The Son of Man as the Last Adam: The Early Church Tradition as a Source of Paul’s Adam Christology

By Yongbom Lee

Most New Testament scholars today agree that Jesus used an enigmatic self-designation, bar nasha ("the Son of Man"), translated into Greek as ho huios tou anthropou in the Synoptic Gospels. In contrast, Paul, the earliest New Testament writer, nowhere mentions the phrase in his letters. Does this indicate that the Gospel writers simply misunderstood the generic sense of the Aramaic idiom and used it as a christological title in connection with Daniel 7, as some scholars claim?
Paul demonstrates explicit and sophisticated Adam Christology in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. In contrast, there is no real equivalent in the Synoptic Gospels. Does this indicate that Adam Christology in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 was essentially a Pauline invention to which the Evangelists were oblivious?
In this study Yongbom Lee argues that in addition to the Old Testament, contemporary Jewish exegetical traditions, and his Damascus Christophany, Paul uses the early church tradition--in particular, its implicit primitive Adam-Jesus typology and the Son of Man saying traditions reflected in the Synoptic Gospels--as a source of his Adam Christology.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Jul 1, 2012
• ISBN: 9781621893783

Yongbom Lee

Yongbom Lee is currently an adjunct professor at Fuller Theological Seminary and Bethesda University of California.

Book preview

The Son of Man as the Last Adam

The Early Church Tradition as a Source

of Paul’s Adam Christology

Yongbom Lee

THE SON OF MAN AS THE LAST ADAM

The Early Church Tradition as a Source of Paul’s Adam Christology

Copyright © 2012 Yongbom Lee. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

Permission was granted by Eerdmans Publishers to reproduce a table from Stephen E. Fowl’s Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005, 116–17. Permission was granted from T. & T. Clark to reproduce Morna D. Hooker’s diagram in her article Adam Redivivus: Philippians 2 Once More, in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North, edited by Steve Moyise, 231. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 189. Sheffield, UK: JSOT, 2000.

isbn 13: 978-1-61097-522-3

eisbn 13: 978-1-62189-378-3

Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Lee, Yongbom.

The Son of Man as the last Adam : the early church tradition as a source of Paul’s Adam Christology / Yongbom Lee, with a foreword by David Wenham.

xx + 168 pp. ; 23 cm. Includes bibliographical references and index.

isbn 13: 978-1-61097-522-3

1. Jesus Christ—Person and offices—Biblical teaching. 2. Adam (Biblical figure). 3. Son of Man. 4. Paul, the Apostle, Saint. I. Wenham, David. II. Title.

bs2651 l266 2012

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

To My Parents

כי־תזכרנו מה־אנוש

תפקדנו כי ובן־אדם

מאלהים מעט ותחסרהו

תעטרהו והדר וכבוד

ידיך במעשי תמשילהו

תחת־רגליו שתה כל

What is man that you are mindful of him,

the son of man that you care for him?

You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings

and crowned him with glory and honor.

You made him ruler over the works of your hands;

you put everything under his feet.

Psalm 8:4–6 (NIV)

Tables

Figures

Foreword

The question of Paul and Jesus is one that will not go away. It is a hot topic in the popular arena, with wild ideas about Paul founding a new religion being bandied about. But it is also a topic that continues to receive attention in the scholarly world, with established scholars such as James Dunn and Michael Thompson making helpful contributions, but also with research students doing important in-depth studies, for example Maureen Yeung’s Faith in Jesus and Paul (Tübingen: Mohr, 2002).

The ongoing interest in the subject has been reflected in the work of students in Trinity College Bristol, where I teach. Two students have recently completed significant theses under the supervision of Professor John Nolland: Gerry Schoberg wrote on Perspectives of Jesus in the Writings of Paul. Yongbom Lee worked on the central and sensitive area of Christology. Dr. Lee originates from South Korea, which has produced many able New Testament scholars in recent years. One of the most eminent and senior is Professor Seyoon Kim, who has made important contributions to the Paul and Jesus question. Dr. Lee interacts a lot with Professor Kim, appreciatively but critically. Like Professor Kim he argues carefully and confidently, paying admirable attention to detail.

His book’s focus on Christology and especially on Son of Man in the Jesus tradition and on Adam and Christ in the Pauline tradition is very welcome. One of the most striking differences between Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels is the fact that Jesus typically refers to himself as Son of Man, but Paul never does so: he speaks of Jesus as Lord, Christ, and Son of God, but not Son of Man. This could be seen as puzzling and as lending weight to the argument of those who do not see Paul as a faithful follower of Jesus. There is a partial parallel in Jesus’ use of the concept of the kingdom of God, since it seems to have been a favorite category of Jesus, but it is not especially prominent in Paul’s writings. But the situation is different in scale at least, since Paul does use kingdom language, not a lot it is true, but in ways that point to his knowledge of the Jesus tradition. With Son of Man there is a deafening silence in Paul’s letters.

Or there may be, unless his famous references to Jesus as the second Adam can be linked to the Son of Man tradition. That possibility has been strikingly ignored by the majority of scholars, despite the fact that the Hebrew for son of man is ben Adam (e.g., in Pss 8:5; 80:19, "the one at your right hand . . . the son of Adam). If Jesus spoke of himself as the son of Adam," then the possibility that this might be connected with Paul’s references to Jesus as the second Adam shouts out for consideration.

Interestingly even conservative scholars have failed to make the connection. The failure to make the connection can be explained in all sorts of ways: it is not simply that some scholars are prejudiced against recognizing the probability that Paul knew a lot of Jesus tradition. It is also because there are a whole host of complicated questions and a whole body of scholarly discussion relating both to the Son of Man traditions in the Gospels and to the Adam-Christ teaching of Paul. There are linguistic issues about the Hebrew and Aramaic, historical/exegetical issues (e.g., about the authenticity and meaning of Son of Man as used by Jesus), and background issues (e.g., about the Jewish background to Paul’s view of Adam). It is by no means clear to most scholars that Jesus’ probable use of Son of Man has anything to do with Adam, though that in itself does not mean that Paul and others might not have made the connection (the expression does mean something like the human being and it would not have been a big leap to Paul’s reflection on Jesus as the beginning of a new humanity). Many scholars link Jesus’ usage to Daniel 7 and its reference to one like a son of man coming on the clouds. The interpretation of Daniel 7 and especially of the one like a son of man figure is itself a highly contentious issue among scholars, and, whereas there is an obvious link between the one like a son of man and Israel, there is not such an obvious link with Adam, though recent scholars, such as Tom Wright and Crispin Fletcher-Louis, have made that connection. The complexity of these issues means that a simplistic linking of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings and Paul’s Adam teaching is impossible; and in the whole discussion of the Jesus/Paul question parallelomania (i.e., making simplistic assumptions about possible parallels being proven links) must be avoided, not least because many parallels could simply reflect Jesus and Paul both coming out of the same Jewish world and making use of common Jewish traditions.

Dr. Lee in this book offers the sort of circumspect study that is necessary if overoptimistic simplifications are to be avoided. He does not try to cover too much ground, but focuses in on a limited number of key texts, engaging with the critical issues that they raise, and offering a particularly interesting exploration of the background to the texts and of the linkages between the relevant Jesus traditions and the Pauline teaching about Adam and Christ. His discussion of Adam and Philippians 2 is important—Philippians 2 is a very interesting passage for the Jesus/Paul question, and has even been linked to the traditions behind John 13—and his exploration of the role of Psalms 8 and 110 in Paul and also in Hebrews is illuminating.

This is not a polemical book flying an unlikely kite, but a serious study of important texts and issues. I warmly commend it as a model of the sort of careful study that is needed if we are to continue to make progress in addressing the question of Paul and Jesus. It has been a personal pleasure to get to know Dr. Lee during his years in Bristol, and to be aware that here is a young scholar who combines a Paul-like commitment to the mission of the church with a commitment to rigorous critical academic thinking. I welcome this first major contribution of his to the study of the New Testament, and look forward to what will follow.

Rev. Dr. David Wenham

Trinity College, Bristol

Preface

When I studied at Fuller Theological Seminary as a Master of Divinity student in 2003–2006, I fell in love with New Testament studies. I read broadly in New Testament studies in my preparation for a PhD program. One of the books that inspired me was David Wenham’s Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). When discussing the Jesus-Paul debate, Wenham highlights the theological continuity between Jesus and Paul. On the basis of his observation, Wenham concludes that it is more accurate to call Paul a follower of Jesus than the founder of Christianity. In this study, I also will underscore the theological continuity between the Jesus tradition and Paul in the realm of Christology. Paul demonstrates the so-called Adam Christology in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. In contrast, there is no explicit reference to Adam Christology in the Synoptic Gospels. Does that mean that Adam Christology is quintessentially Pauline invention? In contrast to the frequent appearances of Jesus’ self-designation the Son of Man in the Synoptic Gospels, Paul nowhere mentions it in his letters. Does that mean that the Evangelists (or post-Pauline church) have misunderstood the generic sense of the Aramaic idiom bar nasha and mistakenly used it as a Christological title in association with Dan 7:13, as some scholars have argued?

I contend that Paul uses the early church tradition as a source of his Adam Christology, particularly, its implicit primitive Adam-Jesus typology and Son of Man saying traditions, reflected in the Synoptic Gospels. In chapter 2, I will argue that Paul in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15 creatively uses the implicit primitive Adam-Jesus typology of the early church, reflected in Phil 2:6–11; Heb 2:5–11; Mark 14:62. If Phil 2:6–11 reflects some confessional formula of the early church with its implicit primitive Adam-Jesus typology, as I contend, Paul evidently knew about the early church Adam-Jesus typology and most likely used it as a basis of his explicit and sophisticated Adam Christology in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. Also, the fact that both Paul and the writer of Hebrews—despite their general theological differences—quote Ps 8:6 to compare Jesus’ eschatological authority with Adam’s authority over God’s creation in Gen 1:26–30 (1 Cor 15:27; Heb 2:8) signifies that an implicit primitive form of Adam-Jesus typology already existed in the early church. In chapter 3, I will argue that Paul also incorporates two Son of Man saying traditions—Mark 10:45 and Matt 19:28//Luke 22:30—into his Adam Christology in Rom 5.

The minimalists concerning Paul’s knowledge of the Jesus tradition may be skeptical about my findings. While Paul rarely refers to the Jesus tradition, he at times occasionally refers to it as authoritative words in support of his instruction (e.g., 1 Cor 7:10–11; 9:14; 11:23–25; 15:3–6;

1 Thess 4:15–17). Considering the creative ways in which Paul cites other authoritative traditions—such as the Old Testament and contemporary Jewish exegetical traditions—and adapts and applies them to the situation (Sitz im Leben) of his readers, Paul similarly could have used the early church tradition as a source of his Adam Christology.

Acknowledgments

I dedicate this study to my parents—Rev. Dr. Heung Joo Lee and Dr. Yong Ja Kim—whose encouragement and support made this work possible. Their Christian faith and dedication to higher education have been my lifelong inspiration.

It was my privilege to study under Professor John Nolland at Trinity College, Bristol, in 2006–10. His constant challenge for clarity and accuracy sharpened this study and trained me as a critical scholar. I had the privilege of working with Dr. Craig A. Evans as my external supervisor. Dr. Evans graciously agreed to see me twice to give me his feedback of my work. Despite our limited time together, he gave me many valuable insights that significantly shaped the final form of this study.

I want to give special thanks to my friend Geoffrey Sutton who is a retired German/French teacher in Bristol, UK. Without his encouragement and help, I could not have engaged in German New Testament scholarship in this study. I want to thank Rev. Dr. David Wenham, Lecturer and Vice-Principal of Trinity College for all his encouragement throughout my doctoratal studies. I want to thank Su Brown, a dear librarian at Trinity College, who has magic and commitment to find any requested item.

I want to recognize my former teachers and mentors at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California. I want to thank the late Rev. Dr. David M. Scholer. His Introduction to the New Testament: Acts–Revelation was my first class at FTS and ultimately led me to pursue a PhD in New Testament Studies. I want to thank Rev. Dr. Seyoon Kim, a pioneer Korean New Testament scholar. I am only one of many Korean students whom he inspired to study the New Testament critically yet without compromising my evangelical faith. I want to thank Rev. Dr. David L. Matson who taught at FTS as an adjunct professor. I want to thank the late Dean of Students Ruth Vuong and the former Vice-President Howard Wilson for being my mentors, when I worked as All Seminary Council President in 2005–6. I thank my friend Joshua Dutcher who helped me with proofreading of my manuscript. I also want to thank the rest of my family who provided me constant encouragement, especially my parents-in-law, Joseph and Judith Dodson.

Finally, I want to thank my lovely wife, Diana, who married me and left sunny California for gloomy Bristol so that we could be together while I worked on my PhD. Besides her efficient work as Postgraduate Administrator at Trinity College, Bristol, I thank her for supporting me by working full-time. I will never forget watching her walking across the muddy Downs (a big, grassy, and often soggy, area in Bristol) on dark rainy winter days, after a long day of work at the college. Without her encouragement and support, I could not have completed this study.

Above all, I thank God who called me to Christian ministry, without whose strength and wisdom I could not have undertaken and finished this study. I pray that this study would be a humble service to his Kingdom.

Soli Dei Gloria!

Abbreviations

1

Introduction

The Purpose of this Study

Paul seldom quotes the sayings of Jesus in his letters, which has led some scholars in the past to consider him as the second founder of Christianity.¹ Despite the scarcity of explicit references to Jesus’ earthly life, however, Paul’s letters show substantial theological overlap with Jesus’ teachings in the Synoptic Gospels.² Seyoon Kim argues that Jesus’ kingdom gospel had to be replaced or re-presented by Paul’s gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ for the post-Easter church and his Hellenistic audience.³ David Wenham similarly claims that Paul modified Jesus’ kingdom preaching according to its spirit.⁴ One way to test the theological coherence between the early church tradition and Paul is to compare and contrast the early church Christology—reflected in the Synoptic Gospels—and Paul’s Christology in his letters.

⁵

In this study, I will compare and contrast the early church Christology and Paul’s Christology by focusing on the relationship between the early church Adam-Jesus typology—reflected in the Synoptic Gospels and the epistle to the Hebrews—and Paul’s Adam Christology in his letters. Although the Evangelists nowhere call Jesus the Last Adam as Paul does in 1 Cor 15:45, there are a number of passages in the Gospels that implicitly compare and contrast Jesus and Adam and present Jesus as the eschatological Adam—Mark 2:10, 27–28; 14:62; Luke 3:38—4:1; cf. Heb 2:5–11.⁶ Did Paul invent the so-called Adam Christology in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15 out of nothing (ex nihilo)? Or, did the early church already possess a primitive form of Adam-Jesus typology that Paul develops into his explicit and sophisticated Adam Christology? Or, have the early church and Paul separately derived Adam Christology from first-century AD Judaism? These questions will be addressed in chapter 2.

Another focus of this book is the relationship between the early church traditions behind the Synoptic Son of Man sayings and Paul’s Adam Christology. As I will argue later, Paul in developing his Adam Christology in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15 incorporates not only the Son of Man saying tradition related to the early church Adam-Jesus typology (Mark 14:62) but also two others that are unrelated (Mark 10:45 and Matt 19:28//Luke 22:30). We cannot find the phrase the Son of Man in Paul’s letters. Koester claims, The title was not known to Paul and did not play any role in the corpus of the New Testament epistles.⁷ It is difficult to imagine that Paul knew nothing about any Son of Man saying tradition or Jesus’ self-designation as אשנ רב (the Son of Man)—the generally accepted Aramaic phrase behind the Greek ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.⁸ As we will see later, Paul most likely knew at least three Son of Man saying traditions—Mark 10:45; 14:62; Matt 19:28//Luke 22:30—and incorporated them into his Adam Christology in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. I will argue in this study that Paul uses the early church tradition as a source of his Adam Christology, particularly, its Adam-Jesus typology and Son of Man saying traditions reflected in the Synoptic Gospels.

Literature Survey

Numerous studies exist on the topic of Jesus’ Son of Man sayings. Despite such a fact, however, most studies focus on the origin of the Son of Man sayings and only a few studies deal with the relationship between the early church traditions behind the Son of Man sayings and Paul’s Adam Christology. There are even fewer studies devoted to the relationship between the early church Adam-Jesus typology and Paul’s Adam Christology. I will begin my literature survey with Oscar Cullmann’s classic The Christology of the New Testament (1959).

While correctly observing the association between the Synoptic Son of Man saying traditions and Paul’s Adam Christology, Cullman attributes it to the common root of the Original Man idea in ancient Judaism.⁹ According to Cullmann, both the early church Son of Man/Adam