Summary and Conclusion We have been considering how Paul, raised as a devout and orthodox Jew with a bedrock foundation of strict monotheism, would have viewed the veneration of Jesus by Christians and what, if any, understanding Paul had of the pre-existence of Jesus. We used the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, which has served as a kind of litmus test of Christian “orthodoxy” for over 1500 years, as a basis of comparison. We asked the question “Would Paul have happily stood in a modern-day church service and recited the creed?” After reviewing Paul’s words as recorded in the Bible with the interpretive assistance of Professor James Dunn and others, we are forced to conclude that, while there are certainly sections of the creed that Paul could, without a doubt, recite, there are other sections which present an understanding of Christ that Paul would find not only confusing, but completely contradictory to the Scriptures that he had available in his time, and his own understanding of the nature of God and the person of Jesus.
Paul never stopped believing in the One God that he was taught as a Jewish boy growing up reciting the Shema weekly in the synagogue and twice daily in his home. When he came to meet the risen Christ he incorporated his understanding of Jesus into his existing understanding of God. He was never forced to abandon that belief. He simply expanded it. He confirmed the Shema, “The Lord our God, the Lord is one,” by restating it as “We believe in one God, the Father,” and associating with Him the risen Christ as the “one Lord.” Paul never identifies Jesus with the One God but rather he clearly distinguishes Jesus from God. Paul could never honestly say of Jesus that we was “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God” as the creed asserts. For Paul, Jesus is never the One God. The One God is the Father of Jesus. Jesus is the Lord, the Son of God.
For Paul, Jesus was not “eternally begotten.” Jesus did not personally exist prior to his birth. Paul never spoke of the pre-existence of Jesus. He might have used the biblical image of the pre-existence of Wisdom which is a kind of “extended metaphor” of God’s connection with His creation and which found its greatest fulfillment in the creation of Jesus. But that is the closest Paul comes to speaking of Jesus as pre-existent. In Jewish thought the “idea” of the Messiah existed from the creation of the world, but the Messiah himself did not. As for the creedal assertion that Jesus was “begotten, not made,” it is a clear contradiction to Paul’s assertion that Jesus was “made in human likeness” (Phil. 2:7).
Would Paul have supported the creedal assertion that Jesus is worshipped “with the Father and the Holy Spirit”? Throughout his writings Paul is careful to distinguish between the worship of God and the veneration of Jesus. Jesus is certainly worthy of veneration and honor as the risen Son of God and God’s viceregent who will one day come to reign. We certainly should bend the knee in honor and respect and acknowledgement of Christ as our King. However, Paul never attributes to Jesus the true worship that is exclusive to God. Paul never gives “glory” to Jesus. When the knee of submission is bowed to Jesus it is to the glory of “the Father,” not Jesus (Phil. 2:6-11). God is glorified through Christ, but Christ never usurps God’s glory and Paul explicitly says that when Christ’s mediatorial rule over the earth has accomplished all that God intends, then Jesus will submit himself for all eternity to the Father.
For Paul, the One God remains the One God. Jesus is venerated as Lord and Messiah. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises of the “Son of Man” who is given “authority to rule.” Jesus is the fullest expression of God’s creative purposes for mankind. But this person whom the creed calls “God from God” and “true God from true God,” who is “eternally begotten, not made” and who with “the Father and the Holy Spirit is worshipped,” would be completely unrecognizable to Paul and does violence to the bedrock foundation of monotheism which Paul steadfastly maintained throughout his life and teaching. All Christians should strive to emulate the thinking and practice of Paul, the first and greatest theologian of the Church, and make his confession the pattern of our confessions of faith. The Nicene-Constantinople Creed should go the way of the selling of indulgences and other gross distortions of the faith which “ignorant and unstable people” have introduced “to their own destruction.” This would lead to ongoing reformation of the Church or, better yet, restoration of “the faith once for all entrusted to the saints.”2
