Paul and the Image of God

Abstract

In Paul and the Image of God, Chris Kugler (Assistant Professor of Theology at Houston Baptist University) attempts to inform the reader’s understanding of Pauline Christology. He states that he––like so many others––had initial leanings toward an Adamic Christology in his understanding of imago Dei in Paul. Through his research, however, he has shifted his position from understanding Paul’s image Christology as “Adamic” to that of a nuanced “wisdom Christology.” While Adamic typology and wisdom tradition(s) constitute a common dichotomy in studies relating to the Paul’s use of imago Dei imagery, Kugler challenges the dichotomy on grounds of oversimplification, noting diverse functionality in Paul’s implementation of image Christology. In his challenge of the dichotomy and understandings of Adamic-typological backgrounds, he asserts a “creative, Christological appropriation of the Jewish wisdom tradition and of certain features of Middle Platonic intermediary doctrine” (p. 1) as a more-fitting origin for the imago Dei concept in Paul.Roughly the last century of research on the imago Dei is surveyed and assessed to demonstrate progressions in scholarship. Contemporary scholarship (Stefanie Lorenzen, van Kooten, Dunn, Fee) is evaluated fairly and critiqued in regard to both methodological oversight and––in the case of Dunn––exegetical error. Dunn’s error, according to Kugler, is his imputation of dialectical association between sophia and torah in Sir 24 and Bar 3:9–4:4 into Pauline literature.1 Kugler effectively deconstructs Dunn’s aforementioned imputation when he posits, “no such dialectic exists in Paul’s texts” (p. 26). Kugler’s survey provides the reader a clear vision of the gap in scholarship which he seeks to fill. The survey alone may be worth the price of purchase for anyone doing research germane to the imago Dei.Kugler offers an inductive study of second-temple Jewish monotheism texts (and cultic practices referenced within the texts) demonstrating cosmogonical activity as “the clearest theological and conceptual criterion of divinity” even within a diverse background of monotheistic positions and characterizations of divine identity within relevant texts (p. 47). He then connects the importance of cosmogonical activity within Second Temple Jewish monotheism to the depictions of Christ in which cosmogonical activity is ascribed (John 1:1–3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:15–16; Heb 1:2) as evidence that “the early Christian deliberately and unambiguously included him within the ‘unique divine identity.’”1The study continues by surveying the imago Dei within the Jewish tradition(s). Kugler rightly notes the importance of the ANE “royal ideology” as a background to Gen 1:26–27.He does so to showcase textual evidence of a preexistent “image” of Yhwh, however, in doing so he does not adequately address the ontology of the preexistent image. Is this “image” one that is physical (i.e., tangible), metaphysical, or in some way both? Does Paul’s use of prepositional metaphysics offer amelioration If we ascribe to Christ both pre-creation existence as well as a role in the cosmogonical activity ascribed to Yhwh in Genesis, is אדם being created in this “image” worth engaging Christologically, or is this anachronism and poor hermeneutics? This is not to say that Kugler is incorrect in his assessment, but to express a desire in seeing his exceptional research being pressed further in this regard.His study of imago Dei and Jewish tradition (sans Philo and the NT) includes a brief listing and interaction with “every instance of the imago Dei in Jewish sources [with appropriate and necessary exclusions] ranging roughly from the exile to the end of the second century CE” (p. 64). The survey (pp. 64–78) leads to a rather staggering comparison of statistics adding merit to Kugler’s argumentation, “Excluding Genesis and the Philonic corpus, [there are] twenty-two explicit references to the imago Dei in second-temple Jewish literature . . . [but] εἰκών occurs 118 times in Philo” (p. 79). In his presentation, Kugler has brilliantly foreshadowed what he will soon reveal as his research narrows. Transitioning to a study of the imago Dei in the Greco-Roman world, Kugler highlights its parallels with Plato’s teleological “likeness to god” and the way in which “Philo’s logos speculation and Wisdom’s sophia speculation . . . significantly illuminate Paul’s imago Dei theology” (p. 91).Kugler rightly assesses Middle Platonic intermediary doctrine in which the kosmos (“the ‘ideal world’ beyond sense perception”) serves as an intermediary between Plato’s “ideal world” (“beyond sense perception”) and Plato’s “world of sense perception” (p. 92). Platonic-conceptual equivalence of logos with the divine εἰκὼν (On the Confusion of Tongues, 146–47) is then paralleled with a similar equivalence in Wisdom’s concept of sophia and εἰκὼν (7:22, 26) before both texts are offered as conceptual parallels with various biblical texts (John 1:14, 18; Heb 1:3; Rom 8:29; Col 1:15–16). He notes that each of the texts “reflect adaptations of Middle Platonic intermediary doctrine” (pp. 92–93). Kugler’s research coalesces with his predominate claim(s), “[Paul has] deliberately and christologically adapted Middle Platonic intermediary doctrine” allowing Paul to include Christ within the “unique divine identity” while distinguishing ontological aspects of the Son from that of the Father, and depicting Christ as the “archetypal pattern to which believers will ultimately be conformed” (p. 104). He then engages his three primary texts (2 Cor 2:17–4:6; Rom 7–8; and Col 1:15–20; 3:10) to demonstrate his thesis in action.Kugler demonstrates his superb exegetical skillset with his treatment of 2 Cor 2:17–4:6. His treatment of linguistic and conceptual parallels between 2 Cor 4:6 and Exod 33:20 is clear, informative, and its methodology and presentation merit the imitation of students in germane efforts. The appearance of μορφ-compounds in connection with archetypal-εἰκών language constitute what Kugler categorizes as “Christological adaptation” of Middle Platonic intermediary doctrine.Regarding Rom 7–8, much of the same can be said regarding his exegetical integrity and nuance. Ultimately, he finds a Pauline Christology culminating in Rom 8:28–30 (p. 29) to reveal a similar finding to that of his Corinthian exegesis, “the preexistent Son, as God’s protological, paradigmatic, and cosmogonical image, serv[ing] as the teleological pattern to which believers will ultimately be conformed” (p. 168). In Col 1:5–20 and 3:10, Kugler concludes that Paul has strategically “reworked” the wisdom tradition and Middle Platonic intermediary doctrine to ascribe to Christ a role in cosmogony and to include him within the “unique divine identity” while being distinguished from the Father. The conclusion of each of his three key texts find elements of Middle Platonic intermediary doctrine, the use of prepositional metaphysics––to an extent––in the ascription of cosmogonical activity to Christ, and the inclusion and distinguishing of Christ within the “unique divine identity.”Kugler’s defense may have benefited from an assessment of the rhetorical function of Col 1:15–20 within the rhetorical structure of the remainder of the epistle. It should be noted that this does not appear to refute Kugler’s primary argumentation in this effort. One of Kugler’s most convincing conclusions (the use of prepositional metaphysics in the ascription of cosmogonical activity to Christ in route to Christ’s inclusion within the “unique divine identity”)—extrapolated to include a study of Col 1:15–20 as the premise for the paraenesis in the remainder of the epistle—would have served to demonstrate further exegetical foundation of his effort.Chris Kugler’s Paul and the Image of God is an original contribution within an area of research in which it is particularly difficult to produce contributions that are simultaneously accurate, clear, and significant. This contribution is worthy of all three descriptions. Those with interest in Paul would do well to begin engagement with this effort without further delay, and anyone currently researching the imago Dei in the Pauline corpus should commence the rearrangement of their research area to include space for this outstanding volume.