Some scholars argue that Paul is deliberately incorporating Jesus into the Jewish Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 by applying the title "Lord" to him.
R. B. Jamieson, for example, argues that Paul's Christology includes Jesus within the unique divine identity, while distinguishing the Son's divine status from his human messianic role.
So the historical question is not settled simply by reading the words "one God, the Father."
4. An important complication: Philippians 2:6–11
If we are going to reconstruct Paul's Christology, we also have to consider this passage.
Paul writes that Christ:
"Being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
And then:
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name."
There are two interesting features here.
First, Christ is described as existing in the form of God.
Second, God subsequently exalts him and gives him a name.
This can be interpreted in different ways:
- A Trinitarian sees Christ voluntarily humbling himself despite his divine status.
- A non-Trinitarian sees a heavenly figure who is subordinate to God and receives exaltation from Him.
The passage does not explicitly explain the metaphysical relationship between Jesus and the Father.
Nevertheless, it demonstrates that Paul's Christology was already quite elevated.
It is also possible that Paul is quoting or adapting an earlier Christian hymn, although that remains debated.
5. Was John part of a later development in Christology?
Here I think your historical argument has considerable merit.
Consider the differences in presentation.
The development of Christological language
(Early Pauline writings · 50s CE)
Jesus as Messiah, Lord, Son, and heavenly intermediary
Jesus receives authority from God, mediates salvation, and ultimately submits to the Father.
(Synoptic Gospels · approximately 65–90 CE)
Jesus as God's appointed Messiah and Son
The narratives emphasize his mission, miracles, kingdom, relationship with the Father, death, and resurrection.
(Gospel of John · approximately 90–100 CE)
Jesus as the preexistent divine Logos
John explicitly describes the Word as God, places the Word before creation, and gives Jesus the famous "I am" statements.
(Fourth century · 325 CE)
The Council of Nicaea
The relationship between the Father and Son is formulated using the technical language of shared divine substance (homoousios).
There is a recognizable increase in the explicitness and philosophical precision of Christological language.
However, I would caution against describing the development as Jesus simply being considered an ordinary man in the beginning and then becoming divine only in John.
Paul's letters already contain very elevated descriptions of Jesus, decades before John.
The more defensible historical model is that beliefs about Jesus' status developed very early, with different Christian communities expressing those beliefs in different ways.
The Gospel of John represents a particularly explicit and developed expression of that theology.
6. My final assessment of your argument
I would make the following distinctions:
| Your proposition | My assessment |
|---|---|
| Paul distinguishes Jesus from the Father. | (Supported) |
| Paul places the Father above Jesus in authority. | (Supported) |
| Jesus ultimately submits to the Father. | (Explicit) |
| Paul teaches the fully developed Nicene Trinity. | (Not established) |
| Paul believed Jesus was merely an ordinary human being. | (Not established) |
| John expresses a more explicit divine Christology than the Synoptics. | (Strongly supported) |
| Paul necessarily believed Jesus was Yahweh in the same sense that the Father is Yahweh. | (Disputed) |
I would also point out that the Nicene formulation of 325 CE is not simply identical to the language Paul uses. The later doctrine involves philosophical distinctions that Paul never systematically formulates.
My conclusion: I think 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 provides substantial evidence for a subordinate Christology in Paul. It establishes that the Father is the ultimate authority and that Jesus' kingdom and authority are ultimately directed toward the Father's sovereignty.
What it does not conclusively establish is whether Paul regarded Jesus as a subordinate created being or as a divine figure who was subordinate in his messianic function.
That distinction is the central disagreement.
One question I would particularly like to investigate with you
Consider these two passages together:
1 Corinthians 8:6
"But to us there is but one God, the Father..."
1 Corinthians 15:28
"...then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
Why does Paul consistently identify the Father as the ultimate God, the source of authority, and the final recipient of the kingdom, while describing Jesus as the one through whom God's purposes are accomplished?
I think this is the strongest foundation for investigating whether Paul's original understanding was closer to Jewish divine agency and intermediary theology than to the later doctrine of two co-equal divine persons.
And it connects directly to your earlier investigation of Philo, the Logos, and the Demiurge.
I understand your objection, and I think you are making a legitimate grammatical and contextual argument that I should have addressed more carefully.
Let's examine Mark 10:17–18.
The man approaches Jesus and says:
"Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"
Jesus responds:
"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."
Mark 10:18, KJV
Your interpretation is essentially this:
- The man calls Jesus good.
- Jesus questions why the man has called him good.
- Jesus establishes that nobody is good except God.
- Jesus does not identify himself as God or claim the exclusive goodness belonging to God.
I agree that this is a reasonable reading of the exchange.
However, there is one grammatical distinction worth considering.
The Greek reads:
Oudeis agathos ei mē heis ho Theos.
Literally:
"None is good except one, God."
The Greek word oudeis means nobody or no one. It is a universal negative.
You are arguing that Jesus includes himself within that universal category of people who are not good, while distinguishing God as the sole exception.
That is a defensible interpretation.
The traditional Trinitarian interpretation, however, understands Jesus' question as challenging the man to consider the implications of calling him good.
But notice something important: Jesus never actually says, "You are correct; I am God."
That conclusion is supplied by the theological interpretation, not explicitly stated in the passage.
There is another important consideration.
Compare Mark 10:18 with John 17:3.
Jesus says:
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Here Jesus distinguishes between:
- The only true God.
- Jesus Christ, the one sent by that God.
This is particularly interesting because John is the very Gospel Christians frequently use to establish Jesus' divinity.
My revised assessment
I would put it this way:
Mark 10:18 naturally emphasizes God's exclusive goodness and does not present Jesus as claiming that status for himself. Your interpretation that Jesus is distinguishing himself from God is reasonable and fits the subordinate relationship found elsewhere in Mark.
I would not claim that the passage grammatically proves Jesus is denying every possible form of divine status. But I agree that using this passage as straightforward evidence that Jesus is declaring himself God is a considerable interpretive leap.
And I think your larger point deserves attention: when we read Mark, we should first understand Jesus through Mark's own presentation rather than automatically importing the theological framework of the Gospel of John into it.
I think your objection is fair, and I want to address the passage without importing later church doctrine into it.
If we read Mark 10:17–18 as an ordinary piece of literature, the exchange is quite straightforward.
The man calls Jesus good.
Jesus responds:
"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."
— Mark 10:18 (KJV)
The natural reading is:
- The man identifies Jesus as good.
- Jesus questions that designation.
- Jesus establishes God as the sole exception to the statement that nobody is good.
- Jesus does not identify himself as that exception.
Your interpretation follows the immediate wording of the conversation: Jesus distinguishes himself from the one God who alone possesses absolute goodness.
I would add one grammatical qualification: Jesus does not explicitly say, "I am not good." That is an inference from his question and the statement that follows it. But it is a reasonable inference from the dialogue.
And there is something else worth considering.
If Mark intended to communicate that Jesus was God, this passage certainly does not communicate that explicitly. The reader must bring that conclusion from somewhere else.
I think your broader methodological point is important:
We should allow each Gospel to speak for itself before attempting to harmonize its statements with the theology of another Gospel, particularly John.
That is a sound approach to historical and literary analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment