Facets of Pauline Discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic Perspective (Studies in Biblical Literature) [New ed.] 9781433134234, 9781453918609, 1433134233

In this thought-provoking study, Dan Lioy asserts that a Christocentric and Christotelic perspective is an unmistakable

153 77 5MB

English Pages 357 [370] Year 2016

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Facets of Pauline Discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic Perspective (Studies in Biblical Literature) [New ed.]
 9781433134234, 9781453918609, 1433134233

Table of contents :
Cover
Contents
Series Editor’s Preface
Chapter One: Prologue
Chapter Two: A biblical and theological analysis of the old Adamic creation in Genesis 1–3
1.0 Introduction
2.0 The creation week (Gen 1:1–2:3)
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The primordial earth (Gen 1:1–2)
2.3 The first creation day (Gen 1:3–5)
2.4 The second creation day (Gen 1:6–8)
2.5 The third creation day (Gen 1:9–13)
2.6 The fourth creation day (Gen 1:14–19)
2.7 The fifth creation day (Gen 1:20–23)
2.8 The sixth creation day (Gen 1:24–2:1)
3.0 The special creation of the first man and woman (Gen 2:4–25)
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The special creation of the first man (Gen 2:4–7)
3.3 The placement of the first man in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:8–17)
3.4 The special creation of the first woman (Gen 2:18–24)
4.0 The fall of the first man and woman (Gen 3:1–24)
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The advent of sin (Gen 3:1–7)
4.3 The aftermath of sin (Gen 3:8–24)
5.0 Conclusion
Chapter Three: New creation theology in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2
1.0 Introduction
2.0 The concept of new creation theology within the Pauline corpus
3.0 The Old Adamic Creation in Genesis 1–3
4.0 Background information from relevant Old Testament passages and extra-canonical Jewish writings
5.0 The new creation theology of Paul in Second Corinthians 5:11–6:2
6.0 Conclusion
Chapter Four: Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality: A case study analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Paul’s apocalyptic view of reality against the backdrop of diverse cultural contexts
3.0 Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality in Ephesians 1:15–23
4.0 Conclusion
Chapter Five: Paul’s theology of the cross: A case study analysis of 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10
1.0 Introduction
2.0 A synopsis of Paul’s theology of the cross from a confessional Lutheran perspective
3.0 Paul’s theology of the cross in 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10
4.0 Conclusion
Chapter Six: A comparative analysis of the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Literary parallels between the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians
2.1 The organizational scheme for the Song of Moses (Deut. 31:30–32:44)
2.2 The organizational scheme for Paul’s speech to the Athenians (Acts 17:16–34)
3.0 Conceptual and linguistic parallels between the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians
3.1 An analysis of the Song of Moses
3.2 An analysis of Paul’s speech to the Athenians
4.0 Conclusion
Chapter Seven: Opposing Satan, the counterfeit word
1.0 Introduction
2.0 An analysis of what Scripture reveals about Satan, his minions, and how the devil operates through them
3.0 A case study analysis: Jesus’temptation in the wilderness (Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–11)
4.0 A biblical response to Satan’s diabolical schemes (Eph 6:10–20)
5.0 Conclusion
Chapter Eight: Putting the Letter from James in its place: A candid assessment of its continuing theological value
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Background considerations related to James
3.0 The biblical concept of the law
4.0 The biblical concept of wisdom
5.0 The interrelationship between the Mosaic Law, faith, and good deeds
6.0 The Christological emphases found in James
7.0 The emphasis on law and wisdom in James
8.0 Conclusion
Chapter Nine: Making the case for Paul, not Jesus, as a new or second Moses
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Jesus’ absolute supremacy over all Old Testament individuals and institutions
3.0 Jesus’ unrivaled preeminence over Moses
4.0 Viewing the arc of redemptive history through the prism of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice
5.0 Excursus: The new perspective on Paul (or NPP)
6.0 Conclusion
Chapter Ten: Two contrasting views on the historical authenticity of the Adam character in the Genesis creation narratives
1.0 Introduction
2.0 An overview of Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Collins 2011)
2.1 A brief synopsis of the author and the contents of his work
2.2 A detailed synopsis of the individual chapters of the author’s work
2.2.1 Introduction (chap. 1)
2.2.2 The shape of the biblical story (chap. 2)
2.2.3 Particular texts that speak of Adam and Eve (chap. 3)
2.2.4 Human uniqueness and dignity (chap. 4)
2.2.5 Can science help us pinpoint ‘Adam and Eve’? (chap. 5)
2.2.6 Conclusions (chap. 6)
3.0 An overview of The Evolution of Adam (Enns 2012)
3.1 A brief synopsis of the author and the contents of his work
3.2 A detailed synopsis of the individual chapters of the author’s work
3.2.1 Introduction
3.2.2 Genesis and the challenges of the nineteenth century: Science, biblical criticism, and biblical archaeology (chap. 1)
3.2.3 When was Genesis written? (chap. 2)
3.2.4 Stories of origins from Israel’s neighbors (chap. 3)
3.2.5 Israel and primordial time (chap. 4)
3.2.6 Paul’s Adam and the Old Testament (chap. 5)
3.2.7 Paul as an ancient interpreter of the Old Testament (chap. 6)
3.2.8 Paul’s Adam (chap. 7)
3.2.9 Conclusion: Adam today: Nine theses
4.0 Conclusion
Chapter Eleven: Epilogue
Bibliography
Subject Index
Ancient Sources Index

Citation preview

166 Christotelic perspective is an unmistakable feature of Paul’s discourse. The

Lioy

In this thought-provoking study, Dan Lioy asserts that a Christocentric and

DAN LIO Y

journey begins with an analysis of the old Adamic creation in Genesis 1–3 before digressing into representative passages from Paul’s writings, touching on such themes as new creation theology, the apostle’s apocalyptic interpretaof the Old Testament on Paul’s Christological outlook, how the apostle viewed Satan operating as the counterfeit word, and the way in which the writings of Paul correlate with the letter from James, leading into a deliberation that Paul, rather than Christ, is to be seen as a new or second Moses. Contrast is then provided regarding the historical authenticity of the Adam character in Paul’s discourse, along with the Genesis creation narratives. Facets of Pauline

Discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic Perspective is the ideal volume for college and seminary classes dealing with the teaching and theology of Paul.

Dan Lioy earned his Ph.D. in New Testament from North-West University (NWU) in South Africa. He is a professor at the Potchefstroom Campus of NWU, Senior Research Manager in the Postgraduate School of South African Theological Seminary, and a permanent faculty member in the graduate programs division of the Institute of Lutheran Theology. Lioy is also an ordained minister in the North American Lutheran Church. Three of his earlier Peter Lang monographs include Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective (2011),

Axis of Glory (2010), and The Search for Ultimate Reality (2005).

Facets of Pauline Discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic Perspective

PETER LANG

www.peterlang.com

Facets of Pauline Discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic Perspective

tion of reality, and his theology of the cross. Then Lioy examines the influence

studies in biblical literature | 166

166 Christotelic perspective is an unmistakable feature of Paul’s discourse. The

Lioy

In this thought-provoking study, Dan Lioy asserts that a Christocentric and

DAN LIO Y

journey begins with an analysis of the old Adamic creation in Genesis 1–3 before digressing into representative passages from Paul’s writings, touching on such themes as new creation theology, the apostle’s apocalyptic interpretaof the Old Testament on Paul’s Christological outlook, how the apostle viewed Satan operating as the counterfeit word, and the way in which the writings of Paul correlate with the letter from James, leading into a deliberation that Paul, rather than Christ, is to be seen as a new or second Moses. Contrast is then provided regarding the historical authenticity of the Adam character in Paul’s discourse, along with the Genesis creation narratives. Facets of Pauline

Discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic Perspective is the ideal volume for college and seminary classes dealing with the teaching and theology of Paul.

Dan Lioy earned his Ph.D. in New Testament from North-West University (NWU) in South Africa. He is a professor at the Potchefstroom Campus of NWU, Senior Research Manager in the Postgraduate School of South African Theological Seminary, and a permanent faculty member in the graduate programs division of the Institute of Lutheran Theology. Lioy is also an ordained minister in the North American Lutheran Church. Three of his earlier Peter Lang monographs include Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective (2011),

Axis of Glory (2010), and The Search for Ultimate Reality (2005).

Facets of Pauline Discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic Perspective

PETER LANG

www.peterlang.com

Facets of Pauline Discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic Perspective

tion of reality, and his theology of the cross. Then Lioy examines the influence

studies in biblical literature | 166

Facets of Pauline Discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic Perspective

Studies in Biblical Literature

Hemchand Gossai General Editor Vol. 166

This book is a volume in a Peter Lang monograph series. Every title is peer reviewed and meets the highest quality standards for content and production.

PETER LANG

New York  Bern  Frankfurt  Berlin Brussels  Vienna  Oxford  Warsaw

Dan Lioy

Facets of Pauline Discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic Perspective

PETER LANG

New York  Bern  Frankfurt  Berlin Brussels  Vienna  Oxford  Warsaw

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Lioy, Dan, author. Title: Facets of Pauline discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic perspective / Dan Lioy. Description: New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2016. Series: Studies in biblical literature; Vol. 166 | ISSN 1089-0645 Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016005929 | ISBN 978-1-4331-3423-4 (hardcover: alk. paper) ISBN 978-1-4539-1860-9 (e-book) Subjects: LCSH: Jesus Christ—Person and offices—Biblical teaching. Bible. Epistles of Paul—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Creationism— Biblical teaching. | Evolution (Biology)—Religious aspects—Christianity. Bible—Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BT203 .L56 2016 | DDC 227/.06—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016005929

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

© 2016 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.

Contents

Series Editor’s Preface

ix

Chapter One: Prologue Chapter Two: A biblical and theological analysis of the old Adamic creation in Genesis 1–3 1.0 Introduction 2.0 The creation week (Gen 1:1–2:3) 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The primordial earth (Gen 1:1–2) 2.3 The first creation day (Gen 1:3–5) 2.4 The second creation day (Gen 1:6–8) 2.5 The third creation day (Gen 1:9–13) 2.6 The fourth creation day (Gen 1:14–19) 2.7 The fifth creation day (Gen 1:20–23) 2.8 The sixth creation day (Gen 1:24–2:1) 3.0 The special creation of the first man and woman (Gen 2:4–25) 3.1 Introduction 3.2 The special creation of the first man (Gen 2:4–7) 3.3 The placement of the first man in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:8–17) 3.4 The special creation of the first woman (Gen 2:18–24)

1 13 13 16 16 17 19 22 23 23 24 25 32 32 33 35 38

vi

  | 

face ts of pauline discourse

4.0 The fall of the first man and woman (Gen 3:1–24) 41 4.1 Introduction 41 4.2 The advent of sin (Gen 3:1–7) 42 4.3 The aftermath of sin (Gen 3:8–24) 44 5.0 Conclusion 51 Chapter Three: New creation theology in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2 54 1.0 Introduction 54 2.0 The concept of new creation theology within the Pauline corpus 55 3.0 The Old Adamic Creation in Genesis 1–3 57 4.0 Background information from relevant Old Testament passages and extra-canonical Jewish writings 58 5.0 The new creation theology of Paul in Second Corinthians 5:11–6:266 6.0 Conclusion 75 Chapter Four: Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality: A case study analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23 78 1.0 Introduction 78 2.0 Paul’s apocalyptic view of reality against the backdrop of diverse cultural contexts 82 3.0 Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality in Ephesians 1:15–23 87 4.0 Conclusion 96 Chapter Five: Paul’s theology of the cross: A case study analysis of 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10 99 1.0 Introduction 99 2.0 A synopsis of Paul’s theology of the cross from a confessional Lutheran perspective 102 3.0 Paul’s theology of the cross in 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10 107 4.0 Conclusion 122 Chapter Six: A comparative analysis of the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians 125 1.0 Introduction 125 2.0 Literary parallels between the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians 127 2.1 The organizational scheme for the Song of Moses (Deut. 31:30–32:44) 127 2.2 The organizational scheme for Paul’s Speech to the Athenians (Acts 17:16–34) 129 3.0 Conceptual and linguistic parallels between the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians 131

co n t e n ts  | vii

3.1 An analysis of the Song of Moses 3.2 An analysis of Paul’s speech to the Athenians 4.0 Conclusion Chapter Seven: Opposing Satan, the counterfeit word 1.0 Introduction 2.0 An analysis of what Scripture reveals about Satan, his minions, and how the devil operates through them 3.0 A case study analysis: Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness (Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–11) 4.0 A biblical response to Satan’s diabolical schemes (Eph 6:10–20) 5.0 Conclusion Chapter Eight: Putting the Letter from James in its place: A candid assessment of its continuing theological value 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Background considerations related to James 3.0 The biblical concept of the law 4.0 The biblical concept of wisdom 5.0 The interrelationship between the Mosaic Law, faith, and good deeds 6.0 The Christological emphases found in James 7.0 The emphasis on law and wisdom in James 8.0 Conclusion Chapter Nine: Making the case for Paul, not Jesus, as a new or second Moses 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Jesus’ absolute supremacy over all Old Testament individuals and institutions 3.0 Jesus’ unrivaled preeminence over Moses 4.0 Viewing the arc of redemptive history through the prism of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice 5.0 Excursus: The new perspective on Paul (or NPP) 6.0 Conclusion Chapter Ten: Two contrasting views on the historical authenticity of the Adam character in the Genesis creation narratives 1.0 Introduction 2.0 An overview of Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Collins 2011) 2.1 A brief synopsis of the author and the contents of his work 2.2 A detailed synopsis of the individual chapters of the author’s work 2.2.1 Introduction (chap. 1)

132 139 149 151 151 152 155 161 170 172 172 174 176 179 180 184 190 192 194 194 199 206 210 219 220 223 223 225 225 225 225

viii

  | 

face ts of pauline discourse

2.2.2 The shape of the biblical story (chap. 2) 2.2.3 Particular texts that speak of Adam and Eve (chap. 3) 2.2.4 Human uniqueness and dignity (chap. 4) 2.2.5 Can science help us pinpoint ‘Adam and Eve’? (chap. 5) 2.2.6 Conclusions (chap. 6) 3.0 An overview of the Evolution of Adam (Enns 2012) 3.1 A brief synopsis of the author and the contents of his work 3.2 A detailed synopsis of the individual chapters of the author’s work 3.2.1 Introduction 3.2.2 Genesis and the challenges of the nineteenth century: Science, biblical criticism, and biblical archaeology (chap. 1) 3.2.3 When was Genesis written? (chap. 2) 3.2.4 Stories of origins from Israel’s neighbors (chap. 3) 3.2.5 Israel and primordial time (chap. 4) 3.2.6 Paul’s Adam and the Old Testament (chap. 5) 3.2.7 Paul as an ancient interpreter of the Old Testament (chap. 6) 3.2.8 Paul’s Adam (chap. 7) 3.2.9 Conclusion: Adam today: Nine theses 4.0 Conclusion Chapter Eleven: Epilogue

226 227 230 231 233 233 233 234 234

236 237 238 239 240 242 242 243 244 248

Bibliography261 Subject Index 301 Ancient Sources Index 307

Series Editor’s Preface

More than ever the horizons in biblical literature are being expanded beyond that which is immediately imagined; important new methodological, theological, and hermeneutical directions are being explored, often resulting in significant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. It is an exciting time for the academy as engagement in biblical studies continues to be heightened. This series seeks to make available to scholars and institutions, scholarship of a high order, and which will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. This series includes established and innovative directions, covering general and particular areas in biblical study. For every volume considered for this series, we explore the question as to whether the study will push the horizons of biblical scholarship. The answer must be yes for inclusion. In this volume, Daniel Lioy builds and expands on his previous works focusing on Genesis and the manner in which Paul incorporates and constructs what the author terms his “Christocentric and Christotelic perspective.” Predicated on the general Christian understanding of the organic relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, the author provides a cogent biblical and theological analysis of Genesis 1-3, creating a link with the “new creation theology in the writings of Paul.” This he argues is the literary framework for the theological foundation for the appraisal of Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic discourse. The author focuses more on a close reading of the text and primary sources, rather

x

  | 

face ts of pauline discourse

than secondary literature, though he is attentive to those as well. Lioy’s ongoing examination of this relationship provides a basis for still further discourse on this theme. The horizon has been expanded. Hemchand Gossai Series Editor

chapter one

Prologue

This monograph takes as its starting point my previous research dealing with creation themes in Scripture, especially in connection with the writings of Paul. For instance, in chapter 2 of the present study, I have reworked material appearing in my following three earlier monographs:1 The search for ultimate reality: intertextuality between the Genesis and Johannine prologues (2005); Axis of glory: a biblical and theological analysis of the temple motif in Scripture (2010); and Evolutionary creation in biblical and theological perspective (2011). Concisely synthesizing and updating my prior research in this way enables me to build a conceptual bridge to the information that follows in the remaining chapters of this treatise dealing with various facets of Pauline discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic perspective.2 Additionally, the impetus for the upcoming disquisition emerges from a class titled Paul and his legacy,3 which I teach each year for the Institute of Lutheran

1. These three monographs are published by Peter Lang. 2. This study recognizes substantial conceptual overlap between the terms ‘Christological’, ‘Christocentric’, and ‘Christotelic’, notwithstanding the definitional distinctions articulated below. For this reason, when these terms are used in the treatise, it is intentionally done in synonymous ways to convey closely related ideas. 3. Key pivotal events in the life of Paul include the following (all dates are ce): birth: about 5–10; conversion and call: about 33–34; ministry in large urban centers located throughout

2 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Theology. The course provides seminary students with an introduction to the apostle’s epistles.4 Along with overviewing the form and content of Paul’s writings, the class explores their historical underpinnings and theological importance.5 In connection with my ongoing research agenda in this area, each time I teach the course, I spend a portion of the semester with my students considering ways in which eschatological and apocalyptic themes are a defining characteristic of the Pauline corpus. From one year to the next, a variety of seminarians have responded with a considerable amount of engaging discussion, and it has helped to further shape my own views on the Christological contours of Paul’s thought.6 With respect to the issue of Christology, Fee (2007:1) restricts the term’s conceptual horizon ‘exclusively’ to the ‘person’ of the Messiah. Fee’s intentional demarcation between Jesus’ person and work arises from the tendency within contemporary scholarship to bifurcate who the Son is from His redemptive activity (otherwise known as soteriology). Boers (2006:3) mirrors this perspective when he insists that Paul understood the Messiah only as a ‘real being, not a theological the eastern Mediterranean of the Roman Empire: late 30s to 50s; the Jerusalem Council (cf. Acts 15): late 40s; arrest in Jerusalem, transfer to Caesarea, and relocation to Rome: late 50s to early 60s; and, execution: mid to late 60s; cf. Alexander (1993:122–3); Brown (1997:428–9); Bruce (1993:687); Capes, Reeves, and Richards (2007:98–101); Guthrie (1990:1006–7); Thiselton (2009:viii–ix). 4. In this study, the terms ‘epistle’ and ‘letter’ are used interchangeably. 5. The literature dealing with various facets of Paul is vast. For a synopsis of the apostle’s life and ministry, cf. Betz (1992); Bruce (1993); Longenecker (2009). For a portrayal of Paul’s life as an apostle, including a consideration of the historical background and themes of his letters, cf. Brown (1997); Bruce (2000); Capes, Reeves, and Richards (2007); Fitzmyer (1989); Gorman (2004); Hurtado (2003); Roetzel (1999). For a dramatic, documentarystyle retelling of Paul’s biography, cf. Pollock (2012). For a consideration of the apostle’s missionary discourse, including the Hellenistic-Jewish background to the apostle’s preaching, cf. Pak (1991). For a deliberation of the relationship between Paul’s writings to the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, cf. Wenham (1995). For a comprehensive treatment of different aspects of the apostle’s theology, cf. Cerfaux (1966); Dunn (1998); Fee (2007); Longenecker and Still (2014); Ridderbos (1997); Schreiner (2001); Thiselton (2009); Tilling (2012); Whiteley (1974). For an assessment of how the Messiah’s resurrection, along with His role as the Redeemer, operates within Pauline soteriology, cf. Stanley (1961). For an appraisal of what the apostle says in his letters about the Spirit, cf. Fee (1994). For a consideration of the cruciform nature of spirituality in Paul’s life and ministry, cf. Reeves (2011). For an in-depth analysis of the formative role that Israel’s sacred texts played in the apostle’s thought, cf. Hays (2005). For a study of Jewish theology as the organizing principle of Paul’s theology, cf. Wright (2009); Young (1997). 6. For an overview of the history of research dealing with the question of Pauline Christology, cf. Fee (2007:10–15); Tilling (2012:11–34).

p r olo g u e  | 3

idea’; yet, this view sets up a false dichotomy, in which existential aspects of Paul’s Christology allegedly do not lead to any propositional inferences. In contrast, the study that follows endeavors to articulate theological conceptualizations arising from Paul’s discourse about Jesus of Nazareth. Concerning Fee (2007:1), he acknowledges that Paul did not differentiate between Jesus’ person and work. This is one reason why, as this treatise unfolds, no attempt is made to either separate out or contrast the ontological and functional aspects of Paul’s teaching concerning Jesus of Nazareth. In point of fact, deliberations about the Son’s full divinity and humanity appear together with considerations of His sacrificial death at Calvary. As for the task of exploring Paul’s Christological thought, instead of adopting a ‘narrative approach’ (Fee 2007:4), the preceding author utilizes a combination of ‘exegetical’ analysis and theological synthesis (10). Fee’s preferred methodology notwithstanding, this study draws upon a narrative approach, along with other methodologies, to appraise the Christocentric and Christotelic aspects of Paul’s discourse. In Fee’s landmark tome (16), he identifies the following as the major Christological texts in the Pauline corpus emphasizing the Son’s personhood: 1 Corinthians 8:6; Philippians 2:6–11; and Colossians 1:12–17. As a result of doing so, Fee draws attention to three overarching, interrelated themes dealing with the Messiah’s ontology (481–2):7 (1) Jesus as the divine Savior; (2) Jesus as the second Adam, who overturns the catastrophe brought about by the first Adam; and, (3) Jesus as the eternal, preexistent Son of God and exalted Lord of the universe, who is revealed in the Messianic prophecies of the Hebrew sacred writings. Fee (2007:530) maintains that the title, ‘Son of God’, points to the ‘relationship’ between Jesus and the Father; in contrast, the title, ‘Lord’ (which is equivalent to the Tetragrammaton, or divine name, ‘Yahweh’), spotlights Jesus’ ‘relationship’ to the Church and the ‘world’. Tilling (2012), in his seminal study, builds on the work of Fee (among other specialists) by maintaining that Paul conceptualized and structured his Christological understanding of the Savior using ‘relational’ (243) categories of thought. According to Tilling (254), this ‘relational emphasis’ is influenced by Paul’s ‘Jewish faith in God’, as expressed in the Hebrew sacred canonical writings and texts from Second Temple Judaism. Specifically, an analysis of this literature indicates a ‘pattern of language involving the relation between Israel/individual Israelites’ and Yahweh. Also, against the backdrop of idolatrous

7. Admittedly, what appears here is my threefold summary of Fee’s thematic emphases. Part II of his study provides a fivefold theological synthesis of the exegetical analysis he undertakes in Part I, as follows: (1) ‘Christ, the divine Savior’ (chap. 11); (2) ‘Christ: preexistent and incarnate Savior’ (chap. 12); (3) ‘Jesus as second Adam’ (chap. 13); (4) ‘Jesus: Jewish Messiah and Son of God’ (chap. 14); and, (5) ‘Jesus: Jewish Messiah and exalted Lord’ (chap. 15).

4 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

beliefs and practices among Israel’s neighbors, there is a staunchly ‘monotheistic’ emphasis on the Creator’s ‘transcendent uniqueness’. In turn, Tilling surmises that this manner of communication finds strong parallels in the way Paul intentionally articulated the relationship between the Church/individual ‘believers’ (255) and the ‘risen Lord’.8 Tilling deduces that within the context of Greco-Roman polytheism, Paul’s writings both affirm Jewish monotheism and a ‘divine-Christology’. In terms of the present treatise, a concerted effort is made to elucidate the unity and plurality of the biblical witness within selected Old and New Testament writings, especially those of Paul. In doing so, I have followed the basic guidelines of hermeneutics: (1) use the grammatical-historical method; (2) understand the context; (3) determine the type of literature; (4) properly interpret figurative language; and, (5) let Scripture interpret Scripture (especially its intertextual connections). Furthermore, to comprehend the background of a biblical passage, I have considered the immediate context,9 the remote context,10 and the historical context.11 In my exposition of God’s Word, I have sought to balance a methodologically critical approach with a predominately classical, ecumenical, and historically orthodox perspective. The latter includes an affirmation of the following: (1) the centrality of the Lord Jesus; (2) the inspiration, integrity, and authority of the canonical texts;12 and, (3) the reliability of the creeds and confessions13 of the early Church as faithful guides in interpreting the Bible. I think this stance helps to preserve the clarity of the scriptural message, especially as it relates to the good news about the Messiah promised and foretold in the Old Testament. Because a classical Christian perspective affirms a unity throughout the ancient sacred writings, it also recognizes a literary and theological connection between the Old Testament and New Testament. Specifically, the Old Testament points forward to Jesus and His saving work, while the New Testament tells people of faith how Jesus, as the embodied presence of Israel’s God, fulfilled the Old Testament messianic prophecies. So, when the New Testament retrospectively speaks about an Old Testament passage as fulfilled by Jesus, this is viewed as the full and correct theological meaning of the Old Testament passage. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Cf. Rom 1:23, 25; 2 Cor 6:16; Gal 4:8–9; 1 Thess 1:9. I.e. the word or phrases in the verses closest to the term or statement being examined. I.e. the biblical material in the surrounding chapters and beyond. I.e. the historical setting in which the author wrote the biblical passage. Including the veracity and historical authenticity of what the canonical texts assert. For a comprehensive treatment of the authority of the Judeo-Christian canon, cf. the collection of essays authored by various specialists dealing with historical, biblical, theological, philosophical, epistemological, and comparative-religions topics in Carson (2016). 13. I.e. the ecclesial consensus tradition.

p r olo g u e  | 5

On one level, the Judeo-Christian Scriptures record the unfolding drama of redemption involving the Creator and His creation, including humankind; on another level, this theocentric outlook is complemented by a Christocentric perspective, one in which the God-man, Jesus of Nazareth, is declared to be the Agent of creation and the new (spiritual) beginning for all who are baptismally united to Him by faith. The writings of Paul, along with the rest of the New Testament corpus, affirm that the Son came to earth to fulfill the salvific promises the Father made to His chosen people through such luminaries as Abraham, Moses, and David. Also, like other New Testament writers, Paul considered Jesus to be the principal focus of the Judeo-Christian canon. In this regard, Hurtado (1997:155) observes that the ‘Pauline letters show a well-developed pattern of Christ-devotion’. To put a fine point on the preceding observation, Jesus is the nexus, apex, and consummation of the redemptive-historical, narrative arc of Scripture. The technical locution, ‘Christotelic’, succinctly conveys the latter nuance. Enns (2015:182) clarifies that the term points to an ‘apostolic hermeneutic’ in which the Hebrew sacred writings are seen as ‘moving toward the climactic event’14 of the Messiah’s ‘death and resurrection’. As Green (2010:37) explains, this ‘full-canon approach’ both affirms the organic, metaphysical link between the Testaments and seeks to interpret God’s Word in a responsible and objective manner. McCartney (2003) adds that the exegete does so in the following ways: (1) respecting the meaning of an Old Testament passage in its original cultural, historical, and literary contexts; (2) affirming the text’s inspiration, authority, and coherency; and, (3) valuing the potential messianic import of the passage in light of the Savior’s advent.15 Ferguson (2002:7) likens the Messiah to a ‘prism where all light converges’. In this analogy, Jesus’ followers stand ‘within the light of New Testament revelation’. On the one hand, as they turn their gaze ‘back on the Old Testament’, they perceive the ‘white light of the unity of the truth’ of the Son ‘broken down into its constituent colors’ within and throughout the Hebrew sacred writings; on the other hand, as believers look ahead, they recognize ‘how the multicolored strands of the Old Testament revelation converge’ on the Savior and ‘unite’ in Him.16 A case in point would be Paul’s usage of Deuteronomy 30:12–14 in Romans 10:6–8. As 14. Greek télos, ‘end’, ‘goal’. 15. This study affirms that any skillful and critical reading of Scripture, no matter how well-informed by reason and intuition, is characterized by methodological preferences. Consequently, deductions arising from any exegetical analysis of Scripture remain penultimate and provisional, as well as fragmentary and imperfect. 16. Dunn (1998:726) portrays the Messiah’s ‘centrality’ within ‘Paul’s theology’ using the following imagery: (1) Jesus is the ‘thread’ that is woven tightly into the fabric of the apostle’s teaching; (2) Jesus is the ‘lens’ that brings all of Paul’s discourse ‘into focus’; and, (3) Jesus is

6 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

noted in chapter 9 of this study, the apostle skillfully appropriates a portion of the Torah from an eschatological perspective. In doing so, Paul goes beyond a strictly literal interpretation of the Old Testament passage by depicting ‘righteousness’ as speaking for God. This, along with the apostle’s interjection of his own thoughts, reflects a Jewish form of exposition common in his day known as Midrash. In keeping with what was stated earlier, chapter 2 revisits subjects I previously deliberated. The endeavor is to provide a biblical and theological analysis of the old Adamic creation in Genesis 1–3.17 In turn, a thematic link is made between the latter and new creation theology in the writings of Paul. Specifically, the opening chapters of Genesis provide the literary backdrop for appreciating and the theological foundation for appraising Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic discourse. Given the expansive and sometimes inchoate nature of the apostle’s writings, it is unrealistic to attempt an exhaustive study of all the possible texts that might relate directly or indirectly to the research agenda. A more sensible and workable approach involves examining judiciously chosen, representative passages that strongly correlate with the main intent of this treatise. To that end, the third chapter presents an analysis of 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2 to confirm that new creation theology is a defining characteristic of Paul’s teaching. Specifically, this passage indicates that the Lord Jesus is the beginning, middle, and culmination for all physical and spiritual existence. Chapter 4 advances the

the ‘glue’ that unites the various ‘parts’ of what the apostle communicated ‘into a coherent whole’. 17. With respect to the question of Pentateuchal authorship, there is no consensus even among specialists who affirm a classical Christian perspective. Arnold and Beyer (2008:73–4) note that ‘some date the Torah to the Mosaic era’, yet ‘allow for various degrees of postMosaic material’. On the one hand, the ‘basic structure of the Pentateuch was established by Moses or under Moses’ supervision’; on the other hand, ‘later alterations and additions occurred’, which reflects ‘literary’ approaches prevalent throughout the ancient Near East. Other specialists ‘date the final form of the Pentateuch to the period between Joshua and Solomon’ (extending to 930 bce). So, while much of the Pentateuch is considered to be ‘Mosaic’ in origin, ‘substantial amounts of post-Mosaic material’ are said to be added. Still, other specialists surmise that the ‘current form’ of the Torah appeared ‘relatively late in Israel’s history’ (namely, from the ninth to fifth centuries bce). The general antiquity of the Pentateuch notwithstanding, adherents maintain that specific major portions arose when ‘later generations’ redacted ‘Mosaic material at important crisis moments in Israel’s history’. The preceding observations having been made, this study regards Moses to be the principal author of the Pentateuch, an outlook affirmed throughout the New Testament; cf. Matt 8:4; 19:8; 22:24; Mark 7:10; 10:4; Luke 16:31; 24:27; Acts 6:11; 15:21; 21:21; 2 Cor 3:15; Guthrie (1990:986–1000); Keil and Delitzsch (1982:465–6); Mendenhall (1975:64–6); McConville (2002:451–2); Nelson (2002:509).

p r olo g u e  | 7

discussion by exploring Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality through a case study analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23.18 A primary assertion is that the apostle’s eschatological worldview exercised a controlling influence on his Christological assertions, both directly and indirectly. Chapter 5 explores the crucicentric facet of Paul’s teaching by deliberating 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10.19 The major premise is that apostle’s theology of the cross20 helps to clarify further his Christocentric and Christotelic-oriented, apocalyptic view of reality. The sixth chapter considers the issue of how the apostle’s Christological outlook was shaped by the Old Testament and transformed by the cross-resurrection event. In particular, a comparative analysis of Deuteronomy 32 and Acts 1721 indicates that at a literary, conceptual, and linguistic level, Paul connected his message to the Athenians with the theological perspective of the Song of Moses (and more broadly with that of the Tanakh). Expressed differently, the apostle’s speech about the advent of the Messiah is thoroughly grounded in the teleological mindset of the Torah. The next three chapters direct attention to additional facets of Paul’s Christological discourse. The strategy intentionally includes an assessment of pertinent New Testament passages outside the Pauline corpus. This affirms the supposition articulated by Fanning (2015:2492) of both ‘continuity and advance in

18. Admittedly, the prevailing view within academia is that Paul wrote seven of the thirteen letters attributed to him (i.e. Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). Supposedly, the remaining six (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, and Titus) were authored by unnamed admirers and imitators of the apostle. On the one hand, in the biblical world, pseudonymous writing was common; yet, on the other hand, the unique literary features found in the disputed Pauline letters may be due to their distinctive purposes and to the timing and conditions of their writing. Furthermore, numerous early Christian writers unanimously ascribed these epistles to Paul. For these reasons, this study affirms the traditional view that the apostle wrote all thirteen letters attributed to him; cf. Carson, Moo, and Morris (1992:231–5); deSilva (2004:685–9); Gundry (2012:384–7); Pate (1995:34–40). 19. Especially in dialogue with a confessional Lutheran outlook. 20. In Latin, theologia crucis. 21. The version of Paul’s speech to the Athenians recorded in Acts is presumed in this study to be a historically factual rendition of what the apostle said; cf. Bock (2007:559); Bruce (1988:334); Fee (2013:31); Fudge (1971:193); Witherington (1998:519). More generally, as stated by Capes, Reeves, and Richards (2007:17), while the ‘debate over the accuracy of Acts still rages among New Testament scholars’, there is sufficient reason to ‘accept Luke’s account of the early church as a useful source for understanding Paul and his world’.

8 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

God’s redemptive plan’, as revealed in the Judeo-Christian canon.22 For instance, chapter 7 deliberates the ways in which Satan operates as the counterfeit word to the Savior, especially within the context of an end-time backdrop. Along with examining Ephesians 6:10–20,23 the discourse takes into consideration Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness.24 The Gospels reveal that Jesus relied on the Word of God to thwart the devil’s attacks. This Christocentric and Christotelic truth is complimented by Paul’s exhortation to Jesus’ followers to make full use of Scripture in parrying Satan’s attacks. In chapter 8, the letter from James is correlated with the teachings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels and the writings of Paul, especially around the issue of justification by faith. The analysis indicates that all three portions of Scripture operate from an eschatologically-oriented mindset, in which the kingdom of God is inaugurated, yet awaits a future consummation. There is also the realization that the end-time message of salvation presented in James is in essential agreement with the Christological stance put forward by Paul (in his writings) and taught by Jesus (in the Gospels). Next, chapter 9 offers a critique of the commonly held view in scholarly circles that Jesus is a new or second Moses. An alternative thesis is offered, namely, that it is better to regard Paul in this way. This premise is substantiated by an analysis

22. In some academic literature, the phrase ‘continuity and discontinuity’ is used to characterize the relationship between the Old and New Testaments (e.g. Feinberg 1991). Keck (1993:31) evidences this view when he states that Paul’s ‘two-age theology’ is characterized by ‘discontinuity’. This includes a complete break between the ‘past and present’ and the ‘age to come’. In contrast, this study considers the phrase ‘continuity and advance’ (Fanning 2015:2492) to be a more accurate way to denote the integral, nuanced connection between these two portions of the Judeo-Christian canon. With respect to Paul’s writings, Dunn (1998:726) indicates that the dynamic tension between the Testaments is ‘not a break with the past so much as a transformation of the past’s relation to the present and the present’s relation to the future’. Herein, the Messiah operates as the ‘eschatological embodiment of God’s saving purpose’ (727). 23. This study regards Ephesians 6:10–20 as the premier Pauline passage dealing with the subject of spiritual warfare. 24. Cf. Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–11. It is important to recognize that the Synoptic Gospels are not structured as biographies or history in any general, or contemporary, sense; rather, they are interpreted histories. In addition, the narratives they record are not raw facts, as though readers were viewing electronic recordings obtained from surveillance cameras; instead, the accounts are carefully directed, arranged, and structured presentations of historical incidents. Moreover, the concern of the Gospel writers was not to document history for history’s sake; rather, they offered a theological explanation of the episodes they recounted in an objective and reliable manner, including Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness.

p r olo g u e  | 9

of the Transfiguration episode recorded in the Synoptic Gospels,25 along with the explanation in Hebrews 3:1–6 of the way in which Jesus’ preeminence over Moses is unrivaled. Furthermore, it is argued that Paul, in his prophetic-apostolic role, taught that the arc of redemptive history should be viewed through the prism of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at Calvary. This Christocentric and Christotelic assertion is confirmed by the apostle’s use of Deuteronomy 8:17, 9:4, and 30:12–14 in Romans 10:6–8. Chapter 10 offers a comparison between the presuppositions made and deductions conveyed by Collins (2011) and Enns (2012) regarding the historical authenticity of the Adam character (and to a lesser extent Eve) in the Genesis creation narratives. The discourse includes each authors’ respective discussions of relevant passages within the Pauline corpus,26 especially as these texts relate to the apostle’s Christological treatment of the opening chapters of Genesis. Lastly, chapter 11 brings closure to the treatise by restating its main objective and concisely elucidating its primary findings. Some observations are in order about the method I used to write this monograph. In contrast to my previous academic works, I composed the first draft of chapters 2 through 10 before consulting in earnest any secondary sources. One objective was to move inductively through selective, interrelated themes and passages and allow this process to shape unambiguously my initial observations, deliberations, and conclusions. A second objective was to ensure that my research was connected as directly as possible with the primary source documents being examined. After that, I made a concerted effort to engage a broad range of publications. The intent has been to let these scholarly treatises serve as indirect conversation partners to guide, inform, and substantiate my examination of God’s Word. For a

25. Cf. Matt 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36. It is commonplace within contemporary academic circles to question the historicity of the Transfiguration episode recorded in the Synoptic Gospels; cf. 2 Pet 1:16–18; Chilton (1992:640); Green (2013b:966–7); Gribble (2009:913); yet, skeptics fail to sufficiently appreciate that the literary genre of the Gospels is ‘historical narrative motivated by theological concerns’ (Strauss 2007:35). Put differently, the various writers of these inspired, ancient, sacred texts had a ‘particular purpose in mind’ and specific ‘themes to develop’. On one level, the Gospels convey ‘accurate historical material about Jesus’ (29); on another level, the Gospels elucidate the significance of these ‘salvation-bringing events’. In essence, the distinctive unity and diversity of the four Gospels provide the Church with a historically authoritative and theologically inspired portrait of the Messiah. For an affirmation of the authenticity and accuracy of the Transfiguration, cf. Bock (1994:862–4); Cranfield (1959:292–6); Edwards (2002:269–71); Lane (1982: 316–17); Stein (2008:415–8). 26. E.g. Acts 17:26, Rom 5:12–19, and 1 Cor 15:20–23.

10 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

representative (though not exhaustive) list of various works providing a meticulous analysis on specialized topics explored in this monograph, readers can consult the bibliography included at the end of the volume. A note of appreciation is expressed to the Editorial Board of Conspectus27 for permission to use portions of the following journal articles:28 Lioy D 2012. Review article: two contrasting views on the historical authenticity of the Adam character in the Genesis creation narratives. Conspectus. 12 (1) 191–228 (used in chap. 10). Lioy D 2013b. A comparative analysis of the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians. Conspectus. 16 (1) 1–45 (used in chap. 6). Lioy D 2014b. New creation theology in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2. Conspectus. 17 (1) 53–87 (used in chap. 3). Lioy D 2014c. Opposing Satan, the counterfeit word. Conspectus. 18 (1) 2–34 (used in chap. 7). Lioy D 2015a. Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality: a case study analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23. Conspectus. 19 (1) 27–64 (used in chap. 4). Lioy D 2015b. Paul’s theology of the cross: a case study analysis of 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10. Conspectus. 20 (1) 89–148 (used in chap. 5). Lioy D 2016. Putting the letter from James in its place: a candid assessment of its continuing theological value. Conspectus. 21 (1) 41–76 (used in chap. 8).

As with my previous academic treatises, the current monograph seeks to be as clear and accessible as possible for the benefit of both specialist and non-specialist readers. To that end, beginning with chapter 2, I refrain from filling every paragraph and page with an excessive number of formal citations from secondary sources. The reality is that the majority of relevant exegetical and theological works frequently convey the same sort of information on the biblical passages being deliberated in this book. That said, my study charts its own course, in accordance with the premises I articulated above. So, for the sake of expediency, I indicate using footnotes strategically placed within each chapter, the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse in any section wherein biblical texts are exposited. For the Old Testament, the Masoretic Text, as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, has been used. Similarly, for the New Testament, the latest editions 27. A refereed theological e-journal published biannually by South African Theological Seminary. 28. Concededly, the process necessitated extensive modification and updating of information from each journal article.

p r olo g u e  | 11

of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ Novum Testamentum Graece, have been used. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the 2011 version of the NIV. Readers will notice that the locution in this monograph is somewhat technical in places. This includes lexical definitions, observations about the grammar and syntax of various passages, and so forth. The bulk of this sort of information appearing in chapters 2 through 10 can be found in a number of standard reference works. The ones I regularly consulted are listed below to avoid cluttering the upcoming chapters with recurrent citations and to keep the discussion as straightforward and understandable as possible.

For the Old Testament A dictionary of biblical languages: Hebrew Old Testament ( J Swanson); Hebrew Bible insert: a student’s guide to the syntax of biblical Hebrew (FC Putnam); New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis (WA VanGemeren, ed.); Semantic dictionary of biblical Hebrew (R de Blois R and ER Mueller, eds.); The enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English lexicon (F Brown, SR Driver, and CA Briggs); Theological dictionary of the Old Testament (GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and H-J Fabry, eds.); Theological lexicon of the Old Testament (E Jenni and C Westermann, eds.); Theological wordbook of the Old Testament (RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke, eds.); The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (L Koehler and W Baumgartner)

For the New Testament A dictionary of biblical languages: Greek New Testament ( J Swanson); A grammar of the Greek New Testament (N Turner, JH Moulton, and WF Howard); A GreekEnglish lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (FW Danker, ed.); Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament (H Balz and G Schneider, eds.); Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament based on semantic domains ( JP Louw and EA Nida, eds.); Greek grammar beyond the basics: an exegetical syntax of the New Testament (DB Wallace); Greek New Testament insert (B Chapman and GS Shogren); New international dictionary of New Testament theology (C Brown, ed.); New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis (M Silva, ed.); The new linguistic and exegetical key to the Greek New Testament (CL Rogers); Theological dictionary of the New Testament (G Kittel and G Friedrich, eds.); and Theological lexicon of the New Testament (C Spicq)

12 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

As a final point, the rationale, scope, and sequence of this treatise seeks to be substantive, rather than exhaustive, in its consideration of representative aspects of Paul’s Christological locution. While numerous other biblical texts could be included, this study regards the passages under consideration in the following chapters to be sufficient to establish the key theoretical argument of the monograph. In brief, a Christocentric and Christotelic perspective is an unmistakable feature of Paul’s discourse. More specifically, as Backhaus (2012:83) maintains, the apostle’s epistolary texts reveal that the Lord Jesus ‘occupies the hermeneutic center of the cognitive universe’. Similarly, Walton (2015:161) opines that ‘Jesus is the keystone’ in the Creator’s redemptive ‘plan’ to ‘resolve disorder’, as well as ‘perfect order’. Furthermore, in concert with Jacob’s summary thoughts (1958:148), not only is the Messiah the telos (or ‘final goal’) of the Godhead’s great creation project, but also He is moving the cosmos to eschatological ‘perfection’. Likewise, in spiritual union with Him, ‘undivided humankind’ is ‘fulfilled, restored, and redeemed’ (84).

chapter two

A biblical and theological analysis of the old Adamic creation in Genesis 1–3

1.0 Introduction Smith (2012a) identifies the ‘mission of God’ as a key ‘unifying theme of Scripture’ (28).1 He further clarifies that the missio Dei encompasses God’s redemptive activity ‘across time’ to ‘reconcile all people’ (112) to Himself2 and His efforts to reestablish His ‘righteous and benevolent reign over all creation’.3 In their deliberation about the ‘mission of God’, O’Brien and Harris (2012:147–8) go further when they reason that the missio Dei encompasses more than just the

1. For an overview of what Scripture teaches on mission from a salvation-historical perspective using a biblical-theological method, cf. Kostenberger and O’Brien (2001). For a comprehensive treatment regarding how the concept of ‘mission’ can be used as a heuristic device for interpreting the metanarrative of the Judeo-Christian canon, cf. Wright (2006). For a thoroughgoing examination of Paul’s missionary goals and methods within the context of the first century ce, Greco-Roman world in which the apostle lived, along with recommendations for contemporary missionary practice, cf. Schnabel (2008). 2. Referred to as ‘salvation history’ or Heilsgeschichte in German. 3. Referred to as the ‘kingdom of God’. For a concise overview of the scholarly discourse on what Scripture teaches concerning the kingdom of God, cf. section 2.0 and n 22 in chapter 8 of this monograph.

14 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

notion of ‘salvation history centered on’ the Messiah. Just as important is the Lord’s active involvement throughout ‘creation history,’ which extends from the old Adamic ‘creation’ narrated in Genesis 1–3 to the ‘new creation’ described in Revelation 21–22. Emerson (2013:73) narrows the focus when he observes that the ‘narrative context’ of Paul’s writings ‘emphasizes Christ’s work of new creation’.4 In this regard, the Greek phrase kainé ktísis, which is rendered ‘new creation’, occurs twice within the Pauline corpus: 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15. The first text pertains to the spiritual union believers have through faith in the Messiah. The second passage reveals that in order for the lost to be spiritually regenerated, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision makes any difference; instead, it is a person’s humble response in faith to the truth of the gospel. Corresponding to the imagery of the ‘new creation’ is that of ‘new life’ (kainóteti zoes), as seen in Romans 6:4. Paul writes that just as the Son was ‘raised from the dead’, so believers are baptismally joined with Him in His resurrection to experience the fresh quality and vitality of new life. In order for there to be a new creation, it must be preceded by an old creation. Noteworthy is the contrast Paul makes in his writings between the ‘old self ’ versus the ‘new self ’. For instance, Romans 6:6 states that the believer’s ‘old self ’ (palaiòs ánthropos, literally ‘old man’) is crucified with the Son. Paul is referring to everything people were before trusting in the Son for salvation, when they were still enslaved to sin,5 were ungodly,6 and were enemies of God.7 In short, the ‘old self ’ is a person’s metaphysical state before being born again. The apostle declares in Ephesians 2:15 that prior to the advent of the Messiah, Jews and Gentiles existed as distinct human entities; but now, with the Son’s resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven, He ‘creates’ (a rendering of the Greek verb ktízo) believing Jews and Gentiles into one ‘new humanity’ (kainòn ánthropon, literally ‘new man’), that is, an entirely new metaphysical body known as the church. In Ephesians 4:22–24, Paul figuratively refers to the removal of the ‘old self ’ (tòn palaiòn ánthropon, literally ‘the old man’) and the donning of the ‘new self ’ (tòn 4. Arand and Herrmann (2015:101) observe that the ‘fuller story of God’ extends from the ‘original creation to the new creation’. They also note that understanding this grand metanarrative is an ‘important task for the church’, especially given that ‘people are inundated by bits of information’, yet fail to grasp ‘how to put all those pieces together into a coherent and comprehensive’ account. Regrettably, there also exists within the ‘church’ a ‘growing biblical illiteracy’ in which parishioners struggle to comprehend ‘how the lectionary readings fit within the overarching’ redemptive-historical plot of Scripture. 5. Cf. Rom 3:9. 6. Cf. Rom 5:6. 7. Cf. Rom 5:10.

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 15

kainòn ánthropon, literally ‘the new man’). As in Romans 6, the ‘old self ’ in Ephesians 4:22 denotes the sinful nature within people, which gives rise to unholy ways of thinking and acting. Like worn-out clothing, this deteriorating and wretched state of existence is replaced by the spiritual transformation that comes through faith in the Son. Moreover, verse 24 discloses that the ‘new self ’ is ‘created’ (a rendering of the Greek verb ktízo) in God’s image or likeness (literally, ‘according to God’). Similarly, in Colossians 3:9–10, Paul makes a sharp distinction between the ‘old self ’ (tòn palaiòn ánthropon, literally ‘the old man’) and the ‘new self ’ (tòn néon, literally ‘the new [man]’). The apostle also refers to the latter as ‘being renewed’ (tòn ánakainoúmenon) to become increasingly like the ‘Creator’ (tou ktísantos). The picture is that of believers stripping off all the disgusting habits they had when in their unregenerate state and clothing themselves with godly behavior that reflects the ‘image’ (ekóna) of the Lord. The preceding information is representative of the new creation theology that appears in the writings of Paul. Westermann (1974:39) explains that the ‘New Testament message receives its historical place’ from the ‘source and context’ found in the creation texts recorded in the Old Testament. In particular, Genesis 1 through 3, with its account of humanity’s creation and subsequent fall, provides the literary backdrop and theological foundation for the Christocentric and Christotelic aspects of Paul’s discourse. Accordingly, Minear (1994:xiii) observes that an awareness of the Genesis creation accounts function as a ‘map of Paul’s thought world’, which is characterized by ‘intertextual density’. To illustrate, in Romans 8:19–22, the apostle explains that the present metaphysically corrupted state of the old creation is the result of sin and death entering the human experience.8 Paul also notes that at the end of the present age (which is inaugurated with the Jesus’ Second Advent) comes the revealing of the ‘children of God’ (v. 19) as well as the ‘redemption’ (v. 23) of their ‘bodies’. Apparently, both occur simultaneously, related as they are to the release of the entire cosmos ‘from its bondage to decay’ (v. 21), in which the term ‘cosmos’ denotes the ‘entire universe as an organized entity’ (Oden 1992:1162). In the meantime, ‘creation waits in eager expectation’ (v. 19) and believers ‘groan inwardly’ (v. 23) for their promised freedom. To more fully appreciate the Christological, eschatological, and apocalyptic themes found in the Pauline discourse,9 it is vital first to consider what Genesis 1 through 3 reveals about the old, Adamic creation.10 After all, these chapters,

8. Cf. Rom 5:12. 9. As explored in the upcoming chapters of this monograph. 10. Concerning the disputed issue of Pentateuchal authorship, cf. n 17 in chapter 1 of this monograph.

16 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

along with the rest of Genesis, establish the narrative framework and theological context from which salvation history emerges. In this regard, Backhaus (2012:82) clarifies that to ‘understand redemption we must understand creation’; in turn, to ‘understand creation we must read Genesis’. Whereas 1:1–2:3 theologically portrays humankind as the pinnacle of all living organisms on earth, 2:4–3:24 emphasizes that people likewise remain creatures who are utterly dependent on the Lord for their existence and accountable to Him for their actions. The dilemma facing humankind is their experience of spiritual separation from God. Specifically, they abide in the world as mortal creatures, whereas their Creator-King originally intended for them to eternally exist in loving relationship with Him and their fellow human beings. In light of these observations, the following sections of this chapter undertake a biblical and theological analysis of the tragedy of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the ancient Eden orchard. In turn, this prepares the way for an examination of Paul’s new creation theology to be covered in the next chapter of this study.

2.0 The creation week (Gen 1:1–2:3)11 2.1 Introduction Smith (2010) points out that Genesis 1:1–2:3 offers a ‘priestly vision of reality’ (3) concerning ‘God, humanity, and the world’ in which the entire cosmos is figuratively portrayed as a ‘divine sanctuary’ (31). Against this sacerdotal backdrop, verse 1 is the starting point for God’s formation of the cosmos. The text declares that at the absolute beginning of space and time, ‘God created the heavens and the earth’. According to von Rad (1962:139), the ‘creation’ is viewed as a ‘work’ of Yahweh ‘within time’ and as a consequence ‘in history’. Like the rest of the Bible, Genesis does not try to prove the Creator’s existence, whom Zlotowitz (1988:2) describes as being ‘incorporeal, omnipresent, without beginning and without end’; instead, the original faith community for whom this ancient sacred text was written, assumed that God exists.12 After all, Genesis, like the rest of the Pentateuch, was composed for a people who already believed in God. Other ancient cultures had their own creation stories involving their many pagan 11. What follows in this chapter is adapted from material appearing in my following three earlier works: The Search for Ultimate Reality: Intertextuality between the Genesis and Johannine Prologues (2005); Axis of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in Scripture (2010); and Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective (2011). 12. Cf. Heb 11:6.

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 17

deities. Genesis tells about the creation of all things by the one true and living God. As O’Brien and Harris (2012:149) note, the Israelites affirmed that ‘God was responsible for material origins’. Likewise, Jacob (1958:37) draws attention to the core theological tenet that ‘God is the basis of all things and all that exists only exists by his will’. Van Till (1999:173) elucidates that the divine Architect ‘fully gifted’ the cosmos so that it has ‘functional integrity’ (186). Contrary to the religious philosophy known as deism, the Creator did not just set the universe in motion, with no intention of intervening; rather, He continually brings order to reality and gives it purpose, and He uses natural and supernatural means to do so. Indeed, He is the ultimate reference point for all physical and metaphysical aspects of existence. In order for the latter circumstance to remain viable, God must be fundamentally committed to His creation from its inception to its consummation.13 There is a sense in which, as Brueggemann (1997:157) observes, the ‘creation is covenantally ordered’. Frick (2012:205) likewise holds that ‘covenant and creation are inseparable’. Anderson (1962:727–728) takes this thought further when he points out that the ‘covenant, rather than a rational principle, is the ground of the unity of creation’. Moreover, according to Brueggemann (1997:157), the existence of God’s chosen people is ‘covenantally ordered’. Gentry (2008:18) adds that ‘covenants constitute the framework’ for the metanarrative of Scripture in which, according Sailhamer (1992:81), the ‘biblical covenants’ demarcate the ‘way to the new Creation’.14

2.2 The primordial earth (Gen 1:1–2) The account of humanity’s origin, along with that of the rest of God’s chosen people, is rooted in the Genesis creation narrative of 1:1–2:25. Three Hebrew terms are used in this passage to refer to this divinely cosmological endeavor. First, in 1:1, the verb bara’ appears, which generally means ‘to shape, fashion, or make something new’.15 In this verse, the term more specifically refers to bringing the

13. Cf. Kline (2006:15); Zimmerli (1978:38). 14. For a deliberation of progressive covenantalism as an integrative motif of Scripture, cf. Lioy (2011a:221–41). There I state that God’s progressive revelation of His covenants is an extension of the kingdom blessings He first introduced in creation. Affiliated claims are that the various covenants revealed in Scripture are interrelated and build on one another, that the people of God throughout the history of salvation are united, and that they equally share in His eschatological promises. 15. Cf. Bernhardt (1999:246–247); Brown, Driver, and Briggs (2000); Schmidt (1997a:252); Swanson (2001a).

18 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

universe into existence from nothing.16 Childs (1986:31) explains that God ‘did not merely transform something into something’; instead, the ‘emphasis falls on a completely new beginning’. Prior to this, ‘there was no time of earthly being’; indeed, what God ‘brought forth’ was a ‘reality distinct from himself, over which he had complete freedom’. Second, in verse 24, the verb yatsa’ is used, which means ‘to cause something to come forth’.17 Here it refers to the land producing living creatures according to their kinds. Third, in verse 25, the verb ‘asah is employed, which means ‘to do, make, or prepare’.18 In contrast to bara’, ‘asah indicates the shaping of something that already existed. More specifically, after God brought the heavens and the earth into being, He then used the planet’s material resources to fashion His creatures and fully endow them with functional integrity. The biblical text does not state precisely when the triune God began this creation activity, only that it was ‘in the beginning’ (v. 1). Psalm 90:2 reveals that God has eternally existed; in contrast, as Eichrodt (1967:104) notes, the ‘heavens and the earth’ (Gen 1:1) had a definite starting point in time. In Hebrew speech, pairs of opposites are often used to express totality. Kline’s analysis of the phrase rendered ‘the heavens and the earth’ affirms that God created all things—spiritual beings, physical beings, matter, energy, time, and space (2006:23). The writer of Hebrews 11:3 noted that ultimately it was by means of ‘God’s command’ that the cosmos and its intervening ages were made. Brueggemann (1997:146) clarifies that the ‘imagery is of a powerful sovereign who utters a decree from the throne’ and in doing so actualizes His edict.19 Furthermore, Hebrews 11:3 explicitly states that the visible ‘universe’ originated from what cannot be seen. This declaration does not rule out the use of intermediate processes20 stretching over long expanses of time to bring the material realm into existence. Genesis 1:2 reveals that in its early stage, the earth was ‘formless and empty’, a phrase that translates the rhyming Hebrew words tohu wabohu. According to Coote and Ord (1991:51), the idea is that the earth was chaotic, not ordered, or as Oden (1992:1166) puts it, an aggregation of ‘undifferentiated and dark primal matter’. 16. Sometimes referred to by the Latin phrase creatio ex nihilo; cf. Apoc Bar 21:4–6; 2 Macc 7:28; Sir 42:15; Heb 11:3; 2 Pet 3:5; Dyrness (1977:65); Jacob (1958:143); Van Leeuwen (1997a:732). 17. Cf. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (2000); Konkel (1997b:502); Schmidt (1997c:566); Swanson (2001a). 18. Cf. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (2000); Carpenter (1997:547); Ringgren (2001:388); Swanson (2001a); Vollmer (1997:945). 19. Cf. Pss 33:6, 9; 148:5–6. 20. Including cosmological, geological, and biological evolution.

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 19

Sailhamer (1992:85) clarifies that because the earth was barren, God would spend the days of creation forming and filling the planet to make it a suitable ecosystem for habitation and flourishing. In this regard, Van Till (1999:203) remarks that the cosmos is ‘brimming with awesome potentialities for achieving a rich diversity of forms in the course of time’. According to a view popularly known as the gap theory, an extended period elapsed between the events of verse 1 and those of verse 2. First, God created the heavens and the earth. Later, as a byproduct of Satan’s rebellion against God, the earth was converted to a formless state. Then God recreated it. A more likely interpretation is that the temporarily formless state of the earth need not be considered in negative terms. Specifically, God chose to create by beginning with formless matter and then giving it form. In short, there was only one creation. Verse 2 refers to the waters covering the surface of the earth. In its liquid state, water is shapeless, being the same all over in its general appearance. Water points to the formlessness of the earth in its earliest stages of existence. Likewise, ‘darkness was over the surface of the deep’. This condition initially prevailed because, according to the events of the creation week, God had not yet brought the sun and the other celestial lights into existence. Meanwhile, the divine Spirit was ‘hovering’ over the waters of the planet. Metaphorically speaking, the Spirit was like a mother bird brooding over her eggs to ensure that life would emerge throughout the planet. The Hebrew verb rachaph, which is rendered ‘was hovering’, is used in Deuteronomy 32:11 to speak of the ‘theophanic presence of Yahweh’ (Van Pelt and Kaiser 1997:1098) as an ‘eagle’ that ‘hovers’ over the nest when it stirs up the young.21 The picture Genesis 1:2 paints is not one in which the Spirit sets the universe in motion and passively allows natural forces to operate, but one in which He is directly involved in every aspect of creation.

2.3 The first creation day (Gen 1:3–5) The findings of science concerning an inaugural event popularly known as the ‘Big Bang’ confirm that the universe is not eternal, but instead had a violent, explosive beginning.22 Moreover, the Genesis creation narrative reveals that the cosmos did not come about merely through natural and impersonal forces; instead, God intentionally brought the universe into existence. Brown (1999:49) likens the process to an ‘explosive contagion of power’ that gives way to an ‘orderly development’. The

21. Cf. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (2000); Koehler and Baumgartner (2001:1219–20); Swanson (2001a). 22. Cf. Greene (2012); Netting (2012).

20 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

theologically sculpted narrative of Genesis depicts this cosmogenic etiology as occurring over a period of six creation ‘days’. Concededly, there are differing views regarding how literally or metaphorically the biblical text should be understood. One option insists that the creation ‘days’ are literal, sequential, 24-hour periods. A more figurative alternative is supported by the overwhelming evidence from a wide range of scientific disciplines pointing to the cosmos and earth being billions of years old.23 Additionally, as Morrow’s literary analysis of the passage indicates (2009: 1–4), it is a highly stylized liturgical depiction. In particular, Alexander (2008:24) points out that the six creation ‘days’ form a rhythmical structure around which the passage (cast as a temple-creation motif ) is topically (or non-sequentially) arranged. Also, what God superintended over eons is set against the backdrop of pre-history or proto-history. In short, the Genesis rendition of how the primordial earth began is not portrayed as occurring within the normal course of human events. As a consequence of this detailed examination, the creation ‘days’ are best understood, not as delineating a precise chronology, but as atemporal markers to convey a theological message. More specifically, a series of past events are conveyed in a parable-like manner to communicate important doctrinal truths to the covenant community.24 One broad inference is that of ‘God’s sovereignty over time’ (Saebø 1990:27). A corresponding implication is ‘day and night’ (Verhoef 1997:420) being ‘totally subordinated’ to the Creator.25 According to Genesis 1:3, the one true and living God simply issued His command—‘Let there be light’—and it was so. Childs (1986:31) points out that ‘there is no hiatus between [God’s] will’, as it is ‘expressed in his word’ and His ‘accomplishment’ of the same. Brueggemann (1997:148) draws attention to the ‘unquestioned authority of the sovereign’, by means of His ‘royal utterance’, to bring about a ‘genuine newness in the world’. Since it was not until the fourth day of creation that God brought the sun into existence (vv. 14–19), the light present during the first three days did not correspond to what is presently known. The phenomenon called ‘light’ in verse 3 contrasts sharply with the ‘darkness’ noted in verse 2. In conjunction with the analysis offered by Clifford (1985:510), God’s provision of light was the first step in the process of bringing order out of chaos and making the earth hospitable for humans. Westermann (1994:112) adds that

23. About 13.7 and 4.5 billion years, respectively; cf. Haarsma (2012); Wollack (2012); Wright (2009). 24. Cf. Clifford (1994:138); Hyers (1984a; 1984b). 25. Cf. Ps 74:16.

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 21

with the appearance of ‘brightness’, God ‘makes possible the basic cycle of time and order’. During the third day of creation, as God reflected on the light He had commanded into existence, He concluded that it was ‘good’ (Gen. 1:4). In this case, the light served God’s benevolent purposes, especially in enabling humanity to fulfill its divinely ordained role in the world. From a broader biblical perspective, light is conducive for life—especially in terms of promoting, enhancing, or producing such—and so meets with God’s approval. Ṭôḇ is the Hebrew adjective rendered ‘good’ in the Genesis creation narrative26 and concerns both the intrinsic nature and instrumental functionality of the material realm.27 As Spanner has observed (1987:53), the sevenfold occurrence of the preceding adjective does not mean that the primal creation was an ‘idyllic paradise’. Eichrodt (1967:108) mirrors this view when he interjects that ṭôḇ does not ‘denote a state of unlimited perfection’; instead, according to Anderson (1984:15), the divine assessment is ‘aesthetic’, not ‘ethical’. This being the case, Southgate (2008:15) comments that what the divine Artisan brought into existence was superbly suited for its God-ordained function and purpose, as seen in ‘creation’s beauty’ and ‘appropriateness’. Walton (2011) moves the analysis along when he explains that a ‘functional ontology’ (viii) permeated the ‘conceptual worldview’ (2) of the ancient Near East. In contrast to a ‘modern, material ontology’ (45), adherents of the prescientific metaphysical outlook reasoned that ‘everything exists by virtue of its having been assigned a function and given role in the ordered cosmos’ (24). Walton argues that ‘bringing order and functionality’ (viii) to the universe was the ‘very essence of creative activity’, with the latter involving ‘naming, separating, and temple building’ (120). Walton supports his postulation by comparing the opening chapters of Genesis with Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts (primarily), along with Hittite, Ugaritic, or Persian texts (secondarily). The above line of reasoning warrants a concise assessment. To that end, Averbeck (2015) summarizes the two leading aspects of Walton’s thesis as follows:28 (1) ‘there is no material creation in Gen 1–2’ (226); and, (2) ‘creation has to do with establishing functions alone’. Averbeck’s examination of the relevant biblical passages and Walton’s argument leads Averbeck to conclude that Walton’s 26. Cf. Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31. 27. Cf. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (2000); Gordon (1997:353); Höver-Johag (1986:304); Stoebe (1997:487); Swanson (2001a). 28. While Averbeck’s critique is directed to Walton’s 2015 treatise, the assessment equally applies to Walton’s 2011 publication, since the same basic assumptions, claims, and conclusions are conveyed in both works.

22 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

contention is a ‘false dichotomy that cannot bear the weight of the text’ (235). Averbeck goes further in stating that a dual emphasis on ‘material creation’ (236) and an ‘archetypal reading’ of the texts need not be ‘mutually exclusive’. Indeed, ‘both material creation’ (226), along with the ‘functions of those things created’, are ‘essential components’ of the ‘creation accounts’ recorded in Genesis. This includes God’s direct involvement in all aspects of the physical/metaphysical creation process (236). In the Genesis preamble to the entire Pentateuch,29 the master Craftsman is so sovereign in His rule that He even makes the darkness conform to His will.30 Brueggemann (1997:153) surmises that the portrayal is one of God being ‘serenely and supremely in charge’ and in which He shuts out all forms of ‘threat, anxiety, and insecurity’. For example, in the creation account, He ‘separated the light from the darkness’ (Gen. 1:4). In this context, light and darkness, while distinct from one another, coexist together in harmony. In later biblical usage, they become mutually exclusive and incompatible entities.31 According to verse 5, God identified the light as ‘day’ and the darkness as ‘night’. Also, the first day of creation was marked by the passage of ‘evening’ and ‘morning’. In fact, six of the seven days are closed out in this way and parallel the Hebrew manner of reckoning time. The idea is that night (which is between evening and morning) ends the day. Then, with the appearance of dawn’s first light, a new day begins, along with the new creative possibilities it brings.

2.4 The second creation day (Gen 1:6–8) God’s next royal decree resulted in a ‘vault’ (Gen 1:6) being created. The Hebrew noun raqiya‘ denotes an inanimate piece of metal that has been hammered flat.32 Rather than think of such an expanse as a ‘void of empty space’ (Swanson 2001a), it appeared to people of the ancient Near East as a hard and shiny barrier that could not be permeated. More generally, as Lucas (2003:137) clarifies, the people of that era ‘envisaged the cosmos as a series of layers’, with the ‘basic ones being the heavens, the earth and the lower waters.’33 29. Cf. Westermann (1974:14–5). 30. Cf. Ps 104:19–26. 31. Cf. John 1:5; 1 John 1:5–7. 32. Cf. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (2000); Görg (2004:648); Payne (1980b); Tsumura (1997:1198). 33. For a general overview of the ancient Near Eastern perception of the cosmos, cf. Gunkel (1984:33–5); Eichrodt (1967:93–6); Simkins (1994:138–40); von Rad (1962:151–2); Walton (2011:88–9, 99–100).

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 23

The expanse in the sky seemed so solidly constructed that it ably separated the waters residing above (which fell from the clouds as rain) from the rivers, seas, and subterranean waters (the last of which came up from the earth). Westermann (1994:116) cautions against ‘imposing our rigid notion of a world view’ in which the modern understanding of reality is deemed ‘correct’ and the ancient cosmology is labeled ‘false’. The Creator-King’s decision to separate the waters above from the waters below was an act of imposing order upon them; indeed, what God commanded occurred just as He had intended (v. 7). Then, He called the domelike structure ‘sky’ (v. 8). God’s naming activity drew attention to His dominion over this aspect of the cosmos and ended the second day in the creation sequence.

2.5 The third creation day (Gen 1:9–13) At first, water covered the entire planet; but then on the third day of creation, God separated dry ground and surface water, resulting in land and seas (Gen 1:9). The dry land was like an island surrounded by and floating upon water. Also, lakes and rivers on the land flowed back into the seas. The divine Artisan called the dry ground ‘land’ (vs. 10; literally, ‘earth’), and the waters that were gathered together He called ‘seas’. Zlotowitz (1988:52) clarifies that this sequence of developments was ‘good’ in God’s eyes because they were conducive to foster a teeming array of life. After God decreed the dry land into existence, He commanded the land to produce ‘vegetation’ (v. 11) in abundance. This included grass and seed-bearing plants as well as trees characterized by seed-bearing fruit. The seeds from each of these, in turn, would produce the appropriate kinds of seeds and plants. All of this occurred as God intended. The Creator-King regarded the fertility of the planet’s vegetation to be ‘good’ (v. 12) because it produced and enhanced life, especially in providing food for air and land creatures, most notably humans.34 So ended the third day of creation (v. 13).

2.6 The fourth creation day (Gen 1:14–19) On the fourth day of creation, God decreed that there be bright lights in the expanse of the sky to create a separation of the day from the night. Throughout the ancient Near East, people worshiped and feared a pantheon of deities. Among these, the sun and moon would have been foremost in the constellation. In contrast, the Genesis account reveals that the luminaries were to serve as signs to mark off the seasons, days, and years (Gen 1:14). It is also possible that the sun

34. Cf. Gen 1:29–30.

24 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

and moon operate as visual reminders of the power and majesty of the Creator. Moreover, both functions would help people of faith as they worshiped the one true God during their regularly occurring religious celebrations and festivals. In verse 15, the luminaries are depicted as entities that the great King of creation used for His bidding.35 Furthermore, in verse 16, these entities are not even named; instead, they are indirectly called ‘two great lights’. In particular, the ‘greater light’ (the sun) illumined the planet during the daytime, while the ‘lesser light’ (the moon) illumined the globe at night. In ancient Near Eastern cosmology, these sorts of duties were assigned to pagan deities, but in the Genesis account, Israel’s one true God remained firmly in control when He issued His decrees. Verse 17 discloses that the master Craftsman sovereignly assigned the sun, moon, and stars to their respective roles, as His subordinates, to give light to the inhabitants of the planet, to mark off the seasons of the calendar, and to separate the light from the darkness (v. 18). What God enjoined on the fourth day of creation met with His approval. It was ‘good’, for it promoted a fecundity of life. So ended the fourth day of creation (vs. 19). The preceding separation of responsibilities can be found in the remaining portions of the days of creation. For instance, just as the luminaries governed the day and night,36 so too the birds and fish ruled over the sky and sea (respectively). Correspondingly, animals and humans exercised control over the land and its vegetation. Above all, people had responsibility for the entire planet as the Lord’s viceroys.

2.7 The fifth creation day (Gen 1:20–23) At the start of the fifth creation day, the King of the cosmos focused His attention on the water and sky (which appeared on the second day). He decreed that the sea bring forth swarms of aquatic creatures (both fish and other forms of marine life), while the expanse of the sky was to be filled with flying creatures of every kind (Gen 1:20). The emphasis is on the rapid increase of these creatures. Functionality, fertility, and fruitfulness characterized their existence. As verse 21 reveals, the Lord created the great sea creatures and subjected them to His unchallengeable rule. He also created all the living creatures that swarmed in the ocean and every kind of bird that filled the sky. Coote and Ord (1991:3, 54, 57, 63) accurately maintain that the intent here and elsewhere in the passage is not to convey a scientifically precise taxonomy, specify a zoological framework for understanding the entire created order, or teach

35. Cf. Isa 40:26. 36. Cf. Ps 136:7–9.

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 25

the notion of the biological fixity of species; instead, it is to categorize broadly the vast assortment of living entities based on what people in the ancient Near East commonly observed. Sarna (1966:2–3) points out that the ‘critical use of empirical data’ was not the basis for views held by the writers of Scripture, for the ‘principles and methods of discipline inquiry’ did not exist, nor did those of ‘critical observation’ and ‘analytical experimentation’; instead, their ‘thinking was imaginative’ and their ‘expressions of thought concrete, pictorial, emotional, and poetic’. Likewise, Hyers (1984b) explains that the biblical text uses ‘language’ that is ‘phenomenal and popular, not scientific and technical’, to make pivotal ‘cosmological’ declarations. When the divine Artisan reflected on what He had brought into existence, He determined that it was beneficial for enabling life on earth to flourish. Accordingly, God ‘blessed’ (v. 22) all these creatures. The Hebrew verb barak conveys the idea of endowing something with productivity or fruitfulness.37 Brown (1997:758) clarifies that the ‘emphasis here is on the life-infusing power of the divine word’. Moreover, the Creator’s declaration is neither an ‘empty pronouncement’ nor merely an ‘expression of wish or goodwill’; instead, the divine decree ‘actualizes and enables’ so that what is ‘blessed functions and produces at the optimum level’ (759).38 In this case, the master Craftsman gave the creatures of the sea and air the ability to reproduce for the purpose of ruling over their respective realms. In fact, His declaration of blessing ensured their success. So with that the fifth day of creation ended (v. 23).

2.8 The sixth creation day (Gen 1:24–2:1) At the beginning of the sixth day, God populated the land, seas, and vegetation (created on the third day) with land animals and humans (Gen 1:24). Based on the information appearing in the fifth and sixth days of creation, the narrative divided the animal world into three categories—sky, water, and land creatures. In turn, they governed the respective realms they populated—sky, water, and land. Fittingly, as Alexander (2008:24) notes, the priests of Israel would later use these same categories to make a distinction between clean and unclean animals.39 That said, the abundant diversity of species mentioned in verse 25, regardless of kind or size, were the work of the divine Artisan’s hand and He declared them to

37. Cf. McKeown (2003:86); Oswalt (1980a); Scharbert (1999:294); Keller (1997a:268). 38. For a correlation of between speech-act theory and Paul’s heralding of the gospel, cf. the discourse in section 3.0 of chapter 4 of this monograph. 39. Cf. Lev 11:1–47; Deut 14:3–21.

26 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

be ‘good’. Even though His work was not yet finished, what He had created so far was superb. In addition, He provided for and sustained this vast array of creatures in such a way that they were able to flourish. Bringing humankind into existence was God’s final and climactic act.40 Verse 26 begins with the Creator-King decreeing, ‘Let us make’. There are various explanations for the plural use of the Hebrew verb ‘asah. Sailhamer (1992:95–6) reiterates the view of the early church that this is a hint of the Trinity, namely, a ‘plurality’ within the divine unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit. A second more exegetically viable possibility is that the Hebrew signifies either a plural of majesty (for example, the royal ‘we’) or a situation in which God addresses the statement to Himself. A third proposal is that God and His heavenly angelic court are in view.41 In this case, while the latter are included in the statement, God actually brings humankind into existence. Gentry and Wellum (2012:208) aver that the Creator ‘addressing the heavenly court’ does not mandate that the ‘angels co-create or join God in making humans’; instead, the emphasis is on the ‘Judge and King’ of His heavenly courtiers declaring that their ‘rule of the cosmos will be shared with humans’. Gentry and Wellum compare this circumstance to the ‘Chairman and CEO of a corporation announcing to his board of directors/shareholders’ the following: ‘let us make all employees shareholders’. The broader context of Genesis 1:26–27 indicates that the Hebrew noun ’adam, which is translated ‘mankind’, refers to the male and female genders of the species, or as Anderson (1984a:158) puts it, ‘human beings in the corporate sense’.42 Additionally, only human beings are created in the divine image. For that reason, they are distinguished from the rest of the creatures God brings into existence. Accordingly, all members of the human race bear the ‘image’ (v. 26; Hebrew, tselem) and ‘likeness’ (Hebrew, demuth) of God.43 Tselem is typically used in reference to such replicas as models, statues, and images;44 and demuth is derived

40. Averbeck (2015:233) observes that while there is ‘genetic continuity’ between Homo sapiens and ‘earlier hominids’, it would be unreasonable to insist on the opening chapters of Genesis addressing this matter. After all, such a finding of modern science would have been incomprehensible to the ‘ancient Israelites’ (i.e. a ‘non-sequitur’). 41. Cf. Isa 6:8; Anderson (2001:18); Baker (2003:362); Brown (1999:51); Eichrodt (1967:124–5); Lucas (2003:135); von Rad (1962:145); Westermann (1994:144–5); Zlotowitz (1988:69). 42. Cf. Coppes (1980); Hamilton (1997a:266); Maass (1997:75); Wallace (1992a:62–3); Westermann (1997:33, 35). 43. Scripture reveals that God has no gender; cf. John 4:24. 44. Cf. Hartley (1980); Stendebach (2003:388); Van Leeuwen (1997b:646); Wildberger (1997:1080).

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 27

from a primitive root (Hebrew, damah) that means ‘to be like’ or ‘to resemble’.45 In Genesis 1:26, the two terms seem virtually synonymous in meaning.46 The Creator-King gave humans the capacity and authority to govern creation as His ruling representatives. Their jurisdiction as His theophanic deputies extended to the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and animals on the land.47 The mandate for people to govern the world as benevolent vice-regents of the true and living God is a reflection of His image in them.48 By ruling over the rest of creation in a responsible fashion, people bear witness to the divine likeness placed within humanity. Also, as they mediate God’s presence, they make His will a reality on earth. These statements should not be taken as permission to exploit and ravage either the environment or its inhabitants, including other humans. After all, people are not the owners of creation, but rather stewards who are accountable to their divine Owner. While they have jurisdiction over animals and plants,49 they exercise no authority over cosmic entities and forces.50 Moreover, because all people bear the image of God, they have sanctity and innate worth. Correspondingly, they are to be treated with dignity and respect. On one level, it may seem valid to assert that God created the universe primarily for humankind; yet, on another level, Scripture indicates that the divine intent is far more encompassing and expansive. Succinctly put, God’s purposes in creation, while including the human race, are not limited to the latter.51 For instance, one meta-objective includes the Creator-King bringing glory to Himself in and through His creation. For that reason, believers should avoid adopting a compartmentalized, either-or mentality when it comes to the temporal and eternal, the material and the immaterial, the physical and spiritual aspects of reality. In God’s sovereignty, every aspect of His creation has value, meaning, and purpose. What God decreed in Genesis 1:26, He enacted in verse 27. As the sovereign King and Lord, He had the authority and ability to create human beings—both males and females—in His own image. Down through the centuries, people have debated what this exactly means, with the variety of views stressing either the nature or function of human life. Put another way, the divine likeness is thought to be either a special character (or quality) given to humans or a role (or task)

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

Cf. Hamilton (1980b); Jenni (1997a:339); Konkel (1997a:967); Preuss (1997:250–251). Cf. Curtis (1992:389); Hess (2003:18); Merrill (2003a:444). Whether small or large, wild or domesticated. Cf. Gen. 9:2; Ps. 8:5–8; Heb. 2:5–9. Cf. Gen 1:28–29. Cf. Eph. 6:10–12. Cf. Rom 8:18–25.

28 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

entrusted to them.52 Perhaps a combination of both views should be affirmed, especially since people somehow and in some way bear the image of God in both the material and immaterial aspects of their existence. This surely includes temporal (physical) life and for believers eternal life. Indeed, as Finley (2003:20–1) avers, only the redeemed are being transformed from Homo sapiens53 to Homo divinus.54 Genesis 1:28 states that the master Craftsman ‘blessed’ the first man and woman, which means He endowed them55 with the ability to flourish and be successful in serving as His viceroys. According to Bartholomew and Goheen (2004:37), people are ‘God’s royal stewards’, whom He commissions and empowers to ‘develop the hidden potentials’ He has entrusted to their care, with the result that the ‘whole of it may celebrate his glory’. Humanity’s populating the world and bringing it under their control in a responsible fashion would be a testimony to God’s blessing on their lives. In the ancient Near East, the focus would have been primarily agricultural. Such endeavors as domesticating animals, using trees to build homes, cultivating fields, and extracting mineral resources from the land would all be involved. Even today, as people use the raw materials of the environment in a sensible fashion, they are fulfilling God’s original command to subdue the earth.56 Creation stories that date to before the time of Abraham have been found inscribed on tablets in the ruins of Mesopotamian cities such as Babylon and Nippur. Particular attention is given to the similarities between the Genesis account of creation and one of these stories, known as the Enuma Elish (which literally means, ‘when on high’).57 Walton (2003a:156) elucidates that it ‘remains the principal text from Mesopotamia regarding the cosmological aspects of creation’. It is commonly held that the Genesis account is simply a retelling of this Babylonian story; however, when these two are closely studied, the uniqueness of the biblical account is apparent. For instance, in the Babylonian tale, the god of creation is only one among many rival gods. Moreover, the creative activity of the deity, Marduk, the hero of the Enuma Elish, plays a relatively minor role in the story. In contrast, the Genesis account focuses on Creation to emphasize the reality of God’s sovereignty and the unique place that humanity holds in the created order. Furthermore, when 52. Cf. Bromiley (1982:803–4); Erickson (2013:532–3); Grudem (1994:443–4); Henry (2001:591–3); Horton (2011:396–7); Leitch (2009:282); Lewis and Demarest (1990: 134–5); Porteous (1962:683–4). 53. I.e. modern humans. 54. I.e. those who enjoy fellowship with the Creator as the object of His special love. 55. As well as all the physical descendants of the progenitors of the human race. 56. Cf. Ps 8:5–8. 57. Cf. King (1902); Lambert (2008); Sandars (1971); Speiser (1955).

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 29

the biblical account is compared with the Enuma Elish and the other creation myths written in Babylonia and Mesopotamia, the simplicity and monotheism of the Genesis description are unmatched.58 As Bratcher (2005:5) notes, on the one hand, the ‘Israelites shared much of their culture and cultural heritage with surrounding peoples’; on the other hand, the ‘Israelites came to a radically new understanding of God, His relationship to the world, and human beings’. According to Genesis 1:29, the Creator-King permitted human beings to eat as food every seed-bearing plant on the earth’s surface as well as every tree with seed in its fruit. In addition, God allowed all the animals and birds to eat every green plant (whether grasses or grains) for food (v. 30). These verses seem to imply that only plants are good to eat, and that all animals were once exclusively plant eaters. One view is that birds, animals, and people originally were frugivores, namely, eating only the seeds of plants and trees. When these verses are coupled with 9:3, in which God told Noah that all plants and animals were good to eat, it is reasoned that until the time of Noah, all people were vegetarians.59 The biblical text, however, need not be pressed too far, especially since everything God made is later declared in Scripture to be good to eat.60 Also, while the Israelites at one time were given lists of animals to eat and not to eat,61 later in the New Testament, Peter’s vision showed him that nothing God has made should be declared unclean and forbidden to eat.62 Moreover, the findings of science indicate that physical death in the nonhuman natural world63 predated God’s special creation of the first humans. Additionally, this evolutionary mechanism of creative destruction64 has existed since God brought about the first forms of life on earth.65 Alexander (2001:352–353) clarifies that with the inception of ‘multicellular carbon-based life forms’ on the planet, the ‘inevitable consequence’ was a ‘dynamic natural order in which life and death’ were ‘integral parts’. In fact, all living organisms on the globe survive by ‘feeding on carbon-based molecules derived from other plants and animals’. According to

58. Cf. Clifford (1994:140–1); Dyrness (1977:63); Heidel (1951:139); Lucas (2003:135–7); Oswalt (2003:856); Smith (1993:179). 59. Cf. Bauckham (2012:183–4); Gunkel (1984:30); Paul (1997:360); Houston (2012:142); Williamson (2003:140). 60. Cf. 1 Tim 4:3–5. 61. Cf. Lev 11. 62. Cf. Acts 10:9–15. 63. Including the mass extinction of countless, previously-thriving species. 64. Along with nonhuman natural disasters, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and so forth. 65. Cf. Lewis (1996:119–21); Miller (2011:92–3); Murphy (2010:2).

30 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Kline (2006:54), the ‘Creator from the outset granted to predatory beasts to feed on other animals’.66 Southgate (2008:16) observes that God providentially uses the preceding circumstance to bring about the ‘sort of beauty, diversity, sentience, and sophistication of creatures’ found throughout earth. Furthermore, Miller (2011:92) argues that God intentionally ‘embedded’ both ‘death and pain’ within the natural world as part of His ‘will and purpose for it’. Expressed differently, ‘for nonhuman creation, pain and suffering provide the context in which animal lives’ (93) continue to survive and thrive from one stage of descent to the next. Additionally, Munday (2003:459) reasons that because the termination of life is an inherent component of the biological evolutionary process, it is ‘not intrinsically immoral’. Beyond any doubt, as Polkinghorne (2007:3) explicates, humanity lives in a universe brimming with ‘potentiality’, which includes the ‘cosmic evolution of stars and galaxies’ and the ‘developing complexity of terrestrial life’; but the ‘shadow side of evolving fruitfulness’ is the presence of ‘evil and suffering’.67 Waltke and Fredricks (2001:68–69) offer a clarifying theological perspective. In their view, the existence of ‘darkness and chaos’ in the ‘precreated earth’ implies that ‘everything hostile to life is not the result of sin’. In truth, even the ‘malevolent forces of creation operate only within [God’s] constraints’. At several points during the creation week, the divine Artisan declared that His work was ‘good’ (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). Then, at the end, the CreatorKing reflected upon what He had brought into existence and concluded that it was ‘very good’ (v. 31). As Westermann (1974:61) surmises, all that was necessary for life to flourish—in the totality of its rich array and diversity—was now in place. With that the sixth day of creation ended. This final circumstance contrasts sharply with the planet’s initial condition. Previously, the earth was uninhabitable, being unformed and void (v. 2). By the end of the creation week, God had made the biosphere a most hospitable place to live. In fact, as 2:1 states, the Lord had optimally executed His will by bringing order and harmony to the universe— the heavens, the earth, and everything they contained, including the animate and inanimate entities present in the world. It was fitting that on the seventh day of the creation week, God ‘rested’ (v. 2), in which Hyers (1984b) proposes that the number ‘seven’ conveys the ‘meaning of wholeness, plenitude, and completeness’. The Hebrew verb shabath, here translated ‘rested’, is the root from which some conjecture the noun shabbath (transliterated,

66. Cf. Job 38:39, 41; 39:3, 16–17, 20, 25, 30; 41:14; Pss 104:19–21; 147:9; Isa 31:3; 45:6–7; Lam 3:38. 67. This difficult existential issue is a branch of philosophical inquiry known as theodicy.

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 31

‘Sabbath’) derives.68 In any case, shabath conveys the idea of ceasing from one’s work. In connection with the days of creation, these establish the rhythms in which all of life exists. With respect to God, He rested (in a manner of speaking) not because He was physically tired, but due to the fact that there was nothing left that needed to be created. The heavens and the earth did not require revamping or patching up to correct some deficiency. Whatever God had brought into existence by His royal decrees was suitable to fulfill its divinely intended purpose. So, as Kline has surmised (2006:38), it was fitting for the ‘eternal Judge’ to be ‘enthroned’ in His place of rest ‘over the cosmic temple and as the sovereign Lord over the covenant community’. Verse 3 states that ‘God blessed the seventh day and made it holy’. As Hasel (1992:851) observes, the Lord did so by ‘separating it from all other days’. Kaiser (2008:41) adds that ‘all subsequent work’69 refers to God’s providential oversight of the cosmos. According to Dyrness (1977:75), while at times God might operate through ‘secondary causes’, He remains ‘intimately present in these processes’. Indeed, the entire material and immaterial realms continuously ‘depend on God’s upholding care’. Bartholomew and Goheen (2004:26) narrow the focus by pointing out that the Father’s ‘grand purpose for his creation is ongoing’, namely, to ‘reconcile’ the entire cosmos to Himself, especially through the redemptive work of His Son, the Messiah. Connected with these observations are Exodus 20:8–11, which deals with God’s creation of the world, and Deuteronomy 5:12–15, which concerns the Lord’s redemption of the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt. Both passages summon the people of God to imitate the pattern of work and rest established by the Lord of the universe. In this way, people of faith affirm God’s supreme rulership over all creation and the promise of rest—both temporal and eternal—for the redeemed. Israel’s entrance into Canaan was one major step in that process, though it did not completely fulfill God’s promise.70 Also, the First Advent of the Messiah affords believers the ongoing opportunity to partake of His salvation rest.71 He can make this offer to them because He is Lord of the Sabbath.72 Finally, at the Messiah’s Second Advent, He brings complete and final rest to all who have trusted in Him.73 Even now, they are the recipients of eternal life;74 nevertheless, at the Messiah’s 68. Cf. Baker (2003:695); Bosman (1997:1157); Haag (2004:382–3); Stolz (1997b:1297). 69. I.e. creatio continua. 70. Cf. Josh 1:13, 15; 21:43–45; 22:4. 71. Cf. Matt 11:28–30. 72. Cf. Matt 12:8. 73. Cf. Heb 3:7–4:11. 74. Cf. John 3:16.

32 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

return, they enjoy unending physical life and more intimate fellowship with the triune God.75

3.0 The special creation of the first man and woman (Gen 2:4–25) 3.1 Introduction Starting with Genesis 2:4, a second complementary narration of Creation is found. Carlson and Longman (2010:121) observe that when ‘taken together’, these ‘two accounts’ result in a ‘more complete portrait of creation than either alone’. Brodie (2001:127) considers the first exposition to be ‘poetic and serene’ and focused on the activity of God, while the second exposition is characterized by ‘earthly prose’ that ‘places greater emphasis on humankind’. Oswalt (2009:104) moves the literary analysis in different direction when he explains that the material in the second rendition, instead of being written in ‘ordinary prose’, is presented in the form of ‘poetic history’. Even though the writer used ‘figurative and imaginative terms’, he did so to communicate ‘genuine historic events’. Moberly (2009:36) elucidates the inherent necessity of taking ‘seriously the biblical text as a crafted literary phenomenon’ in which the underlying narrative ‘conventions’ are ‘understood and respected on their own terms’, rather than being ‘prejudged in terms of their conformity (or otherwise) to a modern reader’s possible initial expectations’. The Hebrew noun tôledôt, which is rendered ‘account’, is one of 10 literary markers indicating major sections of Genesis.76 The first three narratives pertain to the pre-Flood world, while the last eight deal with the post-Flood period. In contrast to 1:1–2:3, which provides a broad summary of God’s creation of the cosmos, the material in 2:4–25 narrows the focus on the first humans and the special place God prepared for them. While the first creation account spotlights the transcendence of the Creator, the second report draws attention to His immanence. The presence of the Hebrew terms Yahweh and Elohim, which are rendered ‘Lord God’, is also significant in that this is the first place in Scripture where the two nouns appear together. In keeping with what was said earlier concerning the Hebrew verb ‘asah, which is rendered ‘let us’ in 1:26, the plurality of Elohim most likely draws attention to the Creator’s majesty and power as the one, true, and 75. Cf. John 17:3; Rev 21:3–4. 76. Cf. Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, in which tôledôt appears again in v. 9 for emphasis; and 37:2; Clifford (1994:137–8, 145); Gilchrist (1980); Hamilton (1997d:459); Schreiner (2006:583).

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 33

living God.77 With respect to Yahweh, it is the personal name for God used by His covenant people, the Israelites, to stress His eternality, holiness, and sovereignty.78 As a result of Eichrodt’s analysis of the pertinent lexical and semantic data (1961:189), he concludes that the ‘most natural interpretation’ involves equating Yahweh with ‘He is’, ‘He exists’, and ‘He is present’.79 Bartholomew and Goheen (2004:30) emphasize the theological truth that Yahweh, who ‘rescues Israel from slavery’ is the ‘same God’ who ‘made all things’.

3.2 The special creation of the first man (Gen 2:4–7) As von Rad (1962:141) explains, amid the backdrop of Genesis 1:1–2:3, humans are presented as the ‘apex of a cosmological pyramid’. Indeed, people are the apotheosis of all living organisms on earth for only they are made in God’s image.80 According to Plantinga (2000:172), the imago Dei in every person is a ‘cognitive mechanism’ known as the ‘sensus divinitatis or sense of divinity’. The latter refers to an inborn consciousness of God that leads people to think about the Creator’s existence and recognize His presence in the midst of their diverse life experiences.81 Even though humans are the climax of God’s creation,82 Genesis 2:4–25 ‘provides a necessary counterbalance’ (Brown 2010:112) by emphasizing that people also remain creatures who are utterly dependent on God for their existence and accountable to Him for their actions. As Hamilton (1990:153) puts it, every person exists as a ‘vassal in a covenant relationship’ with the Creator. In a manner of speaking, humanity’s collective ‘heads at times may be in the clouds’ (Hyers 2003:23); nonetheless, their ‘feet walk on the Earth and are made of clay’.

77. Cf. Deut 6:4; Fretheim (1997a:405–6); Ringgren (1997:272–3); Schmidt (1997b:116, 118); Scott (1980). 78. Cf. Exod 3:14–15; Isa 6:3. The third commandment of the Decalogue is a prohibition against misusing the Lord’s name (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11). During the Old Testament era, the names of people were not simply a convenient form of identification, but practically equivalent to the bearer of the title (cf. 1 Sam 25:25). Likewise, the Tanakh affirms an essential identity between the Creator and His name (cf. Ps 18:49; Isa 25:1; Mal 3:16). God’s holiness dictated that any reference the Israelites made to Him had to be done in a manner that expressed reverence and respect for His name. 79. Cf. Freedman and O’Connor (1996:500, 513–14); Fretheim (1997c:1295–6); Jenni (1997:522–3); Payne (1980c). 80. Cf. Gen 1:26–27. 81. Cf. Eccl 3:11. 82. Cf. Ps 8:5–8.

34 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Verse 5 reveals that initially God had not caused it to rain on a specific parcel of land. Also, there were no people to tend its soil. Consequently, such vegetation as grass and grains were not growing anywhere in this locale. Verse 6 indicates that subterranean ‘streams’ or channels welled up from the ground and irrigated the land in the surrounding area. According to verse 7, the eternal Creator ‘formed a man from the dust of the ground’. The Hebrew noun yatsar, which is rendered ‘formed’, was commonly used of a potter’s work.83 In a metaphorical sense, the Lord was like an artisan and the first man was comparable to a sculpture made out of clay. One is left with the impression that God scooped up dirt from the ground, shaped a human being from it, and exhaled life-giving breath into the man’s body. As Smith (1993:260) observes, the result was a ‘unitary being’ who, as the sole genetic progenitor of humankind,84 was both embodied and incorporeal in his essence. In the words of Childs (1986:199), each person is a ‘complete entity and not a composite of parts from body, soul and spirit’. According to Kaiser (2008:40), a key theological point of these ‘anthropomorphic expressions’ is that ‘humanity’s vitality was a direct gift from God’. Eichrodt (1967:100) adds that the man is ‘called to moral fellowship with its Creator’. The Hebrew noun translated ‘man’ is ’adam. In verses 7 and 20 the word can be rendered either as ‘man’ or as the proper name ‘Adam’.85 Also, there is a play on words in Genesis 2:7, since the Hebrew for ‘man’ (’adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ‘ground’ (’adamah).86 The significance of this information is that the physical elements comprising the first human whom God directly created, originated from the earth’s soil. As Paul (1997:360) notes, the latter had a ‘predominantly red-brown color’. Appropriately, Smith (2010:134) remarks that the ‘human’ originated from the ‘humus’. So, with respect to his earthly body, Adam was much like the animals in that both he and they were

83. Cf. Isa 45:9; Konkel (1997:502); Otzen (1990:259); Schmidt (1997b:566). 84. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to deliberate the historical authenticity of the Adam character (and to a lesser extent Eve) in the Genesis creation narratives. For a consideration of two contrasting views on the issue, cf. chapter 10 in this monograph. There a comparison is made between the presuppositions made and deductions put forward by Collins (2011) and Enns (2012). The discourse includes the authors’ respective discussions of relevant passages within the Pauline corpus (e.g. Acts 17:26, Rom 5:12–19, and 1 Cor 15:20–23), especially as these texts relate to the apostle’s treatment of the opening chapters of Genesis from a Christocentric and Christotelic perspective. 85. Cf. Deut 4:32; 1 Chron 1:1; Job 31:33; Hos 6:7. 86. Cf. Grisanti (1997:269–70); Koehler and Baumgartner (2001:15); Ploger (1997:95–6); Schmid (1997:42–3).

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 35

formed out of the ground.87 Likewise, the man had the breath of life in him just like the animals.88 Moreover, Adam became a ‘living being’ (2:7) just as the animals were ‘living creatures’ (1:20, 24)—the same words in Hebrew; yet, Adam was also different from the animals because he was made in the image of God (1:27).

3.3 The placement of the first man in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:8–17) Genesis 2:8 reveals that after God brought the first man into existence, the Creator lovingly prepared a home for Adam. The biblical text refers to it as a ‘garden’ occupying part of a specific place called ‘Eden’. The Hebrew noun gan, which is translated ‘garden’, refers to a lush, bucolic orchard full of trees (v. 9).89 Gentry and Wellum (2012:209–10) clarify that an ‘enclosed or protected space’ is ‘envisioned’. In keeping with the description offered by Simkins (1994:131), this enclave was ‘holy’, that is, ‘set apart as distinctive from the rest of the natural environment’. The noun ‘eden (v. 8) means either ‘delight’ or ‘a plain’ (perhaps both) and denotes a region filled with lots of vegetation.90 This particular locale was ideally suited as a place of habitation for the biological progenitors of the human race. The landmarks that are mentioned in verses 10–14 identify Eden with four particular rivers: the Pishon (v. 11), the Gihon (v. 13), the Tigris, and the Euphrates (v. 14). While the location of the latter two rivers are known, the identity of the Pishon and the Gihon are uncertain. One supposition is that the Gihon was the Nile, while another conjecture is that it was a Mesopotamian irrigation canal that has long since disappeared. One of the more popular traditions says that the Garden of Eden was located in southern Mesopotamia, near where the Tigris and Euphrates empty into the Persian Gulf; however, if ‘Cush’ (v. 13) refers to a place in Africa, then the entire Middle East might be in mind.91 The preceding geographical details imply that Eden was not just a religious symbol, but also a real setting. O’Brien and Harris (2012:149) clarify that this sacred enclave was ‘not coextensive with all creation’; instead, the primeval orchard was a ‘specific region on Earth’, being ‘delineated with boundaries and guarded entry points’.

87. Cp. Gen 2:7 and 19. 88. Cp. Gen 1:30 and 2:7. 89. Cf. Gen 13:10; Brown, Driver, and Briggs (2000); Cornelius (1997b:875–6); Swanson (2001a); Westermann (1974:80). 90. Cf. Cornelius (1997a:331); Kedar-Kopfstein (1999:482–3); Schultz (1980b); Wallace (1992b:281–2). 91. Namely, from Africa to Iran; cf. Brown (1999:139–40); Sailhamer (1992:86, 99); Westermann (1994:217–9); Zlotowitz (1988:96–8).

36 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

More generally, Goldingay (2003:119) considers the narrative to be ‘not a myth about how things are, but a story about something that happened’. As Wallace (1992d:907) points out, the Creator did not bring Eden into existence ‘strictly for the habitation of humans’; instead, they were stewards whom He ‘invited to enjoy and cultivate’ His holy habitation. Walton (2003b:204) observes that the verdant garden was the ‘place of God’s abode’ as well as the ‘source of life-giving water that flowed through the rivers, benefitting all the earth’.92 Sailhamer (1990:41) goes further in clarifying that the portrayal of Eden prefigures the ‘description of the tabernacle found later in the Pentateuch’. Each setting was a sacred space where the Lord’s spiritual children could ‘enjoy the fellowship and presence of God’. Alexander (2008:42) broadens the discussion by explicating that at the consummation of the age, the Creator intends the ‘whole earth’ to function as the ‘dwelling place’ for His ‘glorious presence’. The ancient Eden habitat was filled with trees, but two of them were special. Kidner (1967:62) elucidates that the arboreal pair had a distinctive ‘sacramental’ (rather than ‘magical’) quality about them, for each tree provided the ‘physical means of a spiritual transaction’. According to Keil and Delitzsch (1981:85), the underlying metaphysical process made it possible for ‘earthly elements’ to become the ‘receptacles and vehicles of celestial powers’. More specifically, fruit from the ‘tree of life’ (Gen 2:9) enabled the first humans to enjoy unending existence in all its beauty and fullness with God.93 There are only brief references to this tree in Eden’s garden,94 but the tree of life reappears in the New Jerusalem.95 There the tree bears 12 different kinds of fruit, with a new crop appearing each month of the year. The fruit gives life, and the leaves are used as medicine to heal the nations. The presence of healing leaves does not mean there is illness in heaven; rather, the leaves symbolize the health and vigor that believers enjoy in eternity.96 The other special tree in the primordial enclave conferred the ‘knowledge of good and evil’ (Gen 2:9). The meaning of latter tree’s name has been disputed. One option is that the phrase has something to do with the tree’s ability to impart moral discernment and sexual awareness to the man and the woman.97 A second option favors the notion of ‘self-legislating’ (Gentry and Wellum 2012:217) or striving to 92. Cf. Ps 46:4; Isa 51:3; Ezek 28:13; 31:9, 16, 18; 36:35; Joel 2:3; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1–2. 93. Cf. Gen 3:22, 24; Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4; 1 En 24:4; 2 En 8:3; 5, 8; 9:1; 4 Ezra 8:52; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19. 94. Cf. Gen 3:22, 24. 95. Cf. Rev 22:2. 96. Cf. Ezek 47:12. 97. Cf. Deut 1:39; Gow (2003:287); Höver-Johag (1986:313); Merrill (1997:638); Simkins (1994:186–7); Stoebe (1997:491–92).

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 37

operate ‘independently of God’. A third option is that the ‘expression functions as a merism’ (Gordon 1997:354) to imply a ‘totality of knowledge’.98 Perhaps some combination of these three alternatives represents an optimal view. If so, the idea is that when the first human couple consumed the tree’s fruit, they would obtain a more sophisticated and discerning awareness of ethical virtue and vice. This included exercising the ability to ‘act autonomously’ (Hamilton 1990:166) and to perceive the ‘meaning of what furthers or hampers life’ (von Rad 1962:155). Genesis 2:15 indicates that Adam’s stay in Eden was no vacation, for God expected him to perform various sacerdotal responsibilities, including the cultivation and upkeep of the shrine-garden. The fact that Adam was given this assignment prior to the Fall implies that work is part of God’s original design for people and was not one of the consequences of sin.99 Ross (1988:124), based on his analysis of Hebrew verbs ‘abad and šamar (rendered ‘work it’ and ‘take care of it’, respectively, in Gen 2:15),100 states that regardless of the nature of the ‘physical activity’ the man and the woman performed in the sacred precincts, it was ‘described in terms of spiritual service to the Lord’. Fretheim (1994:341) goes even further when he observes that ‘worship interests … clearly appear in the links among creation, tabernacle, and temple as well as in sabbath and religious festivals’. On one level, the primeval narrative can be ‘identified as a didactic account’; on another level, the biblical record has been ‘shaped by liturgical use and worship interests’. Block (2013) has reassessed the biblical evidence concerning whether the narrator of Genesis 1–3 understood either the ancient Eden orchard or the cosmos as a temple. Specifically, Block questions the viability of the following: (1) whether chapter 1 supports the concept of an intrinsic ‘temple metaphor’ (6); and, (2) whether chapters 2 and 3 uphold the view that either ‘Eden is the Holy of Holies of the cosmic temple’ (7) or a ‘place for God’s presence’. Moreover, Block expresses concern over the possibility of treating the opening chapters of Genesis anachronistically, wherein interpreters ‘read back’ (11) into these passages sacerdotal ideations, associations, and meanings ‘derived from later texts’ (12). Block avers that Genesis 1–3, instead of ‘emphasizing divine presence in the cosmos or Eden’ (22), calls attention to ‘God’s separation from the created world’. Furthermore, Block maintains that rather than portray the Genesis ‘creation accounts’ (26) as being erected on the literary foundation of ‘temple theology’, the ‘temple-building accounts’ are constructed ‘on a platform of creation theology’. In short, according

98. Cf. 2 Sam 14:17, 20; 1 Kings 3:9. 99. Cf. Apoc of Moses 15:1–3; 2 Enoch 31:1; Jub 3:15–16. 100. Cf. Num 3:7–8; 8:25–26; 18:5–6; 1 Chron 23:32; Ezek 44:14.

38 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

to Block, the ‘Eden narrative’ furnishes’ a considerable amount of the ‘conceptual vocabulary for Israel’s sanctuary tradition’. According to Genesis 2:16, God permitted the first human pair to eat freely from the fruit growing on any of the trees in the arboreal locale. The only exception was consuming fruit from the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ (v. 17). Childs (1986:51) offers the theological insight that ‘to be human consists in living in freedom, within a community, and under the divine imperative’. Brown (1999) classifies the prohibition connected with this tree as a ‘primal tôrâ’ (161) and surmises that ‘obedience must reign even in this blissful landscape’ (160). The decree was God’s tool for testing Adam and Eve, especially given that, as Vos (2000:22) notes, the couple existed in a ‘state of indefinite probation’. In particular, the Lord warned that if they ate the fruit produced by this tree, their ‘ultimate punishment’ (Speiser 1990:17) was spiritual and physical death. The narrative of Genesis 3 (to be dealt with below) confirms the factuality of God’s pronouncement. Admittedly, as Enns points out (2015:39), the biblical portrait found in the first three chapters of Genesis reflects an ‘ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions’ about ‘ultimate origins and meaning’. Furthermore, in Kline’s assessment (2006:119), ‘figurative touches’ are present ‘even in straightforward prose accounts’ of the primeval episodes recorded in Scripture; yet, as he maintains, the metaphorical aspects found in the sacred text need not negate the underlying historical and theological truths being conveyed, that is, ‘unless one refuses beforehand the possibility of supernaturalism’. In agreement with Bartholomew and Goheen (2004:41), a classical Christian interpretive approach considers the metaphors and symbols used in the Genesis creation narrative to be the literary conventions that communicate ‘what really happened’. Richter (2008:47) sharpens the focus by observing that the ‘story of redemption’ occurs in ‘real time and space’, and involves ‘real people, real places, [and] real faith’. The prologue to the rest of Scripture operates as a shared narrative, which conveys eternal verities having particular spiritual and ethical import for Adam and his wife, Eve,101 as genuinely historic persons.

3.4 The special creation of the first woman (Gen 2:18–24) Genesis 2:18 reveals that God wanted to prepare Adam for the change that would come into his life, namely, the special creation of a woman; yet, because the man had never known another creature of his kind, Adam needed to recognize the void in his earthly existence. Specifically, the verse records the Creator declaring that ‘it is not good for the man to be alone’. Walton (2011:170) observes that the 101. Cf. Gen 3:20.

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 39

Hebrew adjective ṭôḇ, which is rendered ‘good’, ‘is not a negative assessment of craftsmanship or moral purity’; rather, ‘in this context’, the emphasis ‘concerns proper functioning’. So that Adam could become aware of his need for a woman, God had the man name the creatures roaming the land and flying in the sky, all of which the Lord had formed from the soil of the earth (v. 19).102 God then listened to what Adam named each creature. The naming activity had at least two purposes. First, it was a way for Adam to exercise his God-given dominion over the rest of creation.103 Just as the sovereign of the cosmos had named day, night, and other basic features of creation, so Adam named the cattle, birds, and wild animals (2:20). In this regard, Niditch (1985:6) draws attention to the ‘basic human need’ to ‘create order’, ‘establish categories’, and ‘differentiate like from unlike’. Second, the naming was a way for Adam to review the whole of the animal kingdom (so to speak) and discover at the end what God already knew. In particular, Adam was alone as a human being. There was no one else quite like him. Accordingly, what Adam needed was a ‘helper suitable for him’, and none could be found among the existing creatures God had made (v. 19). The Hebrew phrase rendered ‘suitable helper’ (v. 20) more specifically means ‘a partner corresponding to him’.104 This could only be a woman, not an animal. The implication is that man and the woman would complement and complete each other. Now that Adam knew he needed a mate, God caused a ‘deep sleep’ (v. 21) to come over him, like anesthetic for an operation. The Hebrew verb banah, which is rendered ‘made’ (v. 22), also means ‘to build’ or ‘to construct’.105 The master Craftsman did not form the woman from the dust as Adam had been; instead, God sculpted Eve as an exquisite work of art from one of the man’s ribs, that is, a part of Adam himself. The Hebrew noun tsela‘, which is rendered ‘ribs’ (v. 21) and ‘rib’ (v. 22), can also be translated ‘side’.106 For example, in Exodus 25:12, the noun refers to the sides of the Ark of the Covenant. Such usage has led to the supposition that God took more than a rib from Adam when He made the first woman. The Lord possibly also took some flesh along with some bone. Regrettably, in the ancient Near East, women were sometimes viewed as being inferior to men. Scripture, however, sanctions a radically different view. From the Bible, people of faith learn about the importance that God placed on women—even when the 102. Cf. Dyrness (1977:80); Gow (2003:287). 103. Cf. Gen 1:26, 28. 104. Cf. Branch (2003:240); Eichrodt (1967:121); Smith (1993:248–9); von Rad (1962:149); Wallace (1992c:677); Westermann (1974:86). 105. Cf. Fouts (1997:677, 679); Hulst (1997:245); Wagner (1999:167, 173); Waltke (1980). 106. Cf. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (2000); Koehler and Baumgartner (2001:1030); Swanson (2001a).

40 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

prevailing culture often did not. For instance, by sharing the same life as the man, the woman was fully a part of the human race God had started. In essence, the woman, like the man, bore the same image of God.107 When Adam woke after the divinely initiated procedure, God led the woman to him. Genesis 2:23 reveals that Adam was overjoyed to see her. The man recognized that here, finally, was his suitable life partner. The Hebrew noun ’ishshah, which is rendered ‘woman’,108 is similar in sound and form to the noun ’ish, which is translated ‘man’.109 In turn, this linguistic correspondence reflects the basic genetic similarity between the first two humans. ‘For this reason’ (v. 24) emphasizes the truth that God made men and women for each other. In the case of the first two humans, the woman alone was really comparable to the man and so a perfectly suitable companion for him. In light of these truths, the Creator declared that it was appropriate for a man to leave his parents, to be united to his wife, and to be physically intimate with her. The reference here is to a man departing from one household—namely, that of his parents—and establishing a new one with his wife. In the case of Adam and Eve, they were married from their first moment together and remained united for life as husband and wife. Their union set a pattern for the monogamous, heterosexual marriages of their physical descendants. Verse 24 is quoted by Jesus to provide a description of what God originally intended marriage to be like.110 In relation to the prevailing culture during the second millennium bce, Genesis 2:24 is distinctive in what it declares. Specifically, in that era, a wife was often considered not an equal partner with her husband, but one of his many possessions. In contrast, this verse places the spotlight on the man taking the initiative to separate from his parents to join with his wife, not the woman departing from her parents to become something the man owns. Such an emphasis is unique in ancient Near Eastern literature. In Ephesians 5:31, Paul quoted Genesis 2:24 to show how a married couple are joined together as suitable companions and equal partners. This illustrates that the bond of marriage is strong. In fact, the Greek verb proskollao, which is translated ‘united’ (Eph 5:31), literally means ‘to glue to’ or ‘to stick to’.111 Paul’s implication was that a man must love the woman to whom he is joined (in a manner of speaking) by marriage. 107. Cf. Gen 1:26–27. 108. Cf. Bratsiotis (1997:222–3); Hamilton (1997c:538); Kühlewein (1997a:187–8); McComiskey (1980b). 109. Cf. Bratsiotis (1997:222); Hamilton (1997b:388); Kühlewein (1997a:98); McComiskey (1980a). 110. Cf. Matt 19:4–6; Mark 10:6–9. 111. Cf. Danker (2000:881); Louw and Nida (1989:448); Schmidt (1999:823); Seebass (1986:348–9).

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 41

Furthermore, Genesis 2:24 has a dual Christological implication. For thousands of years, people recognized that it refers to the relationship between husbands and wives; but only after the Savior’s coming to earth did some realize that it also refers to the relationship between Jesus and the church. That is what Paul means when he calls it a ‘profound mystery’ (Eph 5:32), in which the Greek noun mystérion generally denotes what is hidden or secret. For the apostle, a ‘mystery’ is a deep theological truth that was once concealed but has now been revealed through the Messiah.112 In verse 33, Paul summarizes his instructions to husbands and wives. Husbands are to love their wives as they love themselves, and wives are to respect their husbands. The lordship and example of the Savior is the basis for such a mutually loving and submissive relationship. Genesis 2:25 notes that at dawn of the human race, the husband and wife did not need any clothing. The implication is that at first, the man and the woman were characterized by innocence and integrity. The Hebrew verb bosh, which is rendered ‘shame’, denotes the presence of feeling humiliated and degraded, especially due to being maltreated and exploited.113 From a theological perspective, sin had not yet entered into the human race, bringing with it a sense of guilt and disgrace. The emergence of sin not only disrupted the fellowship the first human couple enjoyed with God, but also the presence of sin dealt a tragic blow to the unity and harmony experienced by the man and the woman. The biblical text does not state how long the two enjoyed the environment in which their fellowship with God and each other was unhindered by sin; yet, as Genesis 3 reveals, this tranquil state was about to be shattered.

4.0 The fall of the first man and woman (Gen 3:1–24) 4.1 Introduction As was noted in the preceding section, Genesis 2 introduced the single restriction that God imposed on Adam. Specifically, the Creator allowed the man to freely eat fruit from every tree in the ancient Eden orchard (v. 16). The only exception was that God did not permit Adam to partake of the fruit growing on the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ (v. 17). This woody plant was God’s tool for testing the faith, loyalty, and obedience of the primeval pair. The Creator warned Adam 112. Cf. the corresponding observations in section 4.0 of chapter 7 in this monograph, along with the following: Bornkamm (1999:823); Brown (1986b:504–5); Danker (2000:661–2); Krämer (2000:447–8); Louw and Nida (1989:345). 113. Cf. Nel (1997:622); Oswalt (1980b); Seebass (1999:50–1); Stolz (1997a:205).

42 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

that if he violated this injunction, he would ‘certainly die’. The latter refers both to the loss of physical life and spiritual separation from the Creator for all eternity. Genesis 3 recounts how Adam and his wife, Eve, failed the test, and what the consequences were of doing so. The backdrop for this moral and spiritual failure is the truth that God created the first human couple in His image.114 Building on what was noted earlier, the concept of the divine image is broad enough to include human reason, ethics, and dominion. Moreover, God gave humans the capacity and authority to govern creation as His ruling representatives. Their jurisdiction extended to the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and the animals on land.115 The mandate for people to govern the world as benevolent vice-regents of the true and living God was a reflection of His image in them.116 By ruling over the rest of creation in an obedient and responsible manner, people bore witness to the divine likeness placed within humanity. In addition, as they mediated God’s presence, they made His will a reality on earth.

4.2 The advent of sin (Gen 3:1–7) Genesis 3 begins by drawing the readers’ attention to the ‘serpent’ (v. 1). Like other animals, the snake was created good, that is, to fulfill a God-ordained function and purpose. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 identify the ‘ancient serpent’ with ‘Satan’.117 The underlying theological truth is that the devil either came in the guise of a snake or somehow supernaturally spoke through the creature.118 Put another way, the evil one used for conniving purposes a creature the Lord had created for good. Indeed, the satanic presence behind the serpent enabled it to be more cunning than all the animals inhabiting Eden (Gen 3:1). Walton (2015:128) refers to the ‘serpent’ as a ‘chaos creature from the non-ordered realm’ who fostered ‘disorder’.119 Vos (2000:35) goes further when he conjectures that the snake targeted the women because she did not ‘personally receive the prohibition from God, as Adam had’. In particular, the tempter asked Eve whether it was really true that God forbid her and Adam from eating fruit growing on ‘any tree in the garden’. The snake’s tactic was to plant doubt in the woman’s mind by making God’s original statements120 seem more restrictive than He intended. 114. Cf. Gen 1:26–27. 115. Whether small or large, wild or domesticated. 116. Cf. Gen 9:2; Ps 8:5–8; Heb 2:5–9. 117. Cf. Isa 27:1; 2 Cor 11:3, 14; 1 John 3:8. 118. Cf. Wis 2:24; 1 Enoch 69:6; Apoc of Moses 16:4; 17:4. 119. Cf. Ps 74:12–14; Isa 27:1. 120. Recorded in Gen 2:16–17.

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 43

Astonishingly, instead of either rebuking the tempter or fleeing from it, Eve indulged herself in extended conversation with the serpent. The woman countered that God permitted her and her husband to partake of the ‘fruit from the trees’ (3:2) in the orchard. Having said that, Eve noted there was one exception. She explained that God prohibited the couple from picking and eating the ‘fruit’ (v. 3) growing on the ‘tree’ located in the ‘middle’ of the grove. The woman added that she and the man were not allowed to ‘touch’ the tree’s fruit, for even this slight infraction would cause them to ‘die.’ Eve’s response to the serpent’s deceit indicates the woman did not have a sufficiently clear understanding of God’s command. In particular, Eve downplayed the abundance of the Creator’s allotment, overstated His restriction, and softened the intensity of the consequence. Already, the words of the evil one were creating within the woman a ‘hunger’ (Oden 1992:1165) for a ‘higher status’ on the ‘cosmic hierarchy’ that ‘belongs properly to God’. In response, the snake put forward a blatant lie, namely, that there would be no death penalty for disobeying God’s command (v. 4). The tempter claimed that the couple would become like their Creator. Allegedly, when the woman and the man ate the forbidden fruit, they would dramatically increase their awareness, including knowing the difference between ‘good and evil’ (v. 5). In effect, the serpent attributed a selfish motive to the Lord, namely, that He did not want the first human pair to become divine like Him. Supposedly, God feared that if Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they would become His equals. In John 8:44, Jesus noted that from the dawn of time, the ‘devil’ was a ‘murderer’, rejected the ‘truth’, and was devoid of the truth. In keeping with his deceitful character, Satan not only lied, but was also the ‘father’ of all ‘lies’. Eve’s thoughts and actions vividly depict how temptation can lead to sin. She realized that the fruit was beneficial for ‘food’ (Gen 3:6), that it was attractive to look at, and that eating it could bring her something desirable: godlike ‘wisdom’. The underlying Hebrew verb sekel denotes the presence of insight, discernment, and prudence in which one has a reverent ‘fear of the Lord’ (Prov 1:7) and a wholehearted devotion to live uprightly.121 The exact opposite became true of Eve and her husband. Genesis 3:6 notes that it did not take long for the woman to reach for some of the forbidden fruit and eat it. Next, she gave a portion to Adam. Evidently, it was easy for Eve to convince Adam to consume the fruit.122 Alexander (2008:107) states that as a result of the couple’s iniquity, they forfeited their ‘holy and royal status’ as God’s viceroys.

121. Cf. Job 28:28; Ps 111:10; Prov 9:10; 15:33; Eccl 12:13; Fretheim (1997b:1243); Goldberg (1980b); Koenen (2004:117); Saebø (1997:1270–1). 122. Cf. Gow (2003:287); Sailhamer (1992:104–5); Westermann (1994:250).

44 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Ironically, the couple’s trespass did give them heightened moral awareness, but it was not in the way they anticipated; instead of obtaining godly discernment, the man and woman suddenly became conscious of their physical and spiritual nakedness. They felt so ashamed that they made a pathetic attempt to cover themselves around their hips by stitching together ‘fig leaves’ (v. 7). This situation contrasts sharply with 2:25. The Hebrew adjective ‘arôm, which is rendered ‘naked’, suggests a state of purity and even naïvety. Adam and Eve’s vulnerability is signaled in 3:1 by the adjective ‘arûm, which is translated ‘crafty’. The cunning serpent exploited the first human couple’s lack of experience and discernment to beguile them into violating God’s clearly stated command. The devastating consequence of this transgression is signaled in verse 7 by the presence of the adjective ‘erôm, which is rendered ‘naked’.123 The intentional use of three Hebrew adjectives that are similar in sound and form (i.e. ‘arôm, ‘arûm, and ‘erôm, respectively) provides a tight literary integration between Genesis 2 and 3.124

4.3 The aftermath of sin (Gen 3:8–24) The primeval account in Genesis indicates that God originally created Adam and Eve to be autonomous (or free) and responsible moral agents. As a result of their transgression, they forfeited for themselves and all their future offspring the life of blessing they had once enjoyed. Specifically, when the first human couple disobeyed God’s direct injunction, the initial form of death they experienced was metaphysical.125 By this is meant their relationship with their Creator-King was immediately estranged. Furthermore, the sin of Adam and Eve became the starting point for their alienation from God and the spiritual corruption of the primeval couple’s nature. According to Smith (1993:288), the latter is characterized by a ‘native human bias toward evil’. Merrill (1997:638) points out that in the Old Testament, there is ‘no technical term’ that details either the ‘act’ or the ‘resulting condition’ connected with the ‘fall of humankind’; nonetheless, he surmises that the incident recorded in the Genesis narrative is a ‘logical and theological necessity’, for it is ‘presupposed by the Bible’s persistent witness to the problem of sin and its resolution’.

123. Cf. the presence of erôm in Deuteronomy 28:48, Ezekiel 16:39, and 23:29, in connection with Israel’s exile from the Promised Land as God’s judgment for their repeated violation of His decrees. 124. Cf. Brown (1999:146–7, 159); Kline (2006:130); Luc (1997:539–40); Niehr (2001:351–2); Seevers (1997:532); Schultz (1980a). 125. Cf. Rom 5:21; 6:23; 7:10–11; 8:6.

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 45

In 1 John 2:15–17, the apostle urged his readers not to ‘love the world’ or anything in it. The Greek noun kósmos, which is rendered ‘world’ (v. 15), refers to the secular, ungodly system under Satan’s control.126 At every turn, this system opposes God and actively seeks to subvert His plan of salvation for humankind. For this reason, John wanted it understood that one cannot love that world and all that it has to offer and love God at the same time.127 A clear choice has to be made—love God and hate the world or love the world and hate God. The two options are mutually exclusive. John explained that everything in the world has its origin in the pagan, narcissistic system of fallen humanity, not from the Father. In describing what the world has to offer, John specifically named three vices. First is ‘the lust of the flesh’ (1 John 2:16). The Greek noun epithymía, which is translated ‘lust’, most often signifies the sinful cravings that come from within the human heart.128 The second vice the apostle identified as having its origin in the world is ‘the lust of [the] eyes’. This speaks of the temptations that assault believers from the outside. The third vice involved boasting about what one has and does. The meaning here, while difficult to be precise, seems to refer to the arrogance that can come with success. John declared that the empty values and hollow promises of the world are even now in the process of passing away (v. 17). In contrast, obedience to God and His will points to the presence of the new birth and with it everlasting life in baptismal union with the Savior. Prior to their moral and spiritual fall, Adam and Eve most likely looked forward to their meetings with God; but the advent of sin changed all that. The Lord, of course, is aware of everything.129 In this case, He knew immediately when the couple had eaten the forbidden fruit. It was the ‘cool of the day’ (Gen 3:8) when the pair heard the Creator-King moving about among the trees in the orchard. At the sound of His approach, the guilty couple became afraid, perhaps even terrified, and frantically searched for a place to hide. Sailhamer (1992:105) points out that their reaction foreshadows that of the Israelites to God’s appearance on Mount Sinai. In that episode, His chosen people ‘trembled with fear’ (Exod 20:18) and kept their distance from Him.130 When Adam and Eve sensed the Creator’s proximity, their response was the opposite of what He wants His spiritual children to do, namely, to hear and heed Him.131 While the couple might try in vain to hide from God’s awesome, 126. C. Balz (2000:311); Guhrt (1986:525–6); Louw and Nida (1989:508); Sasse (1999:894–5). 127. Cf. Jas 4:4. 128. Cf. Büchsel (1999:171); Danker (2000:372); Hübner (2000:28); Schönweiss (1986:458). 129. Cf. Job 14:23; Pss 33:13–15; 139:1–16; 147:5; Prov 15:3; Jer 16:17; Heb 4:13. 130. Cf. Heb 12:18–21. 131. Cf. Deut 6:3.

46 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

holy presence, they could not escape the accountability He required for their disobedience. Due to the Lord’s covenantal love for and commitment to them, He had to find and discipline the first sinners. Even though God already knew where the husband and his wife were, it was for their benefit that the Lord summoned them. Specifically, He gave them an opportunity to voluntarily confess their sin. The process began with the Creator rhetorically asking where Adam might be (Gen 3:9). Implied in God’s question is why the man was hiding. After all, instead of pointing out his location, Adam offered his fear of being ‘naked’ (v. 10)132 as the reason for trying to keep out of sight. The Lord, with full knowledge of what had happened, asked the man how he had become self-conscious of his nakedness and whether he had eaten the forbidden fruit (v. 11). In this exchange, God was extending to Adam a chance to take ownership of his transgression, as well as to ask for divine mercy and forgiveness. Regrettably, the man chose to make threadbare excuses. In particular, Adam blamed his wife for his own willful act of defiance. Moreover, in an indirect way, the man even blamed his Creator when Adam asserted that the temptation to sin came from Eve, whom God had graciously given to the man (v. 12). Adam’s lame attempt to make his wife responsible for his wrongdoing was a stark measure of how far the man had morally fallen. Next, the Lord gave Eve a chance to acknowledge her sin by asking why she had given her husband the forbidden fruit to eat. The woman responded by trying to pin the blame on the serpent, whom Eve claimed had tricked her (v. 13). As was noted earlier, when the first human pair sinned, they were alienated from God. Just as tragic was their estrangement from each other, especially as the two refused to accept responsibility for their actions. In this regard, Anderson (1984:7) fittingly draws attention to the German proverb, ‘a single human being is not human at all’.133 In this case, Adam and Eve had been blinded by the serpent’s insidious promise, and in return they each received shame and alienation. Such was the wretched end of the felicitous relationship the couple had once enjoyed with their Creator. Sailhamer (1992:105) observes that the trees mentioned in Genesis 1 through 3 mirror the dramatic changes that occurred in God’s ‘relationship’ with the people He created. At first, the arboreal pair represented the Lord’s ‘bountiful provision’ for Adam and Eve.134 Additionally, the two special trees—one offering

132. This translates the same Hebrew adjective used in Gen 3:7. 133. That is, ‘Ein Mensch ist kein Mensch’. 134. Cf. Gen 1:29; 2:9.

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 47

life and the second offering an awareness of moral right and wrong—signified the choice of life or death that God offered the couple. Adam and Eve could choose to obey their Creator and live a blessed relationship with Him, or they could seek forbidden knowledge.135 Prior to the Fall, they were ‘naturally mortal’ (Haarsma and Haarsma 2007:217), but as a result of their sin, they lost their ‘potential for immortality’. Furthermore, the first human couple languished in a metaphysically ‘wretched existence’ (Spanner 1987:142) due to the ‘guilt’ (Strimple 2005) associated with their transgression and the ‘corrupted, depraved nature’ it spawned. Tragically, this dire circumstance became the fate of all their descendants, who shared their spiritual and genetic fingerprint.136 The implication is that, except for the Son of God,137 everyone is born in a state of sin and guilt, has an inner tendency or disposition toward sinning, and are powerless to rescue themselves from their predicament.138 Moreover, the Fall has ecological ramifications.139 For instance, God has linked the ongoing fertility of creation to the fate of humanity. To be explicit, it was due to the Fall that the Lord held back nature’s full potential to flourish and achieve its divinely intended goal. This constriction of earth’s fecundity is seen in the curse that God placed on the ground.140 In a personified sense, all nonhuman creation presently groans under the burden of its intensified affliction. Furthermore, nature’s liberation from the menace of its vexing situation is linked to the destiny of redeemed humanity. Specifically, it is only when the Father resurrects His spiritual children at the Second Advent of His Son, that the cosmos will be renewed and ushered into the glorious freedom of eternal perfection.141 All it took was a series of straightforward questions (appearing in Gen 3:9–13) for God to uncover what had happened and draw attention to the state of sin and guilt in which Adam and Eve now existed. The Lord’s plan for dealing with the appalling circumstance was to pronounce a curse on the serpent, the woman, and the man—in that order (vv. 14–19). The Creator also expelled the human couple

135. Cf. Gen 2:16–17. 136. Cf. Gen 3:19, 22–24. 137. Cf. Isa 53:9; Luke 23:41; John 8:46; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet 1:19; 2:22–24; 1 John 3:5. 138. Cf. Eccles 7:29; Jer 17:9; 2 Bar 4:3; 17:2–4; 23:4; 43:2; 48:42–43, 46; 54:15, 19; 56:5–6; 4 Ezra 3:7, 21–22, 26–27; 4:30; 7:118; Sir 14:17; 15:14; 25:24; Wis 2:23–24; Rom 3:23; 6:23; 7:5, 13; Eph 2:1–3. 139. Cf. Rom 8:20–22. 140. Cf. Gen 3:17–18; Ps 104:37; Isa 24:5–13; Gen Rab 12:6; 4 Ezra 7:11–12, 116–126. 141. Cf. Isa 65:17; 66:22; Jer 31:12–14; 33; 2 Bar 15:8; 1 Enoch 51:4–5; Matt 19:28; 2 Pet 3:10–13; Rev 21:1.

48 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

from the Eden orchard. These observations draw attention to the dual emphasis of the Hebrew verb ’arûr, which is rendered ‘cursed’ (vv. 14, 17), namely, that of being punished by God and alienated from Him.142 The solemn utterances recorded in these verses do not describe all the effects of sin. In fact, everything in life continues to be twisted, corrupted, or diminished in some way by the effects of iniquity. Moreover, despite the efforts of humankind, Scripture reveals they are powerless to rectify the imperfections of life. Likewise, the deficiencies encountered in this world are impossible to quantify and overcome.143 Regarding the serpent, Genesis 3:1 states that before the Fall, this creature was the shrewdest and most devious living being in the entire animal kingdom.144 After the Fall, the Lord decreed that as a consequence of the snake’s act of deception, it would be the most ‘cursed’ (v. 14) creature among all the tamed and untamed animals on earth.145 Luc (1997:540) draws attention to the play on words in the Hebrew text when he observes that ‘the ‘arûm serpent is now ’arûr, cursed’. The tempter would experience the humiliation of slithering on the ground and being forced to ingest dirt as it moved along. Some Jewish teachers traditionally interpreted this verse to mean that previously snakes had legs;146 but the curse may simply mean that the snake’s mode of travel, along with its closeness to ‘dust’, would now symbolize Satan’s moral lowness and metaphysical ignominy.147 Because the serpent tricked the woman, God would allow a perpetual state of hostility to exist between the snake and the woman. One of the woman’s offspring would ‘crush’ (Gen 3:15) the ‘head’ of the serpent’s offspring, while the latter would attack the ‘heel’ of this person. Traditionally, in a Christological view that is called the protoevangelium,148 some interpreters have taken the woman’s offspring to refer, in particular, to the Messiah.149 In this case, while Satan struck Jesus’ heel (figuratively speaking), Jesus crushed the devil’s head when Jesus rose from the dead. Colossians 2:15 reveals that the Son triumphed in His death over every

142. Cf. Hamilton (1980a); Keller (1997b:179–80); Koehler and Baumgartner (2001:91); McKeown (2003:84); Scharbert (1997:408–9). 143. Cf. Eccl 1:15; 3:11, 14–15; 7:13; 8:16–17. 144. Cf. the presence of the Hebrew adjective ‘arûm, which is translated ‘crafty’. 145. Cf. the presence of the Hebrew verb ’arûr, which is translated ‘cursed’. 146. Cf. Ant 1.42, 50; b Yoma 75a; Gen Rab 20:5; Eccl Rab 10.11; Jub 3:23; Tar Ps-Jon 3:14; Sib Or 1:59–64. 147. Cf. Pss 44:25; 72:9; Isa 49:23; 65:25; Mic 7:17; Gow (2003:289–9); Kaiser (2008:42); Kline (2006:132); Sailhamer (1992:106–7). 148. Latin for ‘first good news’. 149. Cf. Anderson (2001:17); Branch (2003:242); Paul (1997:361); Rose (2003:565–6); Voss (2000:43–4).

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 49

power and authority that sets itself up against the triune God. The verse depicts ancient post-battle victory processions, when a conqueror returned home with his defeated enemies trailing behind, weakened and in chains. Moreover, Romans 16:20 discloses that Jesus’ victory over Satan would be finalized eschatologically at the Second Advent. Concerning the woman, the divine curse had two parts. First, she would endure intensified physical ‘pain’ (Gen 3:16) and emotional distress in ‘childbearing’. Presumably, if Adam had not eaten the forbidden fruit, he and his wife would have raised a family in the arboreal enclave. In that case, births would have caused the mother little discomfort; yet, now Adam’s wife, along with all mothers after her, would suffer greatly increased labor pains. The second part of God’s judgment oracle is that the woman would seek to control her ‘husband’, while he would try to dominate her. Consequently, instead of the couple being united and harmonious in their marriage relationship,150 the two would be locked in an ongoing, futile struggle for power. According to one interpretation, verse 16 is taken to mean that marriage would be distorted by sexual and power politics. According to a second interpretation, the verse means that while a woman would continue to desire her husband, she would now have to submit to his leadership in the family.151 In any case, with respect to Adam, because he sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, now the divine curse would negatively impact his ability to obtain food to eat from the ground. As was noted earlier, life in the ancient Eden orchard involved some form of work,152 but it was much easier and more fruitful than labor would be in a fallen world. Because the man followed the lead of his wife, the ground ceased to be as bounteous in its yield. For the rest of Adam’s life, ‘painful toil’ (v. 17) would accompany him as he tried to get the earth’s soil to produce enough food to feed his family. Furthermore, despite the man’s efforts at planting, tilling, and harvesting, the ground would sprout ‘thorns and thistles’ (v. 18). Even as Adam toiled in the field, he would ‘sweat’ (v. 19) profusely, and this would be his fate until he died. Earlier on, the serpent asserted that by eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve could seize what their Creator denied them, namely, knowledge and immortality.153 Now, as part of God’s judgment oracle, they would experience the same ignominious end as the rest of earth’s creatures—death (v. 19).154 Indeed,

150. Cf. Gen 2:24. 151. Cf. Branch (2003:242); Dyrness (1977:103); Hess (2003:20); Kaiser (2008:43); McKeown (2003:86); Westermann (1974:101–2). 152. Cf. Gen 2:15. 153. Cf. Gen 3:4–5. 154. Cf. 2 Bar 17:2–3; 4 Ezra 3:4–7.

50 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

both humans and animals shared the same lifebreath and ended up in the grave.155 Moreover, every creature was made from the same minerals and chemicals of the ground, and in death that is where all of them would return.156 No living entity could escape this destiny. For Adam, Eve, and all their physical descendants, the sobering aftermath of the Fall was that spiritual and physical death157 became a permanent part of the human experience. The preceding truths notwithstanding, human life would go on. Concededly, it would be marred by intensified affliction, but it would continue. So, in a hopefilled response to what the Creator had decreed, the man gave his wife the name of ‘Eve’ (v. 20). The latter translates the proper Hebrew noun chavvah, which possibly means ‘living one’ or ‘life-giver’.158 Despite God’s judgment oracles, Adam maintained faith in the Lord’s abiding goodness and grace. The man recognized that even though Eve would experience acute pain and suffering in giving birth,159 she would become the ancestral ‘mother’ (v. 20) of all human beings. To ensure this outcome, the Lord provided the couple with clothing made from animal skins (v. 21). They would need these garments as they entered a far less hospitable environment. Moreover, the shame of sin would not go away, so the first human pair needed more durable attire than that provided by fig leaves.160 One view is that the Creator’s ‘provision of leather garments’ (Hess 2003:20) might look forward to the ‘sacrifices of Leviticus in providing access to God through the death of an innocent animal’. Previously, Adam and Eve obtained their experiential awareness of moral right and wrong by disobeying their Creator. Before then, only He and the angelic members of His heavenly court knew about ‘good and evil’ (v. 22). Since the couple now existed in a fallen human state, it would be unacceptable for them to eat from the tree that would enable them to ‘live forever’. In order to prevent this disastrous outcome, God ‘banished’ (v. 23) Adam and Eve from the ancient Eden orchard. From then on, they would spend their days cultivating the soil from which the man had been formed. The Lord also stationed ‘cherubim’ (v. 24) to police the entrance to the garden, which faced ‘east’. These imposing creatures wielded a ‘flaming sword’ as they stood guard over the path leading to the ‘tree of life’. Evidently, these angelic sentinels moved the foil of their blade back and forth, as 155. Cf. Gen 2:7; 6:17; Job 34:14–15; Ps 104:29–30; Eccl 3:19. 156. Cf. Pss 49:12, 20; 103:14; Eccl 3:20. 157. I.e. severing communion with God and terminating biotic function, respectively. 158. Cf. Koehler and Baumgartner (2001:296); Paul (1997:360); Swanson (2001a); Wallace (1992c:676). 159. Cf. Gen 3:16. 160. Cf. Gen 3:7.

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 51

well as in a whirling motion, to slice and impale any would-be intruder who might try to breach the entrance to the garden.

5.0 Conclusion This chapter has undertaken a biblical and theological analysis of the Genesis creation narrative. The motivation for doing so is to more fully appreciate the Christocentric and Christotelic aspects of new creation theology found in Paul’s discourse. The narrative starts with the primeval moments when the cosmos was birthed and ends with the tragedy of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the ancient Eden orchard. Admittedly, the information presented reflects a prescientific view of the world and describes the works of God in phenomenological terms, that is, as events would appear from an earthly, human perspective. Even so, what is revealed about the old Adamic creation relates what actually occurred in space-time. Put differently, while the accounts are presented in a highly stylized, parable-like manner, this observation does not negate the underlying historical and doctrinal truths being conveyed. In all likelihood, the opening chapters of Genesis reflect a diatribe against the pagan creation myths widespread throughout the ancient Near East.161 This is evident by the way in which the information in chapters 1–3 are arranged and sequenced, as well as the themes being discussed, some of which were prevalent among the pagan stories in the second millennium bce.162 On one level, the literature found in the Genesis creation narrative reflects an ancient Near Eastern cultural context;163 on another level, the biblical writers did not haphazardly appropriate concepts and terminology contemporary to them; instead, they made use of the prevailing outlook of their pagan neighbors in a discerning, critical manner for illustrative, allusive, and polemical reasons.164 Genesis 1:1 signals that the narrative concerning the old Adamic creation is unabashedly theocentric in emphasis. Specially, God’s eternal preexistence is taken as a nonnegotiable operating premise. He is the divine Artisan who gives shape to what was formless and fills what was empty. All that the Creator-King brought into material existence is superbly suited for its God-ordained function and purpose. 161. Eg. Egyptian, Canaanite, and Mesopotamian. 162. This is the presumed time period when the original oral and written traditions recorded in the biblical text arose. 163. Cf. Anderson (1984b:3); Bartholomew and Goheen (2004:30–1); Simkins (1994:88–9, 117); Westermann (1994:64–5, 80–1). 164. Cf. Lucas (2003:136); Jacob (1958:138); Sailhamer (1992:83); Walton (2003:161).

52 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

The latter includes enabling a fantastically diverse array of life forms to thrive over long expanses of time throughout the earth. The intent of this religious treatise is not to chronicle important events that occurred in prehistory (or protohistory); rather, it is to present an overtly theological understanding of history. The latter encompasses the following three doctrinal truths: (1) God reigns supreme over the cosmos; (2) He is actively present and involved in the world; and, (3) He cares and provides for His creation, including humankind. While the way in which the preceding information is communicated does not parallel typical human history,165 this does not mean the sacred narrative is any less historical. In contrast to pagan stories of the day, the Genesis creation account did not report the momentous events of primeval history in nebulous, fanciful terms; instead, the faith community discussed the origins of the cosmos, earth, and life on the planet (including humankind) in language that was clear and straightforward. Here one finds that God is the focal point of the rendition, with man and woman serving as His vice-regents over the world. Such things as the luminaries of the cosmos, the material objects of the earth, and the planet’s creaturely inhabitants166 do not occupy a central spot in the narrative, even though they are discussed. Their place in the primeval record helps to set the stage for God’s creation of humankind. With respect to the etiology of humanity, the biblical text reveals that this was the final and climactic act of God. The more immediate context of people being created in the divine image focuses on rulership, in which man and woman exist as stewards over the planet the divine Artisan fashioned and prepared for them. Furthermore, because God is the sovereign of the universe, He has the right to entrust the world to whomever He desires. Against this theological backdrop, the faith community recognizes that the Lord is the basis for selfhood, namely, individual human existence. In turn, from a Christological perspective, the righteous remnant is encouraged to remain faithful to the one true and living God, as well as heed His commandments. The role of Jesus’ followers in bringing blessing to a depraved world mirrors the transforming work of the Creator as He brought order out of chaos in the primordial earth. The deliberation about the divine likeness in humanity has also focused on the ability of people to reason, make ethical decisions, and exercise dominion. Possessing high mental abilities and behaving morally concern the nature of human life, while governing the rest of creation deals with the function of human life. From a Christocentric and Christotelic outlook, the spiritual character of the redeemed cannot be ignored. In short, becoming increasingly more like the

165. This stands in contrast to the later chapters of Genesis and the remainder of the Pentateuch. 166. Namely, the fish, birds, and land animals.

a biblic al and theologic al analysis of th e o l d a dam i c c r e at i on  | 53

Messiah is closely connected with bearing the image of God.167 Even within fallen humanity, though the image of God has been defaced through sin, people still bear the divine likeness to some degree,168 and this sets them apart from the rest of earth’s creatures. The preceding comment reflects two interrelated truths: (1) the first human couple existed in a genetically pristine state as persons having moral integrity; and, (2) when the primeval pair sinned in the Garden of Eden, they experienced spiritual separation from God. Also, as a consequence, all of their physical descendants are born into this world as mortal creatures who are separated in their relationship with their Creator-King and also with one another. Thankfully, through the death and resurrection of the Messiah, all who put their faith in Him can have eternal life and enjoy everlasting fellowship with God in heaven. Anderson (2001:22) surmises that whereas in the Jewish religion ‘creation is understood through the revelation at Mount Sinai’ (207), in the Christian faith ‘creation is understood through the advent and passion’ of the Messiah (210). Fittingly, Anderson (1984:18) opines that ‘creation’ not only has a ‘future’, but also a ‘horizon’ that is ‘eschatological’. The latter observation draws attention to two important realities: (1) the absolute, creative power of God is the mainstay for properly understanding the origin and development of the cosmos; and, (2) the Savior operates as the underlying Agent of creation. It is reasonable to surmise that whereas the Genesis narrative concerning the old Adamic creation is primarily theocentric in outlook, the Pauline discourse concerning new creation theology is predominantly Christocentic and Christotelic in orientation. The latter statement is brought into sharper relief in light of the following affirmations: whereas physical and spiritual death came through Adam, new life comes through the Messiah;169 present suffering one day gives way to future glory;170 Jesus’ resurrection from the dead serves as a pledge of the imperishable, glorious nature of the believer’s resurrection body;171 Jesus makes it possible for believers to share in His glory;172 and at Jesus’ Second Coming, He brings about a final victory over Satan, sin, and death for believers.173

167. Cf. Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Eph 4:22–24; Col 3:9–10. 168. Cf. Gen 5:1; 9:6; Jas 3:9. 169. Cf. Rom 5:1–21. 170. Cf. Rom 8:1–39. 171. Cf. 1 Cor 15:1–58. 172. Cf. Heb 2:5–18. 173. Cf. Rev 20:1–22:21.

chapter three

New creation theology in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2

1.0 Introduction What follows is an analytical essay dealing with the theme of new creation theology in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2.1 The major premise is that new creation theology is a defining characteristic in Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic discourse.2 To properly contextualize the investigation, a decision was made to let section 2.0 1. Within academia, an analytical essay examines and interprets a literary text (such as a portion of Scripture). In this case, the threefold goal is as follows: (1) to articulate a major premise; (2) to exposit the relevant biblical texts in their original languages, especially as it relates to the major premise; and, (3) to selectively engage pertinent scholarly sources, particularly to ensure the discourse remains factual and objective. This approach is considerably different from an argumentative treatise. The primary aim of the latter is not to undertake an erudite exposition of Scripture (though it may involve this as a secondary aim); instead, it is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the assumptions, claims, and conclusions of various secondary sources. Doing so requires presenting and evaluating multiple sides of diverse viewpoints, especially as they relate to the central theoretical argument developed by the author; cf. Booth, Colomb, and Williams (2008:13–15); Mouton (2001:xii–xiv); Vyhmeister (2008:4–5). 2. What follows in this chapter is a revision of material in my journal article titled ‘New creation theology in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2’, which appears in Lioy (2014b).

ne w creation theology in

2

co r i n th i a n s

5:11–6:2 | 55

succinctly reiterate from chapter 1 the concept of new creation theology within the Pauline corpus. Likewise, section 3.0 concisely summarizes information from the preceding chapter concerning what Genesis 1–3 reveals about the old, Adamic creation. Admittedly, the preceding decision results in a modest amount of overlap between the first and second chapters in this monograph. This perceived downside notwithstanding, the benefit is that readers are provided with a concise, accessible synopsis of information germane to the discourse in this chapter. Those who prefer to move directly into new material can skip over sections 2.0 and 3.0, to section 4.0, where they will find background information from other relevant Old Testament passages and extra-canonical Jewish writings. Together, sections two through four help to establish the narrative framework and theological context from which emerges Paul’s discussion of salvation history in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2, the latter being the focus of section 5.0. This is followed by the Conclusion in section 6.0, which synthesizes and elucidates the major findings of the chapter.

2.0 The concept of new creation theology within the Pauline corpus As articulated in chapter 1, Smith (2012a) identifies the ‘mission of God’ as a key ‘unifying theme of Scripture’ (28). He further clarifies that the missio Dei encompasses God’s redemptive activity ‘across time’ to ‘reconcile all people’ (112) to Himself3 and His efforts to reestablish His ‘righteous and benevolent reign over all creation’.4 In their deliberation about the ‘mission of God’, O’Brien and Harris (2012:147–8) go further when they reason that the missio Dei encompasses more than just the notion of ‘salvation history centered on’ the Messiah. Just as important is the Lord’s active involvement throughout ‘creation history’, which extends from the old Adamic ‘creation’ narrated in Genesis 1–3 to the ‘new creation’ described in Revelation 21–22. Emerson (2013:73) narrows the focus when he observes that the ‘narrative context’ of Paul’s writings ‘emphasizes Christ’s work of new creation’. In this regard, the Greek phrase kainé ktísis, which is rendered ‘new creation’, occurs two times within the Pauline corpus: 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15. As Marshall (2004:294) points out, it is as if this ‘terminology’ was ‘accepted language’ readily grasped by the apostle’s ‘readers’. The first text pertains to the spiritual

3. Referred to as ‘salvation history’ or Heilsgeschichte in German. 4. Referred to as the ‘kingdom of God’.

56 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

union believers have through faith in the Messiah. The second passage reveals that in order for the lost to be spiritually regenerated, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision makes any difference; instead, it is a person’s humble response in faith to the truth of the gospel. Corresponding to the imagery of the ‘new creation’ is that of ‘new life’ (kainóteti zoes), as seen in Romans 6:4. Paul wrote that just as the Son was ‘raised from the dead’, so believers are baptismally joined with Him in His resurrection to experience the fresh quality and vitality of new life. In order for there to be a new creation, it must be preceded by an old creation. Noteworthy is the contrast Paul made in his writings between the ‘old self ’ versus the ‘new self ’. For instance, Romans 6:6 states that the believer’s ‘old self ’ (palaiòs ánthropos; literally ‘old man’) was crucified with the Son. Paul was referring to everything people were before trusting in the Son for salvation, when they were still enslaved to sin,5 were ungodly,6 and were an enemy of God.7 In short, the ‘old self ’ is a person’s metaphysical state before being born again. The apostle declared in Ephesians 2:15 that prior to the advent of the Messiah, Jews and Gentiles existed as distinct human entities; yet now, with the Son’s resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven, He ‘creates’ (a rendering of the Greek verb ktízo) believing Jews and Gentiles into one ‘new humanity’ (kainòn ánthropon; literally ‘new man’), that is, an entirely new metaphysical body known as the Church. In Ephesians 4:22–24, Paul figuratively referred to the removal of the ‘old self ’ (tòn palaiòn ánthropon; literally ‘the old man’) and the donning of the ‘new self ’ (tòn kainòn ánthropon; literally ‘the new man’). As in Romans 6, the ‘old self ’ in Ephesians 4:22 denotes the sinful nature within people, which gives rise to unholy ways of thinking and acting. Like worn-out clothing, this deteriorating and wretched state of existence is replaced by the spiritual transformation that comes through faith in the Son. Moreover, verse 24 discloses that the ‘new self ’ is ‘created’ (a rendering of the Greek verb ktízo) in God’s image or likeness (literally, ‘according to God’). Similarly, in Colossians 3:9–10, Paul made a sharp distinction between the ‘old self ’ (tòn palaiòn ánthropon; literally ‘the old man’) and the ‘new self ’ (tòn néon; literally ‘the new [man]’). The apostle also referred to the latter as ‘being renewed’ (tòn ánakainoúmenon) to become increasingly like the ‘Creator’ (tou ktísantos). The picture is that of believers stripping off all the disgusting habits they had when in their unregenerate state and clothing themselves with godly behavior that reflects the ‘image’ (ekóna) of the Lord.

5. Cf. Rom 3:9. 6. Cf. Rom 5:6. 7. Cf. Rom 5:10.

ne w creation theology in

2

co r i n th i a n s

5:11–6:2 | 57

3.0 The Old Adamic Creation in Genesis 1–3 The information broached in the preceding section is representative of the new creation theology that appears in the writings of Paul. Westermann (1974:39) explains that the ‘New Testament message receives its historical place’ from the ‘source and context’ found in the creation texts recorded in the Old Testament. In particular, Genesis 1–3, with its account of humanity’s creation and subsequent fall, provides a crucial literary backdrop and theological foundation for Paul’s teaching. For instance, in Romans 8:19–22, the apostle explained that the present metaphysically corrupted state of the old creation is the result of sin and death entering the human experience.8 Paul noted that at the end of the present age comes the revealing of the ‘children of God’ (8:19) as well as the ‘redemption’ (v. 23) of their ‘bodies’. Apparently, both occur simultaneously, related as they are to the release of the entire cosmos ‘from its bondage to decay’ (v. 21), in which the term ‘cosmos’ denotes the ‘entire universe as an organized entity’ (Oden 1992:1162). In the meantime, ‘creation waits in eager expectation’ (v. 19) and believers ‘groan inwardly’ (v. 23) for their promised freedom.9 While it is beyond the scope of the present section to undertake a detailed biblical and theological analysis of the Genesis creation narrative, it is beneficial to provide a cogent elucidation of what chapters 1–3 reveal about the old, Adamic creation.10 Specifically, the old Adamic creation was predominately theocentric in outlook and stressed the following three doctrinal truths: (1) God’s supreme reign over the cosmos; (2) His active presence and involvement in the world; and, (3) His care and provision for His creation, including humankind. Regarding the etiology of humankind, several affirmations arise. One key tenet is that the emergence of Homo sapiens was God’s final and decisive act of creation. His choice to make people in His image encompasses both a special character (or quality) and a role (or task). Also, while the first human couple existed in a genetically pristine state as persons having moral integrity, they willfully sinned against God. As a result, the primeval pair experienced spiritual separation from Him and one another. A further dire outcome is that to this day, all Adam and Eve’s physical descendants are born as mortal creatures for whom the imago dei has been defaced (though not obliterated).

8. Cf. Rom 5:12. 9. For a detailed biblical and theological analysis of Romans 8:1–39, cf. Lioy (2011a:142–51). 10. For a detailed biblical and theological analysis of Genesis 1–3, cf. chapter 2 in this monograph.

58 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

From a New Testament perspective, the teleology of the human race is centered in Savior. As the underlying Agent of creation, He brings the promise of new life to fruition, along with the assurance that future glory will supplant present suffering. The Messiah’s resurrection from the dead is also the guarantee that at His Second Advent, believers receive resurrection bodies that are glorious and imperishable. Furthermore, when the Savior returns, He brings about for His followers a final victory over Satan, sin, and death. In the interim, He enables them to become increasingly more like Him.11 These observations point to a shift in emphasis from a predominately theocentric outlook in the old Adamic creation to a Christocentric orientation in the writings of Paul, including 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2, which is the principal focus of this chapter.

4.0 Background information from relevant Old Testament passages and extra-canonical Jewish writings Paul’s new creation theology, including that found in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2, did not arise in a conceptual vacuum; instead, he formulated his views within the context of a vibrant literary tradition that extended beyond the opening chapters of Genesis to include other relevant Old Testament eschatological passages, as well as pertinent Jewish apocalyptic literature written during the Second Temple period.12 Concededly, Paul nowhere directly quotes extra-canonical Jewish writings. Echoes and parallels occur, but not explicit citations on the intertestamental literature. That said, it is reasonable to surmise that the apostle, as a highly educated and accomplished Pharisee, was familiar with these works. In light of the preceding comments, and in order to more fully appreciate Paul’s distinctive Christocentric and Christotelic perspective, it is worthwhile to consider the general outlook for the renewal and restoration of creation foretold in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, along with the viewpoints expressed within selective extra-canonical writings of Judaism.13 To begin, in Isaiah 42, the prophet 11. For a detailed biblical and theological analysis of the New Testament perspective on the teleology of the human race centered in the Savior, cf. Lioy (2005:57–87; 2010:87–134; 2011a:127–212). 12. The Second Temple period is commonly understood to extend from 538 bce to 70 ce. For an overview of the apocalyptic genre, cf. section 1.0 in chapter 4 of this monograph. In turn, the entire chapter examines Paul’s apocalyptic view of reality, including a case study analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23. 13. The scholarly literature on this topic is extensive. Also, it is beyond the scope of this chapter to undertake an exhaustive analysis of the pertinent background information from

ne w creation theology in

2

co r i n th i a n s

5:11–6:2 | 59

spoke about a coming ‘servant’ (v. 1), the Messiah, through whom the Lord would bring justice and salvation to people. Verse 8 affirmed that the prophecy about the Servant was given by God and not the ‘idols’ venerated by the inhabitants of pagan nations. Verse 9 related that earlier predictions had come to pass for God’s people, including Israel’s epochal departure from Egypt (43:16–17). In 43:18–19, the Lord directed the redeemed not to limit their thoughts to those past events; instead, He urged them to direct their attention to a completely ‘new’ undertaking. It was a time when God would defeat their oppressor and restore His people to the Promised Land. According to 48:1–5, long ago Israel’s God had foretold their defeat and captivity. He did this so they would not conclude that the idols they worshiped brought about the cataclysmic episode. Then, in verse 6, He declared ‘new’ events—particularly, Israel’s restoration to Judah—which He had previously concealed from their conscious awareness. Similarly, new prophecies foretelling redemption—such as those about the Servant—would be fulfilled. Only the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator could successfully disclose these unique salvific oracles in advance. Furthermore, passages such as Jeremiah 31:31, 33:25–26, Ezekiel 11:19, and 18:31 pointed to a fresh beginning in which God would usher in the renewal of creation (both its physical and metaphysical aspects), the spiritual transformation of His redeemed people, and an unparalleled opportunity for Him to dwell with them. Isaiah 65:17–25 and 66:22 bring this future-oriented perspective into sharper relief. According to Russell (1996:2, 72), these two passages are the ‘locus classicus’ in the Hebrew sacred writings dealing with ‘cosmic redemption’ and ‘eschatological renewal’. On one level, Isaiah 65:17–25 and 66:22 applied in part to the exiles who returned from Babylon, especially the transformation of Judah, Jerusalem, and its temple; on another level, the language clearly went beyond any fulfillment in ancient history. For instance, the prophet recorded God’s declaration that at His initiative, He would ‘create’ (bore; 65:17)14 a ‘new heavens’ (65:17; 66:22), along with a ‘new earth’, and these would replace the old heavens and earth. Also, the new creation would ‘remain’ (66:22) or ‘endure’ forever; likewise, the ‘descendants’15 relevant Old Testament passages and extra-canonical Jewish writings; instead, given the modest intent of this section, the following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse: Brueggemann (1997); Chisholm (1991); Clifford (1985); Dyrness (1977); Harner (1967); Harrison (2009); Jacob (1958); Kreitzer (1987); Lessing (2010); Marlow (2012); Motyer (2001); Ollenburger (1987); Osborn (2000); Reumann (1973); Russell (1996); Schifferdecker (2008); Smith (1993); Towner (1996); and Waltke and Yu (2007). 14. Qal, participle, masculine, singular; cf. Gen 1:1. 15. Zarakem; lit. ‘seed’.

60 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

of the redeemed, along with their collective ‘name’, would abide for unending generations to come. Corresponding oracles are found in Revelation 21:1, where the visionary declared that he saw a ‘new heaven’, as well as a ‘new earth’. The latter would be total replacements for their old counterparts, which the Creator had destroyed. He evidently did this to eliminate any corrupting presence or influence of sin.16 The preceding remarks notwithstanding, the seer was not thinking merely of a world free of sin and hardness of heart. More importantly, the eschatological vision centered in the Messiah consisted of a creation new in all its qualities. Accordingly, Revelation 21:2 depicted the ‘new Jerusalem’ as a ‘holy city’, which the Creator sent down out of ‘heaven’. Also, He magnificently adorned the New Jerusalem (the ‘bride’) for her husband (the ‘groom’). The implication was that the city surpassed the beauty of everything else God had previously made. There is no consensus whether this domicile should be taken as a literal city where God’s people would dwell for all eternity or a symbol of the redeemed community in heaven. In either case, the seer declared that a new world was coming, and it would be glorious beyond imagination. Second Peter 3:13 mentioned that Christians expectantly awaited a ‘new heavens’ and a ‘new earth’, for it was there that ‘righteousness’ (i.e. equity and virtue) truly existed. Verse 14 added that the redeemed longed for such an elysian future. Consequently, they were to ensure that whenever the Messiah returned, He would find them living in concord with each other and striving to be morally unsullied and irreproachable in their relationships. This sentiment is reinforced in 1 John 2:28, where the writer directed his readers to remain in living communion with the Savior. Doing so would ensure that at His Second Advent, they would feel confident assurance, rather than shame, in His holy presence. The grandeur and glory of the new creation depicted in Isaiah 65 would eclipse any memory of past traumatic events the righteous experienced. Even sorrow and crying would give way to gladness, rejoicing, and delight. For this reason, the Lord commanded His people to ‘exult’ (v. 18) and ‘rejoice’ always and for all time over what God would ‘create’ (bara’). Specifically, He pledged to ‘create’ (bore)17 the New Jerusalem as a place of happiness, and the people inhabiting the city would be a source of joy for the community of the redeemed. Even the sovereign of the cosmos would delight in the new creation. According to verse 19, He would ‘rejoice’ over Jerusalem and ‘exult’ over the city’s inhabitants. No person within the eternal abode would ever again hear the voice of ‘weeping’ or the cry of ‘distress.’

16. Cf. 2 Pet 3:7, 10–12. 17. Qal, participle, masculine, singular.

ne w creation theology in

2

co r i n th i a n s

5:11–6:2 | 61

Likewise, the seer revealed that, in the eternal state, the Creator would permanently ‘tabernacle’ (Rev 21:3) among the redeemed of all ages. They would always be graced by the ‘tent’ of His divine presence. In fact, He would claim them as His chosen people, and they would revel in Him being their God. Also, at least five scourges of human existence would no longer exist in the celestial abode— tears, death, sorrow, crying, and pain. The new order of things would eliminate all these forms of anguish (v. 4). The Creator assured the righteous remnant that He would fulfill His promise to do away with the old order so that every aspect of the cosmos would be made ‘new’ (v. 5). What was inferior and transitory would give way to what was superior and everlasting. In Isaiah 65:20–25, the prophet described what the new creation would be like for God’s people. Interpreters differ over whether these verses refer to the heavenly state (the metaphorical view) or to a future period in which the Messiah would rule on earth (the literal view). Regardless of which hermeneutical option is preferred, the passage contains four promises of blessing. Those who made the newly created Jerusalem their domicile would experience the following: (1) long lives; (2) productive labor; (3) God’s prompt response to their prayers; and, (4) an environment free from hostility. When taken together, these blessings suggest that the Creator would reverse the effects of the Fall when He inaugurated the new order. As noted, the first blessing is longevity (v. 20). The Old Testament indicates that, in early human history, lives normally extended to hundreds of years. Similarly, in the new creation, infant mortality would drop to zero, for all would live to adulthood. Moreover, a tombstone recording a life span of 100 years would not be remarkable for denoting a long life, but for indicating a short life. The second blessing in the new creation was fruitful endeavors (vv. 21–23). The people of Isaiah’s time lived and died with the vagaries of agricultural life. Droughts and pestilence caused great damage. The pagans prayed to fertility and weather gods and goddesses; in contrast, the Lord’s chosen people were supposed to trust Him to supply all their needs. After the Fall, God’s curse on humanity included the declaration that labor to earn food would be difficult.18 In the new creation, people would continue to work, but they would have no worries about harvesting the yield resulting from their undertakings. Others (perhaps unscrupulous rich people or invaders) would never take what the redeemed had earned with their own hands. Generation after generation, the people of God would be blessed. Isaiah related these truths in terms that could be understood. For instance, God’s people would live in the houses they built and eat the fruit of their vineyards (Isa 65:21). The Lord would 18. Cf. Gen 3:17–19.

62 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

prevent invaders from taking these from them. Indeed, God would enable His people to live a long life and enjoy what their hands produced (v. 22). The labor of the redeemed community would not be in vain, and their children would not be destined for calamity (v. 23). After all, the Lord would grace innumerable generations of parents and their children with safety, health, and prosperity. Such blessings would be both physical and spiritual in nature. The third blessing in the new creation was answered prayer (v. 24). In the ancient Eden orchard, Adam and Eve enjoyed the immediate presence and conversation of the Lord. Similarly, while people in the new creation were praying, even before they made their request, God would answer them. This described a close fellowship between God and people. Such a circumstance is echoed in Revelation 22:3–4. The seer noted that in the new creation the Father and the Son would be seated on their thrones, and the redeemed would worship and serve them continually. God would establish unbroken communion with His people, and He would claim them as His own. Of noteworthy mention is the fourth blessing in the new creation, namely, peace (Isa 65:25). The Fall introduced hostility into the world, and murder was committed by each successive generation; yet, in the new creation, even the animals would stop preying on one another, for perfect harmony would reign. This expectation for wellness and wholeness was repeated in the Apocalypse. God promised to give water from the life-giving fountain to everyone who was thirsty (Rev 21:6). This pledge was a vivid reminder of the refreshment and satisfaction believers would enjoy in heaven. In the eternal state, God would satisfy the yearnings of their soul. This assurance was grounded in the Lord’s own nature. Those who prevailed over temptation and persecution during their earthly sojourn would receive an everlasting inheritance as children of the eternal Creator (vs. 7). In the seer’s description of the great heavenly city, he referred to the tree of life, first mentioned in Genesis (Rev 22:2).19 In fact, many themes introduced in Genesis find their fulfillment in Revelation. For instance, in Genesis: the sun is created; Satan is victorious; sin enters the human race; people run and hide from God; people are cursed; tears are shed, with sorrow for sin; the garden and earth are cursed; paradise is lost; and people are doomed to death. Then, in Revelation: the sun is not needed; Satan is defeated; sin is banished; people are invited to live with God forever; the curse is removed; there is no more sin, tears, or sorrow; God’s city is glorified; the earth is made new; paradise is regained; death is defeated; and believers live forever with the Lord.

19. Cf. Gen 2:9.

ne w creation theology in

2

co r i n th i a n s

5:11–6:2 | 63

As noted at the beginning of this section, Paul’s new creation theology was influenced by non-canonical Jewish writings penned during the Second Temple period. It was an era in which pagan governments oppressed religious communities. In response, the visionaries authored apocalyptic treatises declaring the Creator’s eventual triumph over the wicked and His vindication of the righteous remnant. Admittedly, the primary focus was on the redeemed as a group, rather than the Creator’s transformative work within each believer by His Spirit.20 Furthermore, just as Isaiah 65 and 66 foretold God’s establishment of a new created order, so too, pertinent Jewish literature written during the intertestamental period spoke about a glorious era in which the Lord would renew the cosmos and reign sovereign over it. By way of example, 2 Baruch 32:6 points the faithful to an eschatological day when the ‘Mighty One’21 would ‘renew’ His ‘creation’. A future ‘hope’ is noted in 57:2 when the ‘world’ would be ‘renewed’, including the ‘promise’ of ‘life’. Later on, God’s ‘Servant, the Anointed One’ (70:10; cf. 72:2) is portrayed as reigning in ‘eternal peace’ (73:1) over the divine ‘kingdom’, and establishing worldwide ‘joy’ and ‘rest’.22 In like manner, Tobit 15:5 depicts the Creator restoring His chosen people to their homeland and enabling them to ‘rebuild the temple’. They also witness the conversion of the nations and marvel at Gentiles worshiping the Lord ‘in truth’ (v. 6). The Sibylline Oracles 3:808 adds that the Gentiles would offer sacrifices to the ‘great king’.23 First Enoch 72:1 refers to the ‘new creation’ that ‘abides forever’. Similarly, 91:16 speaks of the ‘first heaven’ retreating and ending, along with a ‘new heaven’ appearing and all its celestial ‘powers’ shining ‘forever’. Likewise, Jubilees 1:29 comments on the ‘day of the [new] creation’ as a time when God would renew the ‘heavens’, the ‘earth’, and whatever they contained by His mighty power. In that future day, the Lord would establish His ‘sanctuary’ in ‘Jerusalem’, which was located on ‘Mount Zion’, and bring about an era of ‘healing’, ‘peace’, and ‘blessing’ for ‘all the elect of Israel’. Later, in 4:26, it is declared that in the ‘new creation’, God would consecrate the ‘Garden of Eden’, the ‘Mount of the East’, ‘Mount Sinai’, and ‘Mount Zion’. In turn, this would lead to the ‘sanctification’ of the ‘earth’, including the elimination of the planet’s ‘guilt’ and ‘uncleanness’ for innumerable ‘generations’ to come. In 4 Ezra 7:75 is recorded the priestly scribe wondering whether, following his ‘death’, he and his pious colleagues would be preserved in 20. Especially as seen in Paul’s writings, including 2 Cor 5:11–6:2. 21. All quotes from the Pseudepigrapha are taken from Charles (1913) and Charlesworth (1983). Also, all quotes from the Deutero-Canonicals/Apocrypha are taken from the NRSV. 22. Cf. Isa 9:6–7; 11:1–9; Zech 14:9. 23. Cf. Isa 2:2–4; 56:6–7; Mic 4:1–4; Zech 8:20–23; 14:16–19.

64 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

‘rest’ until the moment when God renewed the ‘creation’, Finally, the Apocalypse of Abraham 9:9 depicted God pledging to show the patriarch what the Creator brought into existence and subsequently ‘renewed’ by His ‘word’. Concerning the influence of literature from the Second Temple period on Paul’s discourse, Dunn (1998:90) states that as the apostle elucidated his theological argument, he took part in an ‘already well-developed debate’ in which ‘his own views’ were shaped ‘by its earlier participants’ in other Jewish literature of the era. De Boer (2000:347) is even more specific when he refers to the ‘conceptual affinities between Paul’s eschatological ideas and first-century Jewish eschatological expectations’.24 Admittedly, as Vos (1972:27–8) observes, the ‘Jewish eschatology’ that was contemporaneous to Paul had its starting point in the Tanakh. Even so, this detail cannot entirely ‘account for the agreement’ existing between other Jewish writers and the apostle with respect to the ‘data going beyond’ the Old Testament. Vos concludes that a ‘piece of Jewish theology has been here by Revelation incorporated into [Paul’s] teaching’. In the view of Schnelle (2009:292), the stance the apostle articulated within the context of ‘religious-philosophical discourse’ concerning the ‘origin of evil and its conquest’ displays ‘originality not in its analysis but in its resolution’. To illustrate, Paul was aware of the prevalent view that when sin entered the world through Adam (along with Eve), all seemed to be lost; yet, for the apostle, the fate of humanity did not end there. As conveyed in section 2.0 above, Paul taught that to match the terrible consequences of human sin, the Father intervened with His powerful, sustaining grace. His unmerited favor prevailed in the person of His Son, who died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Furthermore, as Scroggs (1966:102) points out, the Messiah ‘not only is true humanity’, but ‘also mediates this true humanity to the believer’. Tobin (2004:167) explains that any conceptual links between Adam and Jesus (whether explicit or allusive) that Paul made in his writings, occurred within the context of speculation about Adam appearing in religious texts produced by ‘early Judaism’.25 Furthermore, Tobin draws attention to the fallacy of presuming there was only one ‘Adam myth’ to be found during the intertestamental period in which 24. Cf. 2 Bar 23:4; 48:42–44; 54:15–19; 4 Ezra 3:7, 21–22; 7:116–119; Sir 25:24; Wis 1:13; 2:23. 25. E.g. Apoc Moses; 2 Bar; 4 Ezra; Sib Or. For a systematic and detailed analysis of Adamic motifs in ancient Jewish literature, cf. Anderson (2001); Barrett (1962:1–21, 68–76, 83–119); Davies (1980:31–35, 38–57); Dunn (1998:84–90); Levison (1988:33–161); Pate (1991:33–65; 1993:66–77); Scroggs (1966:16–58); Sprankle (2014); Steenburg (1990); Tilling (2012:201–6). Also, cf. the discourse in chapter 10 of this monograph about the Adam character within the context of Second Temple Judaism.

ne w creation theology in

2

co r i n th i a n s

5:11–6:2 | 65

extracanonical Jewish documents were written; rather, the ‘figure of Adam appears in several different contexts’. Moreover, the symbol of Adam was ‘used for several different purposes in these writings’ and conveyed a ‘variety of interpretations’. Such a diversity of perspectives was ‘conditioned by the purposes and viewpoints of the different authors’. Levison (1988:145) clarifies that ‘early Jewish authors creatively developed portraits of Adam by adapting the Genesis narratives’. Sprankle (2014:9) echoes this view by noting that the ‘portrait of Adam’ in the ‘Second Temple literature’ is ‘complex’ and evinces ‘interpretive liberties with the account of his life in Genesis 2–3’. More specifically, Wenham (1995:119) draws attention to the concept of Adam in ‘Jewish thought’ as the ‘archetypal man and original human being’. Davies (1980:46) advances the discussion when he states that in Rabbinic Judaism, the ‘First Man’ was considered to be ‘altogether glorious’. Purportedly, his luminescence even transcended the brightness of the sun. For this reason, his ‘fall was correspondingly disastrous’. Scroggs (1966:2) elaborates that Adam’s ‘primeval act’ of disobedience in the Eden orchard ‘resulted in man’s present precarious and critical condition’, namely, the spiritual and moral corruption of all his physical descendants. Hooker (1994:504) goes even further in elucidating the nature of the theological ‘relationship between Adam and Christ’. The incorrect supposition is that these are ‘two successive competitors in a task’, in which the first individual ‘fails while the second succeeds’; instead, the Father commissions the Son to overturn the ‘failure of Adam’. The Son does so by nullifying the negative consequences of Adam’s transgression and bringing ‘life where Adam brought death’. Because of what the Son accomplished through His incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation, He is ‘greater than Adam’. In stepping back from the preceding observations, several insights arise. Whether it was the end-time writings authored during the Old Testament era or the Jewish apocalyptic literature penned during the Second Temple period, the focus was on a future messianic age of redemption when God delivered His people. The salvation could be from their own sinful inclinations or the oppression of their pagan foes. In both cases, the emphasis was on the faith community as a group, rather than the lives of individual believers. Prior historical events, such as the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt or their return to the Promised Land from exile in Babylon, became archetypal foreshadowings or prefigurations of the Lord’s deliverance. Indeed, the Servant’s atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world accomplished a new exodus and established a new covenant. The righteous remnant’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt, along with their subsequent restoration to their homeland, became the basis for convincing them

66 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

that the Creator would vindicate them, especially by dealing decisively with their antagonists. The people of God were encouraged to look beyond the limited scope of past historical events, as well as the confinements associated with their own temporal circumstances. They were to recognize that the Lord intended to replace the old order with a completely new one. In both canonical and extra-canonical Jewish writings, the latter were referred to as the ‘new heaven’ (or ‘heavens) and the ‘new earth’. These designators, which also appear in eschatologically-oriented New Testament literature, pointed to a metamorphosis so radical and far-reaching that it would result in a fresh beginning for the regenerate inhabitants of God’s kingdom. The divine promise of the material transformation of the universe was accompanied by His pledge to metaphysically renew the righteous remnant. He would also bless His redeemed children with an unparalleled opportunity to commune with Him. They would become people known for their virtue and equity, which suited their residence in an eternal domicile known as the ‘holy city’ and the ‘new Jerusalem’. In short, both the people of God and their magnificent abode would be characterized by righteousness. Concord would replace acrimony, and piety would supersede debauchery. Furthermore, the prior traumas connected with temporal earthly existence would give way to gladness and rejoicing, especially as God’s people exulted in the blessing of His glorious, sustaining presence. In point of fact, the joys of the new cosmic order would so eclipse the sorrows of the old order that the latter would soon be forgotten and never again recalled.

5.0 The new creation theology of Paul in Second Corinthians 5:11–6:2 As noted in section one, sections two through four help to establish the narrative framework and theological context that emerges from Paul’s discussion of salvation history in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2.26 In 5:9–10, the apostle emphasized the importance of believers’ living in a way that pleased the Lord, for they knew that at the end of the age He would appraise how they conducted themselves during their earthly sojourn. The future time of reckoning motivated the apostle to please the Lord by serving others in His name as long as Paul lived on earth. Also, by his example, he encouraged his readers to do the same. The apostle’s reference in verse 11 to the ‘fear of the Lord’ (phóbon tou kyríou)27 is an intentional link to

26. For a concise overview of background information regarding 2 Corinthians, cf. section 3.0 in chapter 5 of this monograph. 27. An objective genitive.

ne w creation theology in

2

co r i n th i a n s

5:11–6:2 | 67

the preceding passage.28 Paul did not have in mind a cringing dread, but rather a reverential disposition produced by an awe of one’s accountability before the allknowing Creator.29 A superficial overview of 2 Corinthians 5:11 might lead to the incorrect supposition that the Greek phrase ánthropous peíthomen (‘trying to persuade people’) mainly referred to unbelievers; however, the immediate literary context indicates the apostle had in mind at least some of the Christians at Corinth. This understanding is reinforced by the fact that Paul had to spar with several sets of opponents, including false prophets from outside the congregation as well as antagonists from within the fellowship.30 In trying to convince his readers about his honesty and truthfulness in proclaiming the gospel, Paul opened himself up to them. He was confident that the sincerity of his motives was clearly evident (pephanerómetha)31 to God; and the apostle hoped (elpízo)32 that the moral sensitivities (syneidesesin; lit. ‘consciences’) of his readers would lead them to a similar conclusion. Paul explained that, in choosing to be so transparent, he had no desire to solicit any acclaim (synistánomen; lit. ‘commend’ or ‘request approval’; v. 12)33 from the believers at Corinth. The apostle’s previous decision to defend the integrity of his ministry34 was due to the fact that outsiders had infiltrated the church and questioned his authority. For this reason, Paul sought to remain above reproach in his conduct as a minister of the gospel. He also wanted to give his readers a favorable ‘opportunity’ (aphormén; or ‘occasion’) to respond to his antagonists, who reveled (kauchoménous; lit. ‘boast’)35 in having a showy ministry (prosópo; lit. ‘appearance’), rather than in cultivating a genuine, virtuous character (kardía; lit. ‘heart’). 28. In this section, unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are my personal translation of the respective biblical texts being cited. 29. Cf. Prov 1:7; 9:10; 14:2; 15:33; Eccl 3:14; 12:13. The following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse: Balla (2007); Barnett (1997); Beale (2011); Best (1987); Boers (2006); Bruce (1980); Fee (2007); Garland (1999); Gundry-Volf (1993); Guthrie (1981); Harris (2005); Hubbard (2002a); Hughes (1962); Keener (2005); Kistemaker (1997); Ladd and Hagner (1993); Lenski (1961b); Levison (1993); Lowery (1994); Marshall (2004); Martin (1986; 1993); Martyn (1997; 2009); Morris (1986); Mueller (1934); Munck (1959); Pate (1991); Plummer (1978); Sampley (2000); Schreiner (2008); Stott (2006); Taylor (1958); Thielman (2005); Tilling (2012). 30. For an overview of the adversaries Paul faced at Corinth, cf. section 3.0, along with n 29, in chapter 5 of this monograph, 31. Perfect, passive, indicative. 32. Present, active, indicative. 33. Present, active, indicative. 34. Cf. 2 Cor 3:1; 4:2. 35. Present, either middle or passive, participle.

68 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Barnett (1997:282) explained that outside the New Testament, the Greek noun aphormé (‘opportunity’, ‘occasion’) was used as a ‘military’ metaphor to refer to establishing a suitable base of operations or a beachhead for troops. In verse 12, the idea was that of Paul providing the Corinthians with an appropriate starting point for them to affirm (kauchématos; lit. ‘boast about’) the purity his motives to his detractors.36 Paul did not think it was necessary for him to prove his claim to be an apostle, especially since his God-given authority as a church leader was the basis for his mandate to establish a congregation in the city.37 In persuading the Corinthians, the missionary wanted them to objectively consider the evidence. By doing so, they could discern that Paul’s heart-driven ministry contrasted sharply with the pretentiousness of his opponents. There are at least three different views regarding what Paul meant in verse 13 when he used the Greek verb exéstemen (‘beside ourselves’).38 He could have been referring to a charge leveled by his critics that he was guilty of making outlandish claims as an apostle, or that he was off-center in his presentation of the gospel, or that he was characterized by aberrant religious behavior. The corresponding verb sophronoumen39 emphasized Paul’s ability to reason in a lucid, sensible way. On the one hand, some concluded that Paul was insane; on the other hand, he insisted that whatever he did was intended to glorify God and benefit Christians. Accordingly, the apostle rejected the charge of his rivals that he was merely concerned about making a name for himself. In verse 11, Paul noted that his accountability before the Savior was one incentive for the apostle to be virtuous in his ministry to others. According to Keener (2005:184), verse 14 disclosed that the ‘love of Christ’ was a second motivating factor. The Greek phrase agápe tou Christou is best understood to be a subjective genitive, namely, the love that originated from the Savior. Expressed differently, the mercy He showed to humankind, as evidenced in His redemptive death, compelled Paul to serve others sacrificially. The Greek verb synéchei40 denoted exercising continuous control over something. Here, it was as if Paul felt the grip of an outside celestial force exerting itself on him. Specifically, he had received Jesus’ unconditional love; in turn, as Harris (2005:419) states, the apostle was left with no other ‘choice’ than to reach out to the lost with the gospel and minister to the needs of his fellow believers.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

Cf. 2 Cor 1:12–23. Cf. Acts 18:9–11; 1 Cor 1:1–2; 2 Cor 1:1. Aorist, active, indicative. Present, active, indicative. Present, active, indicative.

ne w creation theology in

2

co r i n th i a n s

5:11–6:2 | 69

There is no scholarly consensus concerning the best way to understand the Greek statement rendered ‘one has died for all; therefore all have died’ (v. 14). In particular, does ‘all’ (pánton and pántes, respectively) refer to all people or all Christians? If it means all people, then perhaps Paul was emphasizing two important and interrelated theological truths: (1) Jesus’ death confirmed the spiritual death of unbelievers;41 and, (2) His substitutionary, atoning sacrifice42 caused believers to die to their unregenerate self.43 Regardless of which interpretation is preferred, the implication was that through faith in the Son, repentant sinners received new life in their baptismal union with Him and had a mandate to serve the lost rather than their sinful nature.44 In 2 Corinthians 5:15, Paul reiterated the importance of being spiritually regenerated and transformed in the way one lived.45 Sampley (1991:107) elucidates that Paul’s ‘apocalyptic horizons’ functioned as the scaffolding for his theological reasoning and ethical deliberations. Specifically, the historical reality of the Son’s death (apothanónti)46 and resurrection (egerthénti)47 provided the motivation for the redeemed to live for Him.48 This meant that believers were no longer to adopt the pagan mindset and mores of the present age; instead, as citizens of the kingdom age inaugurated by the Messiah, they were to let the Spirit, through the ministry of the Word, metamorphosize their intellect, emotions, and will.49 This ongoing process of change included Paul and his colleagues refusing any longer to evaluate (oídamen; ‘know’ or ‘understand’; 2 Cor 5:16)50 people according to selfish human considerations (sárka; lit. ‘flesh’) or assess them from an external human perspective. Martyn (1997:95–6) explains that Paul used the Greek noun, sarx, to ‘refer to the realm of the old age’. Herein, the apostle devised an ‘epistemological locution’—namely, ‘to know by the norm of the flesh’—to denote the ‘passé, old-age manner of acquiring knowledge’. Before Paul’s conversion, he had mistakenly regarded (egnókamen)51 the Son as a mere human being, as well as a blasphemer and lawbreaker who deserved to experience God’s curse in an ignoble

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

Cf. Rom 3:23; 6:23; Eph 2:1. Cf. the use of the preposition hypér in 2 Cor 5:14. Cf. Gal 2:20. Cf. Rom 6:3–7. Cf. the dual use of Greek verb záo, ‘to live,’ i.e. zontes and zosin, respectively. Aorist, active, participle. Aorist, passive, participle. Cf. the use of the conjunction hína to express purpose. Cf. Rom 12:1–2. Perfect, active, indicative. Perfect, active, indicative.

70 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

form of death.52 Martyn clarifies that Paul’s ‘apocalyptic frame of reference’ led him to discontinue using of an unregenerate mindset to appraise (ginóskomen; ‘perceive’ or ‘comprehend’)53 Jesus of Nazareth.54 Having a transformed perspective was the result of the new birth changing a believer’s life. Paul declared that repentant sinners became a ‘new creation’ (kainé ktísis; 2 Cor 5:17) when they were united to the Son by faith.55 Taylor (1958:9) opines that kainé ktísis encapsulates, ‘in nuclear form, Paul’s entire theology of redemption’. This includes not only ‘willing humanity’, but also the entire ‘animate and inanimate’ aspects of ‘sub-human creation’. Similarly, Levison (1993:189) avers there are three aspects operative in Paul’s thinking about the ‘new creation’: (1) ‘individual converts’; (2) the ‘community of faith’; and, (3) the ‘cosmos as a whole’. While of primary concern here for the apostle was the spiritual status of each believer, being born again also had ramifications for the body of Christ, as well as the entire universe. Put another way, the believer’s change in status had broad metaphysical and ontological implications. To illustrate, God radically reshaped the sinful lives of the regenerate, and in a sense, recreated them. Consequently, what previously existed (archaia; esp. the old, sinful nature) was removed (parelthen; lit. ‘pass away’ or ‘cease to exist’)56 to make room for what was ‘new’ (kainá) both chronologically and qualitatively. The triune God was the sovereign source and agent in bringing about this completely different existential reality. Expressed differently, He alone inaugurated and accomplished the inner recreating of the believers’ fallen human nature. Indeed, the Greek phrase tá pánta ek tou Theou (lit. ‘all [these] things [are] from God’; v. 18) emphasized that He was the sole author of this second creation, just as He was of the first. Furthermore, with the advent of the Messiah, a new era of reconciliation was inaugurated.57 Fittingly, as Barnett (1997:296) elucidates, the conversion of individual believers58 was part of God’s larger plan to bring about the renewal of the entire universe, concluding with the new heavens and new earth.59 Specifically, the

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

Cf. Deut 21:23; Gal 3:13. Present, active, indicative. In which the Greek verbs oida and ginósko are more or less synonymous. Cf. the use of the Greek phrase en Christo. In this context, the rendering of ktísis as ‘creature’ seems less accurate. Aorist, active, indicative. Cf. the use of the verb katalláxantos and the related noun katallages. An anthropological-existential emphasis. A soteriological-cosmological emphasis; cf. Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1.

ne w creation theology in

2

co r i n th i a n s

5:11–6:2 | 71

initiative the Father took in ‘reconciling’ (katalláxantos; 2 Cor 5:18)60 the lost to Himself (hemas heauto) was accomplished through (diá) the agency of His Son. In turn, God entrusted (dóntos)61 to evangelists such as Paul (along with all believers)62 the ‘task’ (diakonían; or ‘ministry’) of proclaiming the good news, namely, that the Creator wanted to reestablish the broken relationship (katallages) between Himself and the unregenerate. In verse 19, Paul clarified the Christocentric and Christotelic perspective of the gospel. Specifically, it was through the Son’s atoning sacrifice that the Father was establishing peace (katallásson; lit. ‘reconciling’)63 between Himself and the creation (kósmon; lit. ‘world’). The preceding truth indicated that Paul, in his teaching on the atonement, did not just have individual believers in mind. As Martin (1986:136, 146, 152, 158) noted, the apostle was also emphasizing a broader redemptivehistorical ‘horizon’, namely, one that included the entire universe.64 Even so, as Barnett (1997:298–9) pointed out, in 2 Corinthians 5:19, kósmos also included earth’s human inhabitants, all of whom were estranged from the Creator, languishing as slaves to Satan and sin, and existing under the dominion and censure of the Mosaic Law. The Greek verb katallásso (lit. ‘reconcile’) denoted the overcoming of enmity and alienation, along with the renewing of love, peace, and harmony between two parties. When sin entered the human race and established control over people, God in His absolute holiness could not allow human beings to remain in His presence (at least in the same sense as before). Sin caused people to rebel against God and live without any consideration of their Creator. Because of their sinfulness, the Lord stood opposed to them. Amazingly, the Father, out of His unconditional love for the lost, allowed His Son to die on the cross. In turn, the Son’s love for the unsaved prompted Him to become an atoning sacrifice. Through the work of the Redeemer, a change of relationship was made possible in which enmity could be replaced by harmony and fellowship. God was the one who took the initiative to bring people back to Himself in a new sphere of existence; and the peaceful relationship repentant sinners experienced with the Father was based on what the Son did at Calvary. In turn, the Lord conferred (thémenos; v. 19)65 on believers such as Paul the responsibility of urging others to receive the message (lógon; lit. ‘word’) of His gracious offer of peace and forgiveness (katallages; lit. ‘reconciliation’). The apostle 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

Aorist, active, participle. Aorist, active, participle. Cf. the use of the inclusive first person personal pronoun hemas, ‘us’. Present, active, participle. Cf. Col 1:19–20. Aorist, middle, participle.

72 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

responded to this profound display of God’s mercy by becoming a steward of the gospel the Father entrusted to his care. This consisted of announcing that the Son’s redemptive work on the cross made it possible for the Father to pardon the lost and reestablish their relationship with Him. Paul explained that God, instead of keeping an inventory (logizómenos; lit. ‘count’ or ‘reckon’)66 of past ‘transgressions’ (paraptómata; or ‘trespasses’), graciously offered forgiveness and peace to all who believed. The apostle felt privileged that the Creator had bestowed on him the task of declaring the good news to others. Paul regarded the Christians’ role in proclaiming God’s reconciliation as that of ‘ambassadors’ (presbeúomen; v. 20) on behalf the Messiah.67 As Harris (2008:446) remarked, the apostle considered himself to be ‘God’s mouthpiece’ to the Corinthians, as well as to others around the world who needed to hear the gospel. Through Paul (and other heralds of the good news),68 the Savior urged everyone to be restored to friendship (katallágete; lit. ‘be reconciled’)69 with God. The tenses of the two verbs the apostle used—parakalountos (lit. ‘make an appeal or plea’)70 and deómetha (lit. ‘beg,’ ‘implore,’ or ‘entreat’)71—indicate that an ongoing effort was made to convince people of their need for redemption. In the first century ce, ambassadors represented the leader of one country to another. These officials did not act on their own authority or promote their own agendas; instead, they communicated and advocated the position of their nation’s leader. During Paul’s day, this title was usually reserved for Caesar’s legates in the East. The duties of such an appointee were varied. As representatives of the Roman Empire, Caesar’s emissaries were constantly putting out political fires, which would ignite in conquered lands. While Rome’s first priority was to preserve its power, it was also interested in upholding law and order. The empire’s ambassadors were essential to maintain the Pax Romana (or Roman peace, as it was called) between Caesar and his dominions. His representatives were given a great deal of authority, as well as the power to negotiate. On the one hand, they pledged to never compromise Caesar’s interests; on the other hand, they sought to achieve some sense of reconciliation with each of the conquered countries. For this reason, ambassadors were usually considered messengers of peace, even when Rome’s vassal states and client kingdoms sometimes regarded

66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

Present, either middle or passive, participle. In which the Greek phrase hypér Christou appears at the beginning of the verse for emphasis. Cf. the use of the inclusive first person personal pronoun hemon, ‘us’. Aorist, passive, imperative. Present, active, participle. Present, middle, indicative.

ne w creation theology in

2

co r i n th i a n s

5:11–6:2 | 73

Caesar’s directives as provocative. Because they were his representatives, his envoys had the rights of a diplomat in any country, regardless of the possibility that their right to safe conduct would sometimes be violated. As it happens, the ambassador of an occupying power was often in personal danger. Verse 21 provides one of the most incisive and significant explanations in Scripture of how the Son objectively, decisively, and completely accomplished the reconciliation of transgressors with the Father. As Hughes (1962:211) affirmed, the passage is a theological tour de force that overflows with ‘wonder’. On one level, throughout the Messiah’s earthly sojourn, He never violated God’s commands, which indicates that Jesus led a life totally free from sin;72 on another level, in what Stott (2006:148) labels a ‘mysterious exchange’, God literally ‘made [Him] to be sin’ (hamartían epoíesen; 2 Cor 5:21) or (in accordance with Hebraic idiomatic usage) to become a sin offering to propitiate humanity’s iniquities.73 At Calvary, the Redeemer took the place of the lost as their sacrificial substitute and bore the punishment they deserved.74 The hína conjunction (v. 21)75 indicated that the Son willingly became humanity’s representative sin-bearer, not only so that repentant transgressors could have their iniquities forgiven, but also so that they could be made right with the Father. If the phrase dikaiosýne Theou (‘righteous of God) is an all-inclusive genitival construction, then it would mean that the Father was simultaneously the possessor, source, and agent of righteousness, which through the Son, He imputed to believers.76 The ‘four arms of the cross’ (Wittmer 2013) are a useful illustration for making sense of what Jesus did on behalf of the lost: (1) ‘downward, toward Satan’–this Christus Victor ‘aspect of the cross’ was a reminder that the Son ‘died to defeat Satan’, the archenemy of believers who ‘held the power of sin and death’;77 (2) ‘upward, toward God’–this ‘penal substitution’ aspect of the cross was a reminder that the Son appeased the ‘Father’s wrath’ and ‘satisfied’ His eternal justice by ‘bearing’ the ‘penalty’ of humanity’s sin in their ‘place’ and as their perfect substitute;78 and, (3) ‘sideways’, toward the lost–this aspect of the cross provided a ‘moral influence’ and ‘example’ by demonstrating how much God loved humankind.79 In short, 72. Cf. the Greek phrase tón mé gnónta hamartían; ‘the one who did not know sin (experientially)’; also, cf. John 7:18; 8:46; Acts 3:14; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet 1:19; 2:22; 3:18; 1 John 3:5. 73. Cf. Isa 53:6; Rom 8:3; 1 Cor 15:3; 1 Pet 2:24. 74. Cf. the use of the Greek preposition hypér, twice in 2 Cor 5:20 and once in v. 21. 75. Adverbial to denote purpose and result. 76. Cf. Rom 1:17. 77. Cf. Col 2:15; Heb 2:14–15; 1 John 3:8. 78. Cf. Rom 3:25–26; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13; 1 John 2:2; 4:10. 79. Cf. Rom 5:8; 1 John 3:16: 4:7–12.

74 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

the divine ‘goal’ was Christus Victor, the ‘means’ was ‘penal substitution’, and one ‘benefit’ (among many) was the Messiah’s ‘example’ of ‘love’ for all people. God worked (synergountes; 2 Cor 6:1)80 through bondservants such as Paul to unceasingly urge (parakaloumen)81 individuals such as the Corinthians neither to ignore nor squander the divine gift of ‘grace’ (chárin; ‘unmerited favor’) they had ‘received’ (déxasthai)82 by faith. There are at least two different ways of interpreting the Greek phrase eis kenón (‘in vain’ or ‘uselessly’). One view is that the apostle’s pointed remark was for those in Corinth who heard the gospel but remained unregenerate. Because they refused to believe, they were not reconciled to God, despite listening to and understanding Paul’s proclamation. Another view is that receiving God’s unmerited favor without result or efficacy implied that the behavior of the Corinthians was not measuring up to their Christian profession. Expressed differently, their lifestyles had become a denial of what they professed to believe. In either case, in verse 2, Paul quoted Isaiah 49:8 to illustrate the urgency of his appeal. In its original context, the verse foretold that at the divinely appointed time (kairo dekto; 2 Cor 6:2), the Lord, through His chosen Servant, would restore the faithful remnant of Israel from exile to their homeland. Ultimately, the promise of liberation from captivity, freedom from sin, and pardon from iniquities was fulfilled in the Savior. Here, the Greek phrase heméra soterías (‘day of salvation’) is taken as a descriptive genitive; in other words, it refers to a day in which salvation from God was revealed and inaugurated. Through the use of the Greek verb idoú (‘behold’ or ‘listen’)83 twice in verse 2, Paul stressed to the Corinthians that ‘now’ (nyn) was the divinely appointed time (kairós euprósdektos) for them to welcome the Christological gospel he proclaimed; likewise, this was the day for them to experience the offer of salvation (heméra soterías). The apostle wanted his readers to know that if they procrastinated—namely, if they put off their decision to respond appropriately to the Son—they put their souls in mortal jeopardy. For this reason, Paul urged them to embrace and act on the message of reconciliation while they still had the opportunity to do so.

80. 81. 82. 83.

Present, active, participle. Present, active, indicative. Aorist, middle, infinitive. Aorist, active, imperative.

ne w creation theology in

2

co r i n th i a n s

5:11–6:2 | 75

6.0 Conclusion This chapter deals with the theme of new creation theology in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2. The major premise is that new creation theology is a defining characteristic of Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic discourse. To properly contextualize the endeavor, background information from Genesis 1–3 concerning the old, Adamic creation was concisely deliberated. This undertaking drew attention to two important realities: (1) the absolute, creative power of God is the backbone for properly understanding the origin and development of the cosmos; and, (2) the Savior operates as the underlying Agent of creation. It is reasonable to infer from a biblical and theological analysis of the Genesis creation texts that whereas the latter narrative concerning the old Adamic creation is primarily theocentric in outlook, the Pauline writings concerning new creation theology are predominately Christocentic in orientation. To help further establish the narrative framework and theological context of Paul’s discussion of new creation theology in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2, relevant Old Testament passages and extra-canonical Jewish writings were considered. In turn, the analysis resulted in several pertinent emphases. For instance, what was inferior and transitory in the non-human natural world would give way to what was superior and everlasting. Also, the Creator would reverse the effects of the Fall when He inaugurated the new order and caused perfect harmony to reign throughout the cosmos. Moreover, the Lord’s chosen people were to trust Him to supply all their needs, for God promised to bless unending generations of the redeemed with wellness and wholeness. Finally, the eternal Creator would grace His children with an everlasting inheritance. The latter included God establishing unbroken communion with His people and claiming them as His own. The contextualization resulting from the preceding investigation fostered a more nuanced examination of Paul’s new creation theology in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2. Specifically, the prevailing doctrinal outlook from the Old Testament era and intertestamental period informed the apostle’s understanding of the Christian life, the way in which he pastored the believers in Corinth, and the approach Paul took in addressing the spurious allegations made by the false teachers plaguing the congregation. More specifically, the Christotelic reality of all people one day standing before the Lord’s presence invigorated Paul to be a minister characterized by integrity, to clarify that the religious frauds were self-serving, and that Jesus’ true followers in Corinth were to remain virtuous in their conduct.84

84. Cf. 2 Cor 5:9–10.

76 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

The Christological, eternal focus of Paul’s new creation theology contrasted sharply with the temporal earthly perspective of his detractors. Whereas they were characterized by arrogance and ostentation, the apostle served others from a sincere heart. Furthermore, on the one hand, Paul’s antagonists exaggerated their talents and accomplishments; on the other hand, Paul sought to honor the Creator and edify those being recreated after the image of the Son, who is the nexus of all existence. It was Jesus’ love for the lost, as seen in His sacrificial death on the cross, that impelled Paul to give of himself to others unstintingly. The latter included proclaiming the good news to the unsaved and offering pastoral care to the apostle’s brothers and sisters in Christ. The cross event, which resides at the pivot of salvation-history, provided the basis for Paul’s new creation theology. For instance, Jesus’ crucifixion established that the lost existed in a state of spiritual death. Also, the Redeemer’s atoning sacrifice indicated that the spiritually regenerate were to die to their preconversion selves. The latter included renouncing depraved and narcissistic desires and striving to convey the Savior’s love to unbelievers. Moreover, as Christians paid attention to the celestial realities awaiting them in the eternal state, they had greater incentive to abandon the pagan attitudes and moral principles dominating the present age. Paul’s new creation theology was not an esoteric, philosophical premise; instead, at the Christocentric heart of the apostle’s teaching was the certainty of repentant sinners being born again and experiencing the spiritual transformation of their minds. Just as God was the sole author of the first creation, so too He was the exclusive agent of the second creation. In broad terms, the latter involved the renewal of the entire universe. More specifically, the dawn of a new era included the inner recreating of the fallen nature of Jesus’ followers. Indeed, the salvation of the lost was necessary to and could not be separated from the Creator’s reconciliation of the world to Himself. Through the believers’ proclamation of the gospel, God invited the lost to experience a restored relationship with Him, one characterized by concord rather than animosity, and pardon in the place of recrimination. This was an ongoing ministry the Creator entrusted to all members of the Church. As benefactors of the new birth, His followers had the privilege and obligation to convince the lost of their need for redemption. It was imperative for them to know that when Jesus of Nazareth became a sin offering on their behalf at Calvary, He defeated Satan, appeased the Father’s wrath, and made it possible for divine righteousness to be reckoned to repentant sinners. For the Savior’s disciples, the present moment was the opportune time to conform their lives to the gospel they proclaimed to the unsaved.

ne w creation theology in

2

co r i n th i a n s

5:11–6:2 | 77

In summary, the new creation theology Paul articulated in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2 depicts the Messiah as the télos (i.e. purpose, goal, and fulfillment) of the human race. In this Christological way of thinking, the Savior is deemed to be the intrinsic Author of creation. He alone is the source of temporal and eternal existence, as well as the one who brings to pass the promise of new life and future glory for the redeemed. Likewise, He is the sole Agent who holds the cosmos together and carries it along to its divinely-intended consummation.85

85. Cf. Col 1:17; Heb 1:3.

chapter four

Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality A case study analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23

1.0 Introduction In chapter 2, I maintained that new creation theology is a defining characteristic in Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic discourse, and 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2 was analyzed as a representative passage to demonstrate this assertion. One could also examine the apostle’s writings through the comparable prism of its apocalyptic backdrop.1 According to the Oxford English Dictionary (Pearsall 2014), the adjective ‘apocalyptic’ is derived from the Greek noun apokalypsis, which is usually translated ‘revelation’, ‘disclosure’, or ‘unveiling’.2 Pitre (2013:23–4) identifies three interrelated categories of thought associated with the preceding terms: (1) a ‘genre of literature in existence’ from around 250 bce to 250 ce; (2) a ‘social and religious worldview’ prevalent during this general period; and, (3) a preoccupation with the ‘cataclysmic end of the cosmos’.3 1. What follows in this chapter is a revision of material in my journal article titled ‘Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality: a case study analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23’, which appears in Lioy (2015a). 2. Cf. 1 Cor 1:7; Gal 1:12; Rev 1:1. 3. For background information from relevant Old Testament eschatological passages, as well as pertinent Jewish apocalyptic literature written during the Second Temple period, cf. section 4.0 of chapter 3 in this monograph.

paul ’ s apoc alyptic int e r pr e tat i on o f r e a li t y  | 79

Concerning the apocalyptic genre, Collins (1992:283) defines it as ‘revelatory literature’ that has a ‘narrative framework’ and in which a ‘revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient’. Collins additionally elucidates that ‘over several hundred years’, the preceding literary category neither ‘remained static’ nor was ‘consistently uniform’. De Boer (2002:22) clarifies that the eschatological horizon ‘encompasses’ both the ‘present age’ and the ‘one to come’. Aune, Geddert, and Evans (2000:46) advance the discussion by explaining that an apocalyptic interpretation of reality focuses on the Creator’s ‘imminent intervention into human history’. God does so in a ‘decisive manner’ to rescue the righteous remnant and ‘punish their enemies’. The process includes ‘destroying the existing fallen cosmic order’ and ‘restoring or recreating the cosmos in its original pristine perfection’. This outlook reflects the ‘eschatological expectation characteristic of early Jewish and early Christian apocalypses’. Collins (2000:43) points out that even though the ‘New Testament only contains one apocalypse, the book of Revelation’, an ‘apocalyptic worldview’ was ‘much more widespread’ among the New Testament writers. As de Boer (2002:33) observes, they believed that from ‘beginning to end’, the ‘whole of God’s saving activity’ in the Messiah was ‘apocalyptic’.4 Pate (1995) surmises that while Paul’s ‘writings may not take the form of an official apocalypse’ (30), his epistles are ‘indebted to apocalyptic motifs’ (31).5 This includes a ‘two-age structure of reality’ (44), which Pate connects with the ‘already/not yet tension produced by the Christ-event’ (41). According to Sampley (1991:v), the first episode in the salvific drama is the Messiah’s ‘death and resurrection’, while the second episode is His ‘return’. Whereas His redemptive work points to the ‘origin of the new life of faith’, His Second Advent focuses attention on the ‘culmination of God’s purposes with the world’. It stands to reason that the multivalent nucleus of Paul’s Christological teaching was situated against an end-time scenario and that taking the latter into account is a useful heuristic tool to clarify and illumine the metanarrative of his theological disquisition. Accordingly, the primary assertion of this chapter is that Paul’s eschatological outlook exercised a controlling influence on the Christocentric and Christotelic facets of his discourse, both directly and indirectly. 4. Cf. Aune (1993a:30); Branick (1985:664); Bronson (1964:287); Collins (1992:290); Keck (1984:241). 5. For a deliberation of the apocalyptic character of Paul’s theology, cf. Beale (2011: 249–316); Beker (1982:29–53; 1990:19–36, 61–103; 2000:135–81); Gaventa (2007:79–82, 137–47); Guthrie (1981:803–10, 828–40, 856–63, 879–81, 890–1); Ladd and Hagner (1993:402–3, 595–614); Macky (1998:1–14); Marshall (2004:421–60); Martyn (1997: 85–156); Ridderbos (1997:29–32); Schreiner (2001:31–4, 55–60, 78–85; 2013:543–80); Vos (2000:299–304); Wenham (1995:321–6); Wright (1992:2–7).

80 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Gibbs (1971:2) refers to the motif as ‘cosmic Christology’, which, as the analysis of Schreiner (2013:579) demonstrates, includes the apostle’s view of ‘salvation, redemption, justification, reconciliation, adoption, triumph over evil powers’, and other categories of thought. The corresponding goal is to validate the latter assertion by exploring Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality in the following representative passage in his letters: Ephesians 1:15–23. The choice of this text is motivated, in part, by the recognition that, as stated by Barth (1986:170), it focuses attention on the ‘political and cosmic relevance’ of the Son’s ‘resurrection’, both for the present age and for the coming one. Specifically, His triumph over the grave establishes a ‘new and good order’ over the ‘whole universe’.6 The above perspective has the advantage of accommodating—rather than clashing with or marginalizing—an array of corresponding theological views found within the Pauline corpus.7 For example, in keeping with my own confessional Lutheran tradition, Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality mirrors the important distinction Lutherans make between law (which was especially central during the era of the old covenant) and gospel (which is the premier expression of God’s grace in the era of the new covenant).8 Indeed, Bayer (2007:30) clarifies that ‘for Luther an apocalyptic understanding of history, time, and existence is central’.

6. Due to the limitations of space in this chapter, only one of numerous passages within the Pauline corpus is the focus of the case study analysis appearing in section 4.0. Where appropriate, brief note is made of conceptual parallels between Ephesians 1:15–23 and Colossians 1:9–20. The latter passage spotlights the supremacy of the Son as the Creator, the absolute Ruler over the universe, the sovereign Lord over the Church, and the Reconciler of everything in the cosmos to Himself through His atoning sacrifice at Calvary. For a detailed assessment of the Christology within Colossians, cf. Fee (2007:289–338). For the sake of argument, the remainder of the discourse in section 1.0 illustrates the validity of the chapter’s primary assertion by providing a concise synopsis of the apostle’s eschatological view found in two other representative passages. 7. Beker (1990:19) affirms that ‘Jewish apocalyptic motifs dominate Paul’s thought’. Furthermore, Beker (2000:135) maintains that the ‘coherent center of Paul’s gospel is constituted by the apocalyptic interpretation of the Christ-event’, namely, the Messiah’s ‘death and resurrection’ (148); nonetheless, Beker’s latter claim may prove to be too sweeping, for as Branick (1985:675) surmises, ‘what Paul’s apocalyptic means … remains an open field of theological reflection’. More generally, there currently is no scholarly consensus regarding a possible overarching theme or theological nucleus to Paul’s writings. For a candid assessment of the prominent, representative views, cf. Brown (1997:440–1); Capes, Reeves, and Richards (2007:266–72); Dunn (1998:19–23, 729–33); Fee (1994: 11–13); Gibbs (1971:19–31); Johnson (2012:70–74); Thielman (2005:219–33). 8. Cf. John 1:14–17; Bayer (2003:58–66; 2007:71–74); Forde (1997:23–48); Mueller (1934:44–7).

paul ’ s apoc alyptic int e r pr e tat i on o f r e a li t y  | 81

A short synopsis of two Pauline passages helps to illustrate the foregoing introductory remarks. To recap the analysis put forward in chapter 2 of this study, Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality is brought into sharp relief in 2 Corinthians 5:17–19. Specifically, the believers’ spiritual union with the Savior results in their becoming a ‘new creation’ (v. 17). The implication is that when repentant sinners trust in the Son, they are regenerated. God brings about this inner recreating of the believers’ fallen nature. Indeed, He is the sole author of this second creation, just as He was of the first (v. 18). Furthermore, with the advent of the Messiah, a new era has begun in which the conversion of individual believers is part of God’s larger plan to bring about the renewal of the entire universe, concluding with the new heavens and new earth.9 Paul responded to this profound display of God’s mercy by becoming a minister of reconciliation. This consisted of announcing to the world that the Son’s redemptive work made it possible for the lost to be forgiven of their trespasses and restored in their relationship with the Father (2 Cor 5:19). The analysis appearing in Lioy (2011a:128–42) dealing with Romans 5:12–21 also indicates how heavily it was influenced by Paul’s salvation-historical metanarrative centered in the Son. To be specific, the apostle declared that in the primordial garden, Adam introduced sin and death into the world by transgressing God’s command. All human beings, as descendants of Adam, are under the dominion of sin and death. In order for God’s redemptive plan and salvific promises to be fulfilled, a new humanity is necessary, starting with a new (or second) Adam.10 He is none other than the Lord Jesus, the suffering Servant of Isaiah 52:13–53:12. According to Paul, whereas Adam introduced the old era of death, the Messiah introduced the new era of resurrection and eternal life.11 At the Savior’s Second Advent, the present age with its evil and futility would end and a new age of life and joy would blossom.12 Even now, the new epoch has appeared, for the Son’s resurrection has made the believers’ resurrection a reality.13 Indeed, Jesus’ resurrection signals that the end-time resurrection promised in Ezekiel 37 has arrived. An examination of the above-mentioned passages confirms observations made earlier. As Schreiner (2013:543) notes, an ‘already but not yet’ dialectical ‘tension characterizes Paul’s thought’, that is, one involving an inaugurated or partially realized eschatology.14 After all, believers right now are simultaneously 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Cf. Isa 65:17; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1. Cf. 1 Cor 15:45–49. Cf. 1 Cor 15:21–22. Cf. Rom 8:18–25; Gal 1:14. Cf. Rom 1:4. For a synopsis of the already/not yet quality to God’s kingdom, especially as it is revealed in the person of the Son, cf. section 2.0 of chapter 8 in this monograph.

82 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

saints and sinners.15 Moreover, they still die and await a future resurrection.16 For this reason, they are not to pattern their behavior after the beliefs, morals, and values of this present, depraved era.17 While Jesus’ followers have not yet been physically resurrected as a result of trusting in Him, Romans 8 reveals that they wait in eager anticipation for the arrival of that future day when their redemption is fully completed.18 In the interim, with the Son exalted to the right hand of the Father, believers have the abiding presence and power of the life-giving Spirit. In turn, He guarantees that the physical resurrection of believers would occur in the future.19 By virtue of belonging to the second Adam, believers can rest assured that they would triumph over death on the last day. Then death, as the last enemy, would be destroyed.20

2.0 Paul’s apocalyptic view of reality against the backdrop of diverse cultural contexts Before dealing with the diverse cultural contexts prevalent in Paul’s day, it is important to articulate the scope and substance of his apocalyptic view of reality. As illustrated in the previous section and dealt with at length in the following section, this end-time perspective formed the foundation and superstructure for the apostle’s Christocentric and Christotelic locution. The consummation of the ages also provided the starting point, trajectory, and end point for his thinking. Longenecker (2002:89), in his overview of current ‘scholarly interest’ in ‘Paul’s epistolary discourse’, calls attention to the ‘narrative features’ of the apostle’s ‘theology’, along with his ‘symbolic universe’ (93), ‘thought world’, ‘worldview’, and the like. These sorts of referents denote the presuppositions that formed the basis of Paul’s apocalyptic ‘beliefs and convictions’ about reality. In turn, the apostle articulated his theological views by utilizing various literary genres found within his writings.21

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

In Latin, simul justus et peccator. Cf. Bayer (2007:202–3); Marshall (2004:459–60); McGrath (1993:195). Cf. Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 2:6, 8; 3:18; Gal 1:4; Eph 2:2; 1 Tim 6:17; 2 Tim 4:10. Cf. Lioy (2011a:142–51). Cf. Rom 8:21–25; 2 Cor 1:21–22; Eph 1:13–14. Cf. 1 Cor 15:26, 54; Lioy (2011a:152–68). In these verses, death is ‘personified as God’s eschatological antagonist’ (Schnelle 2009:247) that would be utterly vanquished at Jesus’ Second Advent. 21. Paul communicated his Christological understanding of salvation-history by drawing upon prevalent cultural notions and using a variety of conventional writing styles. Regardless of the methods the apostle deployed to convey his thoughts, he evinced an innovative

paul ’ s apoc alyptic int e r pr e tat i on o f r e a li t y  | 83

In this chapter, I operate under the supposition that five key premises arise from Paul’s eschatological mindset and form the building blocks of his Christological narrative, as follows: (1) Since the dawn of time, the forces of darkness22 have threatened to undermine the cosmic order, including humankind; (2) The Father has triumphed over these malevolent entities through His Son’s redemptive work on the cross; (3) Believers, through their baptismal union with the divine-human Son, share in His victory won at Calvary; (4) Because the Son reigns supreme over every aspect of the believers’ lives, all their thoughts, feelings, and actions must be submitted to His rule; and, (5) Believers are a foretaste, down payment, and guarantee of the Father fulfilling His promise to reclaim and restore the entire created realm, all of which would be finalized at the Second Advent of His Son. In keeping with observations made in the first section of this chapter, along with those appearing in chapter 2, the apocalyptic metanarrative found within Paul’s letters did not arise in isolation; rather, it shows strong affinities with the eschatological literature written during the period of Second Temple Judaism.23 The unmistakable consequence is that the apostle’s thinking and reasoning were firmly rooted within mainstream Jewish thought. Specifically, in the Old Testament, the Lord declared through His prophets that He would enact a new covenant in which His people would be given the desire and ability to keep His law.24 The prophets also pointed to the day when God would bring to pass the universal blessing promised to Abraham.25 The covenantal mercies pledged to David would also include Gentiles.26 To summarize the discourse found in section 4.0 of chapter 3 of this monograph, in the first century ce, the Jews still awaited the fulfillment of God’s saving promises, the coming of His kingdom,27 and the worldwide blessing that

22. 23.

24. 25. 26. 27.

literary sophistication that achieved distinctively theological goals. For an overview of Paul’s multifarious narrative techniques, cf. Brown (1997:409–21); Gray (2012); Klauck 2006:299–354; Matthews (1992:290–3); O’Brien (1993:550–3); Stowers (1986); Weima (2000:640–4). I.e. Satan, sin, and death. For an analysis of what Scripture reveals about Satan, his minions, and how the devil operates through them, cf. section 2.0 of chapter 7 in this monograph. For a synopsis of the background information from relevant Old Testament passages and extra-canonical Jewish writings, cf. section 4.0 of chapter 3 in this monograph. Also, for a listing of representative scholarly sources having pertinent background information, cf. the entries contained in n 13 of chapter 3. Cf. Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 11:19–20; 36:26–27. Cf. Pss 22:27; 47:1–9; 72:17; 86:9; 96:1–13. Cf. Isa 55:3–5; Lioy (2011a:233–7). For concise overview of the scholarly discourse on what Scripture teaches concerning the kingdom of God, cf. section 2.0 and n 22 in chapter 8 of this monograph.

84 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

was pledged to Abraham. Some religious factions in Judah, such as the Pharisees and the Qumran community, devoted themselves tirelessly to keep the Mosaic Law, presumably to usher in the fulfillment of what God promised long ago to Israel. The burning hope was for a day when the Romans (or whomever the oppressor might be at the time) would be ousted, giving God’s chosen people complete control of the Promised Land, Jerusalem, and its temple. In stepping back from the preceding observations, it is clarifying to recognize that the Spirit enabled Paul to move beyond the distorted convictions of the religious elite of his day and view the created order through a set of Christocentric and Christotelic lenses. Regarding the latter, Wright (2013:46) opines that that while Paul ‘remained a deeply Jewish theologian’, he ‘rethought and reworked every aspect of his native Jewish theology’ as a result of his encounter with the risen Savior. Accordingly, in the apostle’s evangelistic outreach to Jews and Gentiles, he taught that the new creation has dawned and a new Israel of God has been formed.28 In this new era of redemptive history, repentant, believing Gentiles are incorporated into the people of God and made fellow citizens with believing Jews in His kingdom.29 Such a unity has occurred because the Father’s saving promises to Abraham are even now becoming a reality through the redemptive work of the Son at Calvary. Paul’s apocalyptic outlook not only engaged the diverse metanarratives within Second Temple Judaism, but also the polymorphic views of reality that prevailed throughout Greco-Roman culture.30 The importance of recognizing this 28. Cf. Gal 6:15–16. Verse 16 contains a closing benediction, in which the referent of the Greek phrase Israél tou theou (‘Israel of God’) remains debated. One option is to take the preceding kaí as a simple connective meaning ‘and’, so that the corresponding phrase specifically refers to Jewish believers (in contrast to Gentile Christians). A second option interprets kaí as functioning epexegetically (i.e. in an explanatory way) and carrying the meaning ‘even’ or ‘that is’. In this case, Israél tou theou denotes the newly constituted people of God, which includes both regenerate Jews and Gentiles. Given Paul’s remarks in 4:26–28 and 6:15, the second option has stronger contextual support; cf. Pss 125:5; 128:6; Rom 2:29; Phil 3:3; Bruce (1982:274–5); Edwards (2005); Guthrie (1984:152); Hendricksen (1968:246–7); McKnight (1995:302–4); Silva (1996:184); Rapa (2008:638); Ridderbos (1984:227). 29. Cf. Eph. 2:13; 3:6; Lioy (2010:97–100). 30. Pate (1995:235) addresses the issue of whether ‘Hellenism or Judaism’ exercised a greater ‘influence’ on Paul’s ‘thought’. Pate acknowledges the importance of recognizing the ‘interpenetration of these two movements in Paul’s day’. Even so, Pate concludes that the Hebrew sacred writings and ‘Jewish faith’, while ‘often expressed in Greek categories’, most heavily impacted the apostle’s discourse. Peach (2016:41) moves in a somewhat different direction when he avers that there is a ‘dynamic’, variegated quality to ‘Pauline eschatology’. Also, ‘depending on the context’ of Paul’s ‘argument’, there could be a blending of both ‘Jewish and Greco-Roman categories of expression’ in what the apostle wrote.

paul ’ s apoc alyptic int e r pr e tat i on o f r e a li t y  | 85

cosmology—especially the eschatological or teleological beliefs of Rome—is thrown into sharp relief by the recognition Kim (2008:xii) makes that there is a deficit of ‘recent commentaries on the Pauline epistles’ which seriously consider the ‘imperial cult and ideology’ of Rome. Aspects of this pagan worldview were characterized by emperor worship and a veneration of a pantheon of gods and goddesses.31 Also, the dogma promulgated by the Roman imperial court taught that it was the focal point of unending tranquility and affluence. Moreover, it was alleged that the emperor was divine and reigned absolutely over an enduring dynasty. The Christological good news heralded by Paul sharply contrasted with the above propaganda and its variegated political and religious narratives. According to Crossan and Reed (2004:x), the nature of the ‘clash’ remained ‘nonviolent’. Against the backdrop of imperial Rome’s narrative world, the apostle declared that there is one Creator and Lord of the cosmos, namely, the God of Israel. Paul also taught that forgiveness, peace, and eternal blessing came through union with Israel’s promised, incarnate Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, the apostle maintained that ultimate reality was centered in the crucified and risen Lord. Indeed, Paul believed that the Redeemer would one day return to vindicate the righteous and judge the wicked.32 On the one hand, White (2009:305) maintains that within the Pauline corpus there is a ‘lack of explicit statements’ concerning Rome that could be interpreted as being either ‘subversive’ or ‘anti-imperial’; on the other hand, Wright (2009:79) concludes from his examination of the Pauline corpus that within it there are ‘more than just echoes’ of the ‘rhetoric of imperial Rome’. Wright (2013:1306) is even more incisive when he deduces from his analysis that Paul used a Christocentric and Christotelic discourse to outmaneuver, discredit, and eclipse Rome’s ‘grandiose claims’. Burk (2008:321), though, cautions that whatever ‘challenge’ Paul’s letters offered to Rome’s ‘pagan pretensions’, it did not arise explicitly from the apostle making ‘some conscious intention to mimic the language of imperial propaganda’; instead, it was more of a conclusion drawn implicitly from what he wrote. Admittedly, there is no scholarly consensus as to whether the nature of the preceding confrontation was either predominately implicit or explicit. That unresolved debate notwithstanding, the following chart identifies the pronounced disparities existing between the ideologies of imperial Rome in the first century ce and the counter-cultural message Paul proclaimed:33

31. Especially at public festivals and civic rituals. 32. Cf. Lioy (2003:150–1; 2010:7–11, 89–94; 2011:227). 33. Cf. Longenecker and Still (2014:336–8), from which some of the information in the chart is adapted, revised, and expanded.

86 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Ideologies of Imperial Rome

Paul’s Counter-Cultural Message

Religious syncretism dominates the pagan intellectual horizon. All religious pathways lead to an idyllic afterlife and no single group has the right to an exclusive claim on truth.

There is only one God, who is the Creator; and there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the Architect of the universe and the Author of life. Moreover, only through faith in the Son does anyone have access to the Father in heaven.35 Jesus, the anointed ‘seed of David’, is the real ‘Son of God’.39 Jesus is the one and only Savior of the world and the exalted Lord of the cosmos.40 Only the God of Israel is to be worshiped. All other objects of veneration constitute idolatry.41 The Father is bringing the entire created order and the whole of history under the dominion of His Son.42 Only the God of Israel is absolute and unending in His reign. He vanquishes all would-be challengers and makes the Son the overlord of every nation.43 Accordingly, people are summoned to repent and become citizens of God’s kingdom.44 The entire universe languishes under the curse of physical decay and moral chaos. Only Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection inaugurate a new era of righteousness and reconciliation between sinful humans and the justifying God.45

34

The emperor, Augustus,36 is ‘son of the deified’37 and ‘son of god’.38 The emperor is the ‘savior’ and supreme ruler of the world. The emperor is to be venerated.

The pantheon of gods and goddesses endue Rome with power and bring the world under Rome’s dominion. The Roman Empire reigns supreme, a reality decreed by the chief deity, Jupiter, and actualized for endless ages to come by the three female personifications of destiny, the Fates. The birth of a miraculous child named Augustus inaugurates a new era. It is a golden age in which Rome transforms society into a utopia characterized by universal justice and peace.

343536373839404142434445 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

Or the merging of differing religious beliefs into one system. Cf. Rom 5:1–2; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4–6. Whose name means ‘the exalted one’. In Latin, divi filius. In Latin, dei filius; i.e. the adopted son of Caesar, who himself is a god. Cf. Rom 1:3–4; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; Eph 4:13. Cf. Phil 2:9–11; 3:20; Col 2:9–10. Cf. 1 Cor 8:4–6; Gal 4:8–11; 1 Thess 1:9–10. Cf. 1 Cor 15:23–28; Eph 1:20–23; Phil 3:20–21; Col 1:15–20. Cf. Rom 1:5; 15:12; 16:26. Cf. Col 1:13; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 1:5. Cf. Rom 5:9–11; 8:18–23; 2 Cor 5:17–21.

paul ’ s apoc alyptic int e r pr e tat i on o f r e a li t y  | 87

Ideologies of Imperial Rome

Paul’s Counter-Cultural Message

The Roman Empire is the guarantor of tranquility, affluence, and security throughout the world.

The Messiah’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary is the only basis for true harmony and everlasting blessing for redeemed humanity.46 The Son joins together believers from all over the world into His spiritual body, the Church.47 The Father, by raising His crucified Son from the dead, invalidated the unjust decree human potentates made against the Son.48 Jesus’ followers live in ways that are cruciform in nature. Indeed, the Cross is the premier expression of God’s power and wisdom, both during the present age and for all eternity.49

With the dawning of a new age, the emperor joins together and rules over every nation throughout the world. Crucifixion is one way Rome terminates reprobates, particularly those who threaten the imperial vision for a perfect society. Rome’s cultural heroes are renowned for their wealth, fame, and power. The lionized are also applauded for their brazen self-interest, ruthless competition, and savage violence.

46474849

3.0 Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality in Ephesians 1:15–23 The preceding section helps to establish the broader narrative framework and theological context in which Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality was embedded. This holds true for Ephesians 1:15–23, the representative passage from the apostle’s letters to be examined in the present section. To pave the way (so to speak), it is worthwhile to first consider several important introductory matters. To begin, when Paul wrote, he was no longer an evangelist on the move; instead, the references in 3:1 and 4:1 to the apostle being a ‘prisoner’ (désmios)50 and in 6:20 to his status as an ‘ambassador in chains’ (presbeúo en halúsei), indicate that he 46. 47. 48. 49.

Cf. Rom 15:33; 16:20; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23; 2 Thess 3:16. Cf. 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28; Eph 2:14–18; Col 3:11. Cf. 1 Cor 2:6–9. Cf. Rom 6:3–8; 1 Cor 1:18–25; 2 Cor 4:10; Gal 2:20; 5:22–26; 6:14; Phil 2:1–8; 3:10; Col 2:11–12, 20. For a thorough deliberation of this point, cf. chapter 5 in this monograph. There I examine one representative passage in Paul’s writings through the prism of his crucicentric thinking (especially in dialogue with a confessional Lutheran perspective). 50. In this section, unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are my personal translation of the respective biblical texts being cited.

88 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

was incarcerated in Rome (perhaps around 60 ce).51 According to Acts 28:30–31, even though Paul was kept under house arrest, he had the freedom to receive visitors, as well as to write and send letters. Most likely, the apostle’s first Roman imprisonment did not end with a death sentence passed by the despotic Nero; rather, it seems that Paul took one more missionary journey before being rearrested and executed in Rome about 62–67 ce. The church to which Paul directed Ephesians was not opposing him and his teaching; instead, it was by and large a thriving congregation that was ready to receive advanced instruction in theology and ethics. The apostle’s colleagues, Tychicus and Onesimus, could have dropped off one letter at Ephesus while on their way to deliver two other epistles in Colosse.52 Hoehner (2002:248) addresses the claim that Paul did not write this letter by noting that it had been ‘five or six years’ since he was in Ephesus, including extended periods of incarceration.53 Most likely, there were ‘many new believers’ whom the apostle personally knew. Furthermore, if Ephesians was a ‘circular letter’, he would not have met ‘many in the satellite churches in western Asia Minor’. The general nature of the majority of the teaching in Ephesians may indicate that from the start Paul intended it to be an encyclical communiqué that would be read by a network of congregations dispersed over a wide geographical region. This may explain why there were no greetings directed to specific individuals and why the apostle did not seem to have first-hand knowledge of the epistle’s recipients.54 Ephesians contains two distinct, though related, parts. Chapters 1–3 reminded readers of their privileged status as members of the Messiah’s spiritual body, the Church, which occupied an important place in the Creator’s plan for the universe. Chapters 4–6 appealed to the readers to conduct themselves in a way that was consistent with their godly calling, rather than conform to the pagan society in which they lived. Throughout the first chapter, Paul maintained that God has given Jesus’ followers, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, or socio-economic status, every spiritual blessing. Moreover, the Creator’s grand design is to bring everything in the cosmos together—whether in heaven or on earth—under the 51. The following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse in this section: Abbott (1979); Allen (1986); Arnold (2010); Barth (1986); Best (1998); Bruce (184); Edwards (2005); Fee (1994; 2007); Foulkes (1979); Haberer (2008); Hendricksen (1995); Hoehner (2002); Howard (1974); Jeal (2000); Kuhn (1968); Lenski (1961a); Lincoln (1990); Pate (1993); Perkins (2000); Robinson (1979); Thielman (2007; 2010); Wood (1978). 52. Cf. Eph 6:21–22; Col 4:7–9; Philem 1:10–12. 53. Cf. Acts 24:27; 27:9; 28:11, 30. 54. Cf. Eph 1:15; 3:2; 4:21.

paul ’ s apoc alyptic int e r pr e tat i on o f r e a li t y  | 89

Messiah’s authority. God also planned that all believers—Jews as well as Gentiles— not only would receive an eternal inheritance, but also would become the Father’s prized possession based on the Son’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary. Ephesians 1:4–6 focus on the Father’s selection of repentant sinners in eternity past, while verses 7–12 deal with the Son’s death on the cross in spacetime history to redeem the lost. In verses 13–14, Paul shifts the focus to the activity of the Spirit in designating Jesus’ followers as His own special possession. The adverbial use of kaí (‘also’) plus the pronoun hymeis (‘you’),55 along with kaí plus the participle pisteúsantes (‘after believing’),56 signaled the apostle’s inclusion of his non-Jewish readers to his discourse. Succinctly put, they too were incorporated into the Son’s spiritual body. Put another way, Jewish believers and Gentile Christians formed one united Church. Given this Christological truth, Hays (1996:62) considers Ephesians as being characterized by an ‘exalted cosmic ecclesiology’. Two nominative participial clauses—introduced by akoúsantes (‘after hearing’)57 and pisteúsantes, respectively—established the context for the sealing ministry of the Spirit. The latter included the two-stage process the Father used to bring about the regeneration of pagan Gentiles. First, they listened attentively to evangelists such as Paul herald an eternally relevant, historically grounded, and factually accurate message. This truth-filled oracle (lógon tes aletheías) was none other than the Christological good news revealing how the Ephesians could be saved (to euaggélion tes soterías). Second, they responded by putting their faith in the Son, with the result that they experienced the new birth. In turn, the Creator identified the converts as His own by bestowing on them the promised Holy Spirit.58 As an aside, Bayer (2003:50–5; 2007:126–34) observes that when viewed through the prism of speech-act theory, the good news Paul and his associates heralded is understood to be a performative utterance, namely, one that conveys a specific promise or assurance.59 Also, the declaration of the gospel is efficacious, in that it actualizes for the first time a reality that did not previously exist. To be precise, God uses the Christocentric and Christotelic proclamation of the good 55. 56. 57. 58.

Second person, nominative, plural. Aorist, active, plural. Aorist, active, plural. In which epaggelías is understood to be an attributive genitive; cf. Luke 24:49; John 14:16; Acts 1:4–5; 2:33, 38–39; Gal 3:14; 4:6. 59. Bayer’s application of speech-act theory to the proclamation of the gospel is based, in part, on the work of the British philosopher and linguistic analyst, J.L. Austin, especially the posthumous publication of his lectures titled, How to do things with words (1975). Austin presented the latter in 1955 at Harvard University.

90 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

news to initiate, establish, and preserve a relationship between Himself and the unsaved. Furthermore, the declaration of the gospel focused on the Son makes the presence of faith operative within them, whereas before unbelief prevailed. Faith is not considered a work, but merely a response of the broken heart to the saving activity of God. According to Bayer (2003:258), ‘God’s Word is verbum efficax, an efficacious Word. It never returns void, but does what it says’.60 Bayer (2007:63) also notes that the ‘scriptures are not simply printed words to be read off a page’; more importantly, they are ‘life-giving words that stimulate our senses and emotions, our memory and imagination, our heart and desires’. So, with respect to the ‘Christian life’ (22), ‘God is the active subject’; in contrast, the ‘Christian is the object of God’s action’. Wright (2014) echoes the preceding mindset when he points out that the Christological ‘theology of the word’ articulated by Paul is a ‘lifetransforming energy’, one that ‘immediately results in a new community, not just new ideas’. Moreover, in keeping with the apostle’s apocalyptic view of reality, the Spirit works through the proclamation of the gospel to bring about a ‘new creation’ in ‘fulfillment’ of the ‘age-old divine purpose’ foretold in the Old Testament. Expressed differently, when the promise of salvation is made, the Spirit uses the divine pledge to bring about the salvific reality being articulated. Previously unregenerate hearers are enabled to believe the good news about Jesus of Nazareth and experience the inner vivification of their fallen human nature. In a sense, God’s creative word is an eschatological declaration that has invaded the present age, with the result of ushering believers into the divine kingdom. Correspondingly, the new birth is the result of God’s gracious action. The Father sovereignly brings it about61 when people put their faith in the Son for eternal life.62 It is a new start for believing sinners, who are transformed by the Spirit in their volition, emotions, and actions.63 This inner renewal is neither the result of people, apart from the Spirit, willing themselves to change by acquiring knowledge, nor the consequence of one’s own insular, private monologue; instead, the new birth is entirely the work of the triune God and becomes a reality when people receive the Son for salvation through the heralding of the good news.64 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

Cf. Isa 40:6–8; 55:10–11; Heb 4:12; 1 Pet 1:24–25. Cf. 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Titus 3:5. Cf. Eph 1:13; 2:8–9. Cf. Rom 12:1–2. Cf. John 1:12–13; 3:6; Titus 3:5; Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:23; 1 John 4:10. A teaching known as ‘decision theology’ tethers assurance of salvation to one’s self-initiated choice to believe. In this view, the actions of the penitent (namely, what they perceive, reason, intuit, and experience) are what convince them they have enough faith to be saved. Put another

paul ’ s apoc alyptic int e r pr e tat i on o f r e a li t y  | 91

Returning now to the main track of thought, by using the Greek verb esphpagísthete (‘were sealed’; Eph 1:13),65 Paul may have raised a number of images in the minds of his readers.66 At that time, seals67 were used to imprint a wax impression on documents to vouch for their authenticity. Seals were also tattooed on soldiers and slaves, branded on livestock, and attached to goods68 being shipped to indicate right of possession and safeguard protection. Sometimes seals represented an office in the government. Any of these uses of seals might symbolize a part of the Spirit’s work in the lives of those who trusted in the Messiah. In short, the apostle indicated that the Father’s gift of the Spirit (received by divine grace) identified Jesus’ followers as God’s spiritual children. In Ephesians 1:14, Paul figuratively referred to the Spirit as the believers’ ‘guarantee’ (arrabón; or ‘pledge’) that they belonged to the Father and that He would do for them what He had promised in His Son.69 In the apostle’s day, a deposit was an initial payment assuring a retailer that the full purchase price would be forthcoming. The Spirit’s abiding presence confirmed that at the end of the age, believers would receive the final installment of their eternal ‘inheritance’ (kleronomías; Eph 1:14).70 By this Paul meant that the Creator would bring to completion the ‘redemption’ (apolútrosin) of those whom He acquired (peripoiéseos) as a result of Jesus’ death on the cross. In keeping with what Paul stated in verses 6 and 12, he once more noted that the Father’s salvific initiative would bring Him unending honor and splendor. As with verses 3–14, verses 15–23 are one compound sentence in the original. Paul had discussed at length God’s eschatological plan of redemption centered in the Messiah, and the apostle was convinced that his readers were truly regenerate. He indicated his certitude by means of the conjunctive phrase diá touto (‘because of this’; v. 15). Furthermore, the apostle’s adverbial use of kagó (‘even I’ or ‘I in

65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70.

way, their confidence is based on independent acts of their will, including their decision to believe, their consciousness of their belief, and their awareness of their conversion experience. Ironically, the outcome is not assurance, but a crisis of faith. The latter is characterized by unending bondage due to the presence of nagging inner doubts about the reality of their spiritual status; cf. the Lutheran notion of the Anfechtung, or a terrifying dread of God’s condemnation and judgment; Bayer (2003:182–4, 252–3; 2007:104–6); Cary (2005:448–50; 2007:266–7); McGrath (2011:224–8); Scaer (1983:15–8). Aorist, passive, indicative. Cf. Esth 3:10; Dan 6:17; 2 Cor 1:22. Made from precious metals and hard stones. Such as sacks of grain or fruit. Cf. 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5. Cf. Ezek 36:26–27; Joel 2:28–30.

92 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

particular’) shifted the focus back to himself. The inclusion of the nominative participial clause—introduced by akoúsas (‘having heard’)71—established the context for his statement in verse 16. Specifically, Paul was enthused to learn about the steadfast ‘faith’ (pístin; v. 15) of his readers in the Savior, along with the ‘love’ (agápen) they regularly displayed toward their fellow believers (‘hagíous’).72 Even though the apostle founded the congregation in Ephesus, as noted earlier, he had not seen the believers for several years, due to his imprisonment; nonetheless, Paul could receive visitors and mail, and through one or both of these means, he heard encouraging news about the Ephesians’ spiritual health. In response, whenever the apostle prayed (proseuchon; v. 16), he not only remembered (mneíon) his readers, but also never stopped (paúomai)73 thanking (euchariston)74 God for the Ephesians. Next, through the use of the conjunction hína (‘that’; v. 17), Paul introduced the nature of his petition to God, whom the apostle referred to as the ‘glorious Father’.75 Specifically, Paul asked that the majestic Creator would increase the Ephesians’ discernment and deepen the insight they had in their spiritual understanding of Him.76 From a Christological outlook, the apostle’s readers were already God’s children as a result of their trust in the Son; yet, Paul wanted the Ephesians to receive a heightened awareness concerning their relationship with the Lord. The latter required more than just intelligence or hard work; according to Colossians 1:9, it was provided by the Spirit.77 Ephesians 1:18 and 19 detail some of the specific ways Paul wanted his readers to grow in their knowledge of God. The apostle used the figurative expression toús ophthalmoús tes kardías (‘the eyes of the heart’; v. 18) to refer to the capacity of the believer’s mind to understand.78 In Jewish thinking during the first century ce,

71. 72. 73. 74. 75.

Aorist, active, singular. I.e. those in a saving relationship with God. Present, middle, indicative. Present, active, participle. Taking the phrase ho patér tes dóxes as an attributive genitive; cf. Exod 24:17; Isa 4:2; 35:2; 60:2, 13. 76. In which sophías (‘wisdom’; i.e. sagacity and prudence) and apokalýpseos (‘revelation’; i.e. something fully disclosed) are taken as attributive genitives of pneuma (‘spiritual’); cf. Exod 28:3; Deut 34:9; Zech 12:10; Wis 7:7; 1 Cor 4:21; Gal 6:1. 77. Especially, as noted earlier, through the ministry of God’s Word; cf. John 14:26; 16:13. 78. Arnold (2010:106) thinks Paul ‘created’ the ‘metaphor’ appearing in Ephesians 1:18, since prior to the apostle the expression cannot be found in any ‘Jewish or secular literature’. In contrast, Thielman (2010:98) maintains that Paul used ‘imagery that was common in the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds for gaining religious knowledge and insight’.

paul ’ s apoc alyptic int e r pr e tat i on o f r e a li t y  | 93

the heart was viewed as the center of one’s personality, feeling, and faith, as well as the source from which one’s words and actions originated.79 Paul asked God to flood the light of His truth into the Ephesians’ souls. The apostle’s request echoed the truth of Isaiah 60:19, in which the Lord not only promised to redeem His people, but also to be their everlasting light, especially through the work of His Servant.80 As a result of God’s transforming grace operative in the Ephesians’ lives, they would more fully grasp the implications of their salvation. Colossians 1:10 adds that, in terms of everyday living, the regenerate would learn how to become increasingly fruitful, pleasing to God, and honoring to Him. The apostle’s petition in Ephesians 1:18–19 contained three elements.81 First, Paul prayed that his readers would have a sharpened awareness of the ‘hope’ (elpís; or ‘confident expectation’) associated with God’s summons (kléseos) of them to eternal life.82 Second, the apostle asked that the Ephesians would more fully appreciate the ‘wealth’ (ploutos) connected with the Lord’s ‘inheritance’ (kleronomías) of them.83 The latter included the glorious (dóxes) certainty of them being citizens with all God’s ‘holy people’ (or ‘saints’; hagiois) in heaven. Third, Paul requested that his readers would truly grasp the many ways God freely and sovereignly operated to achieve His purposes in their lives. According to Colossians 1:11–12, the Creator especially wanted His children, when faced with affliction, to remain steadfast (or persevering), patient (or emotionally calm), joyful, and thankful. To intensify his point rhetorically in Ephesians 1:19, Paul used three Greek synonyms in tandem: the verb hyperbállon,84 which denotes what is extraordinary, immeasurable, or incomparable; the noun mégethos, which points to what is infinitely enormous; and the noun dynámeos, which referred to what is absolute and supreme in power. The apostle emphasized that Jesus’ followers were the object and beneficiaries of the Creator’s limitless strength (tou krátous tes ischyúos), which He demonstrated (enérgeian) above all in the Messiah’s resurrection and exaltation. Edwards (2005) draws attention to the Christological paradox that ‘God’s incomparable power’ is unveiled in the ignominy of the Son’s death on the cross. Paul’s use of the Greek verb enérgeken (‘brought about’)85 in verse 20 conceptually links it to his use of the lexically related noun enérgeian (‘working’) in verse 19. When the Son died on the cross, His enemies thought they had ended 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

Cf. Ps 10:11, 13; Prov 2:2; 22:17; 23:12; Matt 12:34; 15:19; 22:37; John 14:1; Rom 10:10. Cf. Isa 49:6; 51:4; Rev 22:5. Signaled by Paul’s threefold use of the Greek interrogative pronoun tís. Cf. Col 1:5, 27. Cf. Col 3:24. Present, active, participle. Perfect, active, indicative.

94 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

His existence; yet, the bonds of death were broken as a result of the Father raising the Son immortal from the grave. For a period of 40 days, Jesus ministered on earth to His followers.86 Then, as Paul explained in verse 20, the Son ascended into the sacred abode of heaven and assumed His place of highest honor and authority at the right side of the Father’s throne.87 Consequently, as Pate (1993:282–3) notes, the ‘restoration of Adam’s forfeited dominion’ and ‘lost estate’ is achieved. Furthermore, the dominion of the Son—who is God incarnate88—extended over all entities throughout the universe.89 In the first century ce, speculation about spiritual beings (including angels and demons) was common among both Jewish and pagan writers. Elaborate theories were devised about these entities. Also, they were arranged in various hierarchies, assigned supernatural powers, and venerated as if they were divine.90 Paul was aware of such attempts to understand the metaphysical realm; yet, without agreeing with the preceding speculations, the apostle affirmed the Christocentric and Christotelic truth that no creature, whether on earth or in heaven, and whether natural or supernatural, exceeded the Savior’s majesty and rule, for He was preeminent over all creation.91 In Ephesians 1:21, Paul stressed that from God’s transcendent throne room in heaven, Jesus’ reigned supreme over the following four supernatural forces: arches (‘ruler’), exousías (‘authority’), dunámeos (‘power’), and kyriótetos (‘dominion’). Furthermore, the apostle affirmed the Christological reality that the Messiah alone controlled the destiny and actions of all angelic and demonic powers, both in the present era and in the one to be inaugurated at His Second Advent. Verse 22 added that the authority of the risen Savior was not merely over celestial beings, but encompassed every aspect of creation, including temporal human powers. When considering the discourse about the ideologies of imperial Rome in section 2.0, it is useful to stress the affirmation made by Hoehner (2002:279) that while there is in Ephesians 1:21–22 a ‘definite influence from Jewish sources’, it is also important to take into account the widespread ‘pagan environment’. Best (1998:175–8) concurs that the Judaic and Hellenistic cultural contexts (i.e. ‘political, social, and economic’) are both important to consider. Thielman (2010:106) adds that Paul’s use of ‘terminology’ is a ‘skillful blend of language’ derived from 86. Cf. Acts 1:3. 87. Cf. Exod 15:6; Pss 16:8; 48:10; 110:1; Isa 41:10; Matt 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 16:19; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 3:22. 88. Cf. John 1:1, 14, 18; Col 1:15, 19; 2:9. 89. Cf. Col 2:10. 90. Cf. 1 Enoch 60:10–12; 61:10; 2 Enoch 20–22; Jub 2:2; 2 Macc 3:24; T Levi 3:14–22; Col 2:8, 16–18. 91. Cf. Col 1:15.

paul ’ s apoc alyptic int e r pr e tat i on o f r e a li t y  | 95

the Hebrew sacred writings and the ‘Greco-Roman environment’ prevalent at Ephesus and elsewhere. Perkins (2000:383) goes further in surmising that ‘when Ephesians is read over against the ideology of the Roman imperial cult’, the letter’s homage to the risen and glorified Messiah ‘appears to copy the style of speeches in praise of the emperor’. Even so, it is prudent to be mindful that, as Burk (2008:322) notes, ‘Paul’s gospel’ expressed more of an ‘implied’ (rather than an unequivocal) censure of Rome’s ‘imperial pretensions’. In an allusion to Psalm 8:6, Paul revealed that the Father brought everything in the universe under the Son’s total control (hypétaxen).92 Furthermore, it was for the benefit of the ‘church’ (ekklesía; Eph 1:22) that the exalted Lord ruled preeminently (kephalén; ‘head’) over everyone and everything.93 Lincoln (1990:67) describes the ‘church’ as the ‘Christian community in its totality’. Similarly, Paul referred to the redeemed corporately throughout the world as the Savior’s metaphysical ‘body’ (soma; Eph 1:23).94 One interpretive option, as noted by Bruce (1984:276), is that the exalted Son fills the church with His ‘life, attributes, and powers’. Correspondingly, as Edwards (2005) observes,95 the ‘risen Christ is the soul of the church’. Paul added that the Messiah’s presence and power not only includes believers, but also that He exercises dominion over the whole universe. Because He is the eternal, self-subsistent Creator, every aspect of contingent reality depends on Him for its existence.96 Thielman (2007:816) posits that the ‘hegemony God intended humanity’ to exercise over the entire created realm is being brought to fulfillment through the ‘Messiah’s kingly rule’. Paul accentuated this truth by pairing the Greek noun pléroma (‘fullness’; Eph 1:23) with the verb plerouménou (‘fills’),97 and putting together two forms of the adjective pas (panta,98 with pasin).99 In sum, believers found all their spiritual needs completely satisfied, not by participating in the pagan teachings and secretive rituals of the mystery religions, but only in union with the Redeemer.100

92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97.

Aorist, active, indicative; Eph 1:22; cf. Gen 1:26; 1 Cor 15:27–28; Heb 2:6–9. Cf. Eph 4:15; Col 1:18. Cf. 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 4:4, 12, 16; 5:30; Col 1:24. Reflecting the view of several early church leaders. Cf. Ps. 36:9; John 1:3–4. Present, middle, participle. For an extensive listing of scholarly works deliberating the challenging exegetical and interpretive issues connected with Ephesians 1:23, cf. Hoehner (2002:294). Also, for an assessment as to why plerouménou is best understood to be a middle, rather than a passive, participle, cf. Arnold (2010:116–20); Howard (1974:351–4). 98. Accusative plural. 99. Dative plural; cf. Col 3:11. 100. Cf. John 4:13–14; 6:35.

96 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

With respect to Christocentric and Christotelic overtones of Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality in Ephesians 1:15–23, Allen (1986:104) discerns that the Son’s ‘exaltation above all the powers of the universe’ is the grounds for the ‘believers’ resurrection and enthronement’. They have been freed from ‘death in sins’, the ‘powers of this world’, and the ‘passions’ of their sinful state. Against this backdrop, Marshall (2004:451) opines that Jesus’ followers ‘live in a new situation’, one that is ‘determined by the fact of Christ, crucified and risen’. Ladd and Hagner (1993:596) extend the preceding thought by adding that the ‘new life of the Age to Come’ signifies the soil in which believers currently are planted, grow, and thrive. Hays (1996:27) likens the ‘church community’ to the Creator’s ‘eschatological beachhead’ where His almighty ‘power has invaded the world’. Beale (2011:303) takes the analysis further by clarifying that since believers are the ‘actual beginning of the end-time new creation’, it is imperative for them to ‘act the way new creatures act’. The latter includes ‘viewing all of reality from the perspective’ of Jesus’ ‘word’, rather than the depraved ‘viewpoint of the world’.101

4.0 Conclusion This chapter builds on the discourse in the preceding chapter by undertaking a case study analysis of one representative passage in Paul’s writings through the prism of its apocalyptic backdrop. The primary assertion of this chapter is that Paul’s eschatological worldview exercised a controlling influence on the Christocentric and Christotelic facets of his locution, both directly and indirectly. The corresponding goal is to validate the preceding assertion by exploring the apostle’s end-time interpretation of reality in Ephesians 1:15–23. To accomplish the latter objective, a short synopsis of two Pauline passages— 2 Corinthians 5:17–19 and Romans 5:12–21—is undertaken in the introductory first section. One relevant insight arising from these representative texts is that there is an ‘already but not yet’ dynamic tension in Paul’s writings. As Romans 8 reveals, while Jesus’ followers have not yet been physically resurrected as a result of trusting in Him, they wait in eager anticipation for the arrival of that future day when their redemption is fully completed. In the second section, the scope and substance of Paul’s apocalyptic view of reality is articulated. Specifically, five key premises are noted as forming the building blocks of his eschatologically-oriented, Christological disquisition. It is then observed that the end-time metanarrative found within the apostle’s letters did

101. Cf. Rom 12:1–2; Gal 5:24–26.

paul ’ s apoc alyptic int e r pr e tat i on o f r e a li t y  | 97

not arise in isolation; rather, it shows strong affinities with the apocalyptic literature written during the period of Second Temple Judaism. That said, the Spirit enabled Paul to move beyond the distorted convictions of the religious elite of his day and view the created order through a set of Christocentric and Christotelic lenses. Another finding is that Paul’s future-oriented ethos engaged the polymorphic views of reality that prevailed within Greco-Roman culture. Indeed, the good news the apostle heralded contrasted sharply with the latter propaganda. The background information presented in the second section helps to establish the broader narrative framework and theological context in which Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality was embedded. This holds true for Ephesians 1:15–23, the representative passage from the apostle’s letters examined in the third section of the chapter. A thoroughgoing analysis of this text indicates that an eschatological mindset pervades Paul’s Christological outlook. For instance, in keeping with what was noted earlier, there is a tension between the ‘already and the not yet’. Specifically, the salvation of believers has already been inaugurated, but not yet fully consummated. In addition, the future hope of salvation through faith in the Messiah is an anchor for all of life, especially since it represents ultimate reality and the certain destination of believers. An analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23 indicates that themes Paul deliberated there resonate with the broader Christocentric and Christotelic discourse found in his other New Testament writings. To illustrate, when the Creator’s end-time promises are realized, He would be glorified, honored, and praised as God.102 Every knee would bow and every tongue would confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.103 The entire cosmos would be reconciled to the Son,104 and the Father’s plan to sum up all things in His Son would be completed.105 Moreover, Paul made it clear that believers would marvel at and enjoy God’s grace for endless ages.106 In turn, the missionary task that animated Paul and other believers down through the centuries would be completed, and the Father’s eschatological plan of including Jews and Gentiles in His kingdom would reach its consummation in their baptismal union with the Son.107 As affirmed by this chapter’s deliberation of Ephesians 1:15–23, the suffering of the present era one day would be just a memory, the agonies that prevail now would seem small compared to the beauty that has dawned, and the glorification 102. Cf. 2 Cor 1:30. 103. Cf. Phil 2:10–11. 104. Cf. Col 1:20. 105. Cf. Eph 1:10. 106. Cf. Eph 2:7; 3:10; 2 Thess 1:10. 107. Cf. Rom. 9–11; Eph. 2–3.

98 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

God promises would be a reality.108 Furthermore, the supremely exalted and risen Lord of Ephesians 1:20–23 would return to judge the wicked and vindicate the righteous.109 Those who are joined to the Son by faith would be raised from the dead to worship the triune God in heaven for all eternity. In contrast, unbelievers would be punished forever, God’s saving work in believers would be finished, and any talk of ‘not yet’ will be passé. Finally, the structures of the present cosmic order would cease, and a world of endless joy would ensue.

108. Cf. Rom 8:18; 2 Cor 4:16–18. 109. As noted elsewhere in this monograph (cf. pgs. 53, 58, 252, 253, 255), the judgment of the wicked includes Jesus bringing about a final victory over Satan, along with sin and death. For a concise analysis of what Scripture reveals about Satan and his minions, along with a biblical response to Satan’s diabolical schemes, cf. chapter 7 of this monograph. For an in-depth examination of the references to Satan in the undisputed Pauline corpus, cf. Brown (2015). His work explores the following: (1) the assorted ‘images’ of Satan in the Hebrew sacred writings and the literature of Second Temple Judaism, as well as the diverse ‘roles’ Lucifer performs in these texts (esp. operating as the eschatological ‘arch-enemy of God’ and His ‘chosen people’; chap. 2); (2) the place Satan occupies within the ‘apocalyptic’, ‘two-age framework’ of Paul’s ‘theology’ (chap. 3); (3) the way in which Paul understood his apostolic mission, especially within the context of establishing and overseeing numerous ecclesial ‘communities’ in the eastern ‘Mediterranean basin’ (chap. 4); and, (4) an analysis of the meaning and significance of ten clear references to Satan (Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 4:4; 6:15; 11:14; 12:7; 1 Thess 2:18; 3:5; chaps. 5 and 6). Based on his research, Brown puts forward the following conclusions (chap. 7): (1) Paul shares the ‘Jewish and early Christian understanding of Satan as an enemy and tempter of the people of God’; (2) Paul regards the devil as the ‘apocalyptic adversary’ who ‘opposes’ Paul’s ‘apostolic labor’; and, (3) Satan directs his attacks against Paul due to the ‘pivotal’ nature of his ‘apostleship’ in the dissemination of the ‘gospel at a crucial point in salvation history’. On the one hand, my study affirms the preceding deductions; on the other hand, this work intentionally takes into account the entire Pauline corpus, especially Ephesians, including the place the ‘spiritual forces of evil’ (6:12) occupy in Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality.

chapter five

Paul’s theology of the cross A case study analysis of 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10

1.0 Introduction In chapter 4 of this monograph, I explored Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality. The discourse dealt with the nature of apocalyptic literature, Paul’s endtime view of existence against the backdrop of Judeo and Greco-Roman cultural contexts, and how the apostle’s eschatological worldview exercised a controlling influence on the Christocentric and Christotelic facets of his writings. The preceding assertion was validated by a case study analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23. With respect to Paul’s apocalyptic convictions, I articulated five key premises that formed the building blocks of his Christological narrative, as follows: (1) Since the dawn of time, the forces of darkness1 have threatened to undermine the cosmic order, including humankind; (2) The Father has triumphed over these malevolent entities through His Son’s redemptive work on the cross; (3) Believers, through their baptismal union with the divine-human Son, share in His victory won at Calvary; (4) Because the Son reigns supreme over every aspect of the believers’ lives, all their thoughts, feelings, and actions must be submitted to His rule; and, (5) Believers are a foretaste, down payment, and guarantee of the Father fulfilling

1. I.e. Satan, sin, and death.

100 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

His promise to reclaim and restore the entire created realm, all of which would be finalized at the Second Advent of His Son. Of particular interest in this chapter is item number 2, specifically its mention of Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross.2 For example, in taking account of the imperial ideologies that prevailed in the first century ce, I observed that Rome’s cultural heroes were renowned for their wealth, fame, and power. Also, I pointed out that the latter were seized by brazen self-interest, ruthless competition, and savage violence. In contrast, I noted that Paul, in keeping with his Christotelic outlook, urged believers to live in ways that were cruciform in nature. I also maintained that the Cross was the premier expression of God’s power and wisdom, both during the present age and for all eternity. Fitzmyer (1989:36) uses the phrase ‘Christocentric soteriology’ to emphasize that the Cross was the dominant leitmotif of Paul’s apocalyptic view of reality.3 Taking a literary cue from Hyers (2015), the historical event of the Cross, as interpreted through the writings of Paul, offers a theocentric and Christological view of how to make sense of existence. For instance, along with the rest of Scripture, the Pauline corpus affirms that ‘all regions and forms are the objects of divine creation and sovereignty’. The corresponding truth is that the ‘one true God … transcends and governs’ the entire universe. Moreover, the Cross defines Paul’s ‘approach to organizing the cosmic reality’, both ‘spatially and temporally’. Specifically, through the Son’s redemptive work, ‘chaos is brought under control’ and ‘order’ is reestablished. In a manner of speaking, through the cross-resurrection episode, the Redeemer has entered space-time history and engaged His archenemies ‘on their own turf, with the result that they are soundly defeated’.4 In short, according to Elliot (1997:174), Paul regarded ‘Jesus’ death as the decisive episode in a cosmic struggle’. Beker, in his writings (1990:80–91; 2000:198–208), has drawn attention to Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at Calvary and how it fundamentally shaped Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic, end-time view of existence. As Beker (2000:199) observes, the Cross was crucial to the apostle’s ‘apocalyptic hermeneutic’. Beker (200) also states that the cross-resurrection dyad inaugurated a ‘new age’ in which the ‘glory of God’ becomes the ‘destiny of creation’. Expressed another way, ‘Paul interprets the death and resurrection of Christ primarily in terms of a cosmicapocalyptic judgment and renewal’ (204). Moreover, the Cross is the ‘ultimate 2. What follows in this chapter is a revision of material in my journal article titled ‘Paul’s theology of the cross: a case study analysis of 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10’, which appears in Lioy (2015b). 3. Cf. Rom 6:3–8; 1 Cor 1:18–25; 2 Cor 4:10; Gal 2:20; 5:22–26; 6:14; Phil 2:1–8; 3:10; Col 2:11–12, 20. 4. Cf. Luke 10:18; John 12:31; Col 2:15.

paul ’ s t h e o log y o f t h e c r o ss  | 101

ground’ (205) for the eternal ‘blessings’ God bestows on believers. In short, the Cross is the ‘apocalyptic turning point of history’ (205), wherein the ‘old age’ (207) is destroyed and the ‘future age dawns’. Included is the ‘overthrow of death’ (1990:81), which Paul labelled the ‘last enemy’ (1 Cor 15:26). Tannehill (1967:70) contends that the cross-resurrection event ‘must be understood’ within the ‘context’ of Paul’s ‘eschatology’. This includes the ‘decisive transfer’ of ‘believers from the old to the new aeon’. According to Treat (2014:136), Paul regarded the Cross as a verification that the ‘end of the ages’ had arrived. Even the ‘coming kingdom of God’ (227) was impacted by the Cross.5 Not only was God’s reign ‘cruciform’ in its essence, but also throughout eternity it would be defined by the Cross (230).6 Bradbury (2012:67) affirms the preceding observations by stating that as a consequence of Jesus’ ‘cruciform work’ an ‘inbreaking age has already formally overcome the age that was’. Horton (2011:524) shifts the focus to the ‘present age’ when he states that right now the ‘kingdom’ appears ‘weak and foolish to the world’. Despite that, the ‘kingdom is more extensive in its global reach’. Likewise, it is ‘more intensive in its redemptive power’, especially when compared with ‘any earthly empire in history’. Along similar lines, Treat (2014:246) concludes that ‘God advances his kingdom through the church’ whenever it conforms itself to the Cross. In keeping with the above observations, the primary assertion of this chapter is that an understanding of Paul’s theology of the cross7 helps to clarify his apocalyptic view of reality. Knowles (2005:64) likens the apostle’s paradigm to a ‘simple heuristic device’ or ‘key’ that holds the potential to unlock a ‘door’ enabling one to access a farreaching ‘conceptual domain’. Nolte (2003:52) advances the discussion by reasoning that the Cross is the ‘crucial focal point of all theology’, for it defines, illuminates, 5. Schnabel (2008:14) clarifies that even though Paul refers to the ‘kingdom of God’ on occasion in his writings, it does not operate as a ‘central category in his theology’. For a concise overview of the scholarly discourse on what Scripture teaches concerning the kingdom of God, cf. section 2.0 and n 22 in chapter 8 of this monograph. 6. Cf. John 20:27; Gal 6:14; Rev 5:6. It is worth noting that Moltmann (1974) has written extensively about the relationship between the Cross and the kingdom; nonetheless, as Eckardt (1985:19) argues, while both Luther and Moltmann ‘focus on the crucifixion’, along with its ‘effects as the locus of theology’, their respective interpretations of the ‘redemptive act’ (20) are completely dissimilar. For instance, in contrast to Luther, Moltmann rejected the ‘language of the atonement’ (22) and the ‘traditional “two-natures” doctrine of Christ’ (23). Also, unlike Luther, Moltmann advocated the ‘psychological and political liberation of man from the forces of oppression in the world’ (24). In sum, while at times Luther and Moltmann may use similar language in reference to the Cross, what they mean and intend by doing so are ‘radically different from each other’ (25). 7. In Latin, theologia crucis.

102 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

and guides the ‘entire theological enterprise’. This includes understanding, as Tannehill (1967:1) puts it, the ‘motif of dying and rising with Christ’. These observations are upheld by the synopsis in section 2.0 and affirm the potential value of using crucicentricity as a hermenutical approach to engage the Christocentric and Christotelic facets of Paul’s discourse. The corresponding goal is to use section 3.0 to validate the primary assertion by exploring Paul’s cruciform mindset in the following representative passage in his letters: 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10.8 The choice of the preceding text is motivated, in part, by the recognition that as Gorman (2001:18) puts it, ‘for Paul cruciformity encompasses and defines’ the ‘character of God’. Moreover, the Cross defines the nature of existence for Jesus’ followers in the present era, which is dominated by unbelief and disobedience. Concerning the latter, Paul revealed that the Son sacrificed Himself for our transgressions in order to ‘rescue us from the present evil age’ (Gal 1:4). The apostle also disclosed that through the cross-resurrection event, Jesus vanquished Satan (Col 2:15), who is the overlord of the malevolent spiritual forces in the unseen ‘world’ (Eph 2:2). Amazingly, as the apostle explained, the religious and civil ‘rulers of this age’ (1 Cor 2:6–8) failed to appreciate ‘God’s wisdom’ revealed in Jesus of Nazareth’s death at Calvary; otherwise, they would not have ‘crucified’ the glorious Lord. Finally, Paul taught that the Son’s triumph over the grave was the basis for believers rejecting the ‘ungodliness and worldly passions’ (Titus 2:12) of the ‘present age’ and living in a manner that is ‘self-controlled, upright and godly’.

2.0 A synopsis of Paul’s theology of the cross from a confessional Lutheran perspective At first glance, one might advocate culling through the entire Pauline corpus to determine the apostle’s Christological understanding of the cross; yet, such an endeavor would be unrealistic for the present modest-sized endeavor. Another option might be to engage all the scholarly publications dealing with Paul’s cruciform teaching. Admittedly, though, the secondary literature is vast and there is no consensus within the academic guild concerning the meaning and significance of the apostle’s crucicentric perspective. This reality makes it unfeasible to itemize and evaluate comprehensively what other specialists have said on this subject over the course of church

8. Due to the limitations of space in this chapter, only one of numerous passages within the Pauline corpus is the focus of the case study analysis appearing in section 3.0.

paul ’ s t h e o log y o f t h e c r o ss  | 103

history.9 So, for the sake of expediency, in this section, I provide a synopsis of Paul’s theology of the cross from a confessional Lutheran perspective.10 One reason for adopting this particular approach is that I minister as an ordained clergyperson and teach as an exegetical theologian within this ecclesial tradition.11 A second reason is that, as von Loewenich (1976:13) argues, ‘Luther’s theology of the cross … corresponds exactly’ with what Paul articulated in his letters. A third reason is the rich and well-established discourse within Lutheran scholarship concerning the apostle’s writings on the Cross, including how it shaped the Christocentric and Christotelic contours of his apocalyptic view of reality. A fourth reason is that the Lutheran perspective has been a major point of reference and interlocutor (of sorts) for specialists from other philosophical and theological perspectives, especially as they deliberate Paul’s understanding of the cross-resurrection event. 9. For an exploration of how the Cross formed the center of Paul’s relationship with God, including the themes of faith, love, power, and hope, cf. Gorman (2001). For an exploration of relevance of the Cross for the Christian faith, including how the Cross indicates the way in which God is actively present in the world, cf. McGrath (1987). For a synopsis of the place of the Cross within contemporary theology, cf. Madsen (2007:1–13). For a review of trends in contemporary evangelicalism dealing with a crucicentric spirituality, cf. Tidball (2001:21–9). For an appraisal of the gaps in the academic literature on the significance of the Cross in the New Testament and Christian theology, cf. Hood (2007). For an analysis of various proposed solutions to the problem of evil and the importance of the Cross within this debate, cf. Blocher (1994). For contrasting approaches in understanding Paul’s cruciform theology, cf. Anthony (2010:52–105); Bayer (2003:6–7); Beer (1984); Becker (1990:80–91; 2000:182–212); Bradbury (2012:13–146); Brandos (2006); Cousar (1990); Fast (2011); Forde (1997); Heim (2006); Hendel (1997); Hinkson (1993:18–51); Käsemann (1970); Klug (2003:39–56); Kolb (2002); Madsen (2007:15–63); Mateo-Seco (1982); McGrath (1993:192–7; 2011); Nestingen (1992); Nolte (2003); Persaud (2014); Schreiner (2001:87–102); Stott (2006:302–28); Tomlin (2006:111–8); Watson (1947: 102–48); Wells (1992); Wengenroth (1982); Wengert (2002). 10. In chapter 3 of this monograph, I discuss the issue of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, particularly as it relates to 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2; nonetheless, it is beyond the scope of the present chapter to delve deeply into the debate regarding the nature and significance of the Son’s redemptive work at Calvary. The latter includes the penal substitution view of the atonement, which I favor. For a salient defense of the preceding stance, including a biblically grounded and theologically nuanced response to objections made against it, cf. Erickson (2013:731–52); Marshall (2005:1–16). Also, for one approach to reconcile penal substitution and the Christus Victor theory, cf. Treat (2014:174–226). In essence, his argues for a synthesis of ‘Christus Victor through penal substitution’. 11. I.e. the North American Lutheran Church and the Institute of Lutheran Theology, respectively.

104 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

To begin, Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation of 1518 is regarded as the classic text on the Pauline concept of cruciform theology.12 Even though, as Wengenroth (1982:272) notes, the crucicentric tradition ‘dominated Luther’s entire theological and ecclesiastical career’,13 Hendel (1997:223) appropriately clarifies that the Disputation theses are Luther’s ‘most focused articulation’ of his thoughts in this area. To be sure, there are a number of scholarly treatises that elucidate the historical setting and development of Luther’s reasoning.14 This includes the recognition that, as Hinkson (1993:20) indicates, ‘Luther’s theologia crucis … did not arise in a vacuum’. In particular, he was ‘influenced’ by the ‘mystical traditions’ found in ‘late medieval spirituality’. To the latter, Madsen (2007:83–91) adds that Church ‘tradition’ about ‘humility’ and ‘free will’ also ‘shaped Luther’s theology of the cross’. Despite the importance of the preceding historical backdrop, the intent of the present section moves in a different direction, namely, to provide a concise distillation of what Luther taught in his Disputation about Paul’s theology of the cross. Admittedly, my area of expertise is exegetical theology. For this reason, I draw upon the work of various Luther scholars to inform the discourse appearing in this section. Forde (1997), in particular, provides a lucid and cogent treatment of Luther’s thought, and for this reason serves as a useful primer here. Specifically, Forde (xii) explains that Paul’s cruciform mindset signifies a distinctive way of perceiving the ‘world and our destiny’. Jesus’ followers have died to the ‘old’ (13) reality, now live in vital union with the Savior, and eagerly anticipate ‘being raised with him’. This mindset is radically different from the ‘optimism’ (xiii) found within a ‘theology of glory’,15 especially its heretical, legalistic emphasis on the ‘place of good works in the scheme of salvation’. On the one hand, the preceding approach is characterized by a ‘suffocating sentimentality’ (Forde 1997:viii) that portrays God as using the Cross to identify with ‘us in our pain and suffering’;16 on the other hand, Paul’s theology of the cross

12. Cf. Luther 1957:39–58. 13. Along with Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, as the analysis of Madsen (2007:75–83) demonstrates, Luther’s emphasis on the Cross can be found in Lectures on the Hebrews (early 1518), the Asterisci Lutheri adversus Obeliscos Eckii (March 1518), and the Explanations of the 95 Theses (August 1518). 14. E.g. Bradbury (2012); Madsen (2007); McGrath (2011); Tomlin (2006); von Loewenich (1976); Westhelle (2006). 15. In Latin, theologia gloriae. 16. Billings (2014) refers to the trite view of God that prevails in the West as ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’ (or MTD; 133). He summarizes its ‘set of core beliefs’ (134) as follows: (1) ‘A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth’; (2) ‘God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most

paul ’ s t h e o log y o f t h e c r o ss  | 105

teaches that Jesus laid down His life at Calvary to atone for the sins of humankind. In turn, God allows Jesus’ followers to endure ‘suffering’ (ix) because they ‘look on the world anew in light of Christ’s passion’. The focus in Paul’s theology of the cross is on people being ‘sinners’ (x) in need of redemption, not ‘victims’ requiring ‘affirmation and support’. Ironically, the pagan religionist’s ‘thirst for glory’ (xiv), which is often evidenced by the performance of allegedly meritorious deeds, leads to greater ‘despair’ (xiv). Just as counterintuitive is the outcome of increased ‘hope’ being found in Paul’s cruciform teaching. Furthermore, in keeping with what Luther observed in his Disputation, the cure for humanity’s existential plight is not endless sessions involving psychotherapy; rather, as Paul stressed in his letters, it is to hear the Christological good news and be saved. The paradox is that when the cross-resurrection event and its implications are either downplayed or abandoned, it leads to increased pessimism, not optimism, and insecurity, not self-esteem (xi). Forde (1997:3) emphasizes that a theology of the cross is not the same as crafting dogmatic ‘propositions’ about what the Pauline writings teach concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection, even though the latter emphasis serves an important role within academic discourse; instead, the emphasis is on the Cross itself being the locus of attention. As Luther put it, the ‘cross alone is our theology’.17 In accord with this cruciform perspective, the ‘goal’ (4) is to ‘become a theologian of the cross’. This entails believers ‘operating’ in a certain way, not just researching and composing tractates in a detached manner about the subject. Taking a cue from Galatians 2:20, Forde (7) observes that ‘just as Jesus was crucified, so we also are crucified with him’. On one level, believers take part in the cruciform narrative; yet, on another deeper level, the Cross becomes their personal defining narrative. In brief, it marks out the course of their temporal and eternal ‘destiny’ (10). While Paul’s theology of the cross has a strong existential component, there remains a place for articulating key propositional truths connected with a crucicentric outlook. In this regard, McGrath (2011:211–4) moves the discussion forward by listing five ‘leading themes’ or ‘motifs’, as explained by Luther:18 (1) It world religions’; (3) ‘The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself ’; (4) ‘God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life, except when God is needed to resolve a problem’; and, (5) ‘Good people go to heaven when they die’. Billings explains that within the context of a postmodern, consumer-oriented, and religiously pluralistic culture, it is typical for people to ‘pick and choose’ (135) from a range of traditions, beliefs, and philosophies to create their own private spirituality, one that bears no resemblance to the ‘biblical and Christ-centered’ teachings of the historic, Christian church. 17. In Latin, crux sol est nostra theologia. 18. The general contours of McGrath’s analysis are echoed in the following: Anthony (2010:56–7, 103–4); Bradbury (2012:131–4); Hendel (1997:224–31); Kolb

106 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

is a ‘theology of revelation, which stands in sharp contrast to idle speculation’; (2) This divine disclosure should be ‘regarded as indirect and concealed’;19 (3) ‘God’s self-revelation’ is centered in the ‘humility and shame’ of the Cross, not in ‘human moral activity or the structures of the created order’; (4) The ‘eye of faith alone’, not unaided and speculative ‘human reason’, recognizes the ‘veiled disclosure’ of the Father in the agony and ignominy of the Cross as being an authentic ‘revelation’; and, (5) The Father deliberately ‘chooses to be known’ through the ‘suffering’ endured by the Son as well as His followers, both corporately and individually. The way in which God works through the suffering of believers warrants further attention. Kolb (2002:443) aptly remarks that it was ‘not in flight beyond the clouds’ that the Creator came to disclose the unvarnished truth ‘about himself and about humanity’; rather, it was ‘in the dust of the grave’. Stott (2006:320) provides a bit of perspective in stating that though the Cross does not philosophically resolve the ‘problem of suffering’, it ‘supplies the essential perspective’ from which to Christologically regard it. Paul’s experience is an illustrative case in point. He not only taught a theology of the cross, but also lived it out in his evangelistic work. In truth, he regarded his suffering as vital to his mission as an apostle to the Gentiles.20 Expressed another way, the trials Paul endured were the means by which he proclaimed the gospel to the nations. His distress validated and legitimated his message, demonstrating the truth of the gospel. There is a sense in which Paul regarded his sufferings as a corollary to the sufferings Jesus endured.21 The emphasis here, as Treat (2014:229) observes, is not on believers such as Paul imitating Jesus’ life and ministry, as salutatory as the latter might seem; rather, the priority is on living in baptismal ‘union’ with the Savior’s ‘death and resurrection’. As Schreiner (2001:100–1) explains, this does not mean the apostle thought Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at Calvary was deficient and that Paul’s anguish helped to bring about the pardoning of repentant sinners. Likewise, the apostle never claimed that in his distress he somehow bore the sins of God’s people in a substitutionary death as Jesus of Nazareth did; instead, Paul regarded his adversities as mirroring what Jesus endured. In this way, the apostle replicated (2002:449–54);Nolte (2003:53);Treat (2014:228);Tomlin (2006:114,183–5);von Loewenich (1976:22). 19. Cf. Luther’s reference to the ‘crucified and hidden God’; in Latin, Deus crucifixus et absconditus; Exod 33:18–23; Isa 40:13; 45:15; Rom 11:33–35; 1 Tim 6:16. 20. Cf. Acts 9:15–16; 14:22; 20:23–24; 21:11; 2 Cor 11:23–29; 2 Tim 3:12. 21. Cf. Col 1:24. For an overview of the history of interpretation of this verse, cf. Ruemann (1990). For an exploration of the cruciform or cross-bearing aspect of the Christian life, cf. Clancy (1994); Clark (2006); Ellington (2012); Hendel (1997:229–31); Hood (2009:286–94); Kolb (2002:454–64).

paul ’ s t h e o log y o f t h e c r o ss  | 107

the earthly sojourn of Jesus. Accordingly, the apostle’s tribulations were central to his calling, since they provided evidence for the veracity of the gospel he declared. To return to the main discussion, McGrath (2011:205–6) notes that God’s decision to reveal Himself through the Cross sheds light on the affective and cognitive realms of the believers’ faith. The theologia crucis also challenges natural human judgments about God, revelation, and justification. Paul’s cruciform perspective is the means by which God demolishes the impediments of hubris and foolishness, which inhibit people from discerning the divine presence and purpose. Furthermore, McGrath (210) observes that in the crucicentric tradition, ‘faith and doubt, righteousness and sin’ are shown to be ‘correlates’ that are simultaneously ‘intrinsic to the identity’ of the whole person.22 It is a ‘dialectic’ or tension that cannot be rectified this side of eternity. While the circumstance of being justified and a sinner at the same time23 is ‘theologically messy and existentially distressing’, it corresponds exactly with the pattern of life that believers experience. According to McGrath (2011:206–8), Paul regarded the Cross to be the underpinning and benchmark for any trustworthy approach to knowing God from a Christocentric and Christotelic outlook. The Cross challenges natural human perceptions of what God is like and how He should act. The Cross not only contests human self-confidence and complacency, but also forces people to seek and find the mercy of the Father through trust in the Son. McGrath (209–10) explains that the Cross, as an epistemological metanarrative, recognizes the inscrutable aspects of faith and resists any attempts to extract some abstract, sterilized dogmas from the savagery and trauma of Jesus’ execution. The Cross also illuminates how believers are to exist in the murky, barren terrain of a sin-cursed world filled with uncertainty and iniquity. Moreover, the Cross helps believers cope with the anxiety produced by the inexplicable contradictions of living on a planet characterized by strife, narcissism, and injustice. Affirming the presence of God in a world of shadows, confusion, and distress speaks to those who would otherwise be driven to atheism, especially due to the seemingly irresolvable tension between theory and experience, belief and practice.

3.0 Paul’s theology of the cross in 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10 Both external and internal evidence point to Paul’s authorship of 2 Corinthians. The letter was widely circulated by 140 ce and was recognized without question

22. In Latin, totus homo. 23. In Latin, simul iustus et peccator.

108 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

as the work of the apostle.24 The writer twice identified himself in the epistle,25 and in addition, referred to himself in ways that unmistakably mark himself as Paul. While there is considerable certainty about the authorship of 2 Corinthians, numerous questions have arisen about the exact time of the writing. The consensus view is that this letter was likely penned in the fall of 56 ce. Several references clearly identify the region of Macedonia as the general area where Paul wrote 2 Corinthians.26 In this epistle, Paul dealt with his own triumph and joy as well as with some of his disappointment and despair. As noted by Black (2012:53), the ‘idea of weakness’ operates as a ‘central motif ’ here. Because Paul was so transparent in what he wrote, probably no other letter gives readers a clearer glimpse of the apostle and his cruciform theology, especially against the backdrop of a Christologically-oriented, apocalyptic understanding of reality. By allowing his readers to identify with his struggles, Paul indicated that the same comfort and strength he had received from the Savior was available to all believers. Indeed, the apostle hoped his epistle would repair his relationship with the church at Corinth—a relationship that had been damaged by false teachers trying to discredit his apostolic authority and undermine the credibility of his ministry.27

24. The following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse in this section: Abernathy (2001); Balla (2007); Barnett (1997); Belleville (1996); Black (2012); Bray (2005); Brown (2015); Bruce (1980); Collins (2013); Ellington (2012); Elliott (2004); Fee (1994; 2007); Fitzgerald (1990); Furnish (1984); Garland (1989; 1999); Glancy (2004); Gorman (2001); Hafemann (1990; 2000a; 2000b); Harris (2005; 2008); Hubbard (2002a; 2002b); Hughes (1962); Keener (2005); Kistemaker (2002); Knowles (2005); Lambrecht (1996); Lenski (1961); Madsen (2007); Marshall (2004); Martin (1986); Matera (2003); Morrow (1986); Munck (1959); Murphy-O’Connor (1991); O’Collins (1971); Pate (1993); Pickett (1997); Plummer (1978); Sampley (2000); Schütz (1975); Tannehill (1967); Thrall (2000); Tilling (2012); Wright (2013). 25. Cf. 2 Cor 1:1; 10:1. 26. Cf. 2 Cor 7:5; 8:1; 9:2–4. 27. For a detailed examination of the enmity existing between Paul and the Corinthians, cf. Marshall (1987). He explores ‘Greco-Roman traditions’ (vii) to elucidate the ‘causes of the hostility’, the ‘form it takes’, and the ‘efforts’ Paul made to ‘win back the Corinthians’. Marshall deduces that ‘much of Paul’s terminology in the conflict’ (ix) mirrors ‘normal social usage’. Marshall also observes that the apostle used a ‘number of traditional techniques’ (341), including ‘non-naming, comparison, self-praise, self-derision, and innuendo’, to ‘derogate his enemies’. Furthermore, Marshall (xiv) regards the nature of the ‘dispute’ as ‘primarily a socio-cultural’ altercation, one in which the evangelist was ‘discredited as a socially and intellectually inferior person’ whom the Corinthians could not trust. Against this backdrop, Marshall (364) argues that Paul was ‘willing to allow his apostleship to be

paul ’ s t h e o log y o f t h e c r o ss  | 109

While Paul never specifically identified the imposters, a portrait of them can be pieced together from 2 Corinthians. The spiritual frauds came from outside Corinth (possibly from Judea) and needed letters of recommendation (3:1). Paul complained about the pretenders invading his sphere of ministry (10:13–16). They preached a false gospel—one that may have deemphasized the Messiah’s role in the salvation of believers (11:4). If so, their human-centered soteriology was akin to a theology of glory. The deceivers apparently declared themselves to have spiritual authority that was superior to Paul’s (v. 5) and claimed to be apostles of the Savior (v. 13). The false teachers may have been seeking to earn a living from those to whom they preached and taught their counterfeit doctrine (vv. 7–9). The frauds were, in actuality, ministers of Satan, while masquerading as apostles of the Lord (vv. 14–15).28 The imposters may have been Judaizers, who placed more emphasis on their Hebrew heritage than on the grace of the Messiah (v. 22). They were also guilty of putting the Corinthians in spiritual bondage (v. 20).29 Given the above circumstance, a foremost reason for Paul’s writing 2 Corinthians was to refute the accusations false teachers were making against him. Having gained the ear of the church at Corinth, these duplicitous hucksters apparently declared that Paul was untrustworthy and double-minded, and that he ministered solely for the purpose of self-elevation. The apostle’s motivation in defending himself in this letter, however, did not arise from self-interest or pride, but from his desire to protect the church at Corinth. Because Paul’s integrity was so closely linked to a crucicentric understanding of the gospel, a successful effort

judged on the basis of failure and weakness’. In short, Marshall (374) discerns that Paul used himself as a ‘foil’ to portray his ‘rivals’ as ‘arrogant, insolent, and shameless’ persons. 28. For an analysis of how Satan uses a counterfeit message to oppose the Savior, thwart the proclamation of the gospel, and undermine the assurance of believers, cf. chapter 7 in this monograph. 29. For a consideration of the secular underpinnings of Paul’s critique of his opponents at Corinth, including the first-century ce Greco-Roman social setting, cf. Savage (2004). He explains that ‘self-appreciation’ (19) was the ‘goal’ and ‘self-glorification’ was the ‘reward’. Also, within ‘Roman society rank was a prized possession’ (20). Moreover, flaunting one’s ‘status’ (22) in society was crucial. For a comprehensive inquiry into the identity of Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians, the claims they made about themselves, and the assertions they made against Paul, cf. Georgi (1986). He describes the rivals as ‘migrant preachers of Jewish origin’ (315) who obtained ‘great prestige’ among the believers at Corinth. Georgi thinks the ‘intruders’ leveraged their celebrity status to ‘further their own work and to dismantle Paul’s influence’. Georgi surmises that Paul saw his ‘very existence threatened’ (316) by the antagonists, especially since they assailed his ‘function as a missionary’. In the view of Georgi, Paul’s ‘criticism’ of his enemies was ‘motivated by the presence of the crucified and exalted Lord’.

110 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

to discredit him would have inevitably led to an undermining of the faith preached in the city by the apostle and members of his missionary team. Undoubtedly, Paul had several other purposes in addressing this letter to the Corinthians. For instance, Titus had brought the apostle the welcome news of the favorable response to his most recent letter, as well as possibly disturbing news concerning the church, and Paul wanted to reply to the report he had received. He also wanted to encourage the Christians at Corinth to complete their collection for the believers at Jerusalem before his forthcoming visit. Moreover, because the false teachers had apparently pointed to his change of itinerary as evidence of his being undependable, the apostle wanted to explain why he had modified his plans. Finally, he called on his readers to distinguish between true and false teaching (especially a theology of the cross vs. a theology of glory), to separate themselves from all idolatrous associations, and to pray for him and his evangelistic outreach. In 2 Corinthians 11, Paul created a list of the sufferings he had endured as part of his ministry.30 Garland (1989:378) considers these adversities as a ‘kind of parody of the boasts’ made by the apostle’s opponents, which in turn he used to deride their ‘exalted claims’. Sampley (2000:157–8) refers to this ‘hardship catalog’ as ‘Paul’s badge of honor’. At the conclusion of the list, he stated in verse 28 that his oversight of the churches under his pastoral care was a burden he shouldered day-to-day. Perhaps no other church took a greater toll on the apostle than did the one at Corinth. In addition to the above reasons mentioned, he wrote this heartfelt and candid letter to urge his readers to depend on God rather than themselves (i.e. to live as theologians of the cross, not theologians of glory). Within this cruciform context, Paul had found God’s comfort and strength to be more than adequate to meet the afflictions and challenges associated with his own ministry, and he knew that God offered to all believers this same encouragement and energy.

30. For a detailed examination of the ancient literary convention of compiling lists of hardships (technically referred to as peristaseis catalogues) and how they compare with what is found in the Pauline corpus, especially the Corinthian letters, cf. Fitzgerald (1988). He explains that in the ‘ancient world’ (203) it was ‘axiomatic’ that ‘adversity’ was a ‘litmus test of character’. Also, a ‘person’s virtuous attitude and action while under duress’ offered ‘proof ’ that this individual was of ‘genuine worth’. Fitzgerald surmises that ‘placing Paul’s catalogues within the literary traditions of antiquity’ (2) confirms that the missionary’s enumerations ‘legitimate his claim to be an apostle of Christ’. In brief, Paul wanted his readers to recognize him as a ‘person of integrity’ (206) whom they could trust.

paul ’ s t h e o log y o f t h e c r o ss  | 111

Earlier, in 11:1, Paul said he was going to use discourse characterized by ‘foolishness’, in which the underlying Greek noun, aphrosynēs,31 implies what seems to be thoughtless or senseless, especially by conventional standards of human wisdom. Belleville (1996:284) clarifies that Paul did not have in mind ‘someone who is stupid or witless’; instead, the apostle targeted those whose ‘self-perceptions are blown all out of proportion’. Next, in verse 16, Paul assured his readers that he was not really a fool (aphrona; ‘foolish’),32 even though they might conclude he was behaving imprudently. The apostle was referring to his decision to momentarily engage in ‘boasting’ (kauchēsōmai; ‘may boast’)33 about himself. In drawing attention to his own achievements, his purpose was to expose the hubris of his antagonists and discredit anyone who embraced their anthropocentric views. Barnett (1997: 529–31) elucidates that the apostle’s ‘rhetorical exercise’ in ‘parody’, known in that day as the ‘Fool’s Speech’,34 was a ‘daring countercultural exercise’, since it was common for people to brag about their ‘achievements,’ not ‘weaknesses’.35 Keener (2005:231) explains that Paul composed a ‘caricature that assails his opponents rather than himself ’. The apostle’s ostentatious assertions (hypostasei kauchēseōs, ‘boastful confidence’; 11:17)36 were motivated by a pastoral concern for the well-being of the church at Corinth, as well as for the preservation of the gospel. Though he disfavored speaking proudly about his ministerial work, he regarded doing so as necessary for the cause of Savior. Against the backdrop of this Christocentric and Christotelic mindset, Paul requested the Corinthians’ forbearance as he recited what he experienced in remaining obedient to the Savior. Paul explained that he was not following Jesus’ example when the apostle bragged about what God had done through him. In one sense, Paul caricatured

31. Genitive, singular, feminine. In this section, unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are my personal translation of the respective biblical texts being cited. 32. Adjective, accusative, singular. 33. Verb, aorist, middle, subjective. 34. Or ‘Fools Discourse’, extending from 2 Corinthians 11:1–12:13. Matera (2003:237) draws attention to the debate among scholars concerning where the literary section beginning in 11:1 ends. He notes that some favor 12:10 as the concluding verse, whereas others opt for either verse 13 or 18. The reasons for or against any particular view notwithstanding, this chapter has made 11:16–12:10 the principal focus of investigation. 35. For a survey of ancient rhetorical discourse used in Greco-Roman culture, along with a corresponding stylistic analysis of 2 Corinthians, cf. Long (2004). At the end of his examination of 11:16–12:10, he concludes that ‘there can be little doubt Paul followed the apologetic tradition of self-adulation, even though he seasoned it with parody by appealing to his weaknesses’ (190). 36. In which the second Greek noun is understood to be an attributive genitive.

112 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

the intruders’ example. They had commended themselves to the Corinthians, and apparently some of the Corinthians attentively listened to them. Paul wanted to prevent the Corinthians from drawing superficial inferences about his ministry based only on what the false teachers said. So, the apostle decided to follow their lead by discoursing in a foolish manner (aphrosynē; ‘foolishness’; v. 17).37 In essence, Paul gave the Corinthians a detailed description of his ministry for the sake of comparison. His hesitancy to boast was mitigated by the recognition that his readers were at ease with such self-commendation. As theologians of glory, Paul’s adversaries in Corinth operated in the ‘flesh’ (v. 18), in which the underlying Greek noun, sarka,38 theologically referred to the sinful state of human beings. In this context, the emphasis was on the pagan standards the frauds used to rationalize gloating over their alleged achievements.39 Even worse for Paul was that some of the Corinthians delighted (hēdeōs; ‘gladly’; v. 19)40 in putting up with (anechesthe)41 these self-absorbed braggarts (aphronōn; ‘fools’).42 The apostle, by sarcastically calling his readers ‘wise’ (phronimoi),43 intended to rebuke their willingness to endure the presence of such morally deficient persons as the charlatans in their midst.44 As it turned out, the Corinthians’ tolerance of the false apostles led to the acceptance of their tyrannical behavior. Specifically, the Corinthians were welcoming (anechesthe; ‘bear with’; v. 20)45 these interlopers, even while being manhandled by them. For instance, the false apostles, as theologians of glory, tried to strip the Corinthians of their liberty in union with the Messiah and shackle (katadouloō; ‘enslaves’)46 them to the Mosaic Law. In all likelihood, these intruders taught a combination of Christianity and Judaism, in which they emphasized legalistic righteousness as a prerequisite for salvation. Even though they affirmed Jesus as the Messiah, they stressed obedience to the Law of Moses as the way to gain and retain God’s acceptance. In addition, the charlatans were guilty of the following offenses, which Matera (2003:257) indicates amplify one another: preying upon the

37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

Verb, dative, singular, feminine. Accusative, singular, feminine. Cf. Jas 3:13–16. Adverb of manner, in the emphatic position. Verb, present, either middle or passive, indicative. Adjective, genitive, plural. Adjective, nominative, plural. Cf. 1 Cor 4:10. Verb, present, either middle or passive, indicative. Verb, present, active, indicative.

paul ’ s t h e o log y o f t h e c r o ss  | 113

Corinthians (katesthiei; ‘devours’, ‘consumes’);47 exploiting them by using deception (lambanei; ‘takes advantage of ’);48 engaging them in an egotistical, presumptuous manner (epairetai; ‘exalt oneself ’);49 and maltreating them (derei; ‘strikes’).50 Throughout verses 16–20, Paul used sarcasm to call attention to the irony of the Corinthians’ acceptance of those who harmed them. The apostle’s derision reached its rhetorical peak in verse 21, where he confessed that, to his disgrace (atimian; ‘shame’),51 he was too cowardly (ēsthenēkamen; ‘have been weak’)52 to exploit his converts. This was a biting comment for those who had criticized him for being timid while he was in Corinth. Did the believers really want an apostle who was cruel to them? There were occasions in the first century ce for those holding religious authority to strike others in the face for displaying impiety or disrespect. By way of example, Jesus was slapped in the face because of an answer He gave during His questioning before the high priest, Annas.53 Another high priest, Ananias, ordered that Paul be struck on the mouth because of the words he spoke before the Sanhedrin.54 It seems the Corinthians, too, were enduring this type of abuse from the false apostles, who had invaded the church with their counterfeit teaching.55 While Paul refused to emulate the charlatans’ harsh treatment of his readers, he would match their brazenness in exaggerated self-praise.56 The apostle admitted that in defending the legitimacy of his apostleship, he again was talking like a fool (aphrosynē; ‘in foolishness’).57 He discerned he could do so, since he had more to brag about than his rivals. In particular, none of them had experienced all that he had for the sake of the gospel; and now he was prepared, in a crucicentric manner, to list those hardships substantiating his devotion to the Messiah. Keener (2005:233) observes that ‘contrary to those who claim Paul’s adventures in Acts

47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

Verb, present, active, indicative. Verb, present, active indicative. Verb, present, middle, indicative. Verb, present, active, indicative. Noun, accusative, singular, feminine. Verb, perfect, active, indicative. Cf. John 18:22. Cf. Acts 23:2. Cf. 2 Cor 11:20. Cf. the use in 2 Cor 11:21 of toima–verb, present, active, subjunctive, third person, singular; ‘dares (to boast)’–with toimo–verb, present, active, indicative, first person, singular; ‘dare (to boast)’. 57. Noun, dative, singular, feminine.

114 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

must be Luke’s fiction’, the apostle’s catalogue of sufferings ‘reveals that Luke omits far more than he includes’. Before Paul detailed his individual afflictions, he first recounted his ancestral claims. Perhaps his opponents derided him for supposedly being less than a purebred Jew. After all, he was originally from the Roman province of Asia Minor (specifically, the city of Tarsus), rather than the Jewish homeland of Palestine (especially Jerusalem). That being the case, Paul wanted to establish that his spiritual heritage as a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, as a bona fide member of the nation of Israel, and as a circumcised descendant of Abraham, was equal to that of the intruders (v. 22).58 The consequence, as expressed by Murphy-O’Connor (1991:115), is that ‘culturally, racially, and religiously’ Paul was in no way ‘inferior to his opponents’. This emphasis is bought out with rhetorical potency by the apostle’s threefold usage of kagō (2 Cor 11:22). It is as if, for each claim the antagonists made about themselves, he forcefully countered with the declarative, ‘So am I!’ Next, Paul used an autobiographical sketch to indicate that his achievements were superior to his rivals. Still, he conceded that, at least on one level, his manner of speaking seemed irrational (paraphronōn; ‘as beside myself ’; v. 23);59 on another level, though, it was far more ludicrous for the interlopers to claim to be ‘servants’ (diakonoi)60 whom the Messiah had chosen and commissioned.61 Paul again tersely maintained that his apostolic call and authorization was even greater. In this regard, the phrase hyper egō, which Furnish (1984:514) considers a ‘rhetorical heightening’ of the triple appearance of the pronoun kagō in verse 22, could be rendered ‘I am more so!’ In the remainder of verses 23 through 29, Paul recounted his personal experiences and concerns.62 As he did so, his readers could discern that while he ministered as a theologian of the cross, the charlatans misbehaved as theologians of glory. Paul’s intent was to demonstrate that God, in His grace, met all His bondservant’s needs, even in the midst of unimaginable adversities. Specifically, compared to the religious frauds, Paul had labored more arduously, been jailed more frequently, been beaten more cruelly, and faced the specter of death more often (v. 23).63 Paul did not exaggerate the nature of the life-threatening circumstances he repeatedly endured for the sake of the Cross. Verses 24 and 25 list four types of those exposures to death, as well as the number of times each kind had so 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

Cf. Phil 3:5–6. Verb, present, active, participle. Noun, nominative, plural, masculine. In which the noun Christou is understood to be a qualitative genitive. Cf. 1 Cor 4:9–13; 2 Cor 6:4–5; Gal 6:17. Cf. the fourfold use of en as a preposition of means.

paul ’ s t h e o log y o f t h e c r o ss  | 115

far occurred in the apostle’s life. First, on five different occasions, Jewish leaders ordered Paul to be lashed 39 times with a whip.64 Hafemann (2000b:439) identifies ‘doctrinal heresy, blasphemy, and serious offenses against Jewish customs’ as the ‘three most probable crimes’ to trigger this punishment. Especially likely is Paul’s violation of ‘food and ritual purity regulations’ due to his ‘ministry among the Gentiles’. Though the Bible does not describe any of these incidents, they most likely resulted from the apostle angering his religious peers for proclaiming the truth about the crucified and risen Messiah. Second, Paul recalled three episodes in which a Gentile mob beat him with wooden rods, perhaps for ‘disturbing the peace’ (Hafemann 2000b:440). This had happened despite the fact that it was illegal for a Roman citizen—such as Paul— to be forced to endure this cruel punishment.65 Third, Paul had once been stoned (v. 25). This was a prevalent form of execution used by the Jews and other peoples in the first century ce. Perhaps the apostle was recalling his experience in Lystra, a city of central Asia Minor.66 Though angry citizens thought they had killed him, he miraculously got up and walked away. Fourth, Paul had been shipwrecked. On the one hand, undergoing this experience was not technically a punishment, but a hazard of travel; on the other hand, it had happened three times to Paul, a frequent traveler. The Bible does not describe any of these three mishaps.67 It was due to one of these shipwrecks that the apostle spent a night and day afloat on the open sea before being rescued. In verse 26, Paul listed eight more kinds of danger he encountered that pointed to the crucicentric nature of his evangelistic outreach.68 During his numerous, long excursions, he was in peril when he tried to ford swift rivers, and his life was threatened when he encountered robbers while traveling on isolated stretches of road. The apostle braved the menace posed by Jews and Gentiles who were hostile to the gospel. He put his life at risk when he ministered in urban centers, as well as when he made his way through remote wilderness areas. Paul withstood the hazard of voyages on the seas and the brutality of people who only pretended to be Christians. Besides the dangers of traveling, voluntary privations for the sake of the Cross made Paul’s life difficult (v. 27).69 These hardships involved such basic needs as 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

Cf. Deut 25:1–3. Cf. Acts 16:22. Cf. Acts 14:19–20. The shipwreck recorded in Acts 27:39–44 occurred after Paul wrote 2 Corinthians. With each subordinate clause being preceded by the Greek noun, kindynois, a dative of manner; ‘in dangers’. 69. Cf. the fourfold use of en as a preposition of means.

116 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

rest, nourishment, and clothing. For example, in the apostle’s efforts to evangelize and teach, he often deprived himself of sleep, even laboring to the point of exhaustion long into the night. Also, whether as part of a religious fast or because his work made it impossible for him to eat properly, he often went without food and drink. Moreover, whether due to his poverty or his generosity to others, Paul frequently did not have enough garments to keep him warm in cold weather. In addition to the preceding external deprivations,70 doctrinal and moral problems that besieged the churches under Paul’s care placed a continual internal burden on him (v. 28). Indeed, his concern extended to the individual members of the church (v. 29). When they felt weak, the apostle also shared in their feelings of weakness. Oppositely, when believers spiritually strayed (skandalizetai; ‘made to stumble’),71 he became intensely upset (pyroumai; ‘burn [with indignation]’).72 Ironically, while setting out to counter the self-commendations of the interlopers, Paul ended up boasting (v. 30)73 about circumstances in his life that showcased his feebleness (astheneias; ‘weakness’).74 For pastoral reasons, the apostle felt it was necessary to do so.75 Specifically, he prided himself in his vulnerability because it furnished opportunities for God’s supernatural power to show itself in Paul’s cruciform life experiences. The fact that the Lord was able to do so much through the apostle’s ministry, despite his hardships, proved the authenticity of his calling. Because his catalog of sufferings appeared far-fetched, he invoked the Creator’s affirming witness. So, while referring to Him as the ‘God and Father’ (v. 31) of the ‘Lord Jesus’, as well as the one who deserved eternal praise, Paul declared that the Creator knew His bondservant was telling the truth. Paul set the record straight by noting that fierce opposition to his preaching had begun in the earliest days of his ministry. He recounted that while he was in Damascus,76 the governor of the region (ethnarche-s; ‘ruler of the people’),77

70. 71. 72. 73. 74.

This was only a partial, representative list. Verb, present, active, indicative. Verb, present, passive, indicative. Cf. the twofold use of the Greek verb, kauchaomai. Noun, genitive, singular, feminine. For an examination of every occurrence of astheneia and its cognates in the Pauline letters, cf. Black (2012). He determines that the concept of weakness is foundational to Paul’s anthropology, Christology, and ethics (151). Black also discerns that ‘through weakness, the power of the resurrection finds its fullest expression in the apostle, in his apostolic mission, and in the communities he founded’ (165). 75. Cf. the use of the verb, dei; present, active, indicative. 76. About 20 years earlier. 77. Noun, nominative, singular.

paul ’ s t h e o log y o f t h e c r o ss  | 117

whom the Nabatean king, Aretas IV Philopatris,78 appointed, had ordered the apostle’s arrest due to his evangelistic activity in the synagogues (v. 32).79 To help him escape certain death, some local believers lowered him in a large, woven rope-basket (sarganē)80 through the window of a house built along the city wall (v. 33).81 So, Paul emphasized that from the beginning of his ministry, God had worked through the apostle’s frailties and humiliations, just as God had done for the decades following the above incident. In short, as Barnett (1997:553–5) notes, the Lord sustained His bondservant—no matter how low he was brought—so that God could raise up His emissary to herald the truth of the Cross. Despite Paul’s reluctance to continue boasting (kauchasthai; 12:1),82 there remained one more area where the apostle felt that it was necessary (dei)83 to counter the assertions of his opponents in Corinth. Because of his crucicentric perspective, Paul admitted that boasting did not edify him spiritually;84 nonetheless, if his rivals could brag about their ‘visions’ (optasias)85 and ‘revelations’ (apokalypseis),86 so could he. Though Paul’s encounter with the risen and glorious Savior was beyond anything the self-stylized ‘super apostles’ (11:5; 12:11) of his day (or anyone else) could imagine, the missionary noted it was counterbalanced by a painful ailment God used to keep His bondservant humble.87 So, with biting irony, Paul turned to visions he received from the Lord.88 As Murphy-O’Connor (1991:118) points out, a ‘journey to another world’ was a ‘common theme in apocalyptic literature’ of Second Temple Judaism.89 The apostle’s reticence to talk about what he saw is evident by his oblique reference 78. 9 bce–40 ce. 79. In an attempt to correlate the parallel accounts concerning Paul in Acts 8, Galatians 1, and 2 Corinthians 11, Harris (2005:826) offers the following reconstruction: (1) Paul’s conversion on the road heading to Damascus (Acts 9:1–8); (2) Paul’s temporary residence in Damascus (vv. 9–24); (3) Paul’s preaching in the synagogues of Damascus (vv. 20–22); (4) Paul’s time in the Nabatean kingdom of Arabia (Gal 1:17); (5) Paul’s return to Damascus (v. 17); (6) Paul’s escape from Damascus (Acts 9:25; 2 Cor 11:32–33); and, (7) Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion (Acts 9:26–29; Gal 1:18–24). 80. Noun, dative, singular, feminine. 81. Cp. Josh 2:15; 1 Sam 9:12; Acts 9:23–25. 82. Verb, present, either middle or passive, infinitive. 83. Verb, present, active, indicative. 84. Cf. the use of the Greek participle, sympheron; ‘profitable, beneficial, advantageous’. 85. Noun, accusative, plural, feminine. These visions were often experienced in dreams. 86. Noun, accusative, plural, feminine. 87. Cf. the reference to ‘thorn in the flesh’ in 2 Cor 12:7. 88. Cf. the plural nouns used in 2 Cor 12:2 and 7. 89. Involving such persons as Enoch, Levi, Moses, Ezra, and Baruch; cf. Collins (2013:236).

118 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

to himself in the third person, as though he were speaking about someone else (12:2). Garland (1989:388) surmises that Paul refused to directly ‘claim this private religious experience as an apostolic credential’. These visions occurred 14 years earlier,90 perhaps a decade after the apostle’s conversion,91 but before his first recorded missionary journey.92 It is possible that he had these experiences around the time he spent ministering in Antioch.93 In the revelatory episodes, Paul was snatched away (harpagenta; ‘caught up’; v. 2)94 to the ‘third heaven’ (tritou ouranou) or ‘paradise’ (paradeison; v. 4).95 Jewish writings of the day subdivided the heavens into three or more layers.96 It remains unclear how much of this thinking Paul accepted, though his wording in verses 2 and 4 suggests he embraced the prevailing Jewish cosmology of a plurality of the heavens. If it is assumed that the first heaven is the sky and the second heaven the more distant stars and planets, the third heaven refers to the place where God dwells. Paradise is the abode of blessedness for the righteous dead. For believers, it also signifies dwelling in fellowship with the exalted Redeemer in unending glory. Though Paul was clear about what he saw (v. 1),97 the apostle was ambiguous about whether he remained in his body or metaphysically drifted out of it during these experiences. He wrote that only God knew for sure what really happened to His bondservant (v. 2). The fact that Paul was suddenly taken up into ‘paradise’ (v. 4) may account for his uncertainty regarding his state during this time (v. 3). Apparently, he entered the throne room of God. In turn, the apostle saw things so sacred and mysterious that he could not express them and heard words that he was not allowed (exon; ‘authorized, permitted’)98 to repeat. Most likely, these ineffable experiences were given to Paul to strengthen him for all the persecution he was to

90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96.

About 45 ce. About 33–34 ce. About 46–48 ce. Cf. Acts 11:25–26. Verb, aorist, passive, participle. Noun, accusative, singular, masculine; a ‘walled enclosure’, such as a garden or park. Cf. Deut 10:14; 1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chron 2:6; 6:18; Neh 9:6; Ps 68:33; Apoc Abraham 19:5–6; Apoc Moses 35:2; 37:5; 40:2; Ascen Isa 3:13, 18; 4:14, 16; 6:13; 7:8, 13, 17–28, 32–37; 8:1, 7–9, 12, 15–16, 19, 21, 25; 9:1, 4, 6, 18–19, 23; 10:1, 5, 8–9, 11–12, 14, 17, 19–27; 11:24–32, 40; 3 Bar 11:1–2; 2 En 8:1; 20:1; 31:1–2; 3 En 17:1; 48:1; Test Levi 2:7; 3:1; 18:5–6; Luke 21:26; Eph 4:10; Col 1:16, 20; 2 Pet 3:5, 7, 10, 12–13. 97. I.e. supernatural revelations from and about the Lord Jesus. 98. Verb, present, active, participle.

paul ’ s t h e o log y o f t h e c r o ss  | 119

endure in the coming years. Surely, these visions served as a constant reminder to him of the glory awaiting him after all his days of affliction on earth.99 Paul did not want his readers to form their opinion about him solely on the basis of his ecstatic visions. That God had granted the apostle a glimpse into glory did not add to his personal status or importance. His boasting was not in receiving spectacular revelations or in being a flamboyant orator,100 but in what God could accomplish through His bondservant despite his infirmities (astheneiais; ‘weaknesses’; v. 5).101 Paul would not be exercising poor judgment (aphrōn; ‘foolish’; v. 6)102 for stating what he actually experienced (alētheian; ‘truth’);103 and even though the apostle’s visions were real, he held himself back (phedomai; ‘I am refraining’)104 from boasting any more about his supranormal experiences. Paul did not want his readers to settle on an opinion of him (logisētai; ‘credit, regard’; v. 6)105 based on whatever he did, said, or experienced;106 instead, the apostle wanted the Corinthians to remember something they could see for themselves, namely, how God had worked openly and repeatedly through His bondservant’s limitations. Paul’s intent here may also have been to caution the Corinthians against gullibly accepting the false apostles’ claims to have had visions. Unlike the theologians of glory, who narcissistically sang their praises to the Corinthians, Paul sought to remain a humble theologian of the cross from start to finish. It was possible that Paul could have been overtaken with pride (hyperairōmai; ‘over-exalted’; v. 7),107 especially after his remarkable (hyperbolē; ‘extraordinary degree or character’)108 visions of the glorious Messiah. So, in order to109 keep His missionary from succumbing to such an enticement, Jesus allowed the apostle to be tormented by a ‘thorn in the flesh’, in which the noun skolops refers to a small, pointed stake, or as Hughes (1962:447) explains, a ‘sharpened wooden shaft’. The referent is clarified further by the appositional phrase ‘a messenger of Satan’.110 The

99. Cf. Acts 9:15–16; Rom 8:17–18. 100. Cf. 1 Cor 2:4; 2 Cor 10:10. 101. Noun, dative, plural, feminine. 102. Adjective, nominative, singular, masculine. 103. Noun, accusative, singular, feminine. 104. Verb, either middle or passive, indicative. 105. Verb, aorist, middle, subjunctive. 106. Including fantastic revelatory encounters. 107. Verb, present, subjunctive. 108. Noun, dative, singular, feminine. 109. Cf. the triple use of the hina adverbial conjunction to denote purpose. 110. In which the Greek noun Satana is understood to be a qualitative genitive.

120 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

divine purpose was to cause Paul harm (kolaphizē; ‘torment, trouble, harass’).111 The result was (as stated above) that he would shun all forms of hubris.112 The Greek phrase rendered ‘thorn in the flesh’ could indicate something mental or physical, as well as huge or tiny, in nature. The obscurity of the apostle’s language makes any identification of his vexation impossible; yet, that has not kept interpreters since the earliest days of the Church from drawing upon biblical and extrabiblical sources in order to venture a guess. One suggestion is that Paul’s affliction may have been Jewish persecution that hindered his work and proved to be an embarrassment in his effort to reach the Gentiles. A second theory is that the apostle’s problem could have been impure thoughts or some other type of temptation. A third conjecture relates Paul’s aggravation to some sort of physical ailment. In this regard, one view holds that severe nearsightedness was the problem. Another option is that it might have been epilepsy, a speech impediment, or a recurring illness, such as malaria. In any case, how could this adversity (regardless of its nature) be both from Jesus and Satan at the same time? One possibility is that the devil actually harassed Paul, while the Savior permitted as well as set limits on the extent of the tormenting He would allow. Paul implored (parekalesa; ‘entreated, appealed’; v. 8)113 the Lord Jesus three times to remove (apostē; ‘would depart, go away’)114 this affliction.115 Keener (2005:240) points out that ‘Paul’s threefold prayer recalls’ the Messiah’s ‘own threefold prayer at Gethsemane, with an analogous result’.116 Though Paul’s request was legitimate, he did not receive the answer he wanted from the Savior; rather, in the midst of the apostle’s excruciating suffering, Jesus revealed a profound truth, one that is at the heart of cruciform theology.117 Specifically, the Redeemer declared that His enablement (charis; ‘grace’; v. 9)118 was all His bondservant needed (arkei; ‘sufficient, enough’).119 The reason120 was

111. Verb, present, active, subjective. 112. Cf. the use of hyperairōmai twice in 2 Cor 12:7. 113. Verb, aorist, active, indicative. 114. Verb, aorist, active, subjunctive. 115. Cf. Acts 7:59–60; 1 Cor 1:2; 16:22; 1 Thess 3:11–13. 116. Cf. Matt 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:40–46. 117. Murphy-O’Connor (1991:119) clarifies that the perfect, active, indicative tense of eirēken (‘he has said’) denotes a ‘permanently valid decision’, one in which there would be ‘no more prayers for release’. 118. Noun, nominative, singular, feminine. 119. Verb, present, active, indicative. 120. Cf. the use of the explanatory conjunction, gar.

paul ’ s t h e o log y o f t h e c r o ss  | 121

that Jesus’ ‘power’ (dynamis)121 was brought to completion or fulfillment (teleitai; ‘perfected’)122 in the believer’s feebleness (astheneia; ‘weakness’).123 Harris (2005:863) points out that in this verse charis and dynamis are ‘essentially synonymous’ in their usage. Within the context of Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic discourse, Schütz (1975:187) describes the interplay between human ‘weakness’ and divine ‘power’ as having a ‘thoroughly dialectical texture’. In the present circumstance, the Savior used the afflictions Christians experienced to manifest His life-giving potency. This seemingly illogical truth, which possibly is the capstone of Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians, summed up his crucicentric approach to ministry. Pickett (1997:166) mentions that the apostle’s opponents considered his infirmities to be an indication of a ‘low social status with respect to the cultural values of Greco-Roman society’; yet, according to Gorman (2001:30), Paul still let the stigma of his cruciform existence define the entire Christological narrative of his ‘life and ministry’. Ultimately, then, his distress was a case wherein Jesus, through His grace, brought eternal good out of temporal anguish. It was also a situation in which, as Lenski (1961:1286) explains, ‘when we are reduced to nothing, God is allowed to be our everything’. Concerning Paul, it was his ‘weakness that made him so excellent a tool for the Lord’ (1306). Given Jesus’ response, Paul discerned that instead of him avoiding tribulation, Jesus’ mighty presence (dynamis; v. 9) would establish its tent-like abode (episkēnōsē; ‘may reside, rest’)124 over the apostle’s life.125 Thrall (2000:828) agrees with other interpreters that Paul had the ‘concept of the Shekinah in mind’, with Exodus 40:34–35 forming the Old Testament backdrop for such a literary connection. In support of this view is 2 Corinthians 3, where Paul conveys his ‘close familiarity with the Exodus theme of the divine glory reflected on the face of Moses’.126 As Matera (2003:286) explains, Paul’s ‘weakness becomes the place or the occasion’ for Jesus to ‘manifest power’. Hafemann (2000a:24) adds that it is also ‘part of the divine plan for the spread of the gospel’. Marshall (2004:297) equates the Savior’s ‘strength’ with the ‘experience’ of God’s ‘grace’. In turn, He ‘enables’ bondservants such as Paul to deal with adversities, including ‘weariness, injury, disease, and death’, as well as ‘poverty and lack of esteem’. Because of their ‘inner experiences of communion with God’, His children are acutely aware of His love. 121. Noun, nominative, singular, feminine. 122. Verb, present, passive, indicative. 123. Noun, dative, singular, feminine. 124. Verb, aorist, active, subjective. 125. Cf. 1 Pet 4:14. 126. Cf. Exod 25:8; Ezek 37:27; Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:34; John 1:14; 2 Cor 6:16; Rev 21:3.

122 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

They also receive from Him the fortitude they need to ‘communicate the gospel effectively’ and invite others to experience new life in baptismal union with the Redeemer. Concerning Paul, personal suffering was an opportunity for his enthusiastic (hēdista; 12:9)127 boasting in the Lord. For this reason (v. 10),128 and in order to benefit (hyper)129 the Savior’s redemptive cause, Paul took delight (eudokō)130 in his afflictions.131 The latter included infirmities (astheneiais; ‘weaknesses’),132 verbal and physical abuses (hybresin; ‘insults’),133 dire circumstances (anankais; ‘distresses’),134 maltreatment (diōgmois; ‘persecutions’),135 and predicaments (stenochōriais; ‘difficulties’).136 The apostle endured all of these troubles because137 the Savior was glorified in His bondservant being weak. It also became the occasion for him being filled with the Lord’s power (dynatos; ‘strong’).138

4.0 Conclusion In chapter 4 of this monograph, I used a case study analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23 to validate that Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality exercised a controlling influence on the Christocentric and Christotelic facets of his writing. The present chapter builds on the preceding assertion by undertaking a case study analysis of 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10 through the prism of his crucicentric thinking (especially in dialogue with a confessional Lutheran perspective). The major premise is that the apostle’s theology of the cross helps to clarify further his Christologicallyoriented, apocalyptic view of reality. For instance, one of Paul’s eschatological convictions was that the Father has triumphed over the malevolent forces of darkness (i.e. Satan, sin, and death) through the Son’s redemptive work at Calvary.

127. Adjective, used with a superlative emphasis. 128. Cf. the use of the inferential conjunction, dio. 129. Preposition of advantage. 130. Verb, present, active, indicative. 131. Cf. the fourfold use of en as a preposition of circumstance. 132. Noun, dative, plural, feminine. 133. Noun, dative, plural, feminine. 134. Noun, dative, plural, feminine. 135. Noun, dative, plural, masculine. 136. Noun, dative, plural, feminine. 137. Cf. the use of the adverbial causal conjunction, gar. 138. Adjective, nominative, singular.

paul ’ s t h e o log y o f t h e c r o ss  | 123

Even more to the point, the Cross is the central historical event and narrative feature of Paul’s end-time view of existence. In my disquisition, I noted that God’s present and future reign is cruciform in character. The Cross is the basis for Jesus’ followers experiencing the blessing of His presence and provision through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Jesus’ redemptive work at Calvary also provides the incentive believers need to live as members of God’s family and citizens of His eternal kingdom. Metaphorically speaking, they are a foretaste of the righteousness, peace, and holiness to be established by the Creator throughout the cosmos at the consummation of the present age. The Church’s role, however, is only possible whenever it conforms itself to the Cross. Given the above observations, it is appropriate to explore through a representative Pauline passage how the apostle’s theologia crucis functioned as a heuristic device. Put differently, there are various prisms through which to view and interpret the Christological facets of Paul’s discourse, including crucicentricity. So, before engaging 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10 in earnest, a synopsis was provided of the apostle’s theology of the cross; yet, because of the extensive secondary literature and the lack of consensus within the academic guild concerning the meaning and significance of Paul’s cruciform outlook, it seemed expedient to approach the latter endeavor from a confessional Lutheran perspective. Historically speaking, this frame of reference has been a major interlocutor (of sorts) for specialists from other philosophical and theological traditions. In stepping back from the synopsis provided, it is clear that secular human culture, whether in the first century or in the twenty-first century, has an aversion to suffering; in contrast, Luther understood the theology of the cross as the heartbeat of Pauline Christocentric and Christotelic teaching. On the one hand, a theology of glory insists that people have the ability to justify themselves before a holy God; on the other hand, the apostle taught that because of the depravity of people and the bondage of their will to sin,139 the cross of Christ is the only true source of spiritual knowledge concerning who God is and how He saves the lost.140 More specifically, it is only at the foot of the cross that fallen persons can receive from the indwelling Spirit genuine insight and understanding concerning the triune God.141 The preceding observations establish the context for a consideration of Paul’s crucicentricity in 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10. An examination of chapters 10–13 indicates his opponents believed that genuine apostles did not suffer; instead, they allegedly experienced the glory of God’s powerful presence by performing signs

139. Cf. Rom 3:9–20; 7:18. 140. Cf. 1 Cor 1:18–31. 141. Cf. Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 1:13–14.

124 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

and wonders. In contrast, though Paul performed miracles, he was convinced that strength in weakness was even more indicative of a genuine apostolic ministry. Indeed, while setting out to counter the self-commendations of the false apostles, Paul ended up boasting about his weaknesses (11:30). The apostle affirmed his vulnerability because it furnished opportunities for Jesus’ power to show itself in His bondservant’s life. The fact that the Savior was able to do so much through Paul’s ministry despite his hardships proved the authenticity of his calling. The Redeemer declared that His all-sufficient grace was brought to completion in Paul’s weakness (12:9). Expressed another way, the fullness of the Son’s strength was most evident in the frailty and limitations of human weakness. Although Jesus would not remove Paul’s affliction (described in vv. 7–8), Jesus promised the apostle that he would never lack divine grace to endure the weakness brought about by any hardship he experienced, particularly for the sake of the Cross. So, instead of being able to avoid tribulation in his life, Paul would be given strength to triumph over it. In turn, this became the Christological focus of his boasting in the Lord. The apostle made general reference to his afflictions, which included infirmities, verbal and physical abuses, dire circumstances, persecutions, and calamities. All of these phenomenon he endured for the cause of Christ because the Savior was glorified in Paul being weak. In short, he was quite content with his infirmities so that he could be filled with the power of the Lord (v. 10). What is striking about the early followers of Jesus, including Paul, is that they endured indignities voluntarily so that a truly Christocentric and Christotelic gospel could be proclaimed to the lost. The effectiveness of the message of the cross is evacuated if the messengers are hucksters and cheats. In contrast, heralding the good news in the midst of suffering commends the oracle to the hearers. So, for example, in 1 Corinthians 1, Paul countered proponents of a theology of glory by emphasizing the theology of the cross. The apostle saw the latter as an effective Christological antidote to the conceit that boasts in ministers rather than in God. Paul’s emphasis on crucicentrism reminds believers that salvation is accomplished through the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus. He did not bring salvation by coming to earth as a powerful monarch, but by taking upon Himself the degradation of Calvary. In turn, Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at the cross is the means by which salvation is accomplished for all who repent and believe.

chapter six

A comparative analysis of the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians

1.0 Introduction The contours of Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic discourse were shaped by the Old Testament and transformed by the cross-resurrection event. This is due, in part, because the apostle affirmed the notion of ‘continuity and advance’ (Fanning 2015:2492) between the Testaments. For instance, in Romans 1:2, he referred to the ‘gospel’ that was ‘promised beforehand’ through God’s ‘prophets’. Likewise, Paul regarded these sacred writings as bearing witness to the ‘righteousness of God’ (3:21), which the Father graciously bestowed through ‘faith’ in the Son (v. 22). Paul communicated this perspective, not just when he shared the gospel in Jewish synagogues, but also when he engaged unsaved Gentiles. A case in point would be the apostle’s speech to the Athenians, which is recorded in Acts 17 and which engages the Song of Moses at a literary, conceptual, and linguistic level.1 The word Deuteronomy means ‘repetition of the law’, and this book is called such because it recites the Law of Moses a second time. Covering the period from about a month before to a month after Moses’ death (c. 1406 bce), Deuteronomy 1. More on this below. What follows in this chapter is a revision of material in my journal article titled ‘A comparative analysis of the Song of Moses and Paul’s Speech to the Athenians’, which appears in Lioy (2013c).

126 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

contains Moses’ reminders to the Israelites about their covenant with the Lord. It also records Moses’ transferring leadership responsibilities to his protégé, Joshua. In this book, the Israelite leader recorded a series of speeches to the Israelites about how they were to conduct themselves when they entered the Promised Land. In an effort to prepare them for the challenge of the future, Moses urged them to recall the laws and experiences of their past. He emphasized those laws that were especially needed for the people to make a successful entrance into Canaan. Just as Deuteronomy is the literary bridge between the Pentateuch and the historical books of the Old Testament, so too Acts spans the gap between the Gospel accounts and the letters of instruction that compose much of the New Testament. Moreover, in Acts, the narrative picks up where the Gospels leave off, telling about the early days of the Christian church. Acts reveals that after Jesus ascended to heaven, the church experienced phenomenal growth. Jesus did not leave His followers unprepared for the task at hand; instead, He gave them the gift of the Holy Spirit, who filled them with supernatural power. Jesus’ followers became a channel for the flow of God’s Spirit. It was an extension of God’s hand, reaching out to do His work in a world full of need. The foregoing preliminary background information helps establish the context for the focus of this chapter, namely, a comparative analysis of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 and Paul’s speech to the Athenians in Acts 17. A cursory glance might suggest that these two passages of Scripture are unrelated; nonetheless, a methodical reading of the respective biblical texts indicates a much closer connection between the two. As noted above, and as the upcoming locution argues, at a literary, conceptual, and linguistic level, Paul connected his message to the Athenians with the worldview of the Song of Moses (and more broadly with that of the Tanakh). One incentive for examining these two portions of God’s Word is that doing so addresses the issue of whether Paul overly diluted his proclamation of the gospel to accommodate the proclivities of his pagan (Gentile) audience. A second motivation for considering the relationship between Deuteronomy 32 and Acts 17 is that this topic has received only a cursory consideration in the secondary academic literature. By way of example, while Gärtner (1955:167–70) overviews the ‘Old Testament–Jewish tradition in the Areopagus speech’, he does not deal with the Song of Moses. Also, even though Hays (1989:163) mentions ‘numerous allusions’ that Paul makes to the ‘Song of Moses in Deuteronomy’, Hays does not specifically consider the apostle’s speech to the Athenians. The discussion provided by Soards (1994:95–100) on Acts 17:22–31 only refers to one possible connection between verse 26 and the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:8 (98). Likewise, Stonehouse (1949:33) makes a solitary reference to this verse (specifically in n 29). Moreover, Scott (1994:543) allocates just one

a compar ative analysis of the song of mo s es a n d pau l ’ s s p ee c h  | 127

paragraph to discuss the same intertextual correspondence. Given (2001:49) also devotes only a single paragraph to summarize the ‘verbal and/or thematic parallels’ between these two biblical passages. Finally, Arnold (2002:390–1), Schnittjer (2006:532–3), and Morgan (2012a:88–9; 2012b:147) each provide less than two pages, respectively, of general comments related to the connection between Deuteronomy 32 and Acts 17.

2.0 Literary parallels between the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians An examination of the secondary literature indicates there is no scholarly consensus concerning the organizational scheme of either the Song of Moses2 or Paul’s speech to the Athenians.3 It is beyond the scope of this chapter to sort out and resolve the disparate views among specialists (assuming it is even possible to do so); instead, this lack of agreement provides an opportunity for taking a fresh approach to the way in which these two passages might be arranged. What follows are the organizational schemes for the respective biblical texts put forward in this chapter, along with an explanation of the relationship between the structural elements. As the analysis below points out, there are potentially intriguing literary parallels that draw attention to the close connection between the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians.

2.1 The organizational scheme for the Song of Moses (Deut. 31:30–32:44) Prologue: 31:30 God’s summon of witnesses: 32:1–3   God’s accusation of Israel’s disloyalty: 32:4–6    God’s loving actions on Israel’s behalf: 32:7–14     God’s indictment of Israel’s rebellion: 32:15–18      God’s decision to punish Israel: 32:19–25 2. Cf. Brueggemann (1997:448); Christensen (2002:792); Labuschagne (2013:2–3, 11); McConville (2002:451); Niehaus (1997:539); Skehan (1951:157–60); Thompson (1974: 296–7); Tigay (1996:299); von Rad (1966:196); Wright (1996:298). 3. Cf. Auffret (1978:202); Barnes (1969:417–8); Bock (2007:558); Fitzmyer (1998:602); Losie (2004:228); Marshall (1980:282); O’Toole (1982:187–8); Parsons (2008:245); Polhill (1992:370); Reese (1976:635); Schnabel (2012:720–1); Soards (1994:96).

128 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

  God’s censure of Israel’s foes: 32:26–31    God’s punishment of Israel’s foes: 32:32–35     God’s vindication of Israel: 32:36–38      God’s execution of justice: 32:39–42 God’s call for songs of praise: 32:43 Epilogue: 32:44 In Deuteronomy 31:1–29, Moses told the Israelites that he was no longer capable of leading them. So, he urged them to be strong and courageous as they entered the land of Canaan. Then, after instructing the people to submit to the leadership of Joshua, the lawgiver presented the written decrees and ordinances to the priests. Moses told them to read the law regularly to God’s people. Moses also foretold that after his death, the Israelites would rebel against the Lord. Next, a representative number of Israelites were summoned to hear their leader recite the words of a lyrical oration. Deuteronomy 31:30 is the Prologue to the Song of Moses. The latter is presented as a ‘prophetic poem’ (Niehaus 1997:530) containing ‘didactic and legal strains’ (Weitzman 1994:393) on the subject of Israel’s future apostasy in Canaan. Verse 30 states that Israel’s lawgiver declared the entire content of the ode to the leaders of the nation who had convened in his presence. Deuteronomy 32:44 is the corresponding Epilogue. This verse not only reiterates what is conveyed in 31:30, but also adds that Joshua4 was with Moses during the recital. Deuteronomy 32:1–3 is God’s summon of witnesses, namely, the ‘heavens’ and the ‘earth’. Moses depicted his speech as instruction that nourished and promoted life. Israel’s leader also regarded the content of his teaching as a proclamation of the Lord’s name, which resulted in His people praising God for His greatness (or magnificence). Verse 43 is the matching call for songs of praise. Moses directed the pagan nations to shout for joy with God’s people. The reason for doing so was the assurance that Israel’s divine Warrior would vindicate the atrocities His foes inflicted upon the Israelites.5 Moreover, the Commander of heaven’s armies

4. Hebrew, Hoshea. 5. According to Hiebert (1992:877), the broad conceptual context within the Old Testament is that of a ‘conflict between Israel’s God and the forces of chaos in the universe as a whole’. There is an underlying assurance that despite the age-old battle between good and evil, the remnant is ‘preserved from all threats against it’. Indeed, as Brueggemann (1997:241) posits, at the eschatological consummation of history, the Lord would ‘defeat all the illicit claimants against public power’. For a sampling of differing exegetical and descriptive treatments of the divine warrior motif in Scripture, cf. Ames (2012); Emery (2003);

a compar ative analysis of the song of mo s es a n d pau l ’ s s p ee c h  | 129

would cleanse the Promised Land and its people of the guilt associated with their iniquity. According to the preceding organizational scheme, a descending stairstep literary pattern is found in verses 4–25 and 26–42, in which the series of verses within each respective group progressively advances or extends Moses’ overall train of thought. For instance, verses 4–6 spotlight God’s accusation of Israel’s disloyalty. This reprimand was warranted because the nation spurned God’s loving actions on the people’s behalf (vv. 7–14). In turn, Israel’s rebellion was the basis for God’s indictment (vv. 15–18). Furthermore, the nation’s culpability led to God’s decision to punish His people (vv. 19–25). The nations God used to discipline Israel were also accountable to Him. Verses 26–31, which parallel the thought in verses 4–6, record God’s censure of Israel’s foes. His reprimand found in verses 32–35 points to the legitimacy of His decision to punish the enemies of His people. This action contrasts sharply with God’s covenantal love for His people, as delineated in verses 7–14. In dealing forthrightly with Israel’s adversaries, God vindicated the cause of His people (vv. 36–38). He remained virtuous in doing so, for He also did not hesitate to hold the Israelites accountable for their crimes (vv. 15–18). Finally, as God punished Israel (vv. 19–25), He likewise executed justice on the nation’s enemies (vv. 39–42).

2.2 The organizational scheme for Paul’s speech to the Athenians (Acts 17:16–34) Prologue: the apostle’s discourse with people in Athens: 17:16–17 The Athenian philosophers’ intrigue with Paul: 17:18–21    The Athenians’ complete ignorance of God: 17:22–23      The creation’s absolute dependence on God: 17:24–25        The total reliance of humanity on God: 17:26–28    The incomparable nature of God: 17:29      The divine summons to repent: 17:30        The future judgment of humanity: 17:31 The mixed response of the Athenians: 17:32 Epilogue: the conversion of some in Athens: 17:33–34 It was during Paul’s second missionary journey (c. 49–52 ce; Acts 15:39–18:22) that he stopped at the city-state of Athens. This center of Greek learning and

Hiebert (1992); Kelle (2008); Klassen (1992); Lind 1980; Longman (2009); Longman and Reid (1995); Miller 2006; Neufeld (1997).

130 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

culture was located five miles inland from the Aegean Sea.6 At the start of the apostle’s excursion from Jerusalem, he took Silas and headed for Galatia by a land route. Then, in Lystra, Timothy joined the team. The Holy Spirit prevented Paul from proclaiming the gospel in Asia and Bithynia. Next, the apostle saw a vision summoning him to Macedonia, where the missionaries won converts and faced opposition. After Paul delivered a girl from an evil spirit, he and Silas were imprisoned in Philippi. An earthquake shattered the prison and led to the conversion of the jailer and his family. Thereafter, from Thessalonica to Berea, opposition followed the missionaries. This impelled Paul’s supporters to escort him to Athens. Meanwhile, Silas and Timothy stayed behind in Berea to establish the new believers. As with the Song of Moses, so too opening and concluding literary elements precede Paul’s speech to the Athenians. Specifically, 17:16–17 is the Prologue, which records the apostle’s discourse with the people in the city. As he got acquainted with the residents, Paul became deeply upset by the sight of the idols throughout Athens. Despite his agitation, the apostle remained tactful as he told others about Jesus and His resurrection. Paul’s interlocutors included Jews and God-fearing Gentiles in the synagogues, as well as patrons the apostle happened to meet in the city’s local marketplace. Verses 33–34 are the corresponding Epilogue. The text notes that a modest number of Athenians were converted before Paul left the city. Verses 18–21 record the Athenian philosophers’ intrigue with Paul. Discussing novel views was the favorite pastime of the elitists and resident foreigners. For all that, some regarded the apostle as an unsophisticated scavenger of ideas, while others were suspicious of the foreign deities he seemed to be peddling. Verse 32 puts forward the matching disdainful response of the intelligentsia. Their initial attitude toward Paul was pejorative, and this explains why they did not hesitate to scoff when he declared the doctrine of rising from the dead. In turn, their disapproval meant the city’s aristocratic Council presumably barred the apostle from any further proclamation of the gospel in Athens.7

6. Cf. Gempf (1993:51); Martin (1992:513); McRay (2000:139); Witherington (1998:513). 7. In the episode involving Paul at Athens, it has been suggested that Luke portrayed the apostle as a philosophical figure whose oratory approach and content mirrored that of Socrates. For instance, the early Greek philosopher (469–399 bce) is said to have dialogued with various interlocutors in the central plaza of the city, introduced foreign deities, and espoused divergent teachings. Also, for these infractions, Socrates was put on trial and sentenced to death by the governing authority. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to deliberate whether the data in Scripture and elsewhere convincingly supports the preceding notion. For contrasting views on this topic, cf. Barrett (1998:824, 828–9, 830); Bock (2007:562–3); Bruce (1988:329–40); Dunn (2009:683); Flemming (2002:209); Given

a compar ative analysis of the song of mo s es a n d pau l ’ s s p ee c h  | 131

As with the Song of Moses, the summary of Paul’s speech in Athens is comprised of two descending stairstep literary patterns. To be specific, verses 22–28 and 29–31, respectively, advance or extend the apostle’s overall train of thought. For instance, verses 22–23 summarize the Athenians’ ignorance of God, which mirrored that of all humankind. Next, verses 24–25 emphasize the severity of this extreme deficit by drawing attention to the creation’s absolute dependence on God. Verses 26–28 narrow the focus even further by spotlighting the total reliance of all humanity on God. As pointed out in verse 29, humankind’s ignorance of God is due in part to His incomparable nature. This text also emphasizes God’s role as the Creator of all human beings and implies that He is their supreme Lord. In conjunction with the truth recorded in verses 24–25 that the creation is absolutely dependent on God, verse 30 goes even further by revealing that He is also the Judge of earth’s inhabitants. It is for this reason that God summons everyone to repent. Verse 31 puts a Christocentric and Christotelic fine point on the declaration found in verses 26–28 that all humanity is totally reliant on God, by revealing that He would one day judge humanity through Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Lord raised from the dead.

3.0 Conceptual and linguistic parallels between the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians The preceding section detailed possible literary parallels in the organizational schemes of the Song of Moses and Paul’s Speech to the Athenians. Concededly, as suggestive as these similarities might be, in isolation they do not establish with certainty a strong connection between these two portions of Scripture. In point of fact, it is at the conceptual and linguistic levels that the connection becomes clearer and confirms a primary assertion in this chapter. Specifically, as the following locution emphasizes, Paul connected his message to the Athenians with the theological perspective of the Song of Moses (and more broadly with that of the Tanakh). Accordingly, section 3.1 engages in an analysis of the Song of Moses. Then, section 3.2 examines Paul’s speech to the Athenians. In doing so, the analysis draws upon the information in section 3.1 to call attention to the conceptual and linguistic parallels between the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians.8 (2001:4, 41–2, 56–9, 62–5, 67, 70, 76); Losie (2004:224–5); Marshall (1980:284); Peterson (2009:490); Rowe (2009:30, 31–3, 34–5); Sandnes (1993:20–5); Schnabel (2012:727); Tannehill (1994:214); Walaskay (1998:166–7). 8. Technically referred to as ‘intertextual echoes’ (Litwak 2004:199). Due to the space limitations of this chapter, only ‘scriptural intertexts in Paul’s speech’ (203)—in particular, the Song of Moses, and in general, the Tanakh—are considered.

132 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

3.1 An analysis of the Song of Moses According to the organizational scheme for the Song of Moses adopted in section 2.2, Deuteronomy 32:1–3 is God’s summon of witnesses, specifically, the ‘heavens’ and the ‘earth’.9 This is paralleled in Deuteronomy 32:43 by God’s call for songs of praise from the ‘nations’ with (or concerning) His ‘people’.10 The correspondence between Deuteronomy 32:1–3 and verse 43 is even stronger in the Septuagint version of verse 43, which reads, ‘Rejoice, O heavens, with Him’. Then the verse adds, ‘Prostrate before Him, all you gods’. The reason for the above response is given in verses 2–3. In particular, Moses’ soliloquy of the Creator’s just dealings with Israel and the nations was said to be as spiritually refreshing as a gentle rain on tender grass and nourishing as plentiful showers on newly sprouting plants. The equitable way in which God dealt with all humankind attested to the eminence of His ‘name’. ‘Lord’ translates the ‘four Hebrew consonants YHVH’ (Tigay 1996:431), which most likely was ‘pronounced Yahweh’. This ‘redemptive, covenant name’ (Wright 1996:300) pointed to the distinctive character and attributes of God—who alone is eternally ‘self-sufficient’ (von Rad 1966:199).11 The sacred name also affirmed the ‘greatness’ (Deut. 32:3) of the Creator’s divinity.12 In comparison to Israel’s God, all the pagan deities venerated by people were powerless and lifeless idols.13 For this reason, God alone deserved to be worshiped. Verse 43 echoes this sentiment and adds that the divine Warrior would punish His adversaries for shedding the ‘blood’ of His ‘servants’.14 Likewise, He would vindicate their cause by making ‘atonement’ for the Promised Land, as well as cleanse His people of their iniquities. The preceding information indicates that the Song of Moses, while having liturgical and wisdom elements,15 is comparable to a covenant lawsuit oracle in which the Creator presented the evidence and rendered His verdict.16 In this 9. Cf. Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; Isa 1:2; 34:1; Mich 1:2; 6:1–2. In this section, unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are my personal translation of the respective biblical texts being cited. 10. Cf. Rom 15:10. 11. Cf. the discussion at end of section 3.1 in chapter 2 of this monograph on the Hebrew term, Yahweh. 12. Cf. Exod 3:14–15; 33:19; 34:5–6; Deut 12:5, 11, 21; 14:23–24; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; Ps 105: 1–2; Kaiser (1980:934); Ross (1997:147); Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman (1998:584–5). 13. I.e. inanimate objects people made from common elements such as stone, metal, or wood. 14. Cf. 2 Kings 9:7; Ps 79:10; Rev 6:10; 16:6; 18:20; 19:2. 15. Cf. Driver (1986:345); Leuchter (2007:295); Weitzman (1994:377–8). 16. Cf. Chavalas (2003:577); Oswalt (2003:856); Thompson (1974:207).

a compar ative analysis of the song of mo s es a n d pau l ’ s s p ee c h  | 133

imaginary courtroom scene, God is depicted as the plaintiff and prosecuting attorney, the heavens and the earth are the jury, and humankind is the accused.17 On the one hand, Israel was guilty of violating the Mosaic covenant; on the other hand, the surrounding pagan nations were culpable for atrocities they committed against the covenant community. Whether it was the supreme Lord’s dealings with Israel (vv. 4–25) or with the pagan nations (vv. 26–42), He remained just in His pronouncements and upright in His actions. With respect to Israel, the nation’s disloyalty is summarized in verses 4–6. Throughout the Israelites’ existence, God proved Himself to be their trustworthy and unfailing ‘Rock’.18 His deeds were characterized by integrity and truth, and all His actions were righteous and virtuous.19 In contrast to the fidelity and equity the Creator displayed, His people behaved in a perverted manner toward Him. This moral stain indicated they had repudiated being God’s ‘children’ (v. 5).20 Indeed, entire generations were characterized by perversion and duplicity. It was inconceivable that the covenant community would respond to their Creator in such a ‘foolish’ (v. 6) and senseless manner. After all, as their ‘Father’, He cared for, protected, and sustained them. The latter virtues were demonstrated in God’s redemption of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, establishing them as a nation, and settling them in the Promised Land.21 Verse 6 serves as an important reminder that the ‘fatherhood of God’ (Wright 1996:306) did not originate with the New Testament; instead, the concept has ‘deep roots in the relationship between God and Israel’.22 Verses 7–14 provide more details concerning God’s loving actions on Israel’s behalf. This information further established the Creator’s integrity and rectitude, while at the same time confirmed Israel’s guilt in betraying His trust. The covenant community was directed to recall ‘days’ from long ago and deliberate on past ‘generations’. Younger persons were to seek understanding and insight from their elders concerning the ancient origins of the world, its inhabitants, and the nations that ruled over them. In this context, ‘Most High’23 depicts God as sitting

17. Cf. Ps 50; Isa 1; Jer. 2; Mic 6. 18. I.e. source of refuge, protection, and strength; cf. Gen 49:24; Pss 18:2; 19:14; Baker (2003:365); Hill (1997:793); van der Woude (1997:1070). 19. Cf. Deut 9:5; Pss 7:11; 36:7; 119:149; Isa 30:18. 20. Cf. Deut 14:1–2; Hos 1:9. 21. Cf. Bray (2000:515–6); Oswalt (2003:854); Payne (1980a:5). 22. Cf. Exod 4:22; Isa 63:16; 64:8; Jer 3:19; 31:9; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10. 23. Hebrew, Elyon, which occurs only here in Deuteronomy.

134 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

enthroned high above His dominion. He is portrayed as the supreme potentate over the cosmos and the sovereign monarch of the earth.24 Deuteronomy 32:825 reflects an ancient Hebrew conception of the universe in which God’s people divided the world into heaven, earth, sea, and the underworld.26 More specifically, they visualized the earth as being a flat, disk-shaped landmass that was completely surrounded by water. Pillars supported the ground, while mountains located on the distant horizon upheld the sky. The sky itself was thought to be a solid dome or tent-like structure on which the celestial bodies27 were engraved and moved in tracks. In this ancient three-tiered view of the cosmos, rain, hail, and snow28 fell to earth through openings. God’s temple was situated in the upper heavens, which in turn rested atop the sky.29 The Jerusalem temple was the earthbound counterpart to the divine abode. The realm of the dead was considered a grimy and watery region located beneath the earth and called the underworld.30 Deuteronomy 32:8 draws attention to the Creator’s goodness and graciousness to all humankind. For instance, after He brought the human race into existence, God divided up the ‘nations’ and allocated their dominions. He also separated groups of Adam’s descendants from one another and established their geographical boundaries.31 Apparently, the Lord did so with Israel in mind, that is, in conjunction with His plans and purposes for His chosen people. Whereas the Hebrew text of verse 8 reads the ‘sons of Israel’, the Septuagint has the ‘angels of God’ and the Dead Sea Scrolls read ‘sons of God’.32 Perhaps in these variant readings, the idea is that the Creator made different members of His heavenly assembly (or divine counsel) responsible for the oversight of particular nations.33 In contrast, as verse 9 reveals, the Lord made His chosen people—collectively referred to as ‘Jacob’34— His special allotment and prized ‘inheritance’.35 24. Cf. Gen 14:18–22; Num 24:16; Pss 18:13; 21:7; 78:17, 35, 56; 82:6; 91:1; 92:1; Baker (2003:361); Carr (1980:669); Zobel (2001:124–5). 25. Along with the entire Song of Moses. 26. Cf. Ps 82:5; Prov 8:29; Isa 24:18; Haarsma and Haarsma (2007:112–5); Lioy (2011:42); Walton (2009:12–3). 27. Namely, the sun, moon, and stars. 28. From an immense body of water located above the overarching sky. 29. Or lower heavens. 30. Or Sheol. 31. Cf. the Tower of Babel incident recounted in Gen 11:1–9. 32. Cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; Ps 82:6; Jacob (1958:218); McConville (2002:448); Smith (1993:230, 287); Thompson (1974:299). 33. Cf. Pss 82:1; 89:5–7; Dan 10:13–21; 12:1. 34. Cf. Num 23:7, 10, 21, 23; 24:5, 17–19. 35. Cf. Gen 32:28; Deut 4:20; 18:1–2; Albright (1959:343); Clements (1998:527); Craige (1976:379); Miller (1990:229).

a compar ative analysis of the song of mo s es a n d pau l ’ s s p ee c h  | 135

Verses 10–14 further specify how God cared for the Israelites, especially after liberating them from their Egyptian tyrants. Through the episode involving the ten plagues, the Creator demonstrated His utter superiority over the pantheon of deities venerated by Pharaoh and his subordinates. After Israel’s emancipation, the subsequent place of the nation’s sojourn—the Sinai desert—is depicted as a barren wilderness filled with ‘howling’ winds and predators. Over the next four decades, the Creator repeatedly surrounded His people with His presence and watched over them as the ‘pupil of His eye’. According to one view, this Hebrew idiom refers to the most precious and fragile aspect of the eye, which required safeguarding in order to preserve one’s ability to see. According to another view, the phrase denotes the movement of the pupil, which was associated with being alert and attentive. In either case, the emphasis is on the provision of protection, such as that which God graciously provided for Israel.36 The Creator not only safeguarded His people, but also abundantly provided for them. Verses 11 and 12 compare God to an ‘eagle’ that stirred up its ‘nest’ and hovered closely over its ‘young’.37 The adult birds of prey regularly ‘spread out’ (v. 11) their ‘wings’, caught their nestlings, and used their ‘pinions’ to lift up their young. In a similar way, the Lord alone upheld and guided His people. Indeed, it was only He who watched over and led them during their time in the wilderness. No assortment of pagan deities38 accompanied or assisted God in bringing the Israelites to the Promised Land (v. 12).39 According to verses 13 and 14, the Creator alone enabled His people to traverse the elevated portions of Canaan and enjoy the crops the land produced. Moreover, it was only the Lord who provided the Israelites with ‘honey’ from the surface of the rocks and olive ‘oil’ from the stony crags.40 Likewise, the supreme and unique God enabled the covenant community to enjoy ‘curds’ obtained from herds of cattle and ‘milk’ from flocks of sheep. As well, it was the Lord, not the pantheon of gods and goddesses belonging to the surrounding nations, that gave Israel the means to savor the finest part of young ‘lambs’, stout ‘rams’ from Bashan,41 along with goats, the healthiest kernels of wheat,42 and fermented, blood-red wine made from the choicest grapes. 36. Cf. Barabas (2009:266); Harrison (1980:215); Kalland (1992:204); Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman (1998:256); Tigay (1996:304). 37. Cf. Exod 19:4. 38. Such as those venerated by the nations of the ancient Near East. 39. Cf Deut. 5:6–7; Hos 13:4. 40. Cf. Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev 20:24; Num 14:8; Deut 6:3; Ps. 81:16. 41. A fertile locale on the east side on the upper Jordan River; cf. Deut 3:1–11; Amos 4:1; Huey (2009:521); LaSor (1980:436); Slayton (1992:623). 42. Literally, ‘fat of the kidneys of wheat’.

136 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

God’s loving actions on Israel’s behalf, as detailed in verses 7–14, made His indictment of the nation’s rebellion, as specified in verses 15–18, starker. Israel is symbolically referred to ‘Jeshurun’, a Hebrew noun that literally means ‘upright one’ and draws to mind the reference in verse 4 to God as being ‘upright’. Indeed, the underlying Hebrew terms are lexically related;43 yet, ironically, what was true of the Lord did not apply to His people, who became perverted in their moral and spiritual character. The Lord’s goodness enabled the nation, like a well-fed animal, to grow fat and bloated. Tragically, the Israelites reciprocated by obstinately kicking against God’s will, thrusting aside any covenantal allegiance to their Creator, and despising the ‘Rock’ (vv. 4, 15) who brought about their deliverance. Moreover, the Israelites’ veneration of pagan deities, along with their participation in abhorrent rituals,44 incited the Lord to jealous anger (v. 16).45 They made sacrifices to demons, not to God.46 These were malevolent spiritual entities, whom the Israelites never knew, especially in the way they had experienced the Creator’s overflowing and constant provision.47 Furthermore, the people prostrated before newly concocted idols,48 which the nation’s ancestors never dreaded (v. 17). In summary, the Israelites disregarded the One who, like a nurturing mother,49 brought them into existence and they became oblivious to the One who graciously sustained them (v. 18). Israel’s rebellion, as delineated in verses 15–18, vindicated God’s decision to punish the nation, as described in verses 19–25. There is an element of ironic justice at work. Specifically, just as the Israelites had despised and abandoned their Creator, so too He ‘spurned’ them. This did not mean He ignored the detestable behavior of His spiritual children; rather, in an appropriate response, their Rock hid His ‘face’ from them, which figuratively means He withdrew His protective, sustaining presence.50 An horrific outcome resulted as the nation experienced

43. Yeshurun and yashar, respectively; cf. Baker (2003:361); Driver (1986:361); Knauth (2003:454); Wiseman (1980:418). 44. Including shrine prostitution, child sacrifice, and so on. 45. Cf. Num 25:11; Deut 4:24; 5:9; 6:15. 46. Cf. Lev 17:7; Ps 106:37; 1 Cor 10:20. 47. Cf. Carpenter (2009:518); Hadley (1997:715); Merrill (2003b:517). 48. I.e. ‘deities-come-lately’; Christensen (2002:806). 49. Cf. Isa 66:13. 50. Cf. Rom 1:24, 26, 28, along with the notion of ‘divine sabotage’ exposited in Lioy (2008a). The preceding study uses this concept to draw attention to the Creator’s judgment of recalcitrant humanity. In particular, God has imposed limitations on the human race that undermine the efforts of people to look beyond the present, including their attempts to grapple with the past and probe into the future. Furthermore, because people are creatures

a compar ative analysis of the song of mo s es a n d pau l ’ s s p ee c h  | 137

incessant natural disasters and war. In keeping with the Lord’s accusation in verse 5, He declared in verse 20 that ongoing generations of Israelites were characterized by moral perversion and disloyalty. Verses 21–25 delineate the consequences of the nation’s violations of the covenant detailed earlier in the Song of Moses. For instance, they enraged their Creator by venerating powerless, lifeless ‘idols’. The latter renders the Hebrew noun hevel, which literally means ‘empty things’ or ‘things of a mere breath’.51 In turn, God pledged to vex Israel by permitting unknown foreigners to overrun the nation.52 These foes were thoroughly pagan and seemingly foolish (yet ruthless) in their demeanor. The Lord’s righteous indignation was comparable to an inferno that penetrated the depths of Sheol, devoured whatever the earth produced, and incinerated the planet’s ‘mountains’ (v. 22) to their ‘foundations’. The divine Warrior promised to overwhelm His people with ‘calamities’ (v. 23), and like a hunter exterminate them with His ‘arrows’.53 Malnutrition brought on by ‘famine’ (v. 24) would emaciate the idolatrous Israelites, and disease would devour and destroy them. God would permit the fangs of wild animals to attack His people, and He would let venomous snakes poison individuals. Foreign invaders would slaughter many Israelites in their towns and farms, as well as terrorize the nation’s inhabitants within their residences. All echelons of society would be imperiled—whether young or old, single persons or parents (v. 25). Even though the Creator would use pagan foes to afflict His wayward people, verses 26–42 indicate that He would not allow the aggressors to act with impunity. For instance, in verses 26–31, God censured Israel’s enemies for their relentless brutality. Aside from the Lord’s restraint, the antagonists would have massacred so many Israelites that the surrounding nations would no longer remember that God’s people once existed. Whereas the Hebrew text reads, ‘I will cut them to pieces’, the Septuagint says, ‘I would scatter them abroad’. Both renderings draw attention to how extensively Israel’s existence was threatened by the devastation brought by cruel adversaries. If the Lord had allowed the Israelites to be completely exterminated, His reputation would be jeopardized by the deriding comments their enemies made.54 The oppressors would delude themselves into thinking their military strength was of time, their heavenly-imposed finitude subverts their ability to overcome their limitations, as well as leaves them feeling confused, powerless, and frustrated to forge ahead in life. 51. Cf. Pss 39:5–6; 62:9; Eccl 1:1; 12:8; Isa 57:13; Albertz (1997:1:351–3); Johnston (1997:1003–5); Seybold (1997: 3:313–20). 52. Cf. Rom 10:19. 53. Cf. the covenant curses detailed in Lev 26:14–39 and Deut 28:15–68, respectively. 54. Cf. Deut 9:28; 1 Sam 12:22; Ezek 36:21–38.

138 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

entirely responsible for their victory over God’s people. Such a false conclusion indicated the foes were devoid of prudence and discernment (v. 28). Because Israel’s adversaries were bereft of God-given wisdom, they failed to recognize the Creator’s hand in their victory and in their demise (v. 29). A relatively small number of antagonists were overwhelmingly triumphant over God’s people because their ‘Rock’ (v. 30) had withdrawn His protective presence. In this regard, their foes conceded that the purposes and plans of Israel’s God differed radically from the pagan deities venerated by the surrounding nations (v. 31). God’s censure of Israel’s opponents was warranted (vv. 26–31) and it justified His decision to punish the antagonists (vv. 32–35). After all, they planted their roots in the depraved soil that previously characterized the doomed cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.55 The resulting harvest was like snake’s ‘poison’ (v. 33) and a cobra’s deadly ‘venom’. Similarly, the corresponding fruit would be the bitter experience of the Creator’s judgment. Israel’s enemies failed to understand that the Lord remained sovereign in deciding either victory or defeat for the nations of the earth. Whatever fate lay in store for them rested entirely with God (v. 34). Indeed, ‘vengeance’ (v. 35; or ‘vindication’) and ‘recompense’ belonged exclusively to Him.56 The surefootedness of Israel’s foes was temporary. The divine Warrior declared that at the appointed time, ‘calamity’ would overtake the antagonists. No matter how hard they tried, they could not avert the swift approach of their impending ‘doom’. By punishing Israel’s opponents (vv. 32–35), God would vindicate His people (vv. 36–38). In turn, the Creator would render a favorable verdict on behalf of His beleaguered children. With the wiping out of both slave and free persons among the Israelites, their ability to defend themselves would vanish. So, in a display of compassion, the Lord would relent from permitting the wholesale slaughter of His ‘servants’.57 In that moment of deliverance, the one, true, and living God would ask concerning the whereabouts of the pagan deities His people previously sought for protection (v. 37). These were the idols the Israelites foolishly venerated in ritualistic practices. With a tone of sarcasm, the Lord urged His people to verify whether these false gods and goddesses could really shelter the Israelites from their adversities (v. 38). The nation’s experience would prove that God alone was their source of refuge and strength.

55. Cf. Gen 13:10–13; 18–19; Deut 29:23; Isa 1:10; 3:9; Jer 23:14; Lam 4:6; Ezek 16:44–52; Matt 10:15; 11:23–24. 56. Cf. Ps 135:14; Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30. In Deut 32:35, the Septuagint alternately reads, ‘I will repay’, which does not change the essential meaning of the passage. 57. Cf. Ps 135:14.

a compar ative analysis of the song of mo s es a n d pau l ’ s s p ee c h  | 139

Once the Creator brought His punishment of Israel to an end (vv. 19–25), He would complete His execution of justice by trouncing the nation’s antagonists and the pantheon of deities they revered (vv. 39–42). He alone could bring all this about, for only He was the self-existent Lord of the cosmos.58 None of the idols venerated by the nations of the world could make this claim. Likewise, there were no gods and goddesses of the ancient Near East who could challenge the Lord’s assertion to be the sole source of death and life. He alone overturned nations and restored peoples, and not a single entity could snatch itself out of His omnipotent ‘hand’ (v. 40) of judgment. Verse 40 metaphorically depicts the Creator raising up His ‘hand to heaven’ and making a solemn oath as the eternal Lord.59 He vowed to seize His gleaming ‘sword’ (v. 41) and make it razor sharp. Then, as He clasped His instrument of ‘judgment’, He would bring retribution on His opponents. The divine Warrior would repay the tyrants for cruelly oppressing His people. He would satiate His ‘arrows’ (v. 42) with the ‘blood’ of His foes, and He would use His ‘sword’ to consume His enemies. A grisly scene is depicted in which God’s instrument of justice adversely struck the enemies’ highest-ranking combatants,60 along with the slaughtered and captured in battle.61

3.2 An analysis of Paul’s speech to the Athenians The intent here, as noted in section 3.0, is to examine Paul’s speech to the Athenians. This oration, which is characterized by apologetic, philosophical, and juridical elements,62 calls attention to the ‘universal scope of God’s saving work’ (Tannehill 1994:210).63 As the upcoming analysis is undertaken, it draws upon the information in section 3.1 to call attention to the conceptual and linguistic parallels between Paul’s speech and the Song of Moses (and more broadly with that of the Tanakh). In keeping with the approach adopted in section 3.1, the

58. Cf. Exod 3:14–15; 15:11; Deut 4:35, 39; Ps 113:4–6; Isa 41:4; 43:10, 13; 44:6; 45:6–7, 21–22; 48:12. 59. Cf. Gen 14:22; Exod 6:8; Num 14:21, 28, 30; Ps 90:2; Isa 49:18; Jer 22:24; Ezek 5:11. 60. These antagonists possibly grew their hair long to signal religious devotion or to appear more fearsome to their foes; cf. Num 6:1–21; Judg 13:1–5; 16:17; Ps 68:21. 61. Cf. Clements (1998:528); Kalland (1992:215); Keil and Delitzsch (1982:491); McConville (2002:450); Miller (1990:233); Thompson (1974:303). 62. Cf. Alexander (2006:197); Barrett (1998:825–6); Fitzmyer (1998:601). 63. Cf. Luke 2:30–32; 3:6; Acts 26:17–18, 23. In this section, unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are my personal translation of the respective biblical texts being cited.

140 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

assessment presented below follows the organizational scheme for Paul’s speech appearing in section 2.2. Accordingly, Acts 17:16–17, as the Prologue to the apostle’s oration, provides the context for his discourse with people in Athens. Paul had time on his hands, since he was waiting for Silas and Timothy to depart from Berea and rejoin the apostle (v. 14). As Paul progressively made his way through Athens, he focused his attention on the multitude of graven images scattered throughout the pagan shrines in the city. The language of verse 16 evokes the ‘image of a forest of idols’ (Wall 2002:244). It did not take long for the apostle to become exasperated by what he saw and to formulate a ‘prophetic anti-idol polemic’ (Litwak 2004:2002) in response to his interlocutors at Athens. The imperfect passive indicative tense of the Greek verb paroxynō indicates that Paul’s agitation was ongoing, especially as he encountered one idol after another.64 Correspondingly, the apostle took every opportunity he could get65 to discourse with a variety of different groups.66 This included Jews and God-fearing Gentiles,67 both of whom congregated in the synagogue on the Sabbath. Paul also deliberated with the patrons he encountered in the marketplace of Athens68 from one day to the next (v. 17).69 As the ‘main public space in the city’ (Gill 1994:445), the downtown plaza was the ‘economic, political and cultural heart’ for the residents of Athens. A superficial scan of the Prologue might leave the incorrect impression that, for the most part, the apostle’s time in Athens was unprofitable; yet, an entirely different conclusion arises from an examination of the Epilogue in verses 33–34. Admittedly, on the one hand, despite Paul’s efforts to share the Christological truth of the gospel, it did not result in droves of converts. Still, on the other hand, even as the apostle exited from the Areopagus (v. 33), a modest number of new believers accompanied him (v. 34). Of particular note were such converts as Dionysius, who was a member of the Council, along with a woman named Damaris and a few other unnamed individuals.70

64. Cf. Polhill (1992:366); Reese (1976:621); Witherington (1998:512). 65. Cf. the imperfect middle indicative tense of the Greek verb dialegomai. 66. Cf. Rogers and Rogers (1998:274); Peterson (2009:489); Schnabel (2012:724). 67. I.e. devout non-Jews who worshiped the God of Israel and attempted to keep the Mosaic Law. 68. Including the Roman Forum and the Greek Agora. 69. Cf. Arnold (2002:386); Evans (2004:117); Schnabel (2005:172–3). 70. ‘Areopagus’ literally means ‘Hill of Ares’, and it was where the Athenian Council met to decide ethical, cultural, and religious matters. Ares was the Greek god of war and thunder.

a compar ative analysis of the song of mo s es a n d pau l ’ s s p ee c h  | 141

Verses 18–21 state why Paul gave a speech to the members of the Athenian council. The apostle had caught the attention of some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, among whom he dialogued and debated the truths of the gospel. Carson (2000:390) notes that there were ‘other Greek and Latin worldviews’ in vogue during the lifetime of Paul. For instance, Acts 17 does not draw attention to either the ‘sophists’ or the ‘atheistic philosophical materialists’. Regardless, the apostle endeavored to proclaim the good news about Jesus of Nazareth to people ‘deeply committed to one fundamentally alien worldview or another’. More generally, Paul’s address ‘reflects Stoic ideas about God’ (Neyrey 1990); yet, even then, the apostle’s oration charts a rigorously biblical course by focusing its ‘narrative logic’ on ‘God’s providential action in the world’ (a theocentric emphasis) and the ‘role of Jesus as Judge’ over all humankind (a Christocentric and Christotelic emphasis). In brief, the Epicureans were materialists who valued sense-experience and mental repose. They also spurned the notion of a bodily resurrection, considered organized religion to be the source of all evils, and regarded pleasure71 as the chief aim of life. Like the Epicureans, the Stoics rejected the idea of a bodily resurrection. Adherents also embraced a deterministic, pantheistic worldview, as well as emphasized the value of logic,72 an empirical understanding of knowledge, and the importance of virtue coupled with duty. Whereas Epicureans believed that death was the end of all existence, Stoics were convinced that at death the eternal soul disengaged from the temporal body and was united with the divine.73 While the account in Acts ‘singles out the Stoics and Epicureans for special mention’ (Wilson 1973:196), these two philosophical views are representative of a ‘wider reality’ that was prevalent in Greece at the time. Some regarded Paul as an ignorant forager of confused and incoherent notions,74 while others were wary of the alien spiritual entities he seemed to be hawking: e.g. a male deity named ‘Jesus’75 and a female deity/consort named ‘Resurrection’.76 These

71. 72. 73.

74. 75. 76.

Ares was analogous to Mars in the Roman pantheon; hence, the alternative name for the site of ‘Mars’ Hill’; cf. Gempf (1993:51–2); Martin (1992:370); Rupprecht (2009:337). Especially the absence of pain and anxiety. Particularly universal reason or the logos. Cf. Asmis (1992:55–60); Barrett (1998:829); Clark (2009a:364–5; 2009b:610–1); Dunn (2009:683–4); Flemming (2002:204); Paige (1993:716); Rost (2004:116–8); Schmeller (1992:210–2). According to Winter (1996:80), in Acts 17:18, the Greek noun, spermologos, refers to a ‘rag-bag collector of scraps of learning’. A masculine noun in Greek. Based on the underlying feminine Greek noun, anastasis; cf. Brown (1986b:261); Flemming (2002:200); Gempf (1993:52); Martin (1992:52); Witherington (1998:515).

142 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

disparaging attitudes, which conveyed ‘intellectual contempt’ ( Jipp 2012:571), resulted from hearing the apostle proclaim the Christological truth about the Messiah, particularly His rising from the dead (v. 18). The intense curiosity of the intelligentsia prompted a group of them to take Paul into custody and escort him to the Areopagus. There, in response to their interrogation, he spoke at length about the ‘new teaching’ (v. 19) the elitists heard him proclaim. Because the philosophers found the apostle’s notions both unfamiliar and startling, they wanted him to explain the meaning and significance of his discourse (v. 20). This interest reflected the common practice among resident Athenians and foreigners in the city to idle their time away by exchanging new and novel ideas with one another (v. 21). For the preceding reason, the Council assembled to pass judgment on Paul’s religious ideas. Ironically, his speech would reveal that it was the elitists who were guilty of adhering to a mishmash of chaotic and jumbled thoughts. The apostle began his oration by collectively referring to his listeners as ‘men of Athens’ (v. 22). This statement reflects the predominately patriarchal nature of Hellenistic culture; nonetheless, as verse 34 indicates, there were at least a few women in the gathering, including a convert named Damaris.77 Presumably, the size of the Athenian audience with whom Paul spoke—while standing in the midst of the Areopagus—was diminutive in comparison to the number of Israelites whom Moses addressed toward the end of his life (v. 22); nonetheless, based on the strong, mixed response Paul received, as described in verse 32, what he declared was just as substantive and no less provocative. This is to be expected, since, in keeping with the primary assertion of this chapter, and as the following assessment indicates, the apostle’s remarks drew upon the monotheistic outlook of the Song of Moses. Paul astutely used the time he had spent in discourse with the people of Athens.78 He discerned that in every conceivable way, his listeners were extremely ‘religious’ (Acts 17:22). The apostle’s opening statement is technically referred in GrecoRoman rhetoric as captatio benevolentiae, a Latin expression that generally means ‘an attempt to establish goodwill’.79 On the one hand, Paul was complimenting his listeners for their piety;80 on the other hand, as verse 23 indicates, Paul also drew attention to their spiritual ignorance and superstition. The paradox is that even though the members of the intelligentsia considered themselves to be enlightened and sagacious, they were ignorant of and failed to discern God’s true nature. There is also an ironic reversal of roles, in which it was the beliefs of the Athenian elitists, not just those of the apostle, which were under scrutiny. 77. 78. 79. 80.

Cf. Peterson (2009:504); Schnabel (2012:743); Witherington (1998:532–3). Cf. Acts 17:16–17. Cf. Charles (1995:54); Majercik (1992:711); Winter (1993:821); Zweck (1989:100). Cf. Alexander (2006:197); Walaskay (1998:166); Wallace (1996:300–1).

a compar ative analysis of the song of mo s es a n d pau l ’ s s p ee c h  | 143

As noted in section 3.1, the Song of Moses is analogous to a covenant lawsuit oracle in which the Creator, after presenting His evidence against Israel and the nation’s foes, announced His verdict. Correspondingly, Paul’s soliloquy to the Athenians evaluates their beliefs, priorities, and practices and renders the divine verdict of guilt. During the apostle’s excursion through the city, he looked attentively at the objects representing the idols the people venerated. Paul found especially noteworthy an elevated platform on which was engraved the epigraph, ‘to an unknown God’ (v. 23). The implication is that the altar was dedicated to any deity the devout Athenians had failed to consider. The motivation for doing so was their fear of offending some overlooked deity. The apostle made the preceding altar an appropriate starting point for the main proposition of his discourse.81 Paul recognized that the worldview of his Hellenistic audience was characterized by dualism, pantheism, and polytheism. In part, his evangelistic ‘strategy’ (Muñoz-Larrondo 2012:200) involved ‘mimicry’, that is, ‘appropriating the message of the philosophers’ to draw attention to the Christological truth about Jesus of Nazareth. On one level, the apostle used the ‘intellectual, philosophical and linguistic traditions of his audience’ (Schnabel 2005:184) to create a ‘bridgehead for the proclamation’ of the gospel; on another level, even though Paul avoided saturating his oration with Old Testament quotations, the speech remained thoroughly grounded in the biblical mindset of the Song of Moses. This includes the scriptural truth of God’s ‘incomprehensibility’ (Gerrish 1973:265) apart from special revelation.82 In Acts 17:23, Paul stated that he would disclose what his audience, in their ‘ignorance’, tried to revere. Put another way, the apostle would make known to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (among other elitists) what they failed to recognize and comprehend. Paul would do so by pointing them to the Messiah, who as the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected Son of God, made the Creator fully known.83 As the Song of Moses reveals, the so-called ‘unknown’ deity was also the only true and living God (Deut. 32:39). Both the Israelites and their foes were spiritually deficient in their understanding of His nature. For instance, the Israelites’ perversion and duplicity—including their idolatrous practices (v. 5)—pointed to their foolishness and imprudence. Israel’s enemies were even more steeped in spiritual darkness (v. 26), and utterly lacked any understanding of the Creator and His ways (vv. 28–29).

81. Referred to in rhetoric as a proposition; cf. Charles (1995:56); Majercik (1992:711); Winter (1993:821); Zweck (1989:100). 82. Cf. Ps 18:11; Isa 45:15; 1 Tim 6:16. 83. Cf. John 1:1–2, 14, 18; 14:6–7; Gerrish (1973:266).

144 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

In Paul’s speech, he used the tension arising from the Athenians’ ignorance of God (Acts 17:22–23) to emphasize the world’s absolute dependence on Him (vv. 24–25). The apostle began by stating that God is the Creator, namely, the one who brought the entire ‘universe’84 into existence, along with all that it contains.85 According to Paul, God was neither an absent deity nor a peevish demiurge; instead, the Creator was the supreme ‘Lord’ (v. 24) of the celestial heights above (including its objects) and the earth below (including whatever was on it).86 The implication is that God was the moral governor of the universe. In a comparable way, the Song of Moses emphasized the sovereignty of the Lord. The passage reveals that the ‘Most High’ (Deut 32:8) is also the ‘Creator’ (v. 6). Furthermore, He is characterized by ‘greatness’ (v. 3), faithfulness, integrity, and equity (v. 4). For these reasons, He could legitimately claim to have the authority to vindicate Israel and vanquish the nation’s foes (vv. 36, 43). Paul advanced his argument by noting that the supreme Lord and Judge transcended creation. For this reason, He did not dwell in humanly constructed shrines, such as the Parthenon, which was dedicated to Athena, the patron goddess of the city. The massive structure, with its Doric columns and statue of Athena, could easily be seen from the Areopagus (Acts 17:24).87 Similarly, the apostle noted, the Creator did not need people to wait on Him or make sacrifices to Him, since He did not require anything from His creatures for His survival and satisfaction.88 In reality, every entity throughout the entire cosmos depended on God for its existence (v. 25).89 Paul’s observations reflect the theological orientation of the Song of Moses. It reveals that the Lord was Israel’s ‘Rock’ (Deut. 32:4), the one who brought about their existence (vv. 6, 9). This same God established all the nations of the world and fixed the boundaries for the benefit of their inhabitants (v. 8). Paul, in his speech, further refined his argument by claiming that along with creation (in general; Acts 17:24–25), humankind (in particular) was totally reliant on God (vv. 26–28). The Greek text of verse 26 literally reads ‘from (or out of ) one’. Because the latter is a genitive of source or origin, it most likely refers to biological

84. Greek, cosmos. 85. Whether animate or inanimate, material or spiritual; cf. Gen 1–2; 14:19, 22; Isa 42:5; Jer 10:12, 16; Acts 14:15. 86. Cf. Exod 20:11; Matt 11:25. 87. Cf. 1 Kings 8:27; Isa 66:1–2; Acts 7:48; Hemer (1989:118); Martin (1992:517); McRay (2000:139); Schnabel (2005:173–4); Stonehouse (1949:10). 88. Cf. 1 Chron 29:14; Ps 50:7–15. 89. Cf. Isa 42:5; Matt 6:25–34.

a compar ative analysis of the song of mo s es a n d pau l ’ s s p ee c h  | 145

descent from a common ancestor.90 So, the passage is best understood to mean ‘from one man’, namely, Adam. Concededly, some Greek manuscripts read ‘from one blood’; just the same, it does not alter the ‘passage’s meaning, which still alludes to Adam’ (Bock 2007:574). Likewise, this interpretive thrust is consistent with ‘Greek philosophical thinking about the one and the many’ (Fitzmyer 1998:609). The implication is that Paul not only affirmed the historicity of Adam, but also his status as the biological progenitor (along with Eve) of the entire human race.91 The apostle declared that from this first human pair not only did all the nations arise, but also they spread throughout the entire planet. In turn, Paul disclosed that the transcendent Creator marked out the boundaries of the nations’ set times (or historical eras) and the borders of their respective territories. These facts accorded with the Torah, which teaches that in the distant past, God specially created Adam and Eve;92 and from them, the rest of the human race is biologically descended.93 Likewise, the Song of Moses clearly affirms these same biblical truths (Deut. 32:6, 8).94 Paul explained to the intelligentsia in Athens that the Creator graciously provided for humankind with the intent that people would somehow search after God, along with the uncertain hope of coming to know and worship Him.95 The apostle compared the process to the unsaved feeling around in the dark for clues

90. Cf. Gärtner (1955:229); Rogers (1998:276); Schnabel (2012:734). For a consideration of two contrasting views on the historicity of the Adam character in the Genesis creation narratives, cf. chapter 10 in this monograph. For a deliberation of five different conceptualizations for understanding the etiology of Adam and Eve, cf. Lioy (2011:89–92). As put forward by Haarsma and Haarsma (2007), there is ongoing tension between how closely each scenario’s view aligns itself with ‘God’s revelation in nature’ (216) and His ‘revelation in Scripture’. This monograph regards an optimal outcome as coming close as possible in supporting both the ‘scientific and theological’ data. Even then, ‘when an apparent conflict arises between science and a biblical text’ (118), the hermeneutical process should be ‘driven by theological considerations’ and put forward an explanation that is ‘consistent with the rest of Scripture’. 91. Cf. Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12, 15–17; 1 Cor 15:21–22, 45–49; Bruce (1988:332, 337); Marshall (1980:287); Polhill (1992:374); Reese (1976:629). Schnabel (2008:177) points out that Paul’s ‘reference to the creation narrative’ in ‘Genesis’ signifies a ‘biblical critique of popular polytheism and idolatry’. Likewise, Schnabel (180) notes that Paul, in offering a ‘critique of the existing religious pluralism and diversity’, communicated an ‘essential element of his explanation of the gospel message’. 92. Cf. Gen 2:7, 21–23. 93. Cf. Gen 1:26–27; 3:20. 94. Cf. Ps 74:17; Dan 2:36–45. 95. Cf. Ps 14:2; Prov 8:17; Isa 55:6; 65:1; Jer 29:13.

146 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

about God’s existence, even though in their fallen state they were unable to alight upon anything informative. Paul noted that the Creator, though transcendent, was actively involved in human history and not far removed from each human being (Acts 17:27).96 This declaration is affirmed in Deuteronomy 4:7, which revealed that the Lord remained imminent among His chosen people. Similarly, the Song of Moses asserted that from the earliest days of the Israelites’ existence, God safeguarded, preserved, and sustained them (32:10–14), as well as the rest of humanity. Paul substantiated his point by quoting from a poem to Zeus titled Cretica, which says, ‘For in you we live and move and have our being’. The ode was authored by Epimenides, a poet-philosopher and seer from Crete.97 In the Greek pantheon, Zeus was the supreme god, who allegedly ruled and watched over humankind, as well as meted out evil and good.98 In citing this poem, the apostle’s objective was not to express a ‘philosophico-pantheistic bias’ (Gärtner 1955:186), but to present ‘authentic Judaism made universal through Jesus, the Messiah’ (Mauck 2001:131). Accordingly, Paul clarified that it was the true and living God who graciously gave to every person the ability to exist, to journey through life, and to be productive members of society.99 Next, the apostle quoted from Phaenomena, 5, which was a Greek document written by a Cilician Stoic poet named Aratus.100 The same quote is also found in the Hymn to Zeus, 4, which was penned by Cleanthes.101 Paul’s citation of these pagan sources did not mean he thought they were divinely inspired; instead, the apostle simply regarded the observations they made to be fitting illustrations of specific eternal truths revealed in God’s Word. Acts 17:28 restates the preceding passage as follows: ‘For we also are his offspring’. This assertion echoes the revelation in Genesis 1:26–28 of people being made in the image of God. The quote also conceptually aligns with the Song of Moses, which states that the ‘Most High’ (Deut 32:8) was responsible for giving each nation its land, establishing its boundaries, and enabling it to become populous and prosperous. The apostle revealed that even though religiously inclined pagans strove to discover and worship the Creator (Acts 17:27), they always failed in their efforts because they were steeped in spiritual darkness. No matter how hard the unregenerate tried, they were unable to grasp the incomparable nature of God 96. 97. 98. 99.

Cf. Ps 145:18; Jer 23:23–24. Epimenides lived around 600 bce. Cf. Bruce (1988:338); Charles (1995:58); Walaskay (1998:165). Cf. Erickson (2013:329, 562); Given (2001:50); Horton (2011:231, 233, 244, 248, 261, 264–5, 310, 312, 351). 100. Circa 315–240 bce. 101. Circa 331–233 bce; cf. Bock (2007:567); Wall (2002:247); Longenecker (1981:476).

a compar ative analysis of the song of mo s es a n d pau l ’ s s p ee c h  | 147

(v. 29). Paul’s statements reflect the theological orientation of the Song of Moses. The ode portrayed the Creator as being praiseworthy due to His ‘greatness’ (Deut 32:3), steadfastness, faithfulness, and integrity (v. 4). He alone, as Israel’s ‘Rock’, was the ‘Most High’ (v. 8). Only He could bring His chosen people into existence (v. 18), as well as guide and protect them (v. 12). More generally, no one except the Creator was eternally self-existent, along with being the ultimate source of life, death, and salvation (v. 39). In his speech to the Athenians, Paul joined the truth of God’s incomparable nature with the fact that all humankind, through Adam and Eve,102 were the Creator’s ‘offspring’ (Acts 17:29). The apostle reasoned that it was irrational to suppose that the ‘nature’ of God was comparable to such common earthly substances as ‘gold or silver or stone’.103 Paradoxically, unsaved artisans leveraged their God-given ‘skill and imagination’ to use each of these inanimate elements104 to make sculpted figures; yet, as the Song of Moses disclosed, the resulting idols venerated by the pagans were powerless and lifeless (Deut 32:21). Despite Israelites’ infatuation with a cadre of these false gods and goddesses, they did not lead the God’s children out of Egypt (v. 12) and nourish them for 40 years in the Sinai desert (vv. 13–14). Furthermore, the chosen people aroused the divine Warrior’s indignation by offering sacrifices to abominations (vv. 16–17). In light of the idolatry all humankind was guilty of committing,105 Paul placed a Christocentric and Christotelic fine point on his oration by declaring the divine summons for the apostle’s listeners to ‘repent’ (Acts 17:30). The underlying Greek verb refers to a change in one’s way of life—including one’s thoughts, attitudes, feelings, and actions—as a result of coming to terms with the reality of sin and God’s gracious provision of righteousness.106 Even though the apostle’s listeners thought they were placing him under the searing scrutiny of their evaluation, in fact they were the ones whom the Creator had placed on trial. Moreover, while the elitists in the city regarded themselves as being sophisticated and enlightened, Paul referred to the arc of human history since the time of Adam and Eve as the ‘era of ignorance’ (v. 30). A similar perspective is conveyed in the Song of Moses. For instance, the soliloquy refers to the idolatrous Israelites as people who were ‘foolish’ (Deut 32:6) and ‘imprudent’. Likewise, Israel’s pagan neighbors were described as people void of spiritual insight and discernment 102. Cf. Acts 17:26. 103. Cf. Deut. 5:8; Ps. 115:2–8; Isa. 37:19; 44:9–20. 104. As well as ‘marble, wood, bronze, ivory, and terra-cotta’; Schnabel (2012:737). 105. Those guilty of idolatry included the Athenian intelligentsia listening to Paul. 106. Cf. Isa 59:20; Jer 15:19; Ezek 14:6; 18:30, 32; Matt 3:2; 4:17; Acts 2:38; 3:19; Fitzmyer (1998:265); Louw and Nida (1989:510); Merklein (1991:416); Spicq (1994:475).

148 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

(v. 21). In Paul’s oration, he revealed that the Creator could have wiped out His ‘offspring’ (Acts 17:29) at any time for their idolatry; yet, He purposefully disregarded their transgressions for a season. It was His intent to forestall punishment temporarily so that, from a Christological perspective, at the divinely appointed time at Calvary, the Father could make His Son the atoning sacrifice for humankind’s iniquities.107 Paul announced that with the advent of the Messiah, a new era had dawned for the human race. The Father extended to people everywhere an opportunity to be reconciled to Him through faith in His Son.108 While the sophists in Athens might balk at the notion of repenting, Paul deliberately stressed the reality of a future judgment of humanity (v. 31). Indeed, the certitude of the Creator holding everyone accountable for their actions prompted the apostle to risk being ostracized by focusing his listeners’ attention on the future day of judgment. Paul made the Christocentric and Christotelic assertion that the Father had chosen a day known only to Him when His Son would assess all humankind according to the benchmark of the Creator’s righteous moral standard.109 This emphasis on the Lord’s inherent authority to evaluate His children finds its theological foundation in the Song of Moses. Specifically, as Deuteronomy 32:4 reveals, God is characterized by integrity, all His actions are upright, and there is no trace of iniquity in Him. In light of the negative response Paul already experienced from his Epicurean and Stoic interlocutors, he was well aware of their belief that death was final and permanent;110 nonetheless, the apostle remained undeterred in focusing the Athenians’ attention on the Lord Jesus, who was the ‘key figure in God’s plan for humanity’ (Peterson 2009:503). Indeed, the Creator had chosen and commissioned the Messiah to be the divinely appointed agent of judgment.111 The Christologicallyoriented confirmation of this truth was that the Father raised the Son from the dead (Acts 17:31).112 Even though Jesus came to earth as a helpless infant, and as an adult died on the cross, God resurrected Him and in doing so confirmed His status as the Son of God.113 The Lord intended the reality of this historical event to move the lost to trust in the Redeemer and thereby experience deliverance on the Day of Judgment. Arguably, this Christological mindset finds correspondence in the Song of Moses. 107. Cf. Acts 14:16; Rom 3:25–26. 108. Cf. Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:20. 109. Cf. Pss 9:8; 96:13; 98:9; Isa 66:16; Jer 25:31; Matt 11:22, 24; 12:36. 110. Cf. Acts 17:18. 111. Cf. Dan 7:13–14; Matt 25:31–46; John 5:21–23, 27, 30; Acts 2:30–36; 10:42; Rev 20:12–15. 112. Cf. Acts 2:24, 32. 113. Cf. Rom 1:4.

a compar ative analysis of the song of mo s es a n d pau l ’ s s p ee c h  | 149

In particular, the divine Warrior promised to ‘vindicate’ (Deut 32:36) His children and ‘take vengeance’ (v. 41) on His foes. The latter included making ‘atonement’ (v. 43) for God’s chosen people and the Promised Land.

4.0 Conclusion This chapter undertakes a comparative analysis of the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians. One motivation for doing so is that the contours of the apostle’s Christocentric and Christotelic discourse was shaped by the Old Testament and transformed by the cross-resurrection event. Another incentive for the endeavor concerns the seemingly unconventional way in which Paul addressed the Greek intelligentsia at the Areopagus. On the one hand, the apostle did not fill his oration with direct quotes from the Old Testament; on the other hand, he directly quoted from several Greek poets. One legitimate concern, then, is whether Paul overly diluted his proclamation of the gospel to accommodate the proclivities of his pagan (Gentile) audience. The investigation put forward in this chapter indicates that at a literary, conceptual, and linguistic level, Paul connected the theological perspective of the Song of Moses with his Christologically-oriented message to the Athenians. Concededly, the worldview of the apostle’s Hellenistic listeners was characterized by dualism, pantheism, and polytheism; yet, even though Paul avoided saturating his oration with direct Old Testament quotations, the speech remained thoroughly grounded in the theocentric mindset of the Song of Moses (and more broadly with that of the Tanakh). Suggestive in this regard is the literary comparison broached in section 2.0 concerning the organizational scheme of the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians. Due to the fact that there is no scholarly consensus about the best way to arrange these passages, it was decided in this chapter to take a fresh approach. As the discourse in sections 2.1 and 2.2 points out, there are intriguing parallels that draw attention to the close literary connection between the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians. It was acknowledged that as suggestive as the similarities might be, in isolation they do not establish with certainty a strong connection between these two passages of Scripture. The preceding observation notwithstanding, this chapter also proposed that it is at the conceptual and linguistic levels that the connection between the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians becomes clearer. Specifically, as stated in section 3.0, Paul connected the theological perspective of the Song of Moses with his Christologically-grounded message to the Athenians. In order to make this relationship explicit, section 3.1 engaged in an analysis of the Song of Moses.

150 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Then, section 3.2 examined Paul’s speech to the Athenians. Part of the latter process included making use of the information in section 3.1 to call attention to the unmistakable conceptual and linguistic parallels between the Song of Moses and Paul’s oration. For instance, one explicit linguistic parallel would be Deuteronomy 32:17, ‘gods they had not known’, and Acts 17:23, ‘to an unknown god’. Somewhat less overt correspondences include the following: (1) Deuteronomy 32:8, ‘gave the nations their inheritance’ and ‘set the boundaries of the peoples’; along with Acts 17:25, ‘gives everyone life and breath and all things’; and verse 26, ‘determined … the boundaries of their habitation’. (2) Deuteronomy 32:5, ‘his children’; and verse 6, ‘is he not your Father, who created you, who made and established you?’; along with Acts 17:29, ‘being then the offspring of God’ and ‘we should not regard the divine nature to be similar to gold or silver or stone, a figure sculpted by human skill and imagination’; and, (3) Deuteronomy 32:35, ‘for the day of their calamity is near’; along with Acts 17:31, ‘because he has established a day in which he intends to judge the world in righteousness’. In addition to the above-mentioned literary and linguistic parallels, there are numerous conceptual correspondences between the Song of Moses and Paul’s speech to the Athenians. This is made explicit in the detailed and lengthy discussion appearing in section 3.2. In summary, an objective examination of the biblical data indicates that in Paul’s address to the Athenian sophists, the doctrinal perspective found in the Song of Moses dominated the apostle’s Christocentric and Christotelic message. Beyond that, the numerous cross-references appearing in section 3.2 to other Old Testament passages indicate that Paul’s address reflected the theological worldview of the Tanakh. One reasonable implication of the preceding assessment is that the apostle did not weaken his declaration of the good news to oblige the tendencies of his listeners; rather, Paul examined the most exemplary archetypes of secular philosophical thought in his day, compared their dogmas to the truths of Scripture, and declared how the divine-human Messiah (the epitome and incarnation of God’s Word) is infinitely superior.

chapter seven

Opposing Satan, the counterfeit word

1.0 Introduction In 2 Corinthians, Paul defended his ministry by making explicit statements about himself and his detractors. To reiterate what was noted in chapter 5 of this monograph, while the apostle never specifically identified these antagonists, a portrait of them can be deduced from the epistle. For instance, the spiritual frauds came from outside Corinth and needed letters of recommendation (3:1). One possibility is that they were from Judea. Paul complained about the pretenders invading his sphere of ministry (10:13–16). Above all, he was alarmed that they preached a false gospel—one that may have deemphasized the Messiah’s role in the salvation of believers (11:4). Apparently, the deceivers also claimed their spiritual authority exceeded that of Paul (v. 5). There is an insidious issue connected with the preceding observations.1 Specifically, in Paul’s day, the devil’s minions portrayed themselves as Jesus’ ambassadors (v. 13), heralds of truth (v. 14), and ministers promoting ‘righteousness’. Even more fiendish is the reality that Lucifer actively and persistently disguised

1. What follows in this chapter is a revision of material in my journal article titled ‘Opposing Satan, the counterfeit word’, which appears in Lioy (2014c).

152 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

himself as God’s premier spiritual emissary, when in reality the evil one was the Messiah’s archenemy. Though Paul took note of the devil’s antagonistic agenda, the apostle did not detail in his letter the ways in which the devil presented himself as a counterfeit to the Son. Even today, a larger unanswered question concerns how the deceiver strives to undermine the will of the Redeemer, especially what He accomplishes through His followers. In light of the cross-resurrection event, these issues have Christocentric and Christotelic import. After all, Jesus’ triumph over the prince of darkness (as well as sin and death) is the zenith of the Bible’s redemptive-historical, narrative arc. While the devil seems powerful enough to use a brute-force approach, Treat, in The Crucified King (2014:199–200), offers an alternative method that is far subtler and seductive. In particular, ‘Satan rules over his kingdom of darkness through his deceitful word’. Moreover, his stratagems are at least threefold, including the use of ‘temptation’, ‘deception’, and ‘accusation’.2 Admittedly, on the surface, what Treat puts forward seems relatively clear-cut; yet, as he observes, the significance and details of this basic truth have been largely ‘overlooked’ in the academic literature. Expressed differently, there is room for further deliberation concerning how the devil ‘rules through … his tempting, deceiving, accusing word’ with the goal of exercising ‘power over sinners’ and bringing about their eternal, spiritual ‘death’. Arguably, an opportunity remains to address the preceding gap in the theological dialogue. The goal, then, of this chapter is to advance the discussion in a modest and meaningful way by exploring this pivotal issue further.

2.0 An analysis of what Scripture reveals about Satan, his minions, and how the devil operates through them In any deliberation involving Satan and his minions,3 it is clarifying to recognize that they are spirit creatures, along with the rest of the angels who are loyal to God.4 Concerning the latter group, while they live in heaven,5 at times God dispatches

2. Cf. Eph 6:11 and the analysis appearing in section 4.0 below. 3. In addition to the following discourse, cf. the discussion in the following: Bell (2013); Benoit (1983); Bietenhard (1986); Bietenhard and Brown (1986); Erickson (2013:403–19); Fletcher-Louis (2013); Funderburk (2009); Grudem (1994:397–436); Hamilton (1992); Hiebert (2009); Horton (2011:406–7); Mueller (1934:196–204); Newsom and Watson (1992); Robbins (2007:60–9); Treat (2014:199–203). 4. Cf. Heb 1:14. 5. Cf. Matt 22:30.

opposing satan , t h e co u n t er f e i t w o r d  | 153

them to earth as His messengers. Angels are mighty and powerful beings6 who possess great wisdom.7 Ordinarily, angels are invisible to people,8 though they have appeared as humans.9 Angels do not marry or reproduce10. Also, because angels are not subject to death,11 they will live forever and remain constant in number. Angels have the ability to fly;12 yet, contrary to popular belief and artistic portrayal, few angels in the Bible are explicitly stated to have wings. In fact, Isaiah 6:2 and Revelation 4:8 may be the sole instances. The elect angels exist as an organized hierarchy.13 Their duties include serving God by ministering to believers,14 protecting them,15 guarding them,16 guiding them,17 and helping them.18 As noted in the preceding paragraph, in addition to the elect angels—who worship and serve God19—there are fallen angels who serve the purposes of the devil.20 In the Old Testament, he is referred as ‘Satan’.21 This transliterates the Hebrew noun śāṭān, which means ‘adversary’, ‘opponent’, or ‘accuser’.22 Other names used in the New Testament for Satan reveal his diabolical character, which is illustrated as follows: ‘Beelzebul, the prince of demons’ (Matt 12:24); ‘a murderer from the beginning … a liar and the father of lies’ ( John 8:44); ‘the prince of this world’ (12:31; 14:30); ‘the god of this age’ (2 Cor 4:4); ‘Belial’ (6:15);23 the ‘ruler of the kingdom of the air’ (Eph 2:2); ‘the tempter’ (1 Thess 3:5); ‘the evil one’ (2 Thess 3:3); the ‘enemy … a roaring lion’ (1 Pet 5:8); ‘Abaddon’24 and ‘Apollyon’ (Rev 9:11);25 ‘the great dragon … that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the world

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Cf. Ps 103:20; 2 Thess 1:7. Cf. 2 Sam 14:20. Cf. 2 Kings 6:17. Cf. Ezek 1:5; Luke 24:4. Cf. Matt 22:30. Cf. Luke 20:36. Cf. Dan 9:21. Cf. Eph 6:12; Col 1:16. Cf. Heb 1:14. Cf. Dan 6:22. Cf. Ps 91:11. Cf. Acts 8:26. Cf. Dan 10:13. Cf. 1 Tim 5:21; Heb 1:6. Cf. Isa 14:12–14; Rev 12:7–9. Cf. 1 Chron 21:1; Job 1:6, 7, 8, 9, 12; 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7; Zech 3:1, 2. Cf. Koehler and Baumgartner (2000); Swanson (2001). Meaning ‘the wicked one’. Meaning ‘destruction’. Meaning ‘destroyer’.

154 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

astray’ (12:9); ‘the accuser of our brothers and sisters’ (v. 10); and the ‘devil, who deceived them’ (20:10). Admittedly, specialists within academia, along with many skeptics in popular culture, tend to dismiss Satan and his wretched horde as nothing but a myth or fantasy. In contrast, the above passages depict these entities as real beings who, through the use of guile and subversion, interfere in historical events. Succinctly stated, the demons are fallen angels who joined with Satan in rebellion against the Lord. While the Bible does not discuss the origin of evil spirits, the New Testament does speak about the fall and later imprisonment of a group of angels.26 The traditional view is that the demons’ insurrection occurred sometime before God created the world. Then, after He had brought the human race into existence, Lucifer and his assailants contaminated people with wickedness.27 As stated above, Satan is the premier deceiver who pretends to be an agent of God.28 While the prince of darkness could use a variety of methods to tempt, deceive, and accuse believers, he most often leverages verbal communication in a variety of furtive ways. The earliest example of the latter is the episode recorded in Genesis 3. As noted in chapter 2 of this monograph, a Satan-inspired serpent employed subterfuge to convince Eve to doubt God’s Word and disobey His command. In turn, Eve persuaded her husband to do the same. The couple had been blinded by the snake’s alluring promise and in return they received shame and alienation. Such was the wretched end of the once-blessed relationship Adam and Eve had enjoyed with their Creator in the ancient Eden orchard. For Adam, Eve, and all their physical descendants, the sobering aftermath of the Fall was that physical and spiritual death became a permanent part of the human experience.29 The preceding way in which the evil one behaved represents a cunning perversion of how God operates.30 Specifically, as Genesis 1 discloses, at the dawn of time the Lord used His powerful decree to create everything in the cosmos from nothing.31 Furthermore, during each of the creation days, God progressively formed and filled the world. In doing so, He overturned chaos with order, tamed what was wild, and replaced desolation with life. These observations do not necessarily rule

26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Cf. 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 1:6. Cf. Gen 3; Matt 25:41; Rev 12:9. Cf. John 8:44; 2 Cor 11:3, 14; 2 Thess 2:9–10; Rev 12:9; 20:3. Cf. Rom 5:12, 14, 18; 6:23. In addition to the following discourse, cf. the discussion in Lioy (2005:23–55; 2010:5–15; 2011a:13–23). 31. I.e. creatio ex nihilo. The following two paragraphs recap observations put forward in chapter 2 of this monograph.

opposing satan , t h e co u n t er f e i t w o r d  | 155

out God’s use of intermediate processes32 stretching over long expanses of time to bring the material realm into existence and sustain it in all its manifold wonder. Along the way, God declared what He brought into existence to be ‘good’. Ṭôḇ is the Hebrew adjective rendered ‘good’ in the Genesis creation narrative33 and concerns both the intrinsic nature and instrumental functionality of the material realm. Here the notion of creation is portrayed as the sole action of the triune God, in which He commands into existence that which had no reality prior to the issuing of His actualizing edict.34 The portrait Genesis 1:2 paints is not one in which God sets the universe in motion and passively allows natural forces to operate, but one in which He is directly involved in every aspect of creation through His Word. The sevenfold occurrence of ṭôḇ (‘good’) in the primeval account does not mean that the unspoiled creation was an idyllic paradise of unlimited perfection. Expressed differently, the divine assessment is aesthetic, not ethical. Accordingly, what the divine Artisan brought into existence was superbly suited for its God-ordained role and purpose. The implication is that from the beginning, every aspect of the cosmos had functional integrity.

3.0 A case study analysis: Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness (Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–11)35 Scripture portrays the devil as a ravenous lion who constantly prowls around in search for an unsuspecting victim to ‘devour’ (1 Pet 5:8).36 It is not a question of whether an attack takes place, but rather when it occurs. Not even the Savior, during His earthly sojourn, was exempt from Satan’s assaults. With respect to the latter, Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness provides a useful case study to analyze how to overcome the archenemy’s enticements. An examination of the Synoptic

32. 33. 34. 35.

Including cosmological, geological, and biological means. Cf. Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31. Cf. Gen 1:1–2; John 1:3; Heb 1:2; 11:3; 2 Pet 3:5. The following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse in this section: Blomberg (1992); Bock (1994); Culpepper (1995); Edwards (2002); Fitzgerald (1972); France (2002); France (2007); Garlington (1994); Geldenhuys (1983); Gibson (1994); Johnson (1996); Just (2003); Keener (1999); Lane (1982); Marshall (1983); Mathewson (2011); Morris (1972); Nolland (2005); Oden and Hall (2005); Simonetti (2001); Stegner (1990); Stein (2008); Strauss (200); Taylor (2001); Turner (2008). 36. In this section, unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are my personal translation of the respective biblical texts being cited.

156 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Gospels37 reveals that the Messiah, as the believers’ High Priest,38 did not triumph by using a brute-force approach; instead, the Son relied on the Word of God to thwart the devil’s counterfeit verbal communications. Jesus’ temptation draws attention to His unique status as the divine Messiah. Immediately prior to this episode, He was anointed with God’s Spirit,39 which signified the Son’s inauguration into His public ministry.40 Matthew 4:1 and Luke 4:1 both say that the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness in order that the devil could put Him to the test.41 Mark 1:12 literally says that the Spirit ‘thrust [ Jesus] into the wilderness’.42 One is left with the impression that this event occurred by divine necessity and with urgency.43 The Greek adjective erēmos, which is rendered ‘wilderness’ (Matt. 4:1), denotes an uninhabited region, though not necessarily a parched or arid locale (such as a desert).44 The identity of the specific area near the Jordan River to which this verse refers remains unknown. At various times in Jesus’ earthly life, He experienced events that paralleled important episodes in Israel’s history. For instance, the nation, as God’s corporate ‘son’ (Exod 4:23), was led by Moses into the desert (15:22). Then, for the next four decades,45 the Lord tested His people as they wandered in the wilderness.46 Tragically, as Scripture reveals, that generation of Israelites failed the divine test, even though they enjoyed the provision of the Father47 and the presence of the Spirit.48 The people’s unbelief led them to transgress the Lord repeatedly.49 In contrast, Jesus, as the ideal Israelite and representative of the human race (or second Adam),50 not only endured real testing, but also triumphed over it in the power of the Spirit through the efficacious use of God’s Word.51 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

I.e. Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–11. Cf. Heb 2:18; 4:15. Cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:51. Cf. Acts 10:37–38. Testing someone is the primary lexical emphasis of the Greek verb peirazō in Matt 4:1 and Luke 4:1, the secondary notion of temptation or enticement notwithstanding; cf. Danker (2000); Louw and Nida (1989). In which the main Greek verb, ekballō, appears as an historical present; cf. Runge (2008). Cf. Deut 8:2. Cf. Danker (2000); Louw and Nida (1989). Cf. Deut 1:3. Cf. Exod 15:25; 16:4; 20:20; Deut 8:2–5. Cf. Deut 2:7; Neh 9:21; Ps 78:17–22. Cf. Neh 9:20; Isa 63:7–10. Cf. Num 14:33; 32:13; Ps 95:10–11; Heb. 3:7–19. Cf. Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:45. This study considers Jesus to be the substitute and representative for the true Israel, namely, the Church (cf. Gal 6:16; also, n 28 in chapter 4 of this monograph). Whereas ancient

opposing satan , t h e co u n t er f e i t w o r d  | 157

Matthew 4:2 discloses that during Jesus’ time in the wilderness, He fasted ‘forty days and forty nights’, which in turn left Him famished. ‘Forty’ is a number to which some scholars assign sacred significance. Various Old Testament luminaries also had life-shaping experiences that lasted 40 days, including Moses,52 David,53 and Elijah.54 Jesus’ temptation episode is a reminder that He, as the ‘pioneer and perfecter of faith’ (Heb 12:2), inaugurated a new exodus to provide redemption for the people of God.55 In the present episode, when Satan launched his final attacks, the Savior was at an extreme disadvantage; yet, despite the devil’s repeated efforts, he failed to lure the Son to transgress against the Father. As a result of this encounter, the Messiah proved that He truly is the Father’s loyal and beloved Son.56 In Satan’s first attempt to entice Jesus to sin,57 the ‘tempter’ (Matt 4:3)58 said that since59 Jesus is the ‘Son of God’,60 He should turn some of the stones that were scattered around into bread (as would a sorcerer). ‘Son of God’ is an eschatological, royal, and messianic title that the New Testament writers (including Paul) Christologically applied to Jesus of Nazareth.61 The phrase not only emphasizes the equality of the Son with the Father (as well as the Spirit),62 but also the special and intimate relationship that exists between them.63 Jesus, while being put to the

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57.

58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

Israel as a nation failed in its arrogance and rebellion, the Messiah made up for this by His perfect life and atoning death on the cross. Humankind’s sins were placed on Him and believing sinners receive His pardoning grace. Cf. Exod 34:28; Deut 9:9, 18. Cf. 1 Sam 17:16. Cf. 1 Kings 19:8. Cf. 1 Cor. 10:1–5. Cf. Isa 42:1; Matt 3:17; 12:18; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35; 2 Pet 1:17. The discourse in this section follows the chronological sequencing of the temptations presented in Matthew 4:1–11 (cf. the use of the Greek adverb tote, ‘then’, in vv. 1, 5, 10, 11), rather than the topical arrangement of events appearing in Luke 4:1–11, in which the ordering of temptations two and three are the reverse of what is recorded in Matthew; nonetheless, the analysis takes into account pertinent information appearing in each of the Synoptic Gospels; cf. Blomberg (1992:84); Bock (1994:374); Culpepper (1995:97); France (2007:126); Garlington (1994:293–4); Geldenhuys (1983:161); Keener (1999:142–3); Marshall (1983:166–7); Morris (1972:102); Nolland (2005:161); Stegner (1990:6); Strauss (2007:269); Turner (2008:124). Perhaps in human form. Ei begins a first-class conditional Greek clause. Cf. Matt 3:17. Cf. Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; Rev 2:18. Cf. John 5:18. Cf. Matt 16:16; Luke 1:35. For a concise yet substantive treatment of the divine sonship of the Messiah, cf. Cole (2009); Fossum (1992); Michel and Marshall (1986); Robbins (2007:95–101); Win (2013).

158 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

test in the wilderness, could have used some bread after a grueling 40-day fast, just as the Israelites needed manna to sustain them in the wilderness;64 yet, it would have been wrong for the Messiah to utilize His divine power for a purely selfish purpose. Jesus’ power was meant to accomplish His redemptive ministry. Doubtless, Lucifer was attempting to get the Son to show distrust in His Father’s provision. He designed the fast for His Son and would provide for Him at the proper time. Satan, however, wanted the Son to rebel by taking matters into His own hands. Rather than yield to the tempter’s proposal, Jesus quoted from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 8:3. This verse teaches that the redeemed live not only by consuming food, but also (and more importantly) need to take in God’s Word for spiritual nourishment (Matt 4:4).65 The Son could do without bread, but He must not jettison His responsibility to obey the Father.66 The section of Deuteronomy 8 that Jesus quoted deals with the Israelites and the test that the Lord put them through in the wilderness. The passage indicates that the relationship between temptations and testing is quite close. Like the Israelites, Jesus faced the temptations in the wilderness; yet, unlike that generation of God’s chosen people who refused to enter the Promised Land,67 the Son effectively used Scripture to pass His test and remain faithful to the Father. Next, the adversary supernaturally escorted Jesus to Jerusalem and positioned Him on the pinnacle of the ‘temple’ (Matt 4:5).68 In all likelihood, this was the southeastern portion of the sanctuary complex, where there was a steep drop-off to the Kidron Valley over 100 feet below. The tempter invited Jesus to prove in a spectacular way that He was God the Son.69 Supposedly, He could throw Himself down from the apex of the sanctuary and trust the Father to protect Him (v. 6). Within Second Temple Judaism, a common interpretation of Malachi 3:1 held that the Messiah would appear in the sky, descend to the temple, and proclaim deliverance.70 Apparently, Satan wanted Jesus to combine such an appearance with a sensational descent, complete with angels, to win popular approval for His kingdom. The antagonist cleverly misquoted the Septuagint version of Psalm 91:11–12 by leaving out the phrase ‘to guard you in all your ways’. This passage teaches that God provides His angels to watch over His people when they live in accordance 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

Cf. Exod 16:13–36. Cf. John 4:32–34. Cf. Luke 4:3–4. Cf. Num 13–14. In which the main Greek verb, paralambanō, appears as an historical present; cf. Runge (2008). 69. Cf. the use of ei to begin a first-class conditional Greek clause. 70. Cf. Wis of Sol 2:18.

opposing satan , t h e co u n t er f e i t w o r d  | 159

with His will.71 Satan claimed that the Father would protect the Son as He plummeted to the ground; yet, since such a stunt would not be within the will of God, the promise of divine protection would not apply. Rather than yield to the devil’s underhanded suggestion, Jesus quoted from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 6:16, saying, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test’ (Matt 4:7).72 The Savior realized that the redeemed cannot dictate the terms of divine intervention by arranging situations of need. To do so would be a foolish presumption, that is, an attempt to deny the mutual accountability and responsibility woven into their covenant relationship with God; yet, He freely grants what His people need in order for them to grow in their relationship with Him. In the third and final temptation, Lucifer supernaturally transported Jesus to a ‘very high mountain’ (Matt 4:8).73 Its location remains uncertain, leaving open the likelihood that this experience (along with that narrated in v. 5) could have been visionary in nature. If the stated possibility is valid, then, according to Mathewson (2011:89), Jesus’ ‘visionary experience’ would be comparable to what various ‘apocalyptic seers’ experienced.74 All the same, this study maintains that Jesus’ temptation, as recounted in the Synoptic Gospels, actually occurred within space-time history. The preceding view stands in contrast to that espoused by Schiavo (2002:142, 145), who thinks the use of ‘symbolic-mythological language’ in the biblical text indicates that Jesus merely had a ‘transcendental experience of religious ecstasy’. Robbins (2007:157) goes even further when he claims that a ‘quest for historical specifics enfeebles the narrative’. The emphasis in this chapter on the inherent historicity of the temptation narrative also is in contrast to the supposition put forward by Stegner (1990:27), who maintains that the account is ‘essentially the literary creation of the evangelists and their sources’, who allegedly fabricated the episode as a ‘polemic against the Herodian king Agrippa I’ and his ‘severe persecution’ of the ‘primitive church’. Returning to the Synoptic pericope, in an instant the devil paraded before the Son all the nations of the world and their splendor, promising them to Him if He would fall prostrate before His antagonist in ‘worship’ (v. 9).75 Through the 71. Cf. Exod 19:4–5; Deut 32:10–11. 72. Cf. Luke 4:9–12. 73. In which the main Greek verb, paralambanō, appears as an historical present; cf. Runge (2008). 74. E.g. Enoch, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; cf. Isa 6:1; Ezek 2:2; 3:12, 14; 8:1–3; 11:1; 37:1; 40:1–2; 43:5; Dan 7:1; 8:1; 10:1–2; 1 Enoch 75:1; 2 Bar 6:3; 3 Bar 2:1; Apoc Abr 15:2–3; Apoc Zeph 2:1; 3:2; T Abr 10:1; Rev 1:10; 4:1–2; 17:1–3; 21:9–10. 75. Cf. John 12:31; 16:11; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2; 1 John 5:19.

160 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Messiah’s death and resurrection, the Father intended to free the world from Satan’s oppressive control76 and give the Son the nations throughout the earth as His rightful inheritance.77 Therefore, rather than oblige His archenemy’s enticements, Jesus commanded him to depart at once (v. 10). Jesus explained that, based on the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 6:13 and 10:20, worship and service were to be given only to God. In summary, throughout the series of devil-inspired inducements, the Son adroitly used Scripture to demonstrate His unwavering commitment to do the Father’s will.78 When the Prince of Darkness had completed every temptation, he departed from the Lord (v. 11).79 Even so, when the next opportunity came, Satan would tempt Jesus again, especially by using a variety of counterfeit verbal communications.80 Verse 11 notes that angels promptly came81 and attended to Jesus’ needs.82 The Synoptic Gospels do not state how these heavenly emissaries ministered to the Savior, though in all likelihood they brought nourishment as well as encouragement. Previously, angels offered care and support to the Israelites during their wanderings in the wilderness83 and food to Elijah when he fled to Horeb for safety from Ahab.84 Mark 1:13 reveals that during the Messiah’s sojourn in the wilderness, He was out among the ‘wild animals’.85 In the Savior’s day, far more wild animals roamed the countryside than today, including lions that prowled the wooded areas along the Jordan River.86 The mention of these beasts adds drama to the Markan account of Jesus’ confronting evil.87 Another reason for mentioning these creatures is that the author of the second Synoptic Gospel possibly wanted to emphasize the divine protection Jesus received in the midst of the danger He faced.88 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

Cf. Heb 2:14–15. Cf. Ps 2:8. Cf. Luke 4:5–8; John 5:19, 30; 6:38. In which the main Greek verb, aphiēmi, appears as an historical present; cf. Runge (2008). Cf. Luke 4:13. Cf. the use of the Greek interjection idou. As well as throughout Jesus’ 40-day sojourn in the wilderness; cf. Mark 1:13. Cf. Exod 14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2. Cf. 1 Kings 19:3–8. Rendering the Greek noun thērion; cf. Danker (2000); Louw and Nida (1989). In addition to the following discourse, cf. the discussion in Edwards (2002:40–2); France (2002 86–7); Garlington (1994:288–90); Gibson (1994:19–23); Heil (2006:64–77); Lane (1982:61–2); Neary (1983:4); Stein (2008:63–6). 86. Cf. Jer 5:6; 49:19. 87. Cf. Test Ben 5:2; Test Iss 7:7; Test Naph 8:4. 88. Cf. Ezek 34:25; Dan 6:22.

opposing satan , t h e co u n t er f e i t w o r d  | 161

A third reason for mentioning wild animals may be that untamed beasts were associated with evil powers. The historical episode, in a sense, became a symbol of the cosmic struggle of good and evil in which the Son was engaged. Likewise, the wild beasts might be connected to the hope of the messianic era, when animal enemies such as the wolf and the lamb would live in peace.89 A fourth reason might come from Mark’s audience. If the author was writing his Gospel primarily for Gentile Christians about 64–67 ce, particularly those living in Rome,90 they would be facing persecutions from Nero that often included being thrown to the lions for refusing to worship the emperor. The early Christians could take comfort in the fact that Jesus also had confronted wild animals.

4.0 A biblical response to Satan’s diabolical schemes (Eph 6:10–20)91 The previous section analyzed how Jesus, during His time of temptation in the wilderness, relied on the Word of God to overcome Satan’s counterfeit verbal communications. The present section shifts the focus to the way in which Jesus’ disciples can effectively leverage a biblical response to the archenemy’s diabolical schemes.92 The basis for the following discourse is an exegetical and theological examination of Ephesians 6:10–20, which this study considers to be the premier Pauline passage dealing with the subject of spiritual warfare. Verse 10 records the apostle’s opening admonition, while verse 11 indicates the way in which the directive is accomplished. Verse 12 provides additional explanation concerning why believers should heed Paul’s injunction, and verse 13 states the result of doing 89. Cf. Isa 11:6–9; 32:14–20; 65:25; Hos 2:18. 90. Cf. 1 Pet 5:13. 91. The following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse in this section: Abbott (1979); Asher (2011); Bruce (1984); Calvin (1854); Cohick (2013); Edwards (2005); Fee (1994; 2007); Foster (2008); Foulkes (1979); Guelich (1991); Hendriksen (1995); Hoehner (2002); Kitchen (1994); Lenski (1961); Lincoln (1990); Lincoln (1995); Neufeld (1997); Perkins (2000); Robinson (1979); Smillie (1997); Thielman (2007); Wenkel (2007); Wild (1984); Wood (1978). 92. Throughout this section, plural nouns are intentionally chosen to refer to believers as the corporate Church or universal body of Christ. This is because, as Asher (2011:745–6) has clarified, ‘every verb or noun’ Paul used in Ephesians 6:10–17 to denote the Savior’s disciples is ‘plural, illustrating what the ancients rightly and widely understood: success on the battlefield’ depended upon a ‘cooperative and unified effort’. In similar fashion, Hoehner (2002:853–4) points out the necessity of Christians, ‘as a body’, remaining ‘united under their commander-in-chief ’ and standing ‘against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places’.

162 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

so. Then, verses 14–17 detail the individual components of the believers’ spiritual armor, followed by an emphasis on the importance of prayer in verses 18–20. Hays (1996:23) observes that the ‘battle imagery’ in the above passage is ‘characteristic of apocalyptic portrayals of the community of the faithful in the last days’.93 Pate (1995:53) takes the analysis further by noting that an ‘already/not yet eschatological paradox’ is ‘at work in Ephesians’. In particular, whereas 1:20–23 draws attention to the ‘already aspect’ of the Messiah’s ‘triumph over the spiritual enemy’, 6:10–13 focuses attention on the ‘not yet side’ of the dialectic. A further comparative analysis of these two passages results in the following insights: (1) believers are ‘seated in the heavenlies’ (1:20; 2:6), yet even now ‘conflict’ prevails ‘in the heavenlies’ (6:12); (2) the Savior has routed the ‘spiritual rulers and powers’ (1:21), but there remains the ‘threat of the rulers and powers’ (6:12); and, (3) Jesus’ ‘resurrection’ has inaugurated the ‘age to come’ (1:21), though the ‘evil age’ persists ‘until’ His Second Advent (6:13). As noted in section 1.0 of this chapter, the way in which Jesus’ followers deal with Satan’s antagonistic, anti-messianic agenda94 has Christocentric and Christotelic import. This is especially so in light of the cross-resurrection event, particularly given the Son’s triumph over the prince of darkness, along with Jesus’ victory over sin and death. The general premise is that like the Savior, believers do not defeat their foe by utlilzing a brute-force approach; instead, it is necessary for them to make full use of God’s instruments of spiritual warfare—particularly, Scripture95—to counter the devil’s ‘tempting, deceiving, accusing word’ (Treat 2014:200). As the following analysis maintains, Scripture is the predominant, controlling idea in verses 10–20. Throughout much of Paul’s discourse, he exhorted believers to take a defensive stance against Satan.96 Even the ‘sword’ (Eph 6:17) given by the Spirit—namely, the ‘word of God’—is not primarily intended to launch a direct attack against Lucifer, but rather to protect Christians in the midst of their spiritual battles.97

93. For a consideration of Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality, especially through a case study analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23, cf. chapter 4 of this monograph. 94. Cf. 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7. 95. Especially in connection with the incarnate, efficacious Word; cf. John 1:1, 14, 18. For a correlation of between speech-act theory and Paul’s heralding of the gospel, cf. the discourse in section 3.0 of chapter 4 of this monograph. There it is noted that the good news the apostle and his associates proclaimed is understood to be a performative utterance, namely, one that conveys a specific promise or assurance. 96. Cf. 1 Cor 16:13. 97. Cf. Jude 1:9.

opposing satan , t h e co u n t er f e i t w o r d  | 163

The undertaking begins with believers drawing strength from their baptismal union with the Messiah.98 In turn, it is through the provision of His ‘mighty power’ (v. 10) that Jesus’ followers can withstand the assaults made by the devil, especially through his minions.99 Victory is possible only when Christians clothe themselves with every piece of spiritual ‘armor’ (v. 11) God supplies.100 As a result of doing so, they are able to remain unwavering in resisting the adversary’s machinations. Perhaps more than any of his peers, Paul understood from experience the power of evil. After all, he had often been the object of satanic efforts to hurt him and hinder his work. Also, the apostle knew his readers were on Satan’s list of targets. So, in bringing Ephesians to a close,101 Paul focused on the intense, ongoing spiritual struggle102 that lay before believers. The battle the apostle described is not a human one involving flesh-andblood combatants; rather, the fight is a supernatural one encompassing a hierarchy of malevolent powers. The apostle used three Greek nouns to denote these metaphysical entities: archē (‘rulers’; v. 12), exousia (‘authorities’), and kosmokratōr (‘[world] powers’). Together, these terms indicate that demons exercise a certain amount of control and influence in the present era; yet, it is limited by God in scope and duration. The Christological reason is that Jesus, at Calvary, ‘disarmed the powers and authorities’ (Col 2:15) in the heavenly realms. He not only publicly disgraced them, but also vanquished them on the cross. He now reigns supreme over every temporal and eternal foe.103 One of the major Christocentric and Christotelic themes of Ephesians is that Jesus is the ultimate power in the universe. He enables those who trust in Him to triumph over the despotic forces operative in this sin-cursed age.104 Moreover, Paul disclosed that Satan’s henchmen are literally characterized by ‘darkness’ (skotos; 6:12). The Greek noun indicates that these fallen angels masquerade as agents

98. Cf. Rom 13:12, 14; Phil 4:13. 99. Cf. Zech 4:6; Eph 1:19; Rev 12:11. 100. Cf. the use of the Greek noun panoplia. 101. Cf. the use of the Greek adjective loipos at the beginning of Eph 6:10. Cohick (2013:153) regards verses 10–20 as the ‘final section’ in which the writer ‘pulls together the important concepts he has articulated throughout the letter’. Based on a rhetorical analysis of the epistle, Lincoln (1995:100–1) favors categorizing 6:10–20 as a peroratio, in which the writer recapitulates the key themes of his treatise and makes the latter the basis for his emotional appeal to his readers to take decisive action. 102. Cf. the use of the Greek noun pale. 103. This truth is elaborated at length in chapter 4 of this monograph (through an analysis of Eph 1:15–23). 104. Cf. Eph 1:21; 2:2.

164 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

of what is good, when in fact they are emissaries of what is evil. The preceding truth is reinforced by the apostle’s declaration that these rogues are supernatural in origin,105 are morally depraved, and strive to achieve malicious objectives.106 Even though the ‘heavenly realms’ (epouranios) are the demons’ domicile, they have made earth their principal battleground. Verse 12 reflects the language of astrology used in Paul’s day. Ancient observers taught that wicked entities inhabit the celestial objects seen in the nighttime sky,107 and from there control the fate of people and governments. Elsewhere, the Bible describes cosmic forces that are at work in the world to destroy the relationship between God and humanity.108 The underlying reality is that Satan rules a potent demonic horde. Also, in this conflict, the devil and his subordinates use whatever devices and tactics they have to achieve their destructive ends. The spiritual struggle is no less acute today than it was when Paul lived. While the prince of darkness has adapted his strategies to current situations, his depraved goals have not changed. Specifically, he wants to do the following: (1) prevent unbelievers from hearing the gospel; (2) undermine the faith of believers; and, (3) thwart Christians from advancing God’s redemptive program in the world. As noted earlier in this section, believers cannot prevail against the cosmic powers of this fallen age by making a direct, frontal assault. Indeed, no matter how hard Christians try, they are powerless to defeat their spiritual foes; instead, they must fight these vile entities by utilizing God’s Word. Because of the critical nature of the battle and what is at stake, Paul urged his readers not to delay in making full use of the spiritual resources God supplies. As a result of doing so, believers would be ready in the time of wickedness and immorality to actively oppose Satan when he launches his attack (v. 13).109 Paul was convinced that with the right preparation (along courageous fighting), his readers would still be standing and retain their ground when the battle was over. According to traditional military doctrine, the army in possession of the field after a battle is the victor. As a prisoner in Rome, Paul was chained to an imperial guard at all times.110 So, it was appropriate for the apostle to view his guard as a model and to think 105. Cf. the use of the Greek adjective pneumatikos. 106. Cf. the use of the Greek noun ponēria. 107. I.e. the sun, moon, and stars. 108. Cf. Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Col 2:15; 1 Pet 3:22. 109. This observation remains valid, regardless of whether the attack occurs in the present moment or at the eschatological end of the age; cf. Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1; Apoc Abr 29:9; Apoc Bar 48:31; 1 Enoch 50:2; 55:3; 63:8; 96:2; 99:4; Jub 23:16–25; Test Dan 5:4–6; Test Lev 5:5; Matt 24:21; Mark 13:19; 1 Thess 5:2–4; 2 Thess 2:3–12. 110. Cf. the use of the Greek prepositional phrase en halysei in Eph 6:20.

opposing satan , t h e co u n t er f e i t w o r d  | 165

about the believers’ spiritual struggle in military terms.111 The Old Testament also significantly influenced Paul, especially since the Hebrew Scriptures utilized military images to depict spiritual realities, including the truth of the Creator, as the divine Warrior, defending and protecting the righteous remnant.112 Most likely, Paul’s guards did not wear full battle dress; nonetheless, they could easily bring to the apostle’s mind the times he had seen Roman soldiers fully armed. As every seasoned legionnaire of the empire knew, the time to put on his armor was not when the projectiles were hurled. He prepared himself before the battle ensued by taking up armor and weapons. For the preceding reason, in Ephesians 6:10–13, Paul urged his readers to be prepared. Then, in verses 14–17, he described the six items that believers should carry into spiritual battle. According to Lincoln (1995:100), a ‘major crux interpretum’ is whether the various ‘pieces of armour’ in these verses ‘represent objective soteriological benefits bestowed by God or subjective ethical qualities required by believers’. The disquisition put forward in this section places greater stress on the first interpretive option, for it does a superior job of explaining Paul’s overall martial analogy. On one level, within this passage, the apostle made his foremost Christological concern the believers’ acquittal from sin in union with the Savior;113 yet, on another level, this does not rule out the value of believers relying on the Spirit to maintain rectitude and piety in their daily lives,114 especially as they parry the attacks launched by the forces of darkness. As Reinhard (2005:532) affirms, the preceding ‘emphasis’ helps maintain the dynamic ‘tension between sovereign provision and human responsibility’.115 Paul listed the six items in the order in which Roman soldiers would don their hardware to get ready for armed conflict. Regardless of what transpired, believers were commanded to stand fast and never surrender any ground to the enemy.116

111. Cf. Acts 28:16, 20. 112. E.g. Isa 11:4–5; 52:7; 59:17–20; Wis of Sol 5:15–23. Regarding the divine Warrior motif in Scripture, cf. n 5 in chapter 6 of this monograph. As the assessment of Thielman (2007:830–1) indicates, there is no scholarly consensus regarding the extent of ‘Paul’s indebtedness’ to martial imagery found in the Old Testament (particularly the Septuagint version) and Second Temple ‘Jewish Wisdom literature’. 113. I.e. forensic righteousness. 114. I.e. ethical righteousness. 115. For a variegated analysis of the possible merits and demerits of each hermeneutical option, cf. Bruce (1984:407–12); Calvin (1854:338–40); Hendriksen (1995:276–80); Hoehner (2002:838–50); Kitchen (1994:119–126); Lenski (1961:665–74); Lincoln (1990:447–51); Lincoln (1995:105–6, 112–4); Reinhard (2005:522–6); Wenkel (2007:277–87). 116. Cf. the use of the Greek verb histēmi in Eph 6:14.

166 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

The means for doing so are connected with each piece of spiritual equipment the Lord made available. The first hardware item is ‘truth’ (v. 14), which believers are to fasten, as they would a ‘belt’, around their ‘waist’. A Roman soldier’s sash was used to secure his tunic and breastplate, and became a place to hang his sword. On a primary level, ‘truth’117 refers to the gospel message, along with apostolic Christocentric and Christotelic teaching;118 on a secondary level, ‘truth’ denotes one’s virtue. As long as believers remain in vital union with the Son, Satan cannot undermine the believers’ integrity.119 The second martial item Paul listed is the ‘breastplate of righteousness’ (v. 14). Roman soldiers wore over the entire front of their torso a large protective corselet made out of bronze, or, if they were wealthy, of chain mail. From a Christological perspective, the believers’ vestment is their upright standing with the Father through their faith in the Son. One a primary level, it is through the proclamation of the gospel that the believers’ acquittal is made possible;120 on a secondary level, as they draw on the Savior’s righteousness, they are able to live devout and holy lives. They have the assurance of knowing that not even Lucifer can succeed in impugning them before the Lord.121 In verse 15, Paul did not specify the third piece of equipment; nevertheless, his use of the Greek verb hypodeō (‘bind underneath’) leaves little doubt that he had in mind sandals and other shoes Roman soldiers would fasten to their feet. While marching, imperial troops wore strong, leather-soled half-boots studded with nails to give them traction. Similarly, Christians are to be fully prepared, like a sure-footed legionnaire, to proclaim the ‘gospel’ (euangelion).122 The good news of salvation discloses the basis for ‘peace’ (eirēnē) existing between God and repentant sinners.123 Indeed, the Christocentric and Christotelic reality is that the believers’ reconciliation with the Father, won by the Son at Calvary, enables them to remain steadfast in their spiritual battle with Satan. Paul declared in verse 16 that at all times and in every circumstance involving the use of the previous items, it is imperative for Christians to take in hand their ‘faith’124 in the Son, as they would a ‘shield’.125 As noted earlier, God’s Word, 117. The Greek noun alētheia. 118. Cf. Eph 1:13; 4:15–25; 5:9. 119. Cf. Ps 28:7; John 15:5; Phil 4:13. 120. Cf. Rom 1:16–17; Eph 4:24; 5:9. 121. Cf. Rom 8:31–34. 122. Cf. Isa 52:7; Eph 1:13; 3:6, 8; 5:26. 123. Cf. Eph 1:2; 2:14–18; 4:3. 124. The Greek noun pistis. 125. The Greek noun thyreos.

opposing satan , t h e co u n t er f e i t w o r d  | 167

especially the gospel, is the means by which believers are enabled to trust in the Savior and stand firm in their commitment to Him.126 Roman soldiers carried large rectangular shields made of wood covered with hide and bound with iron. These four-foot long shields provided effective protection from blows and even from the flaming projectiles127 hurled at them by their enemies. These incendiary objects were often used during the siege of cities. Bows and arrows would effectively hit targets from long-range.128 If a soldier became terrified of flaming arrows stuck in his shield, he might throw it down and become more vulnerable to attack. Therefore, shields were sometimes dipped in water to extinguish burning projectiles. Paul revealed that gospel-inspired faith in the Son empowers believers to deflect Satan’s attacks. The fifth piece of equipment is the believers’ ‘salvation’ (v. 17),129 which they are to wear like a ‘helmet’.130 Their deliverance from divine judgment is not something they earned by performing an arbitrary litany of pious deeds; instead, as Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic message objectively reveals, salvation is freely received131 by trusting in the Son. Roman soldiers wore helmets of bronze and leather to protect their heads. Just as imperial troops obtained their helmets from their armor-bearers, so Christians appropriate salvation from the Messiah to use in their conflict with Satan. Moreover, believers look forward to a future day when Jesus would bring their salvation to completion and utterly vanquish the devil. The sixth and last piece of equipment in the Christian’s armory is the ‘sword’ (v. 17)132 provided by the Spirit. Paul did not mention the long spear or lance that was the Roman soldier’s chief offensive weapon; instead, he referred to the short two-edged sword Roman legionaries carried and used to defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat with their enemies. The apostle equated this item with the ‘word of God’ (perhaps inclusive of both the incarnate and written Word). In using the Greek noun rhēma to refer to Scripture,133 Paul had in mind more than just its content; he was especially emphasizing the effective communication of divine truth centered in the Son.134 As noted in the preceding section of this chapter, when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, He adroitly used Scripture

126. Cf. Eph 1:1, 13, 15, 19; 2:8; 3:12, 17; 4:5, 13. 127. Including arrows, darts, and javelins. 128. About 300–400 yards. 129. The Greek adjective sōtērios. 130. The Greek noun perikephalaia; cf. Isa 59:17; 1 Thess 5:8. 131. The Greek verb dechomai. 132. The Greek noun machaira. 133. Cf. Luke 3:2; John 3:34; 8:47; Heb 6:5. 134. Cf. 2 Cor 10:5.

168 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

to defend Himself against the tempter. Likewise, the Spirit can help believers use God’s Word to protect themselves when the same foe attacks them. Verse 18 reveals that whenever believers make full use of God’s eternal provisions, they need to undergird their efforts with prayer. Simply put, praying is talking to God.135 Admittedly, prayer is not a piece of spiritual armor Christians wear; yet, regardless of the time or circumstance, when the prince of darkness attacks, believers are to communicate with God in an ongoing manner through a variety of petitions136 and supplications.137 The prepositional phrase en pneumati means to pray in communion with and in the power of the Spirit.138 With the preceding goal in mind,139 Jesus’ followers are to remain ‘alert’,140 patient, and steadfast in their efforts.141 Perhaps the most unpopular concept regarding the practice of prayer is persistence. Whatever misgivings Jesus’ followers may have about coming repeatedly before the all-knowing, all-powerful God with the same specific petitions, tenacity is scriptural.142 Furthermore, Christians not only pray for themselves, but also as importantly make requests to God (v. 18)143 on behalf of their fellow believers.144 Paul referred to Christians using the Greek noun hagios, which implies that Jesus’ followers are God’s holy people. From a Christological outlook, He chose and set them apart to live for Him and serve others. In the midst of intense spiritual warfare, a cooperative effort among believers is vital, especially as they lovingly and humbly uphold one another in prayer. As an example of a saint for whom the Ephesians could pray, Paul offered himself. He did not ask his readers to petition for his release from prison; instead, he requested prayer for a courageous spirit in proclaiming the gospel while imprisoned (v. 19). In contrast to verse 17, where the apostle used the Greek noun rhēma to refer to Scripture, in verse 19, he chose the synonymous noun logos to denote both the content of the message and the act of communicating it to others.145 The preceding

135. I.e. a consecrated form of verbal communication. 136. Cf. the use of the Greek noun proseuchē. 137. Cf. the use of the Greek noun deēsis. 138. Cf. Rom 8:26–27. 139. Cf. the use of the Greek prepositional phrase eis autos. 140. Cf. the use of the Greek verb agrypneō. 141. Cf. the use of the Greek verb proskarterēsis. 142. Cf. Luke 18:1–8. 143. Cf. the use of the Greek noun deēsis. 144. Cf. Phil 2:4. 145. In these verses, the Greek nouns rhēma and logos are understood to be synonymous in their respective meanings.

opposing satan , t h e co u n t er f e i t w o r d  | 169

emphasis is reinforced by Paul’s reference to the literal ‘opening’ of his ‘mouth’. He further developed this thought by asking his readers to pray that the Spirit would literally give the apostle ‘boldness’.146 He did not have in mind a brash, arrogant disposition; rather, Paul wanted to remain fearless, especially as he explained147 to the unsaved the ‘mystery of the gospel’ from a Christological vantage point. As noted in section 3.0 of chapter 2 in this study, the Greek noun mystérion generally denoted what was once obscured or concealed. From time to time, Paul dealt with false teachers148 who promoted the belief that only a few select people were privy to the deepest knowledge about God and His truths. They often called this awareness a ‘mystery’. In contrast, Paul meant an eternal, redemptive truth that was either once hidden from or ambiguously understood by humankind, but had now been fully disclosed through the Messiah.149 The Christocentric and Christotelic message of redemption was most cogently articulated in the ‘gospel’ (v. 19; lit. ‘good news’).150 In verse 20, Paul explained that it was for the sake of151 the gospel that he was incarcerated152 as an ‘ambassador’.153 When Paul arrived in Rome as a prisoner about 60 ce, he was not kept in one of the civil or military prisons; instead, he was permitted to rent his own home, receive visitors, and preach the gospel.154 Soldiers of the Praetorian Guard, the emperor’s protective entourage, took turns watching the apostle while chained to him. Despite Paul’s confinement, he requested prayer from his readers for the opportunity to share the good news in an unfettered manner.155 The apostle believed he was divinely obligated to do so.156 According to Philippians 1:12–14, Paul was able to share the gospel openly and candidly with the soldiers guarding him, as well as others associated with the apostle’s case. His first imprisonment (of two) lasted about two years. During this period, Paul wrote Philemon, Colossians, Philippians, and Ephesians. This remarkable evangelistic activity suggests that in the apostle’s estimation, his imprisonment was a God-given opportunity. Specifically, it enabled Paul to convey 146. Cf. the use of the Greek noun parrēsia. 147. Cf. the use of the Greek verb gnōrizō. 148. E.g. adherents of the mystery cults and advocates of pre-Gnostic doctrines. 149. Cf. 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1:9; 3:2–10; Col 1:26–27. 150. Cf. the use of the Greek noun euangelion. 151. Cf. the use of the Greek preposition hyper. 152. Literally, ‘in chains’. 153. Cf. the use of the Greek verb presbeuō. 154. Cf. Acts 28:30–31. 155. Cf. the use of the Greek verb parrēsiasōmai. 156. Cf. the use of the Greek verb dei.

170 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

the good news to officials high in the Roman government (perhaps including the emperor, Nero). These were people the apostle would not otherwise have had an occasion to meet. Since the government officials had the power of life and death over Paul, he most likely felt some anxiety; yet, he did not want either unease or attacks from Satan to prevent the apostle from fulfilling his divinely-ordained ministry. One can imagine Paul, during moments of doubt or duress, making efficacious use of God’s instruments of warfare—particularly Scripture—to remain victorious over Satan, the counterfeit word.157

5.0 Conclusion This chapter affirms the existence of Satan and his sycophants, along with their rabid opposition to the Messiah and His followers. From a Christological perspective, the outcome of the metaphysical conflict has been decided by the crossresurrection event. Specifically, Jesus has triumphed over the prince of darkness and his evil henchmen (as well as sin and death). Indeed, the Son’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary, along with His victory over the grave, is the Christocentric and Christotelic zenith of the Bible’s redemptive-historical, narrative arc. That event impacts the way in which believers, in baptismal union with the Messiah, resist the relentless machinations of the prince of darkness. In light of the preceding observations, a primary goal of this chapter is to explore a relatively under-researched issue, namely, how Satan (especially through his minions) strives to undermine the will of the Savior (particularly through His disciples). A corresponding aim has been to deliberate how to oppose Lucifer’s attacks. An examination of relevant, representative passages of Scripture indicates that the devil does not utilize a crude, frontal assault; instead, his methods are far subtler and seductive. In particular, the conclusion of this chapter is that Satan is the counterfeit word, who employs spurious forms of verbal communication to tempt, deceive, and accuse people, including believers. The goal of the prince of darkness is nothing less than to bring about the eternal, spiritual ruin of his targets. To establish a context of understanding, a concise yet substantive analysis was undertaken of what Scripture reveals about Satan, his henchmen, and how the devil operates through them. It was determined that all of them are fallen spiritual beings who seek to thwart the will of God. Though in contemporary thought

157. Perkins (2000:463) extends the pastoral emphasis to believers, whom Paul enjoined to ‘hear sermons, read scripture, talk with other Christians, engage in regular prayer, sing the praises of God, and so on’.

opposing satan , t h e co u n t er f e i t w o r d  | 171

Lucifer and his wretched horde are nothing more than a myth or fantasy, the Judeo-Christian canon depicts these entities as real beings who assail humanity through guile and subversion. Furthermore, an examination of Scripture indicates that God used His powerful, creative word to bring the entire universe into existence and sustain it in all its manifold wonder. It was also established that the prince of darkness imitates God by leveraging verbal communication in a variety of furtive ways to manipulate people. The preceding backdrop was followed by a case study analysis of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness.158 The intent was to discern how the Savior overcame the archenemy’s enticements. It was ascertained that the Messiah did not triumph over Lucifer’s specious verbal communications by using a brute-force approach; instead, the Son relied on the Word of God to thwart the devil’s attacks. Indeed, it was discovered that despite the adversary’s repeated efforts, he failed to lure the Son to transgress against the Father. Similarly, an analysis of Ephesians 6:10–20 indicates that Jesus’ followers can effectively draw upon a biblical response to the diabolical schemes utilized by their spiritual foe. The decision to examine the preceding passage is based on the supposition that it represents the premier Pauline text dealing with the subject of spiritual warfare, including how to combat the devil. It was concluded that believers do not triumph over the prince of darkness by unilaterally confronting him; rather, from a Christological vantage point, they must make full use of God’s spiritual resources to counter Lucifer’s attempts to tempt, deceive, and accuse them. As believers depend on the Father’s protective covering, it is imperative for them to abide in the Son because, as noted in chapter 1 of this study, He is the nexus, apex, and consummation of the redemptive-historical, narrative arc of Scripture. In truth, their baptismal union with the Son, along with the abiding presence of the Spirit, enables believers to withstand Satan’s attacks. Based on an exegetical and theological analysis of Ephesians 6:10–20, it was concluded that Scripture is at the heart of the Christians’ spiritual armor.159 Moreover, it was ascertained that they are to use God’s Word to stand fast and not surrender any ground to the enemy. Within the context of a Christocentric and Christotelic proclamation of the gospel, the objective is not to launch direct, frontal attacks against the antagonist, but rather to protect themselves against his spiritual assaults. Even in moments of intense doubt and duress, Jesus’ followers should make full use of Scripture to parry the attacks made by Satan, the counterfeit word.

158. Cf. Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–11. 159. I.e. Scripture is the predominant, controlling idea in these verses.

chapter eight

Putting the Letter from James in its place A candid assessment of its continuing theological value

1.0 Introduction As a permanent faculty member within the graduate programs division of the Institute of Lutheran Theology, I teach biblical theology courses.1 For instance, during the 2015 autumn semester, I taught a course dealing with the general or catholic (i.e. universal) epistles. I especially remember a two-week duration in which I had the students consider the theological argument and themes of the letter from James. Of particular interest was the way in which James and Paul deal with the issue of justification by faith and whether their articulations share a comparable Christocentric and equivalent Christotelic outlook. Corresponding issues include the relationship between faith and works, as well as the dynamic tension between law and gospel. In one research paper assignment, I had the students wrestle with the meaning of such phrases as the ‘perfect law that gives freedom’ ( Jas 1:25; 2:12) and the ‘royal law’ (2:8). I especially wanted them to deliberate how the latter related to a Lutheran Christological understanding of the gospel of grace. 1. What follows in this chapter is a revision of material in my journal article titled ‘Putting the letter from James in its place: a candid assessment of its continuing theological value’, which appears in Lioy (2016).

put ting the le t ter fr o m j am e s i n i ts p l ac e  | 173

Within the Lutheran tradition, there are some who think James and Paul either contradict or are at cross purposes with one another.2 According to this view, interpretive pride of place should be given to Paul. There are other Lutheran acolytes who, while affirming the inspiration and canonical status of James, insist that it must be read through a Pauline lens. Supposedly, Paul’s letters should overshadow what James wrote, even if this results in creating a canon within a canon.3 Otherwise, as the argument goes, there is the risk of undermining the core Lutheran doctrine of simul iustus et peccator.4 The above remarks notwithstanding, it remains questionable whether these sorts of constructs are either accurate or valid. Indeed, one principal assertion of this chapter is that a careful and thoughtful reading of James challenges the notion that it is goes against Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic discourse about justification by faith. A second assertion is that there remains value in taking the letter from James seriously in its own right and objectively evaluating its Christological importance in that regard. A third contention is that the epistle’s message of salvation is consistent with that found throughout the rest of the New Testament, including what Jesus taught (as recorded in the Gospels) and Paul wrote (as found in his letters). Admittedly, the preceding matters have been debated for centuries among Protestants (as well as those belonging to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions). Also, the dialectic between justification and sanctification remains of interest to members of numerous and diverse faith communities. After all, the interpretive and theological implications of one’s view on these interrelated issues have repercussions for ministry within various ecclesial contexts, whether they are located in the global north or south. It would be pretentious to think this modest-sized chapter somehow resolves the debate; instead, the more realistic goal is to offer an alternative perspective, one that undertakes a candid assessment of the ongoing Christocentric and Christotelic value of the letter from James, especially as a conversation partner with Paul’s discourse.

2. The longstanding debate within Lutheranism concerning the canonicity of James is well documented, as noted in the following representative works: Adamson (1989:ix–xii); Brosend (2004:12–15); Chester and Martin (1994:3–5); Laato (1997:43–5); McCartney (2009:1–2); Reumann (1999:129); Wall (1997a:3–4, 293–5). For an overview of how James has been interpreted throughout church history, cf. Johnson (2004:39–83); McKnight (2011:9–13). For a concise survey of how contemporary specialists have assessed the criticism Luther made of James, cf. Harner (2004:23–6). 3. For a critique of this hermeneutical method, cf. section 6.0 below. 4. Latin for ‘at the same time righteous and a sinner’.

174 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

2.0 Background considerations related to James In 1:1, the author is identified as ‘James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.’5 Nonetheless, the question arises, which James? After all, there are four people with the name of ‘James’ mentioned in the New Testament—James, the son of Zebedee (an apostle), James the son of Alphas (an apostle), James the father of the apostle Judas (not Iscariot), and James, one of the younger half-brothers of Jesus. The death of the son of Zebedee in 44 ce6 rules him out, for the date would have been too early for the letter’s composition.7 Furthermore, the authoritative manner in which the writer spoke suggests that he could not have been either of the lesser-known individuals who were named James. That leaves the Lord’s halfbrother as the most likely writer of the epistle.8 The following are several highlights in the life of James: initially, he was skeptical about Jesus;9 Jesus appeared to James after the Resurrection;10 James joined the apostolic cohort;11 he was renowned for his outstanding character and piety; James had a reputation as a rigorous keeper of the Mosaic Law; he was recognized as a leader in the Jerusalem church;12 James advised Paul;13 James wrote the letter that bears his name; he led the Jerusalem Council;14 and, James was martyred for the Christian faith.15 5. The following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse on the person of James: Adamson (1989); Bauckham (1999); Blomberg and Kamell (2008); Brosend (2004); Davids (1982); Dayton (2009a); Dibelius (1976); Gillman (1992); Hagner (1992); Hiebert (1979); Laws (1980); Martin (1988); McCartney (2009); McKnight (2011); Moo (2015); Motyer (1985); Painter (2001); Shanks and Witherington (2003); Stulac (1993). For a reconstruction of the literary and historical context of the traditions about James outside the New Testament, cf. Painter (1999). For a deliberation of the significance of James within early Christian history, cf. Dibelius (1976:51–7); Eisenman (1997:70–90); Johnson (2004:1–23); Martin (1988:xlii–lxi). 6. Cf. Acts 12:2. 7. Possibly before 50 ce. Unless otherwise noted, the dates appearing in this chapter reflect the New Testament chronology appearing in Barker (2011:1577–8) and Carson (2015b: 1905–6), respectively. 8. Cf. Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19. 9. Cf. John 7:2–5. 10. Cf. 1 Cor 15:7. 11. Cf. Acts 1:14. 12. Cf. Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 2:9. 13. Cf. Acts 21:18; Gal. 1:19. 14. Cf. Acts 15:13. 15. According to Jerome, De viris illustribus 2:7–8; and Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1; around 62 ce.

put ting the le t ter fr o m j am e s i n i ts p l ac e  | 175

Concerning the recipients of the letter from James, it is addressed ‘to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations’ (1:1).16 The Jewish tenor of the epistle, coupled with the reference to the ‘twelve tribes’, suggests a predominately Jewish, rather than Gentile, audience.17 These Jewish Christians may have been descendants of those who were uprooted centuries earlier after the Assyrian conquest of Samaria18 and the Babylonian overthrow of Jerusalem.19 Subsequent to Stephen’s death,20 many Jews living in Jerusalem who had become Christians, traveled to places such as Phoenicia, Syrian Antioch, and Cyprus.21 James, as one of their shepherdoverseers, endeavored to provide them with pastoral consolation. The reference in 1:1 to the ‘twelve tribes’ reflects the author’s conviction that the end-time hope for the return of God’s chosen people was now being fulfilled for believers in Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah. This Christologicallyoriented message matches James’ self-designation as a bondservant of the Father and the Son. Broadly speaking, the topics addressed in James focus on the theme of living under the new covenant. Indeed, the author alludes often to both old covenant law and to Jesus’ new covenant teachings. During Jesus’ first advent, He inaugurated the kingdom of God (2:5). Also, through Jesus’ words and works, He clarified the foremost ethical priorities of the divine kingdom. Concededly, there is an already/not yet quality to God’s kingdom, especially as it is revealed in the person of the Son. Through Him, the kingdom is manifested now and fully consummated in visible glory on the last day. Emerson (2013:90) clarifies that the Messiah, as the pivot on which all history turns, ‘inaugurated’ the ‘new creation’ and ‘at the final judgment’ brings about its ‘consummation’. Indeed, His incarnation has ushered in nothing less than a new era of God’s dealings with earth and its inhabitants. During the interim between the Son’s First and

16. The following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse on introductory matters concerning the letter from James: Adamson (1989); Bauckham (1999); Davids (1982); Dayton (2009b); Dibelius (1976); Hiebert (1979); Laws (1980; 1992); Martin (1988); Moo (2015); Motyer (1985); Painter (1999); Penner (1996); Stulac (1993); Wall (1997a; 1997b). 17. For an assessment of the Jewish worldview, beliefs, and way of life discernable in the letter from James and how it fits within its first century ce cultural context (particularly, the Judaisms of Qumran, the Rabbis, and the Jacobean community), cf. Eisenman (1997: 31–50); Evans (2001); Neusner (2001; 2005a). For a comparison of the moral system in James with other Greco-Roman and Judaic texts, cf. Strange (2010). 18. 722 bce. 19. 586 bce. 20. 35 ce. 21. Cf. Acts 8:1; 11:19.

176 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Second Advents, the present and future aspects of the inaugurated eschatology of the Creator’s kingdom program remain in a constant state of flux. The theme of God’s kingdom has Christocentric and Christotelic import in both the writings of Paul and the letter from James. An assessment of the scholarly discourse points to the divine kingdom including God’s presence and rule over human hearts, regardless of where and when they live.22 This kingdom embraces all who walk in fellowship with the Lord and do His will. The kingdom is governed by God’s laws, which are summed up in humankind’s duty to love the Lord supremely and love others unreservedly. Moreover, this kingdom, which was foretold by the prophets and introduced by Jesus, would one day displace all the kingdoms of this world, following the return of the Redeemer. God’s kingdom is the society in which believers ultimately find perfect congruity, but its realization awaits the end of the age.

3.0 The biblical concept of the law The Hebrew noun tôrâ is often rendered as ‘law’.23 While in some contexts this legal nuance is present, it is too narrow and rigid to insist on it in all places where tôrâ occurs. The more basic meaning of the noun is ‘instruction’ or ‘teaching’ and denotes a way of life, that is, one characterized by rectitude and virtue. The purpose of the Torah, then, is not merely to present a fixed number of laws embedded within it; rather, as divinely revealed instruction, the Torah is the prologue to the redemptive narrative found in the Judeo-Christian canon. In whole and in part, the Torah presents God’s will for His spiritual children on how to live in an upright manner.

22. The scholarly discourse on the divine kingdom is extensive. Concerning what the biblical and extra-biblical literature teaches about the kingdom of God, cf. Bivin and Tilton (2015); Duling (1992), Marshall (2009); McClain (2001). In terms of what the four Gospels reveal about the divine kingdom, cf. Green (2013a). With respect to Paul’s letters and the kingdom of God, cf. Kreitzer (1993). The theme of God’s kingdom, as developed in the later New Testament, is examined in Kim (1997). For a treatment of how the theme of God’s kingdom fits within the biblical narrative of the history of redemption, cf. Schreiner (2013). Concerning how the divine kingdom theologically relates to the atoning sacrifice of the Son at Calvary, cf. Treat (2014). A comparison of the three leading millennial views of the kingdom can be found in Walvoord (1983). For two views regarding the connection between the kingdom promises and the testaments, cf. Kaiser (1991); Waltke (1991). 23. The information in this paragraph is a revision of material in Lioy (2004:13).

put ting the le t ter fr o m j am e s i n i ts p l ac e  | 177

Similarly, the Greek noun nomos is often rendered ‘law’.24 In some contexts, nomos refers to a formalized set of rules prescribing what people must do. These can range from ordinances and commands to customs and traditions sanctioned by society. In the New Testament, the noun usually refers to the Pentateuch,25 but it can also denote the Old Testament as a whole. While the Greek noun primarily refers to that which regulates behavior, it can also denote the promise of God.26 Additionally, the term refers to a word of instruction that is divine, not human, in origin and that indicates the path of righteousness and blessing. Within both Judaism and Christianity, the Ten Commandments27 hold a premier status.28 Also, the Decalogue is regarded as the moral law, or the basic list of God’s universal ethical norms for proper human conduct. Moreover, the Ten Commandments are considered the theological foundation for all other ordinances and directives in Scripture. Accordingly, James 1:25 and 2:12 use the word ‘law’ to denote the ethical teachings of the Old Testament, especially as expressed in the Ten Commandments.29 From a Christocentric and Christotelic vantage point, this is the same law that Jesus said He came to fulfill, not abolish (Matt 5:17), and which finds its culmination in Him (Rom 10:4).30 Jesus perfectly obeyed the law and brought to pass its types and prophecies. Also, in Jesus, the law finds its significance and continuity. Through the Savior’s ministry of teaching and His redemptive work on the cross, those who are united to Him by faith are able to understand and apply the precepts of Scripture, as expressed in the law. During the first century ce, specialists in Judaism debated which of their many commandments were the greatest. When an expert in the interpretation of the Mosaic Law asked Jesus for His opinion, the Savior declared that loving God with all one’s heart, soul, and mind was the foremost injunction (Matt 22:39).31 The second premier directive was to love one’s neighbor as oneself (v. 40).32 Jesus noted that the entire Old Testament was based on these two commands.

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

The information in this paragraph is a revision of material in Lioy (2004:15). Namely, the first five books of Moses. Cf. Luke 24:44. As recorded in Exod 20:1–12 and Deut 5:6–21. The information in this paragraph is a revision of material in Lioy (2004:6–7). Cf. James 2:10–11. For an examination of the law motif in James and its connection to the Torah, cf. Ruzer (2014:73–88); Wall (1997a:83–97). 30. The information in this paragraph is a revision of material in Lioy (2004:137–8). For an analysis of Romans 10:4, cf. section 4.0 in chapter 9 of this monograph. 31. Cf. Deut. 6:5. 32. Cf. Lev. 19:18.

178 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Concerning Paul, he no longer saw himself as being under the control and condemnation of the law (1 Cor 9:20); yet, the apostle stated that he was ‘subject to the law of Christ’ (v. 21). Schreiner (1993a:544) surmises that the preceding phrase most likely refers to Jesus’ ethical teachings articulated in the Gospels, which reiterated the moral standards found in the Old Testament.33 Paul asserted that every directive recorded in Scripture was summed up in the command to love others as much as we love ourselves (Rom 13:9). Verse 10 makes the Christologically-oriented declaration that when believers put forth every effort to treat others with the sensitivity and compassion of the Savior, they do what is prescribed in the law. In short, love is the essence and fulfillment of the law. The apostle repeated the same truth in Galatians 5:14, when he wrote that believers, by loving and serving others, satisfied what the law required. Expressed differently, God’s people are closest to pleasing Him when they are unconditional and unreserved in showing compassion and kindness toward others. The directive recorded in Leviticus 19:18 is the supreme commandment in terms of defining how people should treat one another. This dictum is also royal, for among all the commandments given by God—who is the sovereign King of the universe—it sums up the entirety of the law. In concord with Jesus and Paul, James 2:8 builds on the preceding Christocentric and Christotelic truth by stressing that the ‘royal law’ would become the guiding principle in the future messianic kingdom proclaimed by Jesus at the onset of His earthly ministry.34 The author of James observed that believers are doing well when they love others as much as they love themselves. The point is that believers cannot heed the most important directive in Scripture and at the same time discriminate against others.35 Though it is disputed, one view is that the Lutheran confessions set forth a threefold theological use of the Law:36 (1) a civil use: to restrain evil in the world through punishment;37 (2) a soteriological/pedagogical use: to point out sin and the need for salvation;38 and, (3) a moral/normative use: to provide a guide for

33. 34. 35. 36.

Cf. Rom 8:7; 1 Cor 14:34; Eph 6:2–3. Cf. Matt 4:17; Mark 1:14–15; Luke 4:43. Cf. Jas 2:1. For a concise, substantive deliberation of the threefold theological use of the law within Lutheranism, cf. Engelbrecht (2011); MacPherson (2009); Murray (2008). 37. Cf. Rom 13:1–7; 1 Tim 1:8–11. For a summary of several theological purposes connected with God’s law, cf. n 102 in chapter 9 of this monograph. 38. Cf. Rom 7:7–12; Gal 3:19–24.

put ting the le t ter fr o m j am e s i n i ts p l ac e  | 179

sanctified living among the regenerate.39 In contrast, the purpose of the gospel is to provide forgiving grace through the ministry of the Word and the sacraments.40

4.0 The biblical concept of wisdom The letter from James shares common theological elements with the wisdom literature of the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, the Gospels, and the Pauline corpus. The Greek word for wisdom, sophia, occurs four times in James41 and serves as a useful, implied concept to group all the various subjects discussed in the letter. In turn, James applied Jewish wisdom, as it was developed and controlled by the ethical teachings of Jesus,42 to various pastoral issues. In the first century ce Greek view of reality, wisdom was equated with understanding how to live to achieve the so-called ‘highest good’;43 in other words, the wisdom of one’s decisions and behavior depended on evaluating it in light of the pragmatic, temporal goal of experiencing a maximal existence.44 Similarly, in contemporary parlance, the notion of ‘wisdom’ is equated with theoretical intelligence, human speculations, cleverness, and providing secular, utilitarian advice about how to be successful. In contrast to the preceding views, the biblical notion of ‘wisdom’ is defined by a fear of the Lord45 and a faithful submission to His will.46 Fearing the Lord does not mean responding to Him in cringing terror; instead, it refers to honoring, trusting, and obeying Him. Furthermore, a God-centered sagacity is demonstrated by heeding the commandments of Scripture, which for the Israelites was codified in the Mosaic Law. Correspondingly, wisdom, as understood in Scripture, leads to life, whereas folly ends in death.47 Ultimately, from a Christological horizon, divine wisdom is incarnated in the Son.48 39. Cf. Rom 7:25; 13:8–10; 1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2, 15–16. 40. I.e. baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 41. Cf. James 1:5; 3:13, 15, 17. 42. Mirroring what is recorded in the Gospels. 43. Latin, summum bonum. The following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse on the Hellenistic view of wisdom: Blanshard (2006); Goetzmann (2014); Ryan (2014); Wilckens (1971). 44. E.g. obtaining self-fulfillment, experiencing pleasure, minimizing pain, and so on. 45. Cf. Job 28:28; Pss 34:11; 110:11; Prov 1:7; 9:10; 31:30; Eccles 12:13. 46. Cf. Isa 11:1–2; Mal 3:5. The following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse on the Hebraic view of wisdom: Goldberg (1980a); Rudolph (2005); Scott (2007); Wilson (1997). 47. Cf. Prov 26:27; 28:10; Ps 7:14–16. 48. Cf. 1 Cor 1:24, 30.

180 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

The writer of James builds on the preceding Hebraic mindset when he explains what it means for the believer’s entire person to be characterized by wisdom.49 His operational premise is that everyone is an indivisible entity, in which the labels ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ are used to refer to the ontological unity that characterizes one’s material and immaterial existence.50 The opposite of such a cohesive mindset would be individuals who vacillate in their resolve to live for the Messiah and behave in ways that conflict with His will. Expressed another way, these are people who flip-flop between heeding the injunctions of Scripture and acquiescing to the value system of pagan society.51 Such a disposition is associated with folly and manifested in those who live as practical atheists.52

5.0 The interrelationship between the Mosaic Law, faith, and good deeds The issue of the Mosaic Law, faith, and good deeds, especially as it relates to the teachings of James and Paul, warrants particular attention. Evidently, some among the readership of James boasted about their ‘faith’, but failed to demonstrate it through loving acts to the disadvantaged (2:14).53 For James, the Christocentric and Christotelic reality of the Son’s kingdom reign in His followers expressed itself in displays of assistance toward the needy. The idea is not that people are saved by doing good works; rather, the certitude of their faith is validated by living uprightly and ministering to the impoverished. In the absence of these two factors, claims to faith are suspect. James conveyed a Christological mindset when he affirmed that genuine faith leading to salvation obeys Jesus’ scriptural injunction to love others unsparingly. James targeted those who voiced empty platitudes, yet did nothing to help povertystricken individuals. In this case, those in need required food and clothing (v. 15). If the religious individual merely left the destitute with a hollow pious greeting, it

49. Concerning the intertextuality between the wisdom literature of the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and the letter from James, cf. Adamson (1989:363–9); Bauckham (1999:29–35); Chilton (2005:307–16); Davids (2001:77–83); Kirk (1969:32–8); McCartney (2009:45–9, 280–92); Shanks and Witherington (2003:152–6); Witherington (2007:485–91); Wall (1997a:35–8, 88). 50. An overview of the first-century ce Jewish perspective known as ‘ontological holism’ can be found in Lioy (2011:28–29). 51. Cf. James 1:5–7. 52. Cf. Pss 14:1; 53:1. 53. Portions of the discourse in this section are a revision of Lioy (2013b:203–8).

put ting the le t ter fr o m j am e s i n i ts p l ac e  | 181

did the latter person no good (v. 16). The more charitable response was to combine meaningful deeds with well-intentioned words. For instance, the wealthy believer could be a source of divine blessing by helping to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. The focus is on a broad concept of intellectual assent versus genuine belief. Intellectual assent is ‘dead’ (v. 17) and useless, being devoid of charitable acts. An active faith, however, is vibrant, being characterized by concern and compassion for others. The iconic figure of the Protestant Reformation, John Calvin, observed that while faith alone saves, the faith that saves is never alone.54 James wanted to move his readers from an atrophied and apathetic faith to one that was robust and vibrant. That is why he stressed the necessity of faith in the Son expressing itself by means of good ‘deeds’ (v. 18). James anticipates an imaginary objector declaring, ‘You have faith; I have deeds’.55 The idea is that there are two equally valid types of faith, namely, one that simply believes and another that acts on that belief. James challenged the idea that genuine, saving faith has no effect on the way a person acts. In short, trusting in the Messiah is authenticated by doing altruistic deeds for others. When such faith is planted in the soil of kind acts, it has an opportunity to thrive. Next, the author commented on the presumed value of merely believing in the existence of God by noting that this by itself does not result in eternal life. After all, even the demons are monotheists, for they affirm that there is only one God and it causes them to tremble with fear (v. 19).56 The obvious conclusion is that ‘faith without deeds is useless’ (v. 20), for dead orthodoxy is barren of eternal fruit. To reinforce his point, James presented illustrations from the lives of two prominent Old Testament characters—Abraham (the patriarch) and Rahab (the prostitute). James introduced each example by means of a rhetorical question with which his readers were expected to give full and hearty agreement. In the case of Abraham, when he was about 85, he believed God’s promise concerning a son to be born through Sarah (Gen 15:5).57 Verse 6 indicates that the patriarch regarded 54. The exact quote from Calvin (1547) is as follows: ‘It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone’. 55. In this portion of the letter from James, the author used a common first century ce style of communication called the diatribe. His pointed interjections to an imagined dialogue partner were not primarily meant to attack but to instruct and admonish (cf. Bauckham 1999:57–60). For a consideration of the basic rhetorical features in and structure of James, cf. Thurén (1995); Watson (1993); Witherington (2007:388–93). 56. Cf. Deut 6:4; Mark 12:29. 57. For a comparative analysis of the theme of Abraham’s faith in Galatians 3, Romans 4, Hebrews 11, and James 2, cf. Longenecker (1977). The author explores how the various

182 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

the Lord’s pledge as being reliable and dependable. Indeed, the patriarch was confident that God was fully capable of bringing about what He had promised. Consequently, Abraham’s faith was ‘credited … to him as righteousness’. Put another way, the Lord considered the patriarch’s response of faith as proof of his genuine commitment and evidence of his steadfast loyalty. Paul referred to this verse in Romans 4:3 to make the Christologically-explicit point that an upright standing before God comes through faith in the Messiah, not by means of obedience to the law.58 As Abraham’s life illustrated, God unconditionally pardons the believing sinner on the basis of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.59 Years later, when Abraham was about 116, he submitted to God’s test to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22:1–19). This was an act of faith on the part of the patriarch,60 in which he demonstrated that he feared God (v. 12). In keeping with what was noted above about the fear of the Lord, this meant that Abraham followed the Creator in unmitigated obedience. James 2:21 explains that the patriarch’s willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac, proved that his faith was genuine and that he existed in a right relationship with God. It was not the deed that justified Abraham; instead, he showed himself to be justified through the saving faith that was manifested in his virtuous deed. Verse 22 says that the patriarch’s faith and actions worked together, with his actions making his faith complete. An important issue to address concerns whether the letter from James is Christocentric and Christotelic in the way it handles the issue of justification by faith, especially when the writings of Paul are taken into account. James 2:23 and Romans 4:3 both quote Genesis 15:6 when referring to Abraham’s justification. Paul maintained that God counted the patriarch to be righteous because of his faith. James stressed a related truth, namely, that Abraham vindicated the reality of his previously existing faith and his upright status before God by obeying the Lord. Specifically, the patriarch showed by his actions that he genuinely was God’s friend.61 This indicates that Abraham so pleased God by his life that the Lord showered the patriarch with His favor in a distinctive way. A superficial reading of James 2:24 seems to teach that people are justified by what they do and not by faith alone. Moreover, some have been confused by the author’s concept of justification here and how it relates to Paul’s unabashedly

58. 59. 60. 61.

New Testament writings dealt with the relationship of merit to the patriarch’s faith, especially within the context of literature arising out of Second Temple Judaism. Cf. Gal 3:6. Cf. Rom 3:25–26. Cf. Heb 11:17–19. Cf. 2 Chron 20:7.

put ting the le t ter fr o m j am e s i n i ts p l ac e  | 183

Christological teaching on the subject;62 yet, a careful analysis of Scripture indicates there is no real disagreement.63 Laato (1997:77) clarifies that ‘James and Paul differ from one another terminologically’; yet, they remain in agreement ‘theologically’. Likewise, McCartney (2009:272) observes that while James and Paul utilize ‘shared vocabulary and examples of Judaism’, they do so in ‘different ways’ and against the backdrop of ‘quite different problems’. A prime example of the above is the concept of ‘justification’, which appears in both the writings of Paul and the letter from James. A thoughtful reading of their respective discourses indicates that when it comes to the articulation of a Christocentric and Christotelic view of soteriology, they remain in essential agreement. For Paul, ‘justification’ means to declare a sinner not guilty before the Father by means of faith in the Son and His death in the sinner’s place. Because the Messiah died to atone for humankind’s iniquity, the repentant sinner can enjoy a standing of righteousness before God. In James, the concept of ‘justification’ is taken one step further to include the validation of one’s faith in the sight of God and others. Expressed differently, the upright status of believers with God is vindicated by the way they choose to live. Both James and Paul affirm the Christological truth that those who are born again possess saving faith. For instance, at the Jerusalem Council,64 Peter notes that it is ‘through the grace’ (Acts 15:11) of the Savior that the penitent are ‘saved’. In turn, James endorses Peter’s statement (vv. 13–18). Likewise, in James 1:18, the author states that the Father gives believers spiritual ‘birth through the word of truth’ (i.e. the proclamation of the gospel). Similarly, Paul declares in Ephesians 2:5 and 8 that it is ‘by grace’ that people are ‘saved through faith’. Moreover, according to Galatians 2:9, ‘James, Cephas, and John’ affirmed the gospel message Paul taught. From a Lutheran perspective, the Spirit uses the means of grace to bring about a change in a sinner’s disposition. More specifically, the Spirit works through the heralding of the good news to foster a metamorphosis of one’s view, feeling, and purpose in life. This radical transformation results in the penitent turning to 62. Cf. Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16; 3:11. 63. Varying approaches concerning the relationship between the teachings of James and Paul on the issue of justification by faith can be found in the following representative secondary sources: Adamson (1989:195–203); Bauckham (1999:113–20); Chester and Martin (1994:46–53); Brosend (2004:78–82); Dibelius (1976:174–80); Davids (1993); Dayton (2009b:461–2); Laato (1997:71–81); Laws (1992:625–6); McCartney (2009:53–6, 272–9); McKnight (2011:259–63); Moo (2015:59–65); Neusner (2005b); Painter (1999:265–9); Penner (1996:47–75); Shanks and Witherington (2003:156–62); Witherington (2007: 466–70); Verseput (1997:105–15); Wall (1997b:555–6). 64. The late 40s ce.

184 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

God with a corresponding turning away from sin. The natural consequence of saving faith is a lifestyle that actively promotes and demonstrates righteousness.65 The prostitute, Rahab, is the second example put forward by James of genuine, saving faith. Joshua 2:1–21 records the episode in which Rahab hid the Israelite spies and sent them safely away by a different road. Like Abraham, Rahab was shown to be righteous when her trust in God prompted her to act in a way that met with His approval ( Jas 2:25). God was pleased with Rahab’s virtuous deed because she operated in faith.66 Verse 26 reveals that the connection between genuine, saving faith and godly deeds is as close as that between body and spirit. When the spirit (or breath of life) is separated from the body, the latter dies.67 Likewise, faith that is barren of any fruit is equally dead. Oppositely, living faith manifests itself in good works advocated by God’s moral law.

6.0 The Christological emphases found in James The analysis undertaken to this point indicates that the letter from James articulates a Christocentric and Christotelic outlook, in fact, one that is comparable and equivalent to the view put forward by Paul (in his writings) and taught by Jesus (as recorded in the Gospels). This assessment is deepened by considering the overt Christological emphases found in James. The assertion is that when viewed from the latter perspective, the discourse put forward by James has immense theological value and so deserves its place alongside the Gospels, the Pauline corpus, and the remainder of the New Testament. On one level, while engaging James, it is constructive to recognize the interpretive primacy and controlling influence of the gospel. This includes centering the hermeneutical enterprise on the person and work of the Messiah and regarding Him as the redemptive link between the Old and New Testaments.68 The endeavor also affirms the priority of a Christ-centered, cruciform theology (such as that

65. 66. 67. 68.

Cf. Rom 10:8–15. Cf. Heb 11:6, 31. Cf. Eccles 12:7. Cf. Luke 24:27, 44–47; John 5:39; Acts 13:27. A thoroughgoing exploration of a gospelcentered hermeneutic can be found in Goldsworthy (2010). He maintains the following interrelated presuppositions: (1) This approach ‘functions as the matrix for understanding the relatedness of the whole Bible to the person and work of Jesus’ (15); (2) Jesus’ salvific identity and ministry provide regenerate interpreters with a ‘single focal point’ for making sense of ‘reality’ (21); and, (3) Jesus ‘mediates the ultimate truth about God in all things and thus about the meaning of the Bible’ (48).

put ting the le t ter fr o m j am e s i n i ts p l ac e  | 185

found in the writings of Paul).69 On another level, it crucial to avoid lapsing into a gospel-monism, in which one’s interpretation of Scripture collapses into a narrow, sterile, and one-dimensional view of what God’s Word supposedly teaches.70 Even Paul, in his farewell speech to the Ephesian elders, affirmed the importance of proclaiming the ‘whole will of God’ (Acts 20:27). The apostle was emphasizing the Creator’s purpose and plan throughout salvation-history, as revealed in the entire Judeo-Christian canon.71 The preceding observations bring to mind the earlier locution about a so-called ‘canon within a canon’. As Carson (1984a) observes, this phenomenon is a kind of biblical ‘reductionism’. It occurs when one portion of Scripture (such as the four Gospels or the Pauline writings) is overemphasized and valued, while other portions (such as the letter from James) are downplayed and treated with suspicion. The peril of this approach is that interpreters, by ‘arbitrarily’ placing the ‘locus’ of ‘controlling authority’ on what they favor over what they disfavor, stand in judgment of God. Furthermore, such a hermeneutical method calls into question the inspiration and authority of the Old and New Testaments.72 Concerning the letter from James, a thoughtful reading of the epistle challenges the notion that it is at cross-purposes with Paul’s Christological teaching about justification by faith.73As a corollary, there is value in taking the letter of James

69. For a case study analysis of a representative passage in Paul’s writings through the prism of his crucicentric thinking, especially in dialogue with a confessional Lutheran perspective, cf. chapter 5 of this monograph. For a consideration of the cruciform theology found in the letter from James, cf. Davids (1980). 70. Cf. the parallel observations about Christomonism in section 1.0 of chapter 9 in this monograph. 71. For an explanation of the essence, contours, and significance of salvation-history, cf. Carson (2015a:236–9); Lioy (2014a:78–87). In terms of messianic themes and prophecies found throughout the Old Testament, cf. Kaiser (1995), Van Groningen (1990); Wright (1992). For a synopsis of how the letter from James communicates the redemptive storyline of Scripture, cf. McKnight (2011:4–9). For a consideration of intertextual issues in the letter from James (e.g. Old Testament quotations, biblical allusions, and so forth), cf. Popkes (1999). 72. Cf. Deut 4:2; 2 Tim 3:16–17; 2 Pet 1:20–21; Rev 22:18–19. Various specialists have deliberated the phenomenon of a ‘canon within a canon’, especially as it relates to a Christ-centered hermeneutic; e.g. Hasel (1991:66–7, 107); Osborne (2006:360–1); Thielman (2005:36–7). This includes members of the academic community of South African Theological Seminary. For instance, Peppler (2012:132–3) affirms that such an approach not only results in, but also requires a ‘form of Canon within a Canon’. In response, Smith (2012b:162–3) raises the concern of a ‘two-tier approach to the scriptures’, wherein the four Gospels (or any other portion of Scripture) are treated as ‘superior revelation to the remainder’ of God’s Word. 73. The issue of justification by faith is deliberated at length in the preceding section.

186 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

seriously in its own right and objectively evaluating its theological importance in that regard. The preceding endeavor includes considering the strong Christocentric and Christotelic emphasis in James, especially against the backdrop of Paul’s discourse. Admittedly, the name of Jesus is only mentioned twice in the epistle from James, specifically, in 1:1 and 2:1. This crude metric could lead to the incorrect inference that the author pays little attention to the Messiah and His redemptive ministry, particularly when compared to the four Gospels and the writings of Paul; yet, an exegetical analysis of James calls into question such a supposition.74 A corresponding point is that whatever James states in his letter75 is grounded in the truth he affirms about the Savior. These observations should give one pause in hastily relegating the teachings in the epistle to a virtual second-tier status, especially when compared to other New Testament writings.76 A useful starting point is the direct reference in James 1:1. The author refers to himself as a ‘servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ’.77 The NIV rendering notwithstanding, none of the Greek nouns have an article.78 One inference is that the references to ‘God’ and ‘Lord Jesus Christ’ denote two of the three persons within the Trinity, namely, the Father and the Son. A second under-appreciated implication is that the verse presents an exalted view of the Messiah. For instance, when James refers to himself as a bondservant of the Father and the Son, the insinuation is that the two equally exercise divine authority. Moreover, James sees himself as submitting to and worshiping the Father and the Son without any differentiation. A second direct reference is found in James 2:1. Here the author identifies his readers79 as those who have trusted in ‘our glorious Lord Jesus Christ’.80 Because of their baptismal union with the Messiah, James urged them to spurn all forms of discrimination and preferentialism. There are at least three ways in which the genitival form of the Greek noun, doxes (‘glory’), can be interpreted. One option is that the term is taken to be a genitive of sphere or place. If so, the grammatical construction draws attention to the exalted condition or nature of the Son. He conquered death, returned to heaven, and exists in a state of ‘glory’ at the Father’s 74. The following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse on the Christological data in James: Baker (2002:51–6); Bauckham (1999:138–40); Davids (1982:39–41); Hurtado (1997:173); Reumann (1999:129–35); Wall (1997a:27–34, 295–7). 75. E.g. concerning such matters as dealing with temptation, taming the tongue, and the relationship between faith and deeds. 76. E.g. those found in the four Gospels and the Pauline corpus. 77. Greek, θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος. 78. I.e. the Greek nouns are anarthrous. 79. Greek, adelphoi, ‘brothers and sisters’. 80. Greek, τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης.

put ting the le t ter fr o m j am e s i n i ts p l ac e  | 187

right hand.81 A second option considers ‘glory’ as being appositionally related to the phrase rendered ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’. If so, the Greek noun clarifies a specific aspect of the Son’s personhood, namely, that He is the ineffable presence of God incarnate.82 As an aside, the preceding observation brings to mind the way in which the rabbis later described the Lord’s glory abiding with Israel as shekinah, from a Hebrew word for ‘dwelling’.83 God’s shekinah dwelt with the Israelites in the wilderness period, came to Solomon’s temple when it was built, and then departed when the temple was destroyed. The Evangelist in the Fourth Gospel depicts Jesus as God’s shekinah returned to earth ( John 1:14). In a similar vein, Paul said it was possible to see God’s glory in Jesus of Nazareth when He was on earth and that believers have the promise of sharing in that glory (Rom 5:2). Both of the two options summarized above communicate an exceedingly high Christology. Be that as it may, numerous English translations render ‘glory’ as an attributive genitive.84 The exegetical implication, then, is that doxes refers to some quality or characteristic of the Messiah and should be taken to have the meaning of ‘glorious’. A logical query is the way in which James considers Jesus to be ‘glorious’. Three possible responses are noteworthy: (1) Jesus unveils the inherent glory of the triune God;85 (2) the glory of God enabled Jesus to rise from the dead;86 and, (3) Jesus dwells in eternal glory.87 Irrespective of how the genitival construction of doxes is to be syntactically understood, the author’s pastoral emphasis remains the same. In particular, the diaspora community is summoned to put their faith in the risen and exalted Messiah. A further analysis of the letter from James indicates that the two overt references to Jesus are neither incidental nor peripheral to the writer’s main argument; instead, 1:1 and 2:1 point to a Christocentric and Christotelic perspective that is intrinsic to the epistle’s discourse. The preceding statement is validated by other discernible comments made in James concerning the Messiah. For instance, both 1:1 and 2:1 refer to Jesus as ‘Lord’ (Greek, kyrios). Admittedly, Hellenistic writers could use the noun, not to point to an individual’s divine status, but to signal a person’s place of high rank within society.88 For all that, hundreds of years before the Son’s 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88.

Cf. Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33; 7:56; Phil 2:9; Heb 1:3. Cf. Col 1:15; 2:9; Heb 1:3. The information in this paragraph is a revision of material in Lioy (2007a:27). E.g. Lexham, NET, NIV, NASB, NLT, and NRSV. Cf. John 1:14; Heb 1:3. Cf. Rom 1:4. Cf. John 17:5; Rev 1:5, 12–18. Comparable to the medieval appellation, ‘lord of the manor’.

188 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

incarnation, the Septuagint consistently translated the Hebrew proper noun, Yahweh, as kyrios. Eventually, within Hellenistic Judaism, kyrios was consistently used to denote the covenant name for Israel’s God. Centuries earlier, after the chosen people returned to the Promised Land from 70 years of exile in Babylon, they renounced the polytheistic ways of their predecessors and became staunch monotheists. For this reason, Deuteronomy 6:4 operated as a central tenet of their faith.89 Otherwise known as the Shema,90 Moses declares that the ‘Lord our God, the Lord is one’. As the NIV margin notes, the Hebrew can be translated in several different ways. Other possibilities include the following: ‘the Lord our God is one Lord’; ‘the Lord is our God, the Lord is one’; and, ‘the Lord is our God, the Lord alone’. One meaning of the Shema is that Yahweh is the only real God. Also, the statement, ‘the Lord is one’ expresses not only the uniqueness but also the unity of God. There is no essential division or multiplicity in God. For this reason, the Israelites were always to worship only the Lord as their God and never divide their devotion between the one true God and any pagan deities.91 James 2:19 reflects the above strong monotheistic perspective when it states, ‘there is one God’ or ‘God is one’.92 In light of what has been noted, it is remarkable that the author uses kyrios (‘Lord’) to denote both the Father and the Son. Indeed, the writer makes no attempt to explain how it is possible for Yahweh to be applied equally to the Father and the Son. Incidentally, an examination of the rest of the New Testament indicates that kyrios is often used to refer to Jesus of Nazareth.93 The implication is that the four Gospels and the Pauline corpus, along with the letter from James, applied God’s covenant name to Jesus.

89. The information in this paragraph is a revision of material in Lioy (2008b:409–10). 90. A transliteration of the first Hebrew verb appearing in Deuteronomy 6:4. 91. Cf. Exod 20:1–6; Deut 5:6–10. 92. Greek, εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός. In addition to affirming the unity, or singularity, of God’s being (cf. Mark 12:29), Deuteronomy 6:4 reveals that God is simple and unchanging in His essence. He is not composed of different elements, and nothing can be added to or taken away from Him. Scripture also teaches the existence of three persons in the Godhead. This is called the doctrine of the Trinity (from the Latin word trinitas, which means “threeness”). The notion of the three-in-oneness of God is nowhere fully formulated in the Bible; yet, Scripture provides ample evidence to support the doctrine. It affirms that the Lord exists in three personal distinctions known respectively as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14). Each person is co-equal and co-eternal with the other two; cf. Isa 48:16; Matt 3:16–17; Lioy (2007a:101). For an analysis of Trinitarian emphases within Paul’s writings, cf. Fee (1994:827–45; 2007:586–93). 93. Cf. Acts 2:36; Rom 10:9; Phil 2:8–11.

put ting the le t ter fr o m j am e s i n i ts p l ac e  | 189

A comparison of James 4:12 and 5:7–9 offers another striking example of the exceedingly high Christocentric and Christotelic perspective found throughout the letter. The former verse declares that God alone is the righteous ‘Lawgiver and Judge’ (vs. 12), and that only He has the authority to overrule or change His edicts.94 This is true because as the ‘Lawgiver’, God is the author of the Mosaic legal code. Also, as the ‘Judge’, He is the administrator of the law. In short, He is both the legislator and enforcer of His eternal decrees. Accordingly, only He has the right and power to ‘save and destroy’. Moreover, while the law given by the Lawgiver brings condemnation to transgressors, the righteous Judge is the only one with the authority to save the condemned offender. In 5:7–9, James spotlights Jesus in His role as the sovereign Lord and righteous Judge.95 The writer notes that at Jesus’ Second Advent, all manner of economic and social injustice would be addressed. His eschatological agenda includes overturning and reversing every inequitable judgment the wicked rich make against His impoverished, socially-ostracized followers. The consequence is that James views the Son as united with the Father in the role of divine Judge. The implication is that Jesus exercises a prerogative reserved only for God in the Hebrew sacred writings.96 A correspondingly exalted Christology is found in Revelation 22:3, which reveals that the ‘Father and the Son jointly share the responsibility of ruling and adjudicating from the celestial throne’ (Lioy 2003:152). A related phenomenon is that the letter from James restates didactic information attributed to Jesus in the four Gospels, especially Matthew.97 Indeed, an analysis of the relevant biblical texts indicates that James made use of a common oral tradition of Jesus’ teachings. Nonetheless, while there are unmistakable conceptual and thematic links, no direct word-for-word correspondences can be found between what James wrote and what appears in the Gospels. Most likely, then, James composed his letter sometime before any of the four Gospels were written.98 If so, the implication is that James communicates an inspired tradition of the Messiah’s discourse that predates the Gospels. 94. 95. 96. 97.

The information in this paragraph is a revision of material in Lioy (2007c:421). The information in this paragraph is a revision of material in Lioy (2007c:426). Cf. Eccles 3:17; 11:9; 12:14. For an assessment of possible sayings of Jesus’ in the letter from James, cf. Adamson (1989:173–94); Bauckham 1999:93–108); Johnson (2004:136–54); Penner (1996:241–54); Shanks and Witherington (2003:146–52); Wall (1997a:22–3). 98. The general scholarly consensus is that Mark’s Gospel was written first (circa the mid-50s to the late 60s ce), with Matthew (circa 50 to 70 ce), Luke (circa the 60s to the 80s ce), and John (circa 50 to 85 ce) being penned in the subsequent years and decades; cf. Bock (2002); Brown (1997); deSilva (2004); Strauss (2007).

190 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

The use James makes of Jesus’ gospel-centered teaching corresponds to, rather than conflicts with comparable didactic portions found in the Gospels. This phenomenon in James points to another aspect of its high Christology. For instance, both James and the Gospels portray Jesus as completely overshadowing Moses,99 in which there is ‘continuity and advance in God’s redemptive plan’ (Fanning 2015:2492). Also, in the Gospels, Jesus’ teaching becomes the biblical standard for His disciples to heed. Similarly, in the letter from James, the restatement of the Messiah’s words becomes an ethical compass for a displaced faith community in crisis. Furthermore, as in the Gospels, so too in James, the author affirmed that what Jesus taught is the valid and correct benchmark for upright conduct among members of God’s eschatological household. It just so happens that Paul articulates a correspondingly high Christological view in his writings.100

7.0 The emphasis on law and wisdom in James Consonant with what was articulated earlier, in Jewish thought, the Torah is understood to be divine instruction on how to live in a godly manner. An underappreciated truth is that a comparable emphasis can be found in both the Gospels101 and the writings of Paul.102 Concededly, some might feel uneasy with the preceding observation, either out of concern for an incipient legalism being expressed or a semi-Pelagian view of one’s relationship to God being affirmed. In response, the focus here is not on meriting one’s salvation, especially since that is received by the Father’s grace through faith in the Son. Incidentally, this truth is stressed in both the writings of Paul and James.103 To clarify further, the emphasis is on God enabling believers to express the reality of their salvation through their upright conduct, which includes loving others unconditionally and unreservedly. This point is stressed by Paul and James.104 In short, the letter from James voices a Christological tenet articulated in the Gospels and the Pauline corpus. Moreover, the letter from James reiterates the thoroughly Christ-centered outlook found in the four Gospels. A case in point would be John’s treatise, in which he presents Jesus as the embodiment 99. For a deliberation of the truth that Jesus completely overshadows Moses, cf. chapter 9 of this monograph. 100. Cf. Rom. 8:2; 1 Cor. 9:19–21. 101. E.g. John 14:15, 21, 23; 15:10. 102. E.g. Eph 2:8–10; Titus 2:14. 103. Cf. Eph 2:5; Titus 3:5; Jas 1:18. 104. Cf. Rom 12:8–10; Phil 2:12–13; Jas 1:27.

put ting the le t ter fr o m j am e s i n i ts p l ac e  | 191

of wisdom and the divine, incarnate Torah.105 Since the Son, as the culmination of the Father’s revelation to humankind,106 transcends the Mosaic Law and all its associated institutions, it is Jesus’ teaching that becomes the foundation for what it means to live for God.107 As argued in the preceding section, this mindset is affirmed in the letter from James. In accord with the above Christocentric and Christotelic outlook, Paul asserts that the Messiah is the incarnation of divine sagacity108 and that the fruit produced by the Spirit forms the heartbeat of Christlike conduct.109 What Paul reveals about the Spirit’s role in the lives of believers is complemented by what James discloses regarding the qualities connected with godly wisdom for Jesus’ followers.110 By way of example, the Father lavishly provides the Spirit to believers. In turn, the Spirit furnishes Christians with discernment and prudence to remain devoted to the Savior, regardless of the adversities they encounter. As noted in section 3.0, James considers the royal law as the guiding principle of God’s eschatological kingdom. Correspondingly, the royal law serves as the foundation for the varied ethical declarations throughout the epistle.111 In agreement with Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels,112 the letter from James regards the two foremost injunctions to be an unconditional love for God and an unmitigated compassion for one’s fellow human beings. By serving others sacrificially, believers demonstrate the validity of their claim to worship the Creator. Moreover, they fulfill the ethical commands of the old covenant, which finds Christological reexpression in the new covenant.113 The prominence given in the letter from James on the royal law mirrors the shift in emphasis in the Gospels from the Mosaic Law to the good news about God’s kingdom. This change in focus is done in the following ways: directing attention away from a slavish observance of the rituals and 105. A comprehensive evaluation of the Fourth Gospel’s identification of Jesus as the embodiment of wisdom and the divine, incarnate Torah can be found in Lioy (2007a). 106. Cf. Heb 1:1. 107. A detailed consideration of the moral law from a Christ-centered perspective can be found in Lioy (2007b). 108. Cf. 1 Cor 1:22–24. 109. Cf. Gal 5:22–25. 110. For differing perspectives concerning whether the concept of wisdom in the letter from James is functionally equivalent to Paul’s emphasis on the Spirit and the virtues He produces in the lives of believers (esp. Gal 5:22–23 and Jas 3:17, respectively), cf. Baker (2008:296–302); Chester and Martin (199:43–4); Davids (1980:103); Kirk (1969:25–8); Laato (1997:75–6); McCartney (2000:58–9). 111. Cf. James 1:25; 2:8, 12. 112. Cf. Matt 22:37–40; Mark 12:28–31; Luke 10:25–28. 113. An affirmation of the moral law’s enduring relevance can be found in Lioy (2004:189–201).

192 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

customs mandated in first-century Judaism;114 encouraging believers to find solace in the gospel; stressing the importance of God’s law being internalized;115 and, enabling believers to pursue godliness, especially by serving others in a humble, sacrificial manner. In summary, James urges his readers to conduct their lives in a godly way, especially in light of their baptismal union with the Son. As a result of their new birth, they abide in His sacred presence and submit to His will. This reflects a Christocentric and Christotelic mindset, along with a regenerate lifestyle, one that thrives in the soil of the Father’s saving grace. Jesus’ followers welcome this new covenant form of existence, for they know that at Jesus’ Second Advent, He rights all wrongs and acquits His followers. Ultimately, the Spirit uses the believers’ God-given faith to motivate and enable them to behave in a manner that reflects what the Creator originally decreed for humankind at the dawn of time.

8.0 Conclusion This chapter undertakes a candid assessment of the continuing theological value of the letter from James. Of particular concern is whether the letter from James articulates a Christocentric and Christotelic outlook, one that is comparable and equivalent to the view put forward by Paul (in his writings) and taught by Jesus (in the Gospels). One incentive for the inquiry arises from the claim made by some within the Lutheran tradition that James and Paul either contradict or are at crosspurposes to one another. An additional motivation is connected with the assertion voiced by other Lutheran acolytes, who maintain that in order to preserve the integrity of the gospel, James must be read through a Pauline lens. Supposedly, the apostle’s letters should overshadow what James wrote, even if this results in creating a canon within a canon. The disquisition in this chapter recognizes that Lutherans are not alone in wrestling with the dialectic between justification and sanctification, including how James and Paul approach this recurrent issue from their distinctive outlooks. The intent is not to somehow resolve a longstanding area of dispute; rather, it is to put forward an alternative view. The latter involves working through the following points of deliberation: background considerations related to James; the biblical concept of the law; the biblical concept of wisdom; the interrelationship between

114. E.g. being circumcised, offering temple sacrifices, and maintaining ritual purity. 115. By the Spirit through the means of grace.

put ting the le t ter fr o m j am e s i n i ts p l ac e  | 193

the Mosaic Law, faith, and good deeds; the Christological emphases in James; and the emphasis on law and wisdom in James. As the locution unfolded in the various major sections of the chapter, the declarations in James were analyzed and compared with the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels and the writings of Paul. As a result of this endeavor, it is reasonable to conclude that when James is carefully and thoughtfully read, it is found to complement, rather than contradict and challenge, Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic discourse on justification by faith. A second major finding is that there remains exegetical benefit in taking the letter of James seriously in its own right, along with objectively assessing its theological importance in that regard. A third determination is that the message of salvation found in James is consistent with that appearing in the Gospels, the Pauline corpus, and the rest of the New Testament.116 Jobes (2011:198) aptly observes that ‘for too long the Protestant church has not appreciated the unique character of the book of James and has been distracted by questions raised when James is read in the canonical context of the Pauline writings on soteriology’. Adamson (1989:423) opines that despite those who disparage the theological value of the letter from James, it has a ‘steady stream of enthusiastic admirers’. In this regard, Johnson (2004:242) avers that ‘throughout the history of interpretation, James has been most appreciated theologically when allowed to speak in its own voice’. In a similar vein, Wall (1997a:295) offers two salient observations: (1) ‘James is a Christian writing that retains a distinctively Jewish ethos’; and, (2) the ‘faith community’ is prudent to ‘hear’ the ‘voice’ of the letter and acknowledge it as being ‘canonical’.

116. For a synopsis of contemporary scholarship dealing with the continuing significance of the letter from James, cf. Harner (2004:26–8).

chapter nine

Making the case for Paul, not Jesus, as a new or second Moses

1.0 Introduction It is common within scholarly circles to regard Jesus as a new or second Moses. The basis for this view, at least in part, stems from the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels, especially the Sermon on the Mount (SOM). For instance, Silva (2014), in commenting on the possible ‘theological symbolism’ within the SOM, draws attention to the fact that Jesus delivered His address on a ‘mountain’ (Matt 5:1) and made ‘authoritative comments on the law’.1 Also, against the backdrop of an ‘eschatological expectation’, Matthew’s ‘narrative’ could have in mind an ‘exodus motif ’ and a ‘new Sinai’. In a previous study dealing with the SOM (Lioy 2004:90–1), I discussed the postulate made by Dumbrell (1981:5) that the setting of the SOM may be ‘consistent with a covenant renewal situation’. Specifically, the Twelve as a group operate ‘analogously to the way in which Old Testament prophets’ (6) functioned. Moreover, the notion of a ‘covenant recall of Israel’ is supported by the fact that John the Baptizer’s ‘message had clear covenantal connections’. Even the ‘message’ Jesus heralded at the beginning of His public ministry was consonant with what

1. Cf. Matt 5:17–48.

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 195

John proclaimed. These ‘points of parallelism with Sinai’ (5), while not absolutely conclusive, are suggestive and merit consideration. To that end, Kline (1975:9) draws attention to the above as typological imagery that helps spotlight Jesus as the One who mediates and ratifies the new covenant. He is understood to be the ‘prophet’ like Moses foretold in the Old Testament.2 The question remains, though, whether it is valid to regard Jesus as a new or second Moses. For example, Block (2012:34), in his introductory remarks concerning Deuteronomy, on the one hand, affirms that ‘many Christian interpreters see in Jesus a second Moses’; yet, on the other hand, Block cogently surmises that this view ‘reflects a low Christology’. After all, the ‘New Testament presents Jesus as Yahweh incarnate’. Kline (1975:20) conveys a similar, dissenting perspective when he states that the Messiah, rather than being portrayed in the Gospels as a ‘new Moses’, is depicted as the One who ‘utterly transcends’ the famed lawgiver, especially in Jesus’ role as the ‘Lord of the Covenant’. Barrett (1962:60) echoes a comparable sentiment when he states that for Paul, ‘Moses is no quasi-divine figure’. That being the case, in the apostle’s epistles, he ‘works back from Christ to Moses’. Also, by using this interpretive approach, Paul sought to comprehend ‘Moses in light of Christ, not Christ in the light of Moses’. I, too, noted in chapter 8 of this monograph that the letter from James, along with the Gospels, present Jesus as completely overshadowing Moses. According to Senior (1998:67), this truth implies that Jesus is the ‘teacher par excellence’, who far exceeded Israel’s originator of the Torah. Given that the Torah can be understood as divine instruction on how to live in a godly manner, what Jesus taught, as recorded in the Gospels, is the epitome of all that is contained in Mosaic legal code. Arguably, then, there is sufficient reason to question the notion that Jesus is a new or second Moses. This chapter builds on the research of other specialists who consider Paul to be the more likely New Testament counterpart to Moses. Noteworthy is Deuteronomy 34:10, which portrays Moses as a ‘prophet’ without equal in ancient Israel. Similarly, Aernie (2012:122) opines that within the ‘tradition’ of Second Temple Judaism, Moses was considered to be the ‘supreme prophet’.3 Likewise, Acts 13:1–2 lists Paul among the ‘prophets and teachers’ in the early church. Correspondingly, Wright 2. Cf. Deut 18:15, 18; John 6:15; Acts 3:22; 7:37. 3. Cf. As of Mos 11:6; Sir 45:2; Ant 3.180. For an overview of how Moses functions as a character in the Jewish narratives penned during the Second Temple period, cf. Harstine (2002:96–129). Based on his analysis of numerous texts, he concludes that ‘Moses is characterized as the lawgiver, as the founder of the cult, as a philosopher, and as a historical figure’ (117). In these roles, Moses has ‘four main functions: to authorize the law, to

196 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

(2006:519) assesses that Paul regarded himself to be ‘God’s eschatological apostle’, whom the Creator ‘commissioned’ to ‘bring about the ingathering of the nations’, as depicted and prophesied in the Hebrew sacred writings. On one level, according to Aernie (2012:119), Moses is regarded as the ‘fountainhead’ for the ‘entire prophetic’ institution; on another level, the ‘prophetic tradition of the Old Testament’ (1) shaped the way in which Paul portrayed his ‘apostolic identity and argument’. Sandnes (1991:243–4) has determined that Paul viewed the legitimacy and function of his apostolic call and ministry through the prism of the Old Testament prophetic tradition. Similarly, Myers and Freed (1966:40) stress that in Paul’s ‘vocation and attitudes’ he ministered as a ‘prophet of God’. This is evident from Paul’s high regard for the ‘prophetic tradition’ (41) and his ‘numerous quotations’ of their oracles in his letters. Hafemann (2005:49) identifies ‘four fundamental aspects’ to the ‘call of the prophet in Israel’s tradition’ (epitomized by Moses), as follows: (1) a ‘theophany/ divine encounter’; (2) a commissioning proclamation from the Lord; (3) an ‘obstacle to be overcome’ related to the ‘prophet’s situation’; and, (4) an ‘act of God’s grace’, along with a ‘promise’ of His abiding presence’. The underlying divine objective was to ‘legitimate the claim of the prophet and the authority of his oracles’ (60). When comparing these details to God’s call and commission of Paul as a herald of the gospel, Hafemann (104) states that the apostle saw himself as speaking with ‘divinely sanctioned authority to the people of God’. Evans (1999:115), as a result of considering 1 Corinthians 12:28 and 14:37, infers that ‘Paul’s understanding of apostleship’, along with his ‘call to mission’, included operating in the role of a ‘prophet’. Evans (1999:118) lists the following points of reference as defining Paul’s view of himself as a ‘latter-day prophet’: his ‘call’;4 his ‘visions’;5 his ‘manner of speaking about himself and his ministry’;6 and his ‘sense of obligation’.7 During the course of Paul’s evangelistic ministry, the Lord used the apostle to establish faith communities in the eastern Mediterranean,8 including the church at Corinth.9 Also, just as Moses faithfully ministered as God’s ‘servant’

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

authenticate religious activity, to serve as an exemplar for piety, and to stand as the prophet par excellence’ (126). Cf. Isa 49:1; Jer 1:5; Gal 1:15–16. Cf. Isa 1:1; 6:1–13; Ezek 1:1; 8:4; Obad 1; Nah 11; Hab 2:2; 1 Cor 15:8; 2 Cor 12:1–4; Gal 1:12, 16; 2:2. Cf. Deut 13:1–5, 6–11, 12–18; 20:17–18; Jer 1:7–8; Ezek 1:2–3; Acts 26:16–17; Gal 1:6–9. Cf. Isa 24:16; 52:7; 53:1; Jer 13:27; 14:19; Hos 9:12; Rom 10:14–17; 11:1; 1 Cor 9:16. Cf. Rom 15:17–19. Cf. 1 Cor 3:6.

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 197

(Num 12:7) in His ‘house’, so too Paul was a bondservant of the ‘new covenant’ (2 Cor 3:6) promised in the Hebrew sacred writings.10 Furthermore, the Lord not only entrusted Paul with divine ‘mysteries’ (1 Cor 4:1), as He did with Moses centuries earlier, but also with a distinctive level of ecclesial ‘authority’ (2 Cor 13:10) to establish, strengthen, and shepherd the body of Christ.11 In the view of Jones (1974:219), Paul played an ‘eschatological and foundational role’ in the formation of the early church. This includes Paul being the ‘recipient’ of the endtime ‘revelation of the New Covenant’ (220), which the Spirit intended for the edification of the ‘new people of God’. The main contours of the above observations are neither new nor novel. In the sixth century ce, an ecclesial leader, Eustratius Constantinopolitanus, proposed that Paul, in the way he operated, is a stronger candidate than Jesus to be a ‘second Moses’ (Van Duen 2006:141). More recently, Jones (1973:374–8) and Stockhausen (1989:169–75), as a result of their exegetical analyses of relevant portions of 2 Corinthians, separately conclude that it is valid to regard Paul as a new Moses. Perhaps more so than any of Paul’s peers, he occupied a unique ‘redemptivehistorical place’ ( Jones 1974:235) in God’s salvific program. Specifically, God used Paul’s missionary endeavors to bring about the spiritual regeneration of the lost and enable them to become part of an emerging, ‘new creation’ (2 Cor 5:17).12 Concededly, it is possible to exaggerate the parallels between Moses and Paul. This could be one reason why some specialists disagree with the preceding formulation. By way of example, Oakes (2007:249) maintains that within the Pauline corpus, Moses was neither a pivotal ‘figure’ nor occupied a strategic ‘theological role’; yet, such a view radically understates a candid assessment of the pertinent biblical data. Similarly, Damgaard (2013:89) asserts that Moses only appears at ‘rare intervals’ in Paul’s writings. This assessment, though, is limited to the direct references and incidental allusions the apostle makes to Moses. Such a restrictive metric does not sufficiently account for the numerous times the writings of Moses

10. Cf. Jer 31:31–34; 32:40; Ezek 11:19; 36:26. 11. For a synopsis of how literature from the period of Second Temple Judaism (i.e. the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, and the Qumran writings) used Moses to buttress the writers’ personal authority, cf. Hafemann (2005:63–89). Abasciano (2005:114) points out that in the ‘post-biblical literature’ penned during the period of Second Temple Judaism, writers often ‘assumed’ and utilized ‘Moses’ authority’ to ‘legitimize’ their own status. Abasciano postulates that Paul mirrors this practice when he ‘takes upon himself the mediatorial, intercessory, and prophetic aura of Moses’. 12. For an exegetical analysis of new creation theology in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2, cf. chapter 3 in this monograph. The primary assertion there is that new creation theology is a defining characteristic in Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic discourse.

198 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

are cited by Paul in his letters and convey a normative function. When the entirety of Scripture is taken into account, the role Moses played in the Pauline corpus takes on greater significance. Block (2012:35), in light of his scrutiny of Deuteronomy, advances the discussion when he determines that in a way similar to the Old Testament luminary of the Exodus generation of Israelites, God summoned Paul to be an ‘apostle of liberty’ to a new generation of God’s people. Along with his commitment to evangelize unregenerate Gentiles, Paul never wavered in the depth of his love for his Jewish peers. His distress over Israel was so great that, in a manner reminiscent of Moses,13 the apostle literally said he could wish himself ‘accursed’ (Rom 9:3) from the Savior. Munck (1967:12) remarks that ‘Paul is here speaking as a figure of redemptive history’. Likewise, Abasciano (2005:100) surmises that Paul ‘casts himself in a salvation-historical role on par with Moses’. The Lord used Paul, as a firebrand of the faith, to ‘lead’ a ‘community’ of saved Jews and Gentiles on a ‘mission’ that emphasized the Father’s provision of new life for His children through the atoning work of His Son. In a way that is comparable to Moses, Paul explained for new covenant Christians the ‘theological’ (Block 2012:35) importance of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and the ‘soteriological’ implications of His resurrection from the dead. Furthermore, in a manner that recalls the example of Moses, Paul offered instruction for Jesus’ followers on how to live in ‘covenant’ faithfulness to Him. There is also a close correspondence between the typical literary arrangements of Paul’s letters with that of the macrostructure of Deuteronomy. Of particular interest is Romans, in which chapters 1–11 are ‘devoted to theological exposition’ (Block 2012:35), followed by chapters 12–16, which appraise the ‘practical and communal’ ramifications of Paul’s apostolic teaching. This broadly parallels the two-part literary division and stress found in Deuteronomy, namely, that chapters 1–11 are more theological in emphasis and 12–26 are more pastoral in tone. Furthermore, Block (2012:26) draws attention to numerous instances in Paul’s writings where he supports his argument by quoting from specific passages in Deuteronomy.14 The reason for the apostle’s propensity in doing so is clarified in Romans 1:2, where he links the good news about the Savior with God’s promises, which He made through His ‘prophets in the Holy Scriptures’. Likewise, in 3:21–22, Paul stated that the ‘Law’ and the ‘Prophets’15 testified to the ‘righteousness of God’ made available through ‘faith’ in the Messiah.

13. Cf. Exod 32:30–32. 14. E.g. Rom 10:19; 11:8; 12:19; 1 Cor 5:13; 9:9; Eph 6:2–3. 15. I.e. the Hebrew sacred writings.

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 199

Block (2012:26), in his analysis, surmises that Paul Christologically viewed the arc of redemptive ‘history’ through the prism of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at Calvary. Expressed differently, when the apostle elucidated the Old Testament, including passages from Deuteronomy,16 he did so from a Christocentric and Christotelic perspective.17 That said, as Witherington (1993:104) has observed, it would be incorrect to conclude that Paul lapsed into a form of Christomonism, wherein all aspects of Trinitarian theology are replaced with an all-encompassing focus on the Son;18 instead, the apostle understood the Messiah to be the starting point, trajectory, and endpoint of God’s inspired Word. As Block (2012:26) avers, this hermeneutical approach rejects a ‘narrow legalistic’ elucidation of the Torah, choosing rather to view it as a ‘response’ to the ‘salvation’ the Father has provided in baptismal union with His Son.19 In light of the preceding disquisition, the primary assertion of this chapter is that Paul, not Jesus, is the more likely candidate to be a new or second Moses. The validity of the preceding tenet is demonstrated by the analysis undertaken in sections 2, 3, and 4 (respectively) below. To be specific, Jesus’ absolute supremacy over all individuals and institutions in the Old Testament era is brought out in the episode involving the Son’s transfiguration on a high mountain (sec. 2).20 Also, Jesus’ unrivaled preeminence over Moses is articulated in Hebrews 3:1–6 (sec. 3). Furthermore, Paul taught that the arc of redemptive history should be viewed through the prism of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at Calvary is confirmed by the apostle’s use of Deuteronomy 8:17, 9:4, and 30:12–14 in Romans 10:6–8 (sec. 4, which encompasses vv. 1–13).21

2.0 Jesus’ absolute supremacy over all Old Testament individuals and institutions As stated in section 1.0, the episode involving Jesus’ transfiguration on a high mountain showcases His supremacy over all individuals and institutions in the Old Testament era. The discourse in this section principally focuses on Matthew 16. Concerning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, cf. n 17 in chapter 1 of this monograph. 17. E.g. Rom 10:6–8; 1 Cor 8:6; Gal 3:13. 18. Cf. the parallel observations about gospel-monism in section 6.0 of chapter 8 in this monograph. 19. Cf. Rom 6:3–4. 20. Cf. Matt 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36. 21. According to Seifrid (2007:652), Romans 10:1–13 is ‘hermeneutically the most significant’ passage of the ‘entire letter’.

200 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

17:1–8, though the corresponding information in the other two Synoptic accounts has been consulted.22 In Matthew 16:21–27, Jesus told His disciples that He would be executed and then rise from the dead. Not even Peter, one of His closest followers, could prevent this from happening. On the one hand, the Messiah stated that those who give Him complete control of their lives are His genuine followers and would be eternally blessed; on the other hand, those who reject Him would experience eternal loss. Verse 28 records Jesus’ statement that some of His hearers would not ‘taste death’ before they saw the ‘Son of Man coming in his kingdom’. There are differing ways of understanding the latter. One option is that the coming of Jesus’ and His kingdom ‘with power’ (Mark 9:1) refers to His resurrection from the dead. A second possibility is that the reference is to the birth of the Christian church at Pentecost. The preceding two views notwithstanding, the context of each Synoptic Gospel favors a third alternative, which links Jesus’ statement to His transfiguration. It was not long after making the preceding pronouncements that Jesus split up His group, taking three of the twelve disciples with Him up the side of a high mountain (Matt. 17:1). This verse, along with Mark 9:2, reports that the time interval specifically was ‘six days’ in duration. Luke 9:28 gives an approximate figure of ‘about eight days’. Blomberg (2007:55) points out that the more exact chronological reference ‘parallels Moses’ six days of preparation on Mount Sinai’ before his encounter with the Lord.23 One option is to see a correspondence between this incident and the episode in which Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu accompanied Moses up Mount Sinai (along with Israel’s 70 elders).24 Watts (2007:186) cautions that the link between these occurrences denotes two ‘paradigmatic moments, not precisely constructed replicas’. That said, this connection harmonizes with the supposition that Jesus is the end-time prophet like Moses foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18. Be that as it may, the primary assertion of this chapter is that Jesus completely overshadows every institution and individual from the Old Testament era, including Moses.

22. Cf. Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36. The following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse in this section: Blomberg (1992; 2007); Bock (1994); Boring (1995); Carson (1984b); Cole (1983); Cranfield (1959); Culpepper (1995); Edwards (2002); Ellis (1983); France (2002; 2007); Garland (1996); Geldenhuys (1983); Heil (2000); Hendriksen (1982); Keener (1999); Liefeld (1984); Marshall (1983); Morris (1974); Moses (1996); Nolland (2005); Pao and Schnabel (2007); Perkins (1995); Stein (2008); Thrall (1970); Turner (2008); Watts (2007); Wessel (1984). 23. Cf. Exod 24:16. 24. Cf. Exod 24:1, 9.

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 201

Why Jesus specifically chose Peter, James, and John is subject to debate. Moses (1996:137), presuming an apocalyptic backdrop, posits that the trio represent the ‘nucleus of a new Israel’. The New Testament describes Peter’s special role because of his confession concerning Jesus,25 John as the disciple whom Jesus loved,26 and James as the first among the Twelve to be martyred for the Lord.27 In general, Peter, James, and John enjoyed a particularly close relationship with the Savior, and now they would be privileged to witness a special revelation of the Messiah’s glory. In addition to this occasion, Jesus allowed only Peter, James, and John to accompany Him when He restored the daughter of Jairus to life28 and while Jesus prayed fervently in the Garden of Gethsemane.29 The context of Matthew 17 seems to indicate that the Transfiguration occurred on a ‘high mountain’ (vs. 1) that was in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi. Because Mount Tabor, the traditional site of the event, is some distance from the city and only about 1,900 feet in height, it seems unlikely that it took place there. Mount Hermon fits better in that it is close. Also, three different mountains to the southeast of Caesarea Philippi are each over 4,000 feet. Any of these could fit the context and provide the solitude Jesus desired for the Transfiguration. While Jesus was praying on the mountain, He was ‘transfigured’ (v. 2). The Greek verb used is a form of metamorphoo, which denotes an essential change in form. This term is the origin of the English word metamorphosis. The Synoptic account reveals that the glow on Jesus’ face was translucent, coming from within, like a lampshade’s luminance when the bulb inside is turned on. Matthew noted that Jesus’ countenance shone with the brightness of the sun and His clothes turned as white as light. In Scripture, God’s glory is often associated with light. Consequently, in the Transfiguration, Jesus’ heavenly glory was being unveiled to Peter, James, and John. According to 2 Peter 1:16, the trio were stunned by Jesus’ brilliant, visible appearance. Concededly, Moses’ face had also shone with the glory of God when the lawmaker had come down from Mount Sinai. His brightness, however, had been external and fading.30 In sharp contrast, Jesus’ glory was internal and always present, though it was veiled by His human form, that is, except during His transfiguration. According to John 1:14, the eternal Word ‘became flesh and made his dwelling among us’. ‘Made his dwelling’ translates the Greek verb skenoo, which is 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Cf. Matt 16:16–19. Cf. John 13:23. Cf. Acts 12:2. Cf. Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51. Cf. Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33. Cf. Exod 34:29–35; 1 En 14:20; 2 En 1:5; 2 Cor 3:7–11.

202 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

more literally rendered ‘tabernacled’. This serves as a reminder of the shrine in the wilderness wherein the Lord displayed His glory among the Israelites.31 The grandeur and splendor of God were also present in the Messiah, whose ‘glory’ ( John 1:14)32 the disciples noted. In one sense, the luminescent perfection of God shining forth from Jesus is implied by the Greek noun, doxa; yet, the most profound way in which Jesus’ followers witnessed His glory was through His death on the cross, followed by His resurrection and ascension.33 In general, the prophets of the Old Testament era foretold the Messiah’s suffering and glory to follow.34 At His second coming, Jesus’ glory again would be totally revealed to the entire world.35 As if the Lord’s transfiguration in glory was not enough, two former heroes of the faith—Moses and Elijah—appeared and began talking with Jesus (Matt 17:3). Luke 9:31 indicates that the subject of their conversation was, as Ellis (1983:143) surmises, the entirety of Jesus’ ‘redemptive work’, namely, His ‘death, resurrection, and ascension’.36 One possibility is that these two Old Testament luminaries, in particular, appeared because Moses (the nation’s primer legislator) represents the Law and Elijah (a leading spokesperson for God) represents the Prophets. In this pericope, their appearance is a visual reminder that Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets. The preceding interpretation, though, may not fully elucidate the Christological significance of the exchange involving Moses and Elijah with Jesus. Blomberg (1992:263) indicates that Moses and Elijah were strategic ‘forerunners’ for the ‘Messiah’. Strauss (2007:273) draws attention to the soteriological-eschatological facet of the scene when he remarks that as a result of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, He would ‘lead God’s people’ through a ‘new and greater exodus’, resulting in their eternal ‘salvation’. Bock (2002:235) adds that as a result of Jesus’ advent, a ‘new era and reality appear’. Indeed, He is the culmination of the entire Old Testament revelation.37 Boring (1995:363) clarifies that both Moses and Elijah were ‘prophets’ whom their peers spurned, yet whom the Lord ‘vindicated’. Also, the two championed the ‘covenant’ and the ‘Torah’, as well as performed ‘miracles’. Furthermore, within the context of Second Temple Judaism, the pair were regarded as ‘transcendent figures’

31. Cf. Exod 25:8; 40:34–35; 1 Kings 8:10–11. 32. Greek, doxa. 33. Cf. John 7:39; 12:23, 28; 13:31–32; 17:1, 4–5. 34. Cf. 1 Pet 1:10–11. 35. Cf. Matt 25:31. 36. Cf. the use of the Greek noun, exodus, rendered ‘departure’. 37. Cf. Matt 5:17 and the discourse in section 4.0 below concerning Rom 10:4.

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 203

who escaped death by being ‘taken directly to heaven’.38 Liefeld (1984:926) moves the discussion forward by proposing that ‘Moses is a typological figure’, whose connection with the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt serves as a reminder of the ‘past’. Concerning Elijah, his association with the ‘end times’ makes him an ‘eschatological figure pointing to the future’.39 Moses, then, is a ‘predecessor of the Messiah’, while Elijah is a ‘precursor of the Messiah’. Peter, after witnessing Jesus’ glory during His transfiguration, evidently assumed that His glorification was immediately coming. Peter clearly did not comprehend the import of Jesus’ transfiguration, at least not while it was occurring. On behalf of the other two disciples, Peter spoke to Jesus and offered (perhaps impulsively) to build ‘three shelters’ (Matt 17:4), one for Jesus, and the other two for Moses and Elijah (respectively). It seems that Peter’s intent in building these huts was to extend the duration of the surreal experience. Peter’s wording shows that he was thinking of Jesus as being equal in rank with Moses and Elijah. In this case, Peter failed to recognize that Moses and Elijah—despite their noteworthy status among Old Testament believers—were secondary figures compared to Jesus. Furthermore, though Peter’s motive seemed laudable (at least on the surface), his timing did not match that of God and the Old Testament messianic prophecies. In short, Peter was eager to experience Jesus’ promised glory without the suffering that Jesus foretold. The Jewish feast of Tabernacles forms the backdrop of Peter’s remarks. This feast40 was celebrated in autumn after the harvest. The observance lasted seven days, making it the most extended festival of the Jewish year. During this time, participants lived in tents or shelters made from branches and leaves. It was a sacred season when God’s people commemorated the way the Lord graciously provided for the Israelites during their years of wilderness wandering. The feast

38. Tabor (1989:225) states that during ‘Second Temple times’, there was an ‘aura of mystery’ concerning the fates of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses, along with a considerable amount of ‘speculative interpretation’ about each character in the writings produced by ‘Jewish and Christian groups’ (cf. Gen 5:24; Deut 34:5–7; 2 Kings 2:11; As Mos; Deut Rab 3:17; 4 Ezra 6:25–26; 1 Macc 2:58; Jude 1:9 Rev 11:3–13). For Tabor a prime literary example would be the portrayal made by Flavius Josephus, a first-century ce Jewish historian, in his writings, particularly his Antiquities 4.323–26 (226). According to Tabor (230), Josephus is one of numerous writers during the Greco-Roman period who fixate on a ‘hero, ruler, or extraordinary individual’ (such as ‘Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Osiris, Dionysus, Heracles, Aristaeus, Asclepius, Aeneas, Romulus, Empedocles’) who ‘can obtain immortal heavenly existence’. 39. Cf. Mal 4:5; Sir 48:10. 40. Also known as Sukkoth, Ingathering, Shelters, Booths, and Tents.

204 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

was also a time to express thanks to God for allowing the year’s harvest to be completed.41 Peter’s mistake was pointed out to him by none other than the Father. While Peter was still speaking, a bright cloud42 enveloped the people on the mountaintop. In the Hebrew sacred writings and literature of Second Temple Judaism, God is often associated with clouds, such as when He led the Israelites in the Sinai wilderness.43 The Father, while speaking from the cloud that overshadowed the mountain, gave the Son the divine stamp of approval (Matt 17:5). At Jesus’ baptism, which signified the start of His earthly ministry, the Father made the same declaration.44 Later, after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, when He foretold His death, the Father declared from heaven that His name would be glorified through the cross-resurrection event.45 At the Transfiguration, the Father’s voice declaring, ‘This is my Son’ (Matt. 17:5), affirmed Jesus’ earthly ministry before His disciples. Also, the Father, in making this pronouncement, corrected Peter by pointing out that Jesus was not just another hero of the faith,46 but His ‘one and only Son’ ( John 1:18). As the Anointed One of God, Jesus is not only infinitely superior to Moses and Elijah, but also equal with the Father and the Spirit. Indeed, it was Jesus alone who manifested the glory of the Triune Godhead throughout the Son’s earthly ministry and especially in His redemptive work on the cross. Moreover, at the Transfiguration, the Father expressed His distinctive love for and superlative approval of Jesus. The Son had come to earth with a difficult mission, yet He was being completely obedient to the Father. As Heil (2000:319) points out, ‘heavenly glory’ for the Son did not involve a ‘wish to escape’; rather, His journey included the ‘courage to embrace rejection, suffering, and death’. In light of this truth, the three disciples—and all people—should have heeded Jesus’ words. Admittedly, the Twelve had often listened to Jesus’ teachings, but frequently they did so without understanding or obeying His words. So, during the present episode, the Father commanded that the Son’s teachings were to be

41. Cf. Lev 23:33–43; Num 29:12–39; Deut 16:13–17. 42. Representing God’s sacred, ineffable presence. 43. Cf. Exod 13:21–22; 14:19–20; 16:10; 19:9, 16; 24:15–18; 33:9–11; 40:34–38; Lev 16:2; Num 9:15–23; 11:25; Pss 68:4; 97:2; Isa 4:5; 6:4–5; Ezek 30:3; Dan 7:13; Zeph 1:15; 2 Bar 53:1–12; 4 Ezra 13:3; 2 Macc 2:8; Mark 14:62; Luke 21:27; Acts 1:9; 1 Thess 4:17; Rev 1:7; 14:14. 44. Cf. Matt 3:17. 45. Cf. John 12:28. 46. E.g. similar in stature to Moses and Elijah.

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 205

taken to heart. Doing so was especially appropriate in light of the agonizing days that lay ahead for Him. The three disciples, because they were terrified by hearing the voice of God, fell prostrate (Matt 17:6). The ancient Israelites had felt the same kind of fear when they had heard the voice of God from the cloud on Mount Sinai.47 Jesus, with genuine sensitivity and compassion, approached the three disciples and gave them a reassuring touch. Jesus also directed the trio to ‘get up’ (v. 7) and no longer ‘be afraid’.48 Jesus’ actions reflected His deep affection for Peter, James, and John. When the disciples looked up, Jesus alone was with them; Moses, Elijah, and the cloud were gone (v. 8). Turner (2008:420) avers that Moses and Elijah were only ‘supporting actors in the drama of redemption’. In a manner of speaking, ‘as the curtain falls’, the two depart from the stage, leaving the spotlight focused solely on the Messiah. For this reason, according to Stein (2008:419), the ‘good news’ revolves around the ‘Son of God, not Moses or Elijah’. Lane (1982:321) adds that Jesus’ ‘word and deed transcend all past revelation’.49 Next, as the Lord and His three followers descended from the mountain, the disciples were probably eager to inform the rest of the Twelve what they had witnessed; nonetheless, Jesus directed the three not to tell anyone about it, that is, not until after He rose from the dead (v. 9). It would only be subsequent to His resurrection that the disciples would correctly grasp the significance of the Transfiguration. Also, Jesus wanted to avoid giving the incorrect impression that He was about to establish a glorified earthly kingdom.50 On other occasions, Jesus made a similar statement about not publicizing His messiahship.51 Even though Jesus’ disciples accepted Him as the Messiah, they were still in some ways spiritual infants. Perhaps Peter, James, and John were not quite ready to explain a vision they did not yet fully comprehend—at least not until after Jesus’ conquered sin, Satan, and death.52 In any case, the time was not right for the people at large to know Jesus’ true identity as the Messiah. The Transfiguration was Christologically important for several reasons. First, it unveiled the splendor of the Redeemer, the Son of God, authenticating His messiahship. Second, the vision of Jesus confirmed and expanded what He had 47. Cf. Exod 20:18–21; Deut 4:33; 5:5, 25; Heb 12:18–21. 48. Cf. Gen 15:12; 28:17; Exod 34:30; Deut 4:33; Ezek 1:28–2:2; Dan 8:17–18; 10:8–12, 18–19; 2 Bar 13:1–2; 1 En 4:13–14; 60:3–4; 71:2–3; 2 En 1:8; 20:2; 21:2–3; 22:4–5; 3 En 1:7–9; 4 Ezra 4:11; 5:14–15; 10:30; 4 Macc 4:11; Tob 12:17; Rev 1:17. 49. Cf. Heb 1:1–2. 50. Cf. John 6:14–15; Acts 1:6. 51. E.g. when Peter said that Jesus is the Messiah; cf. Matt 16:16–20; Mark 8:29–30. 52. Cf. Rev 1:5, 18.

206 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

been teaching His followers about Himself. Third, the Transfiguration revealed the great depth to which the Savior had humbled Himself in becoming a human being. Fourth, the mountaintop experience encouraged the Twelve to remain faithful to One who would be executed on a cross because, despite the immediate prospect of suffering and shame, they could look forward to a future of unending glory with their almighty Lord.

3.0 Jesus’ unrivaled preeminence over Moses It was noted in section 1.0 that Hebrews 3:1–6 explains the way in which Jesus’ preeminence over Moses is unrivaled.53 The first two chapters of the letter compare and contrast God’s Son with angels.54 The author had already written that Jesus outshines the angels as a mediator, and that His revelation surpasses the message angels communicate. Next, the author pointed out that the Son eclipses angels when it comes to the administration of the future divine kingdom. Evidently, some of the Hebrews had been tempted to think about angels as being in charge during the messianic age; yet, in fact, the Son, not angels, would govern the world to come. Indeed, the Father decreed the Son to be the supreme Ruler of the eternal state. To fulfill the divine ideal, Jesus had to become a true human being.55 Also, when Jesus became incarnate, He temporarily occupied a little lower rank than

53. The following are the representative secondary sources that have influenced the discourse in this section: Attridge (1989); Bruce (1985); Cockerill (2012); Craddock (1998); D’Angelo (1979); Ellingworth (1993); Guthrie (2007); Hagner (1990); Hahn (2009); Hall (1982); Hughes (1977; 1985); Johnson (2003; 2006); Jones (1979); Kent (1981); Kistemaker (1984); Koester (1991; 2010); Lane (1991); Lierman (2004); Lindars (1991); Milligan (1899); Morris (1981); Pfitzner (1997); Philip (2011); Scott (1998); Vanhoye (2015); Westfall (2000); Westcott (1980). 54. For an examination of the conceptual and symbolic world of Hebrews and how this influences the way in which the writer uses and interprets Scripture, cf. Johnson (2003). Such a world ‘reveals God’ (247), who ‘enters into personal relation with humans’, particularly through faith in ‘Messiah’, who is foretold and promised in the Hebrew sacred writings. 55. There are at least four reasons why Jesus had to be fully divine. First, only someone who is the infinite God could bear the full penalty of all the sins of all who would believe in Him. Second, no mere human or creature could ever save people; only God Himself could (cf. Jon 2:9). Third, only someone who was truly and fully God could be the one mediator between God and human beings (cf. 1 Tim 2:5), both to bring people back to God and to reveal God most fully to people (cf. John 14:9). Fourth, only the Son of God could perfectly obey the Father, and so be the pure, spotless, and righteous Lamb of God (cf. John 1:29, 36; Heb 7:26; 1 Pet 1:18–19).

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 207

the angels in the cosmic order. So, though Jesus was fully God, He was made fully human. For all that, the Son never sinned and always obeyed the Father. Moreover, the Son remained faithful even to the point of dying for the transgressions of all humanity. Because Jesus went to the cross, believers could be spared eternal death. For the Son’s obedience, the Father crowned Him with glory and honor. The risen and ascended Son now sits on a throne at the right hand of the Father in heaven. As stated above, in 3:1–6, the author shifted the focus to Moses. The writer wanted to show his readers that Jesus not only transcends the Old Testament prophets and the heavenly angels, but also the acclaimed lawgiver of Israel. Long before the first century ce, many within the various branches of Judaism considered Moses to be the most lauded person who ever lived.56 In commenting on him, the writer did not seek to undermine Moses’ character and accomplishments; instead, the author simply showed that regardless of Moses’ sterling legacy, Jesus was infinitely superior to the lawgiver.57 The author warmly addressed his readers as his ‘holy’ (v. 1) brothers and sisters in union with the Messiah. The implication is that due to the redemptive, sacerdotal ministry of the Son,58 the Father had separated them (along with all believers) from sin and set them apart for consecrated service to Him. They also were partakers of a divine, eternal ‘calling’. For these reasons, the author urged his friends to center their faith on Jesus and all that He had done for them at Calvary.

56. The Old Testament reveals that Moses was from the tribe of Levi (cf. Exod 2:1–10), at times ministered at an altar (cf. 24:4–8), considered a prophet (cf. Exod 33:11; Num 12:8; Deut 34:10), and regarded as a priest (cf. Ps 99:6). Within the context of Second Temple Judaism, Moses was depicted as high priest and prophet, as well as a legislator and monarch (cf. Sir 45:4–5; Philo, The life of Moses, 1:334; 2:2–7, 66–67, 153–158, 187, 225; and the comprehensive study made by Feldman 2007). For a discussion of how the New Testament portrays Moses and Israel, cf. Lierman (2004). According to the author, Moses is depicted ‘as the greatest of Israel’s prophets, as Israel’s king and redeemer, and as her lawgiver’ (293). One is left with the impression that ‘Moses was a recognized proto-messianic figure, while Jesus in turn was recognized among the first Christians as a Mosaic messiah’ (279–80). The author postulates that ‘it was this lofty appraisal of Moses’ that ‘suited him for his role as the focus of Jewish loyalty and the source of Jewish identity’ (293–4). 57. Glasson (1963:20) remarks that during the Second Temple period of Judaism, the ‘figure of Moses’ foreshadowed ‘the Messiah’. In point of fact, ‘ample evidence can be found in ‘Rabbinic writings that Moses was called the first deliverer and the Messiah the second deliverer’. Concededly, this ‘evidence is mostly later than New Testament times as far as its written character is concerned’; nonetheless, ‘there can be little doubt that this particular form of Messianic hope originated in the pre-Christian period’. 58. Cf. Heb 2:11; 10:10, 14.

208 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Part of the early church’s confession included affirming Jesus to be both an ‘apostle’ and a ‘high priest’.59 The Greek noun translated ‘apostle’ referred to an official representative whom a monarch commissioned to proclaim an authoritative message. When applied to Jesus, it indicates that He is the definitive revelation and superlative envoy of the triune God.60 Verse 1 also refers to Jesus as the believers’ ‘high priest’. By going to the cross, Jesus became the propitiatory offering for the iniquities committed by the entire human race.61 As a result of doing so, Jesus brings about the pardon of repentant, believing sinners and reconciles them to the Father.62 To better explain the enormity of Jesus’ redemptive work, the author of Hebrews compared the nature of the ministries Jesus and Moses shouldered. The collective witness of Scripture is that Moses accomplished a great deal during his earthly life. For instance, the lawgiver was a loyal and devoted servant within God’s entire ‘house’ (v. 2). It is widely held that this is an allusion to Number 12:7.63 Cockerill (2012:163) assesses an alternative view that Hebrews 3:2 is primarily an allusion to 1 Chronicles 17:14. This records Nathan’s oracle of God’s promise to build an enduring dynasty for David. In turn, the verse is said to be a modification of 1 Samuel 2:35. This passage contains an oracle against the house of Eli and foretells God’s intent to replace his corrupt priesthood with one that is faithful to the Lord. Despite the novelty of the preceding alternative views, Cockerill (2012:163) surmises that it is ‘very unlikely’ Hebrews 3:2 alludes either to 1 Chronicles 17:14 (primarily) or 1 Samuel 2:35 (secondarily). Pivotal hermeneutical factors include the ‘syntax’, ‘translation’, and literary ‘context’ of each Old Testament verse. Cockerill concludes that the ‘verbal similarity’ with Numbers 12:7 and ‘dissimilarity’ with either 1 Chronicles 17:14 or 1 Samuel 2:35 ‘make it difficult to imagine a reader hearing’ Hebrews 3:2 as an allusion to anything other than Numbers 12:7.

59. Johnson (2006:107) opines that for believers in the early church, Jesus of Nazareth was not ‘one element among others in the Christian creed’; instead, He alone was the ‘source and substance of their entire commitment’. Koester (1991) moves the discourse forward when he states that the ‘confession’ (126) of faith made publicly (e.g. during baptismal ceremonies and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper) had ‘content that could be identified and grasped’. The affirmations included the following (250): Jesus’ divine sonship (cf. Acts 9:20; Rom 1:3–4); His lordship (Acts 2:36; Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 8:6; 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5; Phil 2:11); and His messiahship (cf. Acts 5:42; 9:22). Jesus’ followers held firmly to these theological declarations without reservation (cf. Heb 4:14; 10:23). 60. Cf. Matt 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke 10:16; John 1:18; 3:17, 34; 5:36; 20:21; Gal 4:4; 1 John 4:10. 61. Cf. John 1:29, 36; 1 John 2:2. 62. Cf. Rom 5:1, 6–11; 2 Cor 5:18–21. 63. Cf. Heb 3:5.

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 209

In Hebrews 3:2, ‘house’ translates a Greek noun that refers to the faith community of God’s people. During the Old Testament era, this was the chosen people of Israel,64 whereas in the New Testament era, the ‘house’ of God is expanded to incorporate both believing Jews and Gentiles.65 The writer of Hebrews was arguing that to an infinitely greater extent, the Son faithfully carried out the redemptive task the Father had given Him to accomplish. The preceding comparison between Jesus and Moses would have made a strong impression on first century ce Jewish believers reading Hebrews. Moses led the Israelites from Egyptian bondage to the border of the Promised Land.66 In keeping with this exodus motif, Jesus achieved incomparably more by leading believers from bondage to sin and its penalty of death to the promise of eternal life. The Son could succeed in doing so, for He, along with the Father and the Spirit,67 is the Creator of the universe.68 So, it stands to reason that He is also the ‘builder’ (v. 3) of the faith community referred to as God’s ‘house’. While it was a privilege for Moses to serve the chosen people of his day, Jesus receives far greater ‘glory’ as the sovereign Lord over the church, as well as the entire cosmos.69 Lane (1991:77) comments that the comparison between Jesus and Moses does not involve a ‘one-to-one equivalence’; instead, the writer utilizes an ‘analogous comparison’ to set up a ‘relation of proportion’. Cockerill (2012:164) goes further in noting that Jesus’ ‘glory is superior’ not only in ‘degree’ but also in ‘kind’. On the one hand, Moses played a major role in the establishment of Israel as a nation; on the other hand, Jesus, as the Son of God, gathered, established, and sustained the community of Israel to which Moses belonged.70 Indeed, every entity owed its existence to the Redeemer (v. 4).71 In verse 5, the author quoted Numbers 12:7 to affirm that Moses was God’s faithful ‘servant’ among the Israelites.72 The Greek noun translated ‘servant’ (Heb. 3:5) denotes someone who was more esteemed than a slave; nonetheless, this person was still a ministering attendant. With respect to Moses, he even had the privilege of prophesying about God’s salvation, which would find its 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

Cf. Exod 16:31; Lev 10:6; Jer 12:7; Hos 8:1; Heb 8:8. Cf. Rom 4:9–12; 1 Cor 12:27; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:20–22; 5:30; 1 Tim 3:15. Cf. Deut 34:11; Josh 24:5; 1 Sam 12:8; Mic 6:4. Cf. Gen 1:1–2; 14:19, 22; Ps 104:30. Cf. John 1:3; Col 1:16–17; Heb 1:2–3. Cf. the analysis of Eph 1:22–23 in section 3.0 of chapter 4 in this monograph. Cf. 1 Cor 10:1–4. Cf. John 1:4. Cf. Exod 4:10–11; 14:31; Num 11:11; 12:8; Deut 3:24; Josh 1:2; 8:31, 33; 1 Chron 16:40; Wis 10:16; 18:21.

210 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

ultimate fulfillment in the Messiah; yet, despite Moses’ honored status, he still remained a steward within God’s ‘house’. Comparatively speaking, Moses’ status corresponded to that of the heavenly angels, who were God’s servants whom He dispatched to minister to believers.73 In contrast, Jesus is the incarnate Son of God.74 Also, throughout the arc of redemptive history, He has faithfully ruled over the ‘house’ (v. 6) of God. Ellingworth (1993:203) states that ‘praise of Jesus’ here does not ‘entail blame for Moses’. In a similar vein, Scott (1998:209) clarifies that the author of Hebrews was not insinuating that ‘Moses’ faithfulness’ was in ‘any way defective’; instead, the writer’s assertion is that Jesus ‘occupies a higher office’. Given the Messiah’s supremely exalted status,75 the author of Hebrews urged his readers to remain devoted followers of Jesus. The writer discerned that the original recipients of his letter were in danger of falling away from the faith. For this reason, he exhorted them to persevere.76 Indeed, the people of God demonstrated their faithfulness by their determination, boldness, and ‘hope’ (vv. 6). The writer indicated that being a member of God’s faith community was a badge of honor, not an object of scorn and shame. After all, Jesus, who brought the church into existence, is the believers’ ‘good shepherd’ ( John 10:11), friend,77 and Son of the Father. Consequently, Jesus’ followers had every reason to be confident in Him, about whom Moses wrote.78

4.0 Viewing the arc of redemptive history through the prism of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice The locution in section 1.0 asserted that Paul viewed the arc of redemptive history through the prism of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at Calvary.79 As the analysis that follows 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

Cf. Heb 1:14. Cf. John 1:1, 14. Cf. Phil 2:9–11. Cf. Heb 3:7–19. Cf. John 15:15; Heb 2:11. Cf. John 5:45–47. Scott (1998:201) observes that the writer of Hebrews, in differentiating Jesus from Moses, sought to convince his ‘readers’ to embrace, rather than scorn, the ‘New Covenant’, to welcome their ‘direct access to God’, and to affirm that Jesus of Nazareth is the ‘faithful Mediator’ between the Creator and people. 79. In Romans 3:25, Paul said that the Father presented the Son as a ‘sacrifice of atonement’. The underlying Greek noun is more literally rendered as ‘propitiation’ (NASB). This word communicates the idea that Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross averted God’s justified wrath against sinners. Jesus’ sacrifice also provided ‘expiation’ (RSV), a term that denotes the removal of personal guilt. Paul was drawing a parallel between the atoning sacrifices

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 211

shows, this assertion is confirmed by the way in which the apostle Christologically used Deuteronomy 8:17, 9:4, and 30:12–14 in Romans 10:6–8.80 By the time Paul wrote his Letter to the Romans,81 he had been on three missionary tours and preached the gospel to Jews and Gentiles. While many Gentiles responded to the Savior, many Jews became increasingly hostile toward the gospel. Throughout the course of Paul’s missionary excursions, he encountered unsaved Gentiles who, in general, were not looking for righteousness, yet received it by means faith (Rom 9:30).82 In contrast to believing Gentiles, the apostle encountered offered in the Jerusalem temple and Jesus’ death on the cross. His sacrifice is the means by which salvation is accomplished for all who repent and believe. In fact, the ‘redemption’ (v. 24) carries overtones of a ‘ransom payment’. The underlying Greek noun is adapted from the slave market. The idea is that those who were formerly enslaved to sin have been ransomed by Jesus through His sacrificial death so that they can become His bondservants; cf. Baltz and Schneider (1990); Danker (2000); Kittel and Friedrich (1964); Louw and Nida (1989); Mangum and Brown (2014); Silva (2014); Swanson (2001b). 80. The scholarly literature concerning Paul’s use of the Old Testament is substantial. Gorman (2004:99) posits that for the apostle, the Hebrew sacred writings were to be ‘understood through the interpretive lens of the cross’. For a cogent survey of the textual data, including explicit citations and allusions, cf. Silva (1993). For an extensive treatment of the issues from a variety of theological perspectives, along with a bibliography of scholarship, cf. Porter and Stanley (2008). As for the discourse in this section, the following are the representative secondary sources that have been influential: Badenas (1985); Barclay (2015); Cranfield (1983); Das (2001); Dumbrell (2004); Dunn (1988); Fee (2007); Getty (1982); Godet (1977); Harrison and Hagner (2008); Hultgren (2011); Ito (2006); Jewett (2007); Kaiser (1971); Kruse (2012); Meyer (2009); Moo (1996); Morris (1988); Munck (1959; 1967); Murray (1984); Pate (2013); Schreiner (1998); Suggs (2009); Seifrid (2007); Shulam and Le Cornu (1998); Thielman (1994); Tilling (2012); Witherington and Hyatt (2004); Wright (2002). 81. An examination of Romans indicates several reasons why Paul wrote the letter. Because Phoebe—a fellow Christian and the likely carrier of the epistle—was going from Corinth (where Paul probably was) to Rome, the apostle was presented with a good opportunity to write (cf. 16:1–2). He was interested in the church at Rome, and for many years had wanted to visit (cf. 1:13). Paul also sought to proclaim the gospel and impart a spiritual benefit to his fellow believers in the capital of the empire (cf. vv. 11, 15). Further, the apostle planned to do missionary work in Spain, and so wanted to visit the Christians in Rome for financial support (cf. 15:24, 28). Since the letter addresses so many doctrines, it is clear Paul desired to instruct the Romans in their faith. Moreover, the apostle wanted to present a full statement of his theological understanding of the gospel, and so help to defend his ministry from his opponents’ false insinuations. 82. According to Hebrews 11:1, ‘faith’ is defined by ‘confidence’ and ‘assurance’, particularly involving unseen, yet eternal, realities. At its core, faith is a matter of conviction that is based on God’s unchanging character. The biblical concept of faith includes both reason and

212 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

religious legalists who doggedly pursued righteousness, but one that was based on human merit, not God’s grace.83 Unlike their Gentile peers, Paul’s antagonists considered the ‘law’ (v. 31) as the means to attain an upright standing before God. Expressed differently, they presumed that as a result of heeding the Mosaic legal code, they would be rewarded with ‘righteousness’. Such an approach, however, is futile for one must keep the entire Law perfectly to be confirmed by it as innocent.84 The reality is that no one (apart from the Son) has ever impeccably heeded the Law. Be that as it may, religious legalists in Paul’s day, out of stubbornness, kept trying to earn favor with God. They refused to admit their failure to follow the Mosaic legal code, which ended up arousing sin within them.85 They also spurned the idea of turning to the Son in faith to receive the Father’s declaration of pardon. Many of Paul’s opponents kept tripping over the ‘stumbling stone’ (v. 32), which was a metaphorical reference to the Messiah.86 Indeed, when Jesus came on the scene as the Messiah, He was not what His peers in Jerusalem and Judea expected.87 The elitists longed for a political liberator who would deliver them from Rome;88 instead, Jesus came as a suffering Servant, who died on the cross for humankind’s sin89 and freely offered His own righteousness to those who would believe. Because

83. 84.

85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

experience. Such faith makes invisible spiritual verities perceivable, not by willing them into existence, but by a realization that what God has declared about them is true. Biblical faith is rooted in the knowledge of God (v. 6). Those who possess this faith believe that God is real and that He rewards those who genuinely want to know Him. Faith is so foundational to the Christian life that one cannot be in a right relationship with the Lord apart from faith; cf. Baltz and Schneider (1990); Danker (2000); Kittel and Friedrich (1964); Louw and Nida (1989); Mangum and Brown (2014); Silva (2014); Swanson (2001). Cf. the excursus in section 5.0 of this chapter concerning an alternative reading of Paul put forward by what is called the new perspective on Paul (or NPP). Cf. Jas 2:10. For a candid assessment of the continuing theological value of the letter from James, particularly in relation to the teachings of Jesus (as recorded in the Gospels) and Paul (as found in his letters), cf. chapter 8 in this monograph. Cf. Rom 5:20; 7:5, 7–13. Cf. Ps 118:22; Matt 21:42; Luke 20:17–18; Acts 4:11; Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:4–8. For a defense of the view that Paul taught the necessity of Jews, as well as Gentiles, trusting in Jesus of Nazareth for salvation, cf. VanIaningham (2012). Or whomever the oppressor might be at the time. On one level, sin is any form of lawlessness or transgression of God’s will (cf. 1 John 3:4). This includes both failing to do what God’s law requires or doing what it forbids, whether in word, deed, or thought (cf. Matt 5:22; Rom 1:32; 1 John 3:15); on another level, sin is a state of alienation from God. The Lord originally created humankind without sin. Adam and Eve were morally upright and inclined to do good; but sin entered human existence when they violated God’s direct command (cf. Gen 3:6–7). As a result, the entire human race became alienated from God; cf. Rom 5:12; Baltz and Schneider (1990); Danker

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 213

Jesus did not live up to the expectations of His legalistic counterparts, they ‘stumbled’ (Rom 9:32) over Him.90 This tragic outcome did not take the Creator by surprise; in fact, He knew that in eternity past this would happen. To confirm this truth, Paul blended Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16 in Romans 9:33. Within the context of what Getty (1982:107) refers to as an ‘apocalyptic outlook’, the apostle expressed a Christocentric and Christotelic hermeneutic. The two Old Testament passages point to the contrasting reactions people have to the ‘stone’91 placed in ‘Zion’.92 Some people, in unbelief, stumble over the Messiah and fall headlong to eternal perdition. Meanwhile, others put their trust in Him and never regret doing so.93 Badenas (1985:108) observes that the line of reasoning that began in 9:30–33 continues in chapter 10. After all, the sectional division94 is not based on any identifiable disruption in the epistle’s discourse. Indeed, throughout this portion of Romans, the apostle continued his deliberation of key themes involving the Mosaic Law, justification, and belief. In a way that is reminiscent of Paul’s concern for Israel95 appearing in 9:1–4, he expressed his deepest longing that his peers would be ‘saved’ (10:1). Undoubtedly, the apostle said many things in this letter that infuriated the religious legalists of his day; yet, his motive in proclaiming the gospel was Christlike love.96 For this reason, Paul confronted his antagonists with their failure to attain righteousness by their own efforts. He understood how they thought, for he had once operated in the same way.97 So, speaking from his vast experience, Paul (2000); Kittel and Friedrich (1964); Louw and Nida (1989); Mangum and Brown (2014); Silva (2014); Swanson (2001). 90. Barclay (2015:537) observes that a ‘foot-race metaphor dominates’ Rom 9:30–32 (cf. Phil 3:12–16). He also surmises that the analogy may extend to Rom 10:4, including Paul’s usage of the Greek noun, télos, in the verse. 91. I.e. the Messiah. 92. I.e. a metaphorical reference to Jerusalem. 93. For a deliberation of how theocentricity and Christocentricity correlate within Paul’s eschatological thought, cf. Kreitzer (1987). His primary objective involves bringing into focus ‘within Paul’s epistles’ (26) the ‘crucial transposition from the Old Testament concept’ of the ‘day of the Lord’ to the ‘New Testament concept’ of the ‘day of Christ’. In Kreitzer’s appraisal, when considering the ‘execution of the Final judgment’ (111), there exists a ‘great deal of interplay and conceptual overlap between God and Christ’. There is also an explicitly close relationship between ‘christology and eschatology’ (129) in the apostle’s discourse. 94. The sectional division was absent from the Greek text Paul wrote. 95. I.e. the Jewish people as an ethnic group. 96. For an exploration of the sociological implications behind Paul’s diverse theological statements concerning the gospel he proclaimed, cf. Suh (2003). 97. Cf. Acts 23:6; Rom 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:4–6.

214 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

testified that his peers displayed an intense fervor for God; yet, their fanaticism was misguided, being due to ignorance (v. 2). While the legalists knew many facts about the Creator based on their intensive study of the Hebrew sacred writings, their comprehension of God’s Word was partial and inadequate. Paul, too, was once in the same situation. His devotion for Israel and hatred of Christians was notorious;98 but he persecuted the Church in ‘ignorance and unbelief ’ (1 Tim. 1:13). If the elitists’ knowledge had been complete, they would not have stumbled over the Messiah, since from a Christocentric and Christotelic perspective, the entire Old Testament pointed to Him. Also, if their knowledge had been sufficient, they would not have continued trying to attain righteousness through Torah observance, but would have humbly accepted the Father’s way, namely, through faith in the Son. The legalists in Paul’s day were so accustomed to a merit-based system of ingratiating themselves to God that they disregarded what the Scriptures revealed about God’s faith-based ‘righteousness’ (Rom 10:3).99 An equally sobering truth is that God evaluated people on the basis of His infinite holiness. When people measure themselves against one another, they often can appear virtuous; but when people compare themselves with the Creator, they cannot escape their sin-cursed state. In verse 4, Paul gave a key Christological reason why many religious fanatics in his day rejected the Messiah. They failed to appreciate that He is the ‘culmination’ of the Mosaic Law and that the Father forgives everyone who trusts in the Son for salvation. The Greek noun, télos, which is rendered ‘culmination’, can have a variety of meanings, two of which are worth mentioning: (1) termination;100 and, (2) intent.101 One option is that télos in this verse denotes purpose, since the objective of the Law was to act as a tutor to lead people to the Messiah.102 From 98. Cf. Acts 22:3; Gal 1:14. 99. Cf. Rom 1:17. 100. I.e. implying a temporal focus. 101. I.e. denoting a teleological emphasis. 102. Cf. Gal 3:24. God’s law serves several theological purposes. First, it is like a mirror that reflects the perfect righteousness of the Lord and a person’s own sinfulness and shortcomings. While the Law does not cause people to sin, it frames their actions as sin by revealing God’s evaluation of what they have done (cf. Rom 7:7). Second, the Law not only shows people their sin, but also it steers them away from it and toward the Savior (cf. Gal 3:19–24). The Law is comparable to a map. While it does not mark out the road to God, it does show a person the landscape for a God-pleasing life once he or she is traveling on the road. Third, the Law may restrain evil. The Law cannot change the wicked bent of the human heart; nevertheless, the Law can somewhat inhibit anarchy by its threats of judgment, especially when those threats are reinforced by civil codes that administer punishment for confirmed transgressions (cf. Deut 13:6–11; 19:16–21; Rom 13:3–4). For a synthesis of the threefold use of the Mosaic Law from a confessional Lutheran perspective,

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 215

the perspective of télos as signifying cessation, it is clear that the Mosaic legal code could never win God’s pardon for the penitent; instead, it censures and condemns people, even while remaining ‘holy, righteous, and good’ (Rom 7:12).103 As Kaiser (1971:26) conveys, Jesus alone is the ‘teleological conclusion’ of the Law for those who are baptismally united to Him by faith.104 Scripture reveals that the Law could not—and was never designed to— secure a person’s upright status before the Father. Within the context of Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic emphasis in 10:4, the Son not only fulfilled the Law,105 but also lived a perfect life in obedience to it.106 He sacrificed His blameless life on the cross, bore the penalty for humanity’s failure to keep the Law, and thereby provided redemption for everyone who believes. As a result of the Messiah’s advent and bringing the Law to its culmination, He opens a new phase of salvation history,107 in which God extends His offer of a right relationship with Himself to believing Gentiles and Jews. Faith, apart from one’s ethnic origin or good works, is the sole basis for experiencing the gift God offers to the lost.108

cf. section 3.0 in chapter 8 of this monograph. For an overview of Paul’s view of the Jewish law, especially against the backdrop of the Second Temple period, cf. Byrne (2000); Hagner (1997); Mangum (2012); Thielman (1993); Westerholm (2004); Winger (1998). 103. Cf. Rom 7:4–11; 8:3–4. 104. Hultgren (2011:383) observes that for ‘centuries’, exegetes have vigorously debated the lexical meaning and theological significance of télos in Romans 10:4, ‘often dividing on theological and confessional grounds’. For an objective survey of the history of the interpretation of this passage, cf. Badenas (1985:7–37). He deduces that the ‘Hellenistic, biblical, and cognate parallels favor a teleological or purposive interpretation’ (114). In a manner of speaking, Jesus is the ‘supreme goal’ (146), the ‘highest purpose’, and the ‘summum bonum’ of the Torah. According to the appraisal offered by Moo (1996:641), rendering télos as ‘end’ might convey ‘too temporal a meaning’. Alternative, more serviceable translations include ‘culmination’, ‘consummation’, and ‘climax’. For additional assessments of the diverse interpretive options, cf. Bechtler (1994); Bring (1971); Heil (2001); Hills (1993); Schreiner (1993b); Venter (2014). 105. Cf. Matt 5:17–18. 106. Cf. John 8:46. 107. When Paul addressed the issue of salvation history, he drew upon concepts that were familiar to his religious peers in the first century ce. For instance, prevalent among some Jewish writers was the notion of two eras of time: (1) the present, corrupt age, which was completely given over to sin, death, and decay; and, (2) a new, restored world that would follow a day of judgment. For a detailed examination of Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality, cf. chapter 4 in this monograph. The primary assertion there is that the apostle’s eschatological worldview exercised a controlling influence on his writings, both directly and indirectly. 108. Cf. Rom 3:27–31. For an assessment of the ethnic issues dealt with in Romans, cf. Walters (1993).

216 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

While the Mosaic legal code could not bring about an upright status before the Father, it served its purpose as a teacher to lead people to faith in the Son. Those among Paul’s own ethnic group who did not stumble over the Messiah received a righteousness that came through faith in Him. For these individuals, the Son was the culmination of the Law; but those who rejected Him and continued to trip over Him, never succeeded in obtaining a right standing before God. Jesus was not the culmination of the Law for them; instead, the Law incriminated them for the smallest infraction they committed. Since Paul was addressing Christological issues of concern to his first-century religious peers, there was no greater authority he could appeal to than Moses. Accordingly, in verse 5, the apostle quoted the famed legislator and liberator to emphasize that those who heeded God’s edicts from a faith-centered, grace-oriented perspective would flourish under His rule in Canaan.109 Dunn (1998:152) states that, one the one hand, the ‘thought of community life stretching through future generations is implicit’; yet, on the other hand, the ‘thought of the individual’s eternal life is less clear’. Kruse (2012:406) is more incisive when he explains that the divine pledge did not pertain to ‘eternal life’ in the ‘new age’; instead, the concern was temporal ‘life within the covenant community’. In truth, flawless Torah observance was unattainable, for everyone was guilty of transgression.110 Candidly put, keeping the Law perfectly is impossible for human beings. In Romans 10:6–7, Paul skillfully appropriates portions of Deuteronomy 8:17, 9:4, and 30:12–14. As he did so from a Christological and Christotelic vantage point, he went beyond a literal interpretation of these texts by depicting ‘righteousness’ as speaking for God. This, along with the apostle’s interjection of his own thoughts, reflects a Jewish form of exposition common in his day known as Midrash.111 Dunn (1998:171) assesses that the majority of the apostle’s ‘modifications’— whether entailing ‘adaptations in grammar or syntax or wording’—had marginal ‘effect on the meaning of the original text’. Munck (1967:71–2) explains that ‘Paul was trained in the rabbinical interpretation of Scripture’; so, when the apostle utilizes this approach, he does so with a ‘new understanding of revelation’, one that Getty (1982:108) categorizes as an ‘apocalyptic perspective’. According to Kreitzer (1987:18), there is a shift in emphasis from ‘theocentrism’ to ‘christocentrism’. Jewett (2007:623) considers Paul’s use of this interpretive method as validating

109. Cf. Lev 18:5; Rom 2:13; 7:10; Gal 3:12. 110. Cf. 1 Kings 8:46; 2 Chron 6:36; Ps 106:6; Rom 3:9, 23; 5:12; 11:32; Gal 3:22. 111. For a thorough consideration of the literary characteristics, types, and examples associated with the midrashic genre, cf. Wright (1967:45–114). For an examination of the presuppositions, techniques, and content of midrashic exegesis, cf. Hall (1982:55–83).

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 217

the truth put forward in Romans 10:4, namely, that the ‘gospel of Christ’ signifies the ‘goal of the law’. The apostle’s point is that one does not need to bring the Son down from heaven or up from the grave in order to attain the Father’s righteousness, for it is received by faith. Put another way, undertaking self-imposed, arduous deeds cannot secure God’s declaration of pardon, for He freely offers it to everyone who trusts in the Messiah. Indeed, Paul said (again quoting Moses), ‘The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart’ (v. 8). It is clarifying to observe the original context of Moses’ comments in Deuteronomy 30. These words were from his final charge to a new generation of Israelites as they were about to enter into Canaan. Moses promised blessing for obedience and punishment for disobedience. Since the Israelites of his day had God’s message, they did not need to request that it be brought down from Mount Sinai again or that someone descend and ‘cross the sea’ to get it.112 Moses emphasized that the new generation of Israelites to whom he was speaking indeed had God’s saving message, for it was near them and even in their mouths.113 Paul applied the same truth in a Christocentric, Christotelic manner to his own ethnic group in his generation.114 The apostle asserted that they did not need to bring the divine, incarnate Word down from heaven or up from the grave, for they already had the Father’s message of faith-righteousness. After all, Jesus had come to earth from heaven to deliver His redemptive oracle, and He had been resurrected, thereby validating the good news. Consequently, the declaration of truth was near. All anyone needed to do was believe and obey the pronouncement, that is, the gospel (Rom 10:8). In verse 9, Paul elaborated on the message of God’s nearness to the human heart. The first part of the message is simply that ‘Jesus is Lord’. This was a common declaration among Jesus’ followers in the first-century

112. Cf. Deut 30:13. 113. Cf. Deut. 30:14. 114. Paul did not utilize the Hebrew sacred writings in a mechanical, rote, or haphazard way; rather, the apostle drew upon these materials in a creative, responsible, and judicious manner. It is as if Paul used their patterns of thought to enrich and supplement his own discourse. Paul could make extensive use of the Old Testament because he was steeped in the history, tradition, and interpretation of these Jewish writings. On the one hand, the apostle remained respectful of and sensitive to the original contexts of the material he used in his exposition; on the other hand, he viewed those writings through the Christological prism of Jesus’ death and resurrection. No longer was the sphere of redemption limited to the people of national Israel in Palestine; instead, individuals from all geographical locales—regardless of their race, gender, socio-economic status, and so on—were partakers of salvation in the Son and heirs of His eternal kingdom (cf. John 10:16; 17:11; Gal 3:26–29; Eph 2:14–15; Col 3:11).

218 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

ce.115

This confession, which affirms that Jesus is God and absolutely sovereign, was probably spoken aloud when a new convert was baptized. Another part of the message is Jesus’ resurrection from the dead—a truth that lies at the heart of the Christian faith.116 Without this doctrine, Christianity implodes, for the believers’ faith is in vain if Jesus’ resurrection did not occur. Paul explained that it is with one’s heart that one believes and is justified,117 and it is with one’s mouth that one confesses and is saved (v. 10). These are not two different steps to salvation; rather, they are two closely linked aspects. One action is inward (which takes place in the heart); the other is outward (through public confession). Ito (2006:258) comments that Paul emphasized the ‘orality’ of the ‘gospel’ because he considered himself to be a ‘prophet’, in which ‘orality is congenial to prophecy’. Unlike some of the religious elite of Paul’s day, who failed to trust in the Messiah and found themselves in a humiliating state, those who believed in Him would never be disappointed or disgraced at the eschatological consummation of the age (vs. 11).118 When it concerns the good news about salvation, a person’s ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic status do not matter, for God remains impartial. Moreover, Jesus is not the Lord of one group only, but reigns sovereign over everyone (v. 12).119 Both Jews and Gentiles who call upon Him in faith find themselves receiving eternal blessings from Him. Of immediate concern within the Christocentric and Christotelic discourse articulated by Paul is the divine provision of faith-righteousness—a gift that enables the penitent to have a restored relationship with the Lord. Getty (1982:115) draws attention to the Paul’s ‘apocalyptic vision of a cosmic redemption’, which is the basis in verse 13 for his quote from Joel 2:32. The apostle emphasized that every person who turned to the Redeemer in repentance and faith would be rescued from their sinful plight. At His Second Advent, He would judge the wicked and vindicate the righteous. As noted in chapter 2 of this study, to the ancients, a person’s name represented his or her essential identity—that is, his or her nature and character.120 In Jesus’ case, His name points to His deity and messiahship. So, to call on the Lord’s name signifies offering prayer to the Son of God with a believing heart for salvation. Bauckham (2008) highlights the ‘monotheistic context’ (197) of Paul’s quotation of Joel 2:32. Specifically, the apostle identified the ‘name of YHWH’ 115. Cf. n 59. 116. Cf. 1 Cor. 15. 117. I.e. pronounced righteous. 118. Cf. Isa 28:16. 119. Cf. Rev 17:14; 19:16. 120. Cf. n 78 in chapter 2 of this study.

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 219

(196) with the ‘name of Jesus’. In doing so, Paul unambiguously affirmed the divinity of the Messiah. According to Schreiner (2012:23), Paul rejected the notion that ‘worshiping’ Jesus of Nazareth ‘as Lord compromised monotheism’. Rowe (2000) extends the Christological analysis by affirming the ‘unitive relationship’ (136) between Yahweh, the ‘God of Israel’, and Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, Rowe describes the ontological connection between the Father and the Son as being ‘dialectical’, in which there is both an ‘unreserved identification’ (137) and a ‘clear differentiation’ between them (as well as the Spirit) within the triune Godhead. Rowe concludes that for the earliest followers of Jesus, ‘Jewish monotheism’ (165) was not ‘antithetical to their theology’; rather, believers appropriated its ‘resources’ to facilitate their distinctive articulation of ‘christological monotheism’.121

5.0 Excursus: The new perspective on Paul (or NPP) An Augustinian-Lutheran reading of Paul understands the fundamental truth of the gospel to be that people receive God’s imputed righteousness through faith in the Messiah. They do not earn it by doing what is commanded in the Mosaic legal code.122 In contrast, more recent critical scholarship has largely abandoned the ‘traditional Reformation understanding’ (Hafemann 1993:671) of the doctrine of justification by faith taught in Paul’s writings. Indeed, despite the ‘plethora of new proposals’ that specialists have offered, ‘no consensus has yet emerged’ (673). Of particular interest is whether Luther, Calvin, and ecclesial leaders after them properly understood Paul concerning the matter of justification by faith.123 The issue behind this query is the scholarship connected with what is called the ‘new perspective on Paul’ (or NPP). As it stands, the NPP is not a ‘unified, homogenous group’ (VanDrunen 2006:36), but rather a ‘spectrum of viewpoints’. Admittedly, supporters of the NPP are correct in disapproving any caricature of rabbinicism prevalent during the Second Temple period of Judaism. Moreover, it is appropriate for adherents to emphasize the importance of carefully analyzing primary sources written during that time, especially to obtain a clearer, more accurate understanding of the New Testament corpus, including the Pauline epistles.124 121. Cf. 1 Cor 8:6 for Paul’s Christological reformulation of the Shema in Deut 6:4 to include both the Father and the Son; also, cf. Fee (2007:89–94, 562–4); Tilling (2012:82–92). 122. Cf. Acts 15:11; Rom 3:28; 10:3; Gal 2:16. 123. Cf. Westerholm (2012). 124. Cf. section 4.0 of chapter 3 in this monograph for background information from relevant extra-canonical Jewish writings, especially as it pertains to new creation theology in the writings of Paul.

220 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Such affirmations notwithstanding, the major tenets of the NPP are undermined by an objective analysis of the biblical and extra-biblical data. According to Carson (2001:544), the NPP tries to adopt a single, tidy explanation for a diverse array of extra-biblical literature, with the result that the formulation is both ‘reductionistic’ and ‘misleading’. Kim (2002:294–5) notes that the NPP sociological and philosophical reconstruction of Second Temple Judaism has attained the ‘status of a dogma’ that ‘insists on interpreting Paul’ only through the distorted lens of that credo. Furthermore, Kim observes that the NPP contradicts far more accurate and nuanced interpretations of the apostle’s theology found in conservative, confessional forms of Protestantism. VanDrunen (2006:54) moves the discussion forward with the observation that those favoring the ‘new perspective’ put too much ‘interpretive weight’ on the literature found in first-century Judaism125 and too little on the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.126 This tendency has led NPP adherents to redefine ‘righteousness’ as living in covenant relationship with God and remaining faithful to His covenant promises, over against the more traditional understanding of conforming to God’s perfect ‘moral standard’. ‘Works of the law’ is said to refer to ‘boundary markers identifying Israel as God’s covenant people’,127 not attempts to create one’s own upright status before God by doing what the Mosaic Law demands. ‘Justification’ refers to the vindication of God’s covenant people before the pagan nations, not His unconditional pardoning and acceptance of believing sinners. The basis for justification is shifted from the ‘finished work’ of the Son at Calvary to the ‘Spiritproduced works of the believer’. Finally, NPP adherents reject the notion that the sin of the first Adam has been imputed to humanity and that the righteousness of the second (eschatological) Adam has been imputed to believers.

6.0 Conclusion This chapter questions the widespread premise that Jesus is a new or second Moses. It is acknowledged that the Gospels apply typological imagery to Jesus. For instance, in an archetypical passage such as the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus delivers His pronouncements on a mountain to His immediate followers. While the focus is eschatological, the motif of the Exodus and Israel’s time at Mount

125. I.e. Diaspora, Palestinian, and Qumran writings. 126. Especially the broader historical and theological perspective found in these ancient sacred texts. 127. In particular, being circumcised, keeping the Sabbath, and observing dietary regulations.

making the c ase for paul , not jesus , as a n e w o r s e co n d m o s es  | 221

Sinai are unmistakable. There are also clear parallels between the twelve tribes of Israel and Jesus twelve disciples, the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant, and the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament and the oracles proclaimed by John the Baptizer. The above correspondences notwithstanding, this chapter maintains that to view Jesus as a new or second Moses signifies a deficient view of the Messiah. Indeed, since the New Testament reveals Jesus of Nazareth as the divine, incarnate Word, any Christocentric and Christotelic portrayal of Him (including those in the Pauline discourse) would need to take this truth into account. For instance, an examination of the episode narrated in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus’ transfiguration on a high mountain unveils His absolute supremacy over all individuals and institutions. Likewise, an analysis of Hebrews 3:1–6 points to Jesus’ unrivaled preeminence over Moses. The preceding observations are not intended to depreciate the importance of such an Old Testament luminary as Moses to redemptive history. To illustrate, during Jesus’ transfiguration, both Moses and Elijah had the honor of conversing with the Messiah about His upcoming death on the cross. Also, Moses faithfully served the Creator by leading and liberating His chosen people. Despite the challenges of doing so, Moses’ legacy includes being a faithful witness to all that God revealed. This includes Moses testifying about what God planned in the future. In short, Moses was a genuine hero of the faith.128 Still, for all the accolades Moses enjoyed, from a Christological vantage point, the lawgiver is completely overshadowed by Jesus. There is incentive, then, to set aside the mistaken notion of Jesus being a new or second Moses. As articulated in this chapter, Paul makes a better candidate for this distinction. The explication of Romans 10:1–13, especially verses 6–8, establishes the truth that the arc of redemptive history should be viewed through the prism of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at Calvary. As Paul revealed, no one else but Jesus is the Lord of the covenant and the One who conquered death. He alone came to earth from heaven and returned there after His ascension. Only Jesus, as the telos, or culmination, of the Mosaic Law, makes it possible for repentant, believing sinners to be declared not guilty in God’s sight and receive the blessing of eternal life. Intriguing parallels between Moses and Paul further establish the primary assertion of this chapter. Specifically, God in His grace chose Moses and Paul. Jones (1974:226) aptly relates that Paul, in his God-given, prophetic-apostolic office, was ‘entrusted with the New Covenant’, just as Moses, in his divinelyordained role, was made a steward of the ‘Old’ Covenant. On the one hand, the 128. Cf. Heb 11:23–28.

222 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Father unveiled His holy, ineffable presence to Moses in the episode involving the burning bush;129 on the other hand, the Son disclosed His sacred, glorious presence to Paul (Saul) while he was traveling on the road heading to Damascus.130 Furthermore, despite their respective flaws and limitations, the Creator empowered Moses and Paul to serve Him effectively. Paul, in a manner reminiscent of Moses, proclaimed a Christocentric and Christotelic oracle of liberty to those in temporal bondage. Also, in a way comparable to Moses, Paul shepherded a faith community through a time of enormous upheaval. Just as God commissioned Moses to proclaim the good news of freedom to the Israelites captive in Egypt, so too the Lord chose Paul to herald a Christological gospel of redemption through faith in the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. Jones (1974:233) is cautionary in observing that when examining the above sorts of correspondences, it would be incorrect to deduce an ‘ontological superiority in Paul’ over Moses; rather, the emphasis is on ‘continuity and advance’ (Fanning 2015:2492) between the ‘two Covenant ministrations’ ( Jones 1974:233). Perhaps, then, it is better to regard Moses as the ‘prototype’ of Paul; or, as Abasciano (2005:108) suggests, the ministry of Moses ‘prefigured’ that of Paul. In their respective ways, both Moses and Paul were teachers of righteousness who offered pastoral instruction to God’s people on how to live in covenant faithfulness to the Messiah. Additionally, Paul drew upon the writings of Moses in an affirming, constructive manner to show how Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled all that the famed lawgiver foretold concerning the Savior. For these reasons, then, it seems legitimate to view Paul, not Jesus, as a new or second Moses.

129. Cf. Exod 3. 130. Cf. Acts 9.

chapter ten

Two contrasting views on the historical authenticity of the Adam character in the Genesis creation narratives

1.0 Introduction The first chapter in this monograph undertakes a biblical and theological analysis of the Old Adamic Creation in Genesis 1–3.1 One lingering issue from that inquiry is the question of whether Adam and Eve ever existed and whether they were actual progenitors of the entire human race. The wider discussion and unresolved debate among scholars involves not only the opening chapters of Genesis, but also Paul’s Christological treatment of these passages within his writings.2 Given the enormity of the matter, there is efficacy in considering how two representative scholars have approached the topic. Further incentive can be found within the religious and secular media, where there exists renewed interest on the issue. For example, the June 2011 issue of Christianity Today3 contains an article titled ‘The Search for the Historical Adam’. 1. What follows in this chapter is a revision of material in my journal article titled ‘Review article: two contrasting views on the historical authenticity of the Adam character in the Genesis creation narratives’, which appears in Lioy (2012). 2. E.g. Acts 17:26, Rom 5:12–19, and 1 Cor 15:20–23. For a detailed synopsis of Adam Christology within the writings of Paul, cf. Fee (2007:513–29). 3. A widely read evangelical periodical.

224 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

The lead-in states that the ‘center of the evolution debate has shifted from asking whether we came from earlier animals to whether we could have come from one man and one woman’ (Ostling 2011). Later, in August 2011, National Public Radio4 aired a story titled ‘Evangelicals question the existence of Adam and Eve’. The lead-in asks, ‘Did they exist, and did all humanity descend from that single pair?’ (Hagerty 2011). It goes without saying that the debate over whether there ever was a literal Adam (and Eve) is longstanding within religious academic circles. Still, the ongoing media attention devoted to this issue has helped give rise to two scholarly publications, one by Collins and the other by Enns. On the one hand, Collins (2011) advocates that Adam (along with Eve) really existed, while on the other hand, Enns (2012) maintains there never was a first Homo sapien from whom all other humans descended. In their respective books, both authors address the same basic issues, examine a similar range of scientific and biblical data, and tend to arrive at opposite conclusions. While Collins devotes some attention to the question of Eve’s historicity, Enns focuses specifically on the Adam character. Likewise, this chapter mainly deals with the question of whether a literal Adam ever existed, though it is understood that the position taken on the former issue influences what one affirms about the Eve character. In light of the preceding observations, the purpose of this chapter is to focus attention once more on the disputed matter of Adam’s historical authenticity, including how the issue plays out in Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic discourse. With the latter objective in mind, the following sections of the disquisition below undertake an overview of Collins (2011) and Enns (2012). Then, the final section compares the respective presuppositions and deductions of each author. As a disclaimer, and as pointed out in the Prologue, I favor a predominately classical, ecumenical, and orthodox interpretive approach to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. That said, my intent is not to adjudicate whether the exegetical choices and theological positions advocated by either Collins or Enns have greater or lesser merit; instead, it is to provide a fresh perspective of how two representative biblical scholars address a topic that is pertinent to the wider discussion involving the opening chapters of Genesis and Paul’s Christological treatment of these passages within his epistles.5 4. A news and cultural programming media organization. 5. For additional focused, scholarly deliberations concerning the historical authenticity of the Adam character in Scripture, cf. Barrett and Caneday (2013); Carson (1980) and Pretorius (2011). Also, for recent critical reviews of the two works being compared in this chapter, cf. Collins (2012) and Enns (2012).

t wo contr asting vie ws on the hi s tor i c a l au t h e n t ic i t y  | 225

2.0 An overview of Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Collins 2011) 2.1  A brief synopsis of the author and the contents of his work The author, who did his PhD at the University of Liverpool, is professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, USA. In the Acknowledgments, he notes that his book grew out of an ‘invited paper for the American Scientific Affiliation’ (9). The work has the standardized opening (Introduction) and closing (Conclusions) chapters, along with four intermediary chapters providing an in-depth treatment on a select group of interrelated subjects: the shape of the biblical story (chap. 2); particular texts that speak of Adam and Eve (chap. 3); human uniqueness and dignity (chap. 4); and can science help us pinpoint ‘Adam and Eve’? There are three appendices dealing with the following topics: ancient Near Eastern texts and Genesis 1–11; review of James Barr, The garden of Eden and the hope of immortality; and the date of Genesis. Footnotes are placed at the bottom of the respective pages where they occur. Finally, the back of the volume includes a bibliography and two indexes (namely, a general index and a Scripture and Apocrypha index).

2.2 A detailed synopsis of the individual chapters of the author’s work 2.2.1  Introduction (chap. 1) Collins begins by noting that throughout much of church history, the standardized view was that the ‘biblical Adam and Eve were actual persons’ (11), that from this first pair of Homo sapiens ‘all other human beings are descended’, and that the couple’s ‘disobedience to God brought sin into human experience’. The author acknowledges that ‘educated Western Christians’ are dismissive of this ‘historical consensus’, just as they are of other outdated views. The latter includes the notion of the world being created in the ‘recent past over the course of six calendar days’ and the opinion that the ‘earth was the physical center of the universe’. Collins affirms there is a place for ‘effective revisions’, especially when they originate from a ‘closer reading of the Bible’, and that such alterations in belief do not necessarily ‘change the basic content of Christianity’. The author is familiar with the various explanations given for abandoning ‘traditional beliefs about Adam and Eve’ (12). Some of the numerous reasons include the following: rejecting the possibility that whatever others might have ‘done long ago’ could now impact modern humans at their ‘deepest level’; contending that since the Genesis creation account is comparable to ‘stories from other ancient

226 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Near Eastern cultures’, the former is likewise ‘mythical’ in its purposes and implications; and observing that ‘recent advancements in biology’ undermine the obsolete notion of an ‘original human couple through whom sin and death came into the world’. The preceding arguments notwithstanding, Collins sets out to ‘show why’ (13) he thinks it is reasonable to ‘retain a version of the traditional view’. His basis for the latter thesis is that it ‘does the best job of accounting not only for the biblical materials but also for our everyday experience as human beings’. With respect to the ‘material in Genesis’ (16), he maintains that whomever wrote it was ‘talking about what he thought were actual events’. Also, this person used ‘rhetorical and literary techniques to shape the readers’ attitudes toward those events’. While Collins is well aware of the scientific data, his firmly held theological convictions lead him to adopt interpretations that agree with what he finds being taught in other portions of the Bible, along with information arising from ‘Second Temple Jewish texts’ (13) and insights gleaned from ‘everyday moral and religious experience’. It is against that backdrop that the author turns his attention to ‘some sample scenarios for a scientific understanding of human origins’ (14). His goal is to appraise how closely they align with his understanding of the biblical teaching concerning a first human pair. He states that he is not seeking to commend ‘any one scenario’; instead, it is to ‘explore how the traditional position might relate to questions of paleoanthropology’. The author is overt in requiring that in order for any ‘scientific understanding to be good’ (15), it has to ‘account for the whole range of evidence’. For him the latter includes the ‘deepest intuitions’ people have concerning their ‘own existence’. 2.2.2  The shape of the biblical story (chap. 2) The interpretive approach Collins takes in this and the following chapters is connected with several key premises he states in his Introduction (chap. 1). Specifically, he notes that the writers of Scripture were ‘self-consciously interpreting their world in terms of an overarching worldview story’ (19). Moreover, the ‘rhetorical and literary techniques’ (17) they used were predominately characterized by ‘pictorial and symbolic language’. In Collins’ view, it would be incorrect to conclude that the ‘presence of symbolism means the story is merely symbolic’ (18).6 Put differently, he thinks it is sensible to hold that, depending on the context, the ‘images’ depicted in Scripture could convey truth about what is genuinely historical and factual.

6. Italics are the author’s.

t wo contr asting vie ws on the hi s tor i c a l au t h e n t ic i t y  | 227

In light of the preceding suppositions, Collins sets out in chapter 2 to discuss the ‘story and worldview’ (23) found in the Bible. His preferred approach in reading biblical narratives includes four predominant literary ‘features’ found in the sacred texts: (1) the ‘narrator … serves as the voice and perspective of God’ (24); the ‘narration’ puts ‘emphasis on direct action and interaction of the characters’; (3) the ‘narratives … focus on what is essential for the narrative’; and, (4) the presence of ‘elevated diction of a speech is evidence of its significance’. Collins draws upon the findings of research in ‘linguistics’ (25) to stress the importance of using inference to discern what the writers of Scripture sought to convey in their narratives. Genesis 3 is cited as an example in which the biblical text ‘never uses any words for sin or disobedience’; yet, it is maintained that one can straightforwardly deduce from the passage that in the view of the writer, ‘Eve and Adam’ (26) were guilty of ‘sin’. Collins explores whether the notion of ‘myth’ is the best way to label the types of ‘stories’ found among the ‘Egyptians, Mesopotamians, or even the Hebrews’ (28). He notes that it is common to presume that whatever is regarded as ‘myth’ is thereby ‘untrue’ and ‘unhistorical’. The author takes issue with this premise when it comes to the biblical narratives. He argues that ‘ancient, premodern, prescientific cultures’ (29) are not alone in using ‘stories’ to convey actual truths. Likewise, ‘modern Western culture’ employs comparable literary conventions. His broader point is that even though the biblical writers used the literary convention of ‘stories to convey a worldview’ (31), this does not invalidate the underlying ‘full historical truthfulness’ of the accounts. A dose of ‘caution’ (33) is advocated by the author when referring to the term ‘history’. Specifically, in contrast to people in the modern world, those in the ancient Near East had a different mindset when it comes to the way in which they related events they believed actually occurred. For instance, Collins maintains it would be incorrect to assume that in order for the ‘creation story of Genesis’ to be historically factual, it must not employ ‘figurative elements’ and it has to be read in a strictly ‘literal’ manner. Put differently, he asserts it is possible to regard the opening chapters of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures as using ‘imaginative’ literary conventions to depict ‘events’ (34) that ‘really happened’. Moreover, he thinks the essential historicity of the biblical texts remains intact, even when what they relate is not ‘complete in detail’ (35), ‘free from ideological bias’, or ‘told in exact chronological sequence’. 2.2.3  Particular texts that speak of Adam and Eve (chap. 3) In the first two chapters of his work, Collins establishes the goal (chap. 1) and elaborates the presuppositions (chap. 2) for the remainder of his volume. Specifically,

228 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

his objective is to ‘show why’ (13) it is important to ‘retain a version of the traditional view’ of Adam and Eve. Also, he emphasizes that it is crucial to be aware of the ‘overarching worldview-shaping story’ (26) that dominates Scripture, including the creation narratives found in the opening portion of Genesis. In chapter 3, the author turns his attention to ‘specific Biblical texts about Adam and Eve’ (51). This includes ‘references’ that are ‘clear’, along with those that are ‘disputed’ (52). Also included is information ‘from the Apocrypha’, since ‘these texts illustrate the world of Second Temple Judaism’. His intent is to ‘see how’ (51) the data links to the ‘larger picture’ set forth in God’s Word. Collins first examines Genesis 1–5, beginning with the relationship between the ‘two different creation accounts’ (52), namely, 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–25. He acknowledges the prevailing scholarly consensus, which regards these two texts as being ‘difficult to reconcile with each other’. Nonetheless, based on his ‘own literary and linguistic studies’ (53), he regards the two passages as being characterized by ‘coherence’. In particular, he sees the first text providing an ‘overall account of the creation and preparation of the earth as a suitable place for humans to live’. The second text, then, is an ‘elaboration of the events of the sixth day of Genesis 1’, especially God bringing into existence the ‘human couple that we know as Adam and Eve’ (54). The author affirms that there was a first man named ‘Adam’ (56) and his ‘actions are in some sense representative of all mankind’. For instance, from him ‘we learn something about how temptation works’ (57). Collins holds that the presence of ‘figurative elements and literary conventions’ (58) precludes any ‘reading’ of the biblical text that is overly ‘literalistic’. For all that, he thinks ‘real events form the backbone’ of the ‘story’. In line with other specialists, Collins refers to the information in the opening chapters of Genesis as ‘prehistory’ (57) and ‘protohistory’. By ‘prehistory’ he means the ‘period of human existence before there are any secure written records’. He defines ‘protohistory’ as narratives of events concerning the ‘earliest stages for which there are records’. The author acknowledges that the biblical account ‘bears a relationship with the narratives of prehistory found in Mesopotamia’. In his view, though, ‘Genesis aims to tell the true story of origins’ (58). He argues that the substantial dissimilarities between the Mesopotamian and Genesis versions have to ‘do with the radically differing ideologies’ (59) of their respective ‘prehistories’. Next, Collins shifts his focus to other portions of the Old Testament. His objective is to ‘show how the themes of Genesis 1–5 are played out in the rest of the Hebrew’ (67) sacred writings. He begins by questioning the validity of the common assertion that ‘references’ to Adam and Eve and the ‘fall story’ are either ‘rare’ or ‘nonexistent’ in other portions of the Tanakh. For instance, the author notes that the ‘genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 connect the primal pair to subsequent generations’ (68), especially to ‘Abraham’. Likewise, the text ‘presents Noah … as a kind of new

t wo contr asting vie ws on the hi s tor i c a l au t h e n t ic i t y  | 229

Adam’.7 Additionally, ‘God’s blessing on the original human pair’8 is reflected in the ‘call of Abraham’.9 Furthermore, there is a strong thematic link between Adam and Eve’s ‘offspring’10 and that of the patriarchs and their descendants.11 Collins regards Ecclesiastes 7:20 and 29, with their focus on rectitude and transgression, as echoing the ‘fall story’ (70) of Genesis 3. Similarly, the expression ‘return to dust’ in Ecclesiastes 3:20 and 12:7 bring to mind Genesis 3:19. The author draws attention to Hosea 6:7 and advocates rendering the ‘hotly disputed’ verse as ‘like Adam’. Because he considers the latter to be the ‘simplest interpretation of the Hebrew words’ (71), he does not favor two other alternatives, namely, either ‘at (the place called) Adam’ (70) or ‘like any human beings’. Collins also cites Job 31:33, in which it is possible to translate the original to read ‘as Adam did’ (71). In terms of the latter verse, the author leaves as an ‘open question’ whether it is actually referring to the first man God created. Next, Second Temple Jewish literature receives consideration. Because of the uneven literary and theological quality of this material, Collins is more selective and abbreviated in his discussion. He mentions Tobit 8:6, which provides an ‘historical recital’ (73) of God’s creation of Adam and Eve. Likewise, the author cites the Wisdom of Solomon 2:23–24,12 which treats the account of the Fall recorded in Genesis 3 as an ‘historical event’ (74). Collins notes various passages in Sirach that take the ‘creation’ and ‘fall’ of humankind as ‘historical’ (75) events.13 Particularly noteworthy is 49:16, which treats Adam as an ‘historical person’. Moreover, in the writings of Josephus, Adam and Eve are looked upon as ‘actual people’ (76) who existed ‘at the head of the human race’.14 From there, Collins deals with the Gospels. For example, Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6 record Jesus’ quote from Genesis 1:27, in which He asserted that when God created the world, He brought the first ‘male and female’ into existence. Then, Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7 record Jesus’ quote from Genesis 2:24, in which He upheld the sanctity of marriage. The author observes that Jesus’ statements about the creation and fall of humankind are premised on His regard for the literary interdependence of Genesis 1 and 2 and the historical authenticity of Adam and

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Cf. Gen 6:18–19; 9:1, 8–17. Cf. Gen 1:28. Cf. Gen 12:2–3; 17:20; 22:17–18; 26:3–4, 24; 28:3, 14. Cf. Gen 3:15; 4:25; 1 Chron 1:1. Cf. Gen 12:7; 13:15–16; 15:3, 5; 17:7–9, 19; 22:17–18; 24:60; 26:3–4; 48:4; Ps 72:17; Gal 3:16. 12. Cf. Wis of Sol 7:1; 10:1. 13. Cf. Sir 14:17; 15:14; 17:1; 25:16–26; 33:10; 40:1. 14. Cf. Antiquities 1.2.3, line 67; 4.8.2, line 180.

230 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Eve (77). Collins considers the ‘historicity of Adam’ (66) to be ‘assumed’ in the genealogy of Luke 3:38. Furthermore, the author holds Jesus’ statement in John 8:44 to be a ‘passing reference’ (77) to the ‘serpent as the mouthpiece of the Evil One’. The implication is that Jesus understood Adam and Eve to be ‘actual people’ (78), whose ‘disobedience changed things for … their descendants’. Collins then discusses the Pauline writings. The author includes both the undisputed and ‘disputed’ letters, as well as Acts. He notes that such passages as 1 Corinthians 11:7–12, 2 Corinthians 11:3, and 1 Timothy 2:13–14 refer to ‘parts of Genesis 1–3 in passing’. Collins sides with the view that the preceding ‘references share the usual assumption of Second Temple Jews that Adam and Eve were historical’. The author states that other Pauline texts are more overt in their treatment of the opening chapters of Genesis. For this reason, Collins devotes considerable attention to Acts 17:26, Romans 5:12–19, and 1 Corinthians 15:20–23. His supposition is that Paul accepted the ‘narrative about Adam and Eve’ to be historical. Indeed, the author maintains that the foundation of Paul’s comparison of Adam and Jesus is based on the apostle’s conviction that Adam was an ‘historical character’ (80). Expressed differently, ‘Paul’s argument does presuppose Adam as an actual character in the [Genesis] narrative’ (82) and that all humankind is biologically descended from an ‘original pair’ (84). The final portion of chapter 3 overviews ‘incidental’ (90) references ‘elsewhere in the New Testament’ to the opening chapters of Genesis. Collins concedes that the evidence is ‘inconclusive as to whether the historicity’ of Adam and Eve is ‘tightly bound up with the New Testament claims’. That said, the author posits Hebrews 1115 as a ‘likely exception’. Based on his analysis of the text, he concludes that the ‘author of Hebrews assumes the historicity’ (91) of the various ‘characters’ narrated in Genesis 4–5. Similarly, Collins sees ‘no reason to exclude Adam and Eve from the same assumption’. 2.2.4  Human uniqueness and dignity (chap. 4) In this chapter, Collins deliberates the ‘nature of human life and God’s expectations for human communities’ (93). Collins asserts that the way in which Scripture deals with ‘these subjects takes for granted some kind of common origin of all human beings in Adam’. Furthermore, the author maintains that the Bible’s doctrinal impulses ‘actually link up with everyday human experience’. Put another way, the ‘biblical picture’ does the best job of clarifying this ‘experience’. A case in point is Genesis 1:26–27 and its declaration of humankind being made in the ‘image of God’. Collins summarizes three common views and affirms 15. Especially Heb 11:4–7.

t wo contr asting vie ws on the hi s tor i c a l au t h e n t ic i t y  | 231

the validity of each: (1) people are ‘like God’ (94) in the realm of their ‘intellectual, moral, and aesthetic experience’; (2) the ‘image of God’ denotes the ‘way that humans are appointed to rule the creation on God’s behalf ’; and, (3) the divine image is seen when people coexist in ‘community’. The author holds that in contrast to the rest of the creatures in the world, every ‘human being’ (95) is a ‘body-soul tangle that expresses God’s image’.16 Collins espouses that the ‘proper functioning’ of the divine ‘image’ has been ‘damaged by human sin’. Moreover, he holds that God’s image is being ‘renewed’ in His ‘faithful people’.17 Collins openly asks how God’s ‘image’ (96) came ‘to be bestowed’ and the manner in which it is ‘transmitted’. Based on the author’s assessment of Scripture, he dismisses the notion that the ‘outcome’ was solely due to ‘natural processes’. This necessitates that the ‘first human’ was the ‘result of a special bestowal’. Additionally, based on the author’s study of Genesis, he postulates that the ‘image is transmitted by procreation’ (99). Collins acknowledges that ‘other animals’ (96) possibly display ‘features that are analogous’ to what are found in humans. Even so, the author insists that the ‘total assembly of characteristics’ appearing in people is ‘distinct’, ‘transcends their immediate bodily needs’, and is something far more than a ‘merely natural development of the capacities in other animals’. The final portion of chapter 4 considers the ‘universal human experiences’ (100) of ‘yearning for justice’ and a ‘need for God’. Collins observes that when Adam and Eve sinned, it ‘corrupted’ their ‘created constitution’. In turn, this led to a tear in the ‘social’ fabric binding humans together relationally, an escalation of injustice, and a rampant ignorance of the Creator. The author comments that there is a ‘general human sense of being lost’ (102), which is best accounted for in Genesis (103). Furthermore, he maintains that the opening chapters of Genesis have the most explanatory power concerning the fallen human condition when the biblical text is ‘read … as some kind of history’. Collins holds that with the advent of the Messiah and the promise of His future kingdom, there is an ‘embracing’ (100) among believers of their ‘common humanity as heirs of Adam’, who have been ‘rescued by God’s grace’. Collins insists that even now, it is a ‘major goal of all church life to bring this ideal’ (101) increasingly into ‘complete and convincing expression’. 2.2.5  Can science help us pinpoint ‘Adam and Eve’? (chap. 5) In keeping with what Collins stated earlier in his work, he asserts in chapter 5 that a ‘good theory must account for all of the data, and not just the biochemistry’

16. Cf. Gen 9:6; Jas 3:9. 17. Cf. Eph 4:24; Col 3:10.

232 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

(105).18 He begins by assessing the efforts of some to ‘coordinate the findings of science with the teachings of Genesis’ (106).19 To be specific, the author questions the efficacy of a procedure in which ‘scientific theories change’ from one generation to the next. That said, he disagrees with the claim that there is absolutely no ‘connection’ (107) between the historical ‘subject matter’ recorded in Scripture and the ‘results of other fields of study’. Collins expresses receptivity to the ‘view that the proper relationship between science and faith’ is characterized by ‘complementarity’. However, he challenges a ‘strict insistence on science-faith complementarity’ (108), since he maintains there are some incidents recounted in Scripture that also have both ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural components’. Moreover, he anticipates there will be situations in which, against the backdrop of prevailing scientific assertions, a decision is required concerning whether the ‘Bible can actually refer to real persons and events’. With respect to the creation accounts recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis, Collins thinks it is ‘reasonable to expect’ (109) that Scripture employs ‘imaginative description’ to relate ‘actual events’. The author remains firm in this view, even after taking into account the ‘literary conventions, rhetorical purpose, and original audience’. He avers that while Genesis might ‘speak of the phenomena that the sciences study’ (110), it would be misguided to expect scientific precision from what the Bible says. The author regards the intent of Genesis not as conveying ‘technical’ details, but rather placing ‘already-known facts into a proper worldview context’. In particular, the ‘world’ operates as it does ‘because it is the good creation of a good and magnificent Creator’. Collins postulates that ‘anachronism’ (113) could be evident in the Genesis narratives. Put another way, the biblical passages ‘described aspects of the older times’ using literary conventions and vocabulary ‘familiar’ to the original readers. The author argues that the latter need not call into question the essential ‘historicity of the text’, for it ‘still refers to actual events’ (114). Collins puts forward the following four ‘criteria’ (120) to ‘stay within the bounds of sound thinking’ regarding ‘traditional views of Adam and Eve’: (1) given ‘how distinctive’ is the ‘image of God’, the ‘origin of the human race goes beyond a merely natural process’; (2) the ‘unified experience’ of people across the globe throughout the centuries is best accounted for by regarding ‘Adam and Eve at the headwaters of the human race’; (3) the ‘universal sense of loss’ common to all people offers the most reasonable explanation for the ‘historical’ and ‘moral’ corruption or ‘fall’ of the human race; and, (4) at the dawn of the human race, if there existed ‘more human beings than just Adam and Eve’ (121), these should be

18. Italics are the author’s. 19. I.e. concordism.

t wo contr asting vie ws on the hi s tor i c a l au t h e n t ic i t y  | 233

thought of as a ‘single tribe’. In the preceding case, ‘Adam would be the chieftain of this tribe’; also, ‘Eve would be his wife’. Consequently, the entire ‘tribe’ morally transgressed ‘under the leadership’ of their ‘representative’ head. In light of the preceding criteria, the author’s non-negotiable touchstone is ‘human uniqueness and unity in both dignity and need’ (124). 2.2.6  Conclusions (chap. 6) Collins begins by clarifying that the intent of his work is not to find a solution to ‘every problem’ (133) or evaluate ‘every possible objection’ connected with the opening chapters of Genesis; instead, in light of a broad range of representative biblical and scientific information, he attempts to establish ‘why the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve’ merits the believers’ ‘confidence and adherence’. This includes regarding the pair as the ‘first parents’ of Homo sapiens who ‘brought sin into human experience’. The author maintains that what he has advocated ‘does justice to specific Biblical texts’.20 Likewise, he considers the ‘traditional understanding’, including its ‘notions of representation and covenantal inclusion’, to furnish a ‘meaningful explanation for everyday experience’. Furthermore, he regards the ‘alternatives’ to be ‘less satisfactory’ and potentially ‘even disastrous’ interpretive options.

3.0 An overview of The Evolution of Adam (Enns 2012) 3.1  A brief synopsis of the author and the contents of his work The author, who did his PhD at Harvard University, is professor of biblical studies at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania, USA. In the Acknowledgments, he notes that his interactions with various Christian professionals who wrestle with ‘how their faith and scientific work can coexist’ (vii) is one of the reasons for him undertaking this ‘project’. The work has the standardized opening (Introduction) and closing (Conclusion) sections, along with seven intermediary chapters, divided into two parts, providing an in-depth treatment on a select group of interrelated subjects. Part One: Genesis and the challenges of the nineteenth century (chap. 1); when was Genesis written? (chap. 2); stories of origins from Israel’s neighbors (chap. 3); and Israel and primordial time (chap. 4). Part two: Paul’s Adam and the Old Testament (chap. 5); Paul as an ancient interpreter of the Old Testament (chap. 6); and Paul’s Adam (chap. 7). Finally, the back of the volume includes endnotes, a bibliography, and two indexes (namely, a subject index and a Scripture index).

20. E.g. Genesis, the Gospels, and the Pauline writings.

234 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

3.2 A detailed synopsis of the individual chapters of the author’s work 3.2.1 Introduction Enns begins by explaining why he wrote his book. He notes the ‘relentless, articulate, and popular attacks on Christianity by New Atheists’ (ix). According to these proponents, ‘evolution has destroyed the possibility’ of a ‘faith like Christianity’. The author also points to the recent ‘advances in our understanding of evolution’, particularly the conclusive evidence that ‘humans and primates share common ancestry’. He observes that ‘many Christians’ regard ‘evolution’ as a ‘challenge’ to the ‘story of origins presented in the Bible’. The latter circumstance motivates the author’s primary objective in his work, namely, to ‘focus solely on how the Bible fits into’ the subject of ‘human origins’. Enns seeks to ‘clear away some misunderstandings’ (x) as well as offer ‘different ways of thinking through some perennial problems’. His hoped for result is placing ‘interested readers on a constructive path’ of being able to ‘accept evolution and also value Scripture as God’s Word’ (ix). The author identifies as his ‘primary audience’ (x) those belonging to evangelicalism, especially within an ‘American context’. He describes these individuals as having a ‘deep, instinctual commitment to Scripture’ and the conviction that ‘evolution must be taken seriously’. For them, he offers a ‘synthesis between a biblically conversant Christian faith and evolution’. The philosophical underpinning of the author’s endeavor is the premise that in order to read ‘sacred Scripture’ (xi) appropriately, one must accept that God’s Word is a ‘product of the times in which it was written’ and the ‘events’ occurring when the texts were originally produced. He draws upon the ‘analogy of the incarnation’ to affirm that while the Judeo-Christian canon is ‘ultimately of divine origin’, it likewise is ‘thoroughly a product of its time’. The ‘historical approach’ (xii) Enns adopts in his work is based on three interrelated presuppositions: (1) the way in which interpreters ‘understand the Old Testament’ (xi) is substantially influenced by their ‘knowledge of the cultures that surrounded ancient Israel’; (2) God’s Word is characterized by ‘significant theological diversity’, as seen in its ‘collection of discrete writings from widely different times and places’, which were ‘written for diverse purposes’; and, (3) the ‘New Testament authors’ were ‘creative’ in the way they interacted with the Hebrew sacred writings, and this approach ‘reflects the Jewish thought world of the time’. Enns considers the preceding affirmations to be an indication of ‘God’s great love’ (xii) to accommodate Himself to His ‘creation’, particularly humanity. Moreover, the author regards his emphasis on the ‘historical circumstances’ (xii) to be a defining characteristic of ‘what it means to be a responsible reader of Scripture’ in one’s own ‘time and place’.

t wo contr asting vie ws on the hi s tor i c a l au t h e n t ic i t y  | 235

Enns argues that how believers understand the Adam character in Scripture ‘must now be adjusted’ (xiii) as a result of two interconnected factors: (1) ‘scientific evidence supporting evolution’; and, (2) ‘literary evidence from the world of the Bible’ that determines the proper way in which to interpret it. The author maintains that taking into account the preceding two influences is a ‘way that respects and honors the authority of the Bible’. Also, in his view, it fosters ‘keeping Scripture and natural science in conversation’ (xiv). He regards that interaction as being promoted when it is affirmed that God’s Word has ‘an ancient view of the natural world, not a modern one’ and ‘simply speaks in an ancient idiom’, not a contemporary scientific one. The author is candid in stating that the findings of evolution are a ‘game changer’. For instance, Homo sapiens are the ‘end product of a process of trial-anderror adaptation and natural selection’, not the result of a ‘special creative act by God’. Hence, according to Enns, it is implausible to maintain the ‘instantaneous and special creation of humanity’ found in the opening chapters of Genesis.21 He also finds to be inadequate all ‘hybrid’ attempts to merge ‘modern and ancient accounts of human origins’ (xv). The latter includes any effort to expand the definition of the ‘image of God’ to include such notions as ‘reason, self-consciousness, or consciousness of God’. Based on the author’s understanding of the ancient Near East, the imago dei only denotes ‘humanity’s role of ruling God’s creation as God’s representative’. For Enns, then, the unavoidable difficulty is coming to terms with the differences between ‘Genesis and evolution’ with respect to human origins. He claims that part of the reconciliation process includes ‘thinking through the parameters’ of the ‘problem’. Central to this endeavor is achieving some sort of ‘synthesis’ with what is found in the Pauline writings. Enns maintains that while there is a ‘virtual silence in the Old Testament’ (xvi) concerning ‘Adam’, the latter figure ‘makes a sudden and unprecedented appearance in two of Paul’s Letters’;22 yet, in light of the findings of modern science, the author thinks it is a ‘mistake’ to affirm the ‘dominant Christian view’ that ‘both Adam and Jesus must have been historical figures’. The author acknowledges the magnitude of the tension, for Scripture is dealing with ‘questions of who we are and why we do what we do’ (xvii). Enns puts forward four options to address the preceding issue: (1) ‘accept evolution and reject Christianity’; (2) ‘accept Paul’s view of Adam as binding and reject evolution’; (3) ‘reconcile evolution and Christianity by positing a first human pair (or group) at some point in the evolutionary process’; and, (4) ‘reevaluate what 21. I.e. Gen 1:26–31; 2:7, 22. 22. Cf. Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:20–58.

236 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

we have the right to expect from Genesis and Paul’ (xviii).23 Enns maintains that the first three options do an inadequate job to ‘properly address Genesis as ancient literature and Paul as an ancient man’. For this reason, he regards the fourth option as the best way to ‘think synthetically about how Christianity and evolution can be in dialogue’. In the author’s view, part of the task includes considering ‘when Genesis was written and why’. For him, this involves affirming that ‘Genesis is an ancient Israelite narrative written to answer pressing ancient Israelite questions’. Likewise, in agreement with ‘modern scholarship’, Enns considers the first book of the JudeoChristian canon to be ‘Israel’s statement of national self-definition in the wake of Babylonian captivity’. This leads him to assert that ‘science and Scripture speak two different languages and accomplish quite different things’ (xix). With respect to the Pauline writings, the author thinks the apostle’s ‘use of the Adam story serves a vital theological purpose’, namely, to elucidate to his ‘ancient readers the significance for all humanity of Christ’s death and resurrection’.24 The latter notwithstanding, Enns insists that Paul’s ‘use of the Adam story’ need not deter ‘biblically faithful Christians’ from adopting ‘evolution as the scientific account of human origins’. 3.2.2 Genesis and the challenges of the nineteenth century: Science, biblical criticism, and biblical archaeology (chap. 1) Enns begins by undertaking an overview of the ‘legacy of the nineteenth century and its lasting impact on Genesis’ (3). He regards what occurred in the past as influencing the ‘nature of the conflict that still exists for some today’. By ‘first looking back’, the author seeks to ‘ease evolution and Christianity toward meaningful dialogue’. One pivotal factor was ‘natural science’s advance’ (4) in establishing the ancient age of the planet. Connected with this was the ‘theory of human origins’ put forward by Darwin, which ‘challenged the biblical view of the origin of life’. A second factor was the rise of ‘biblical criticism’, especially its emphasis on a ‘historical investigation into the date and authorship of biblical books’. The latter called into question the prevailing opinion that Moses alone was ‘responsible for writing’ the Pentateuch; instead, the new scholarly consensus was that these ancient sacred texts reached their final form in the ‘postexilic period’ (5) and in ‘response to the Babylonian exile’. Accordingly, Enns observes that the purpose of the ‘Genesis creation narrative’ was not to teach ‘natural science’; rather, it was to ‘say something of God’s and Israel’s place in the world as God’s chosen people’.

23. Italics are the author’s. 24. Italics are the author’s.

t wo contr asting vie ws on the hi s tor i c a l au t h e n t ic i t y  | 237

A third factor was the findings of ‘biblical archaeology’. As the author notes, the focus of the latter was ‘texts and artifacts’ (6) from the ancient Near East. This information clarified the ‘intellectual world in which the Bible was written’, which enabled specialists to ‘compare and contrast Israel’s religious beliefs’ with the nation’s pagan neighbors. In turn, this undertaking influenced the way in which ‘Israel’s primordial stories’ were understood, including the most appropriate way to interpret the Genesis account of the Adam and Eve characters. For instance, the latter, along with the entire Pentateuch, was a ‘means of declaring the distinctiveness of Israel’s own beliefs from those of the surrounding nations’. Enns raises the issue of the ‘historical value of Genesis’, especially in light of the fact that the ‘ancient Israelites’, in creating a ‘polemic’, saw fit to ‘freely adapt the themes of the much-older stories of the nations around them’. 3.2.3 When was Genesis written? (chap. 2) Enns begins by noting that the inquiry of ‘modern scholarship’ (9) concerning when ‘Genesis and the Pentateuch’ were ‘written’ arise directly from the biblical texts. He acknowledges that his discourse is a ‘step back from the evolution discussion’ (10). His intent in doing so is to ‘sketch a bigger picture of what the Old Testament is’. In turn, he considers this rendition as determining what readers ‘have the right to expect’ from the Hebrew sacred writings. Moreover, the author regards the latter as establishing the ‘larger backdrop’ to ‘any meaningful talk of Adam’s place’ in deliberations about the ‘relationship between evolution and Christianity’. The author elucidates the ‘problem of the Pentateuch’ by listing a series of representative ‘questions’ (11) raised by the ‘earliest known biblical interpreters’. He maintains that these and other similar queries call for ‘some sort of answer for people who look to the Bible for divine guidance’. He also acknowledges that the task ‘requires skill and learning to handle well’ (12) the ‘ambiguities and inconsistencies’ connected with the ‘authorship and date’ of Genesis. He then notes that the consensus of ‘modern biblical scholars’ (13) goes against the ‘traditional view that Genesis and the Pentateuch’ were penned by Moses in the ‘second millennium bc’. Enns provides an historical summary of how ‘Jewish and Christian interpreters’ (11) wrestled with the latter issue and eventually arrived at the following two conclusions: (1) ‘parts of the Pentateuch were composed over several centuries’ (20); and, (2) the ‘Pentateuch as a whole was not completed until after the Israelites returned from exile’. More generally, according to the author, the prevailing view is that the ‘Old Testament as a whole owes its existence to the postexilic period’ (26). He states that ‘Israel’s national crisis’ was the ‘driving factor’ (27) behind the literary activity that led to the creation of an ‘official collection of writings’. Enns maintains

238 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

that the Israelites used this body of edited ‘older works’ (28) and newly created documents to define themselves as ‘God’s chosen people’ (27) and reaffirm their claim of ‘Yahweh’ (28) as their ‘God’. In short, the entire Old Testament is a ‘theological history’ (30) that serves as a ‘response to the exile’. For the author, these conclusions ‘help reorient’ (32) the ‘expectations’ of believers concerning ‘what questions’ the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, especially Genesis, are ‘prepared to answer’. He contends that they address ‘ancient questions of self-definition’ (33), rather than ‘contemporary ones of scientific interest’. Likewise, he argues that the ‘New Testament writers’ creatively reimagined ‘Israel’s story’. Expressed differently, in light of the Savior’s crucifixion and resurrection, a new generation sought to explain what they thought it meant to be the ‘people of God’. 3.2.4  Stories of origins from Israel’s neighbors (chap. 3) In this chapter, the author’s intent is to place ‘Genesis side by side with the primordial tales of other ancient cultures’ (35). This includes ‘ancient Mesopotamian stories’ (37)25 that bear close resemblance to the ‘first creation story’ (Gen 1) and the ‘flood’ (Gen 6–9). He grants that the endeavor calls into question ‘certain traditional Christian notions’ (36) about the ‘historical and revelatory nature’ of the creation narratives. For instance, in what sense do ‘Israel’s stories refer to fundamentally unique, revealed, historical events?’ (37). These points of concern notwithstanding, Enns thinks the effort is worthwhile in providing readers with a ‘clearer understanding of the nature of Genesis’ (35), as well as ‘what … contemporary readers’ can reasonably ‘expect’ from the biblical text. The author explains that ‘Israel’s creation stories’ were never intended to address issues raised by ‘modern scientific or even historical studies’ (36); instead, Genesis uses ‘ancient ways of understanding origins’ to deal with ‘ancient issues’. He contends that it is only when the ‘theological’ intent of Genesis is fully appreciated that a ‘meaningful conversation between evolution and Christianity’ can occur. For instance, Enns points out that there are both ‘conceptual’ (40) parallels and ‘significant differences’ between the ‘Babylonian and biblical stories’. Also, he states that Genesis 1 was produced after its Mesopotamian counterpart and ‘interacts with the far older Babylonian theology of the dominant culture’ (39). Moreover, the author notes that the Enuma Elish is not primarily a tale about ‘creation’ (154); rather, it is a ‘story about the ascendancy of Marduk’. The latter was the ‘patron god of Babylon’. Hence, the Enuma Elish promotes its ‘main theme’ by providing an ‘account of cosmic origins’. Enns sees Genesis 1 as offering a sharp theological counterpoint or polemic to the Babylonian tale. Specifically, 25. E.g. the Enuma Elish, the Atrahasis Epic, and the Gilgamesh Epic.

t wo contr asting vie ws on the hi s tor i c a l au t h e n t ic i t y  | 239

the God of Israel is ‘portrayed as truly mighty’, especially in being ‘solely and fully responsible for forming the cosmos’ (54). Additionally, Yahweh is depicted as ‘superior to the gods of the surrounding nations’. The author’s broader observation is that Genesis 1 puts forward an ‘ancient, nonscientific, ahistorical’ (42) approach to conceptualizing ‘primordial time’. Likewise, he maintains that the ‘Adam story’ (50) recorded in Genesis 2–3 is neither an ‘historical account’ (51) nor a ‘scientific explanation’; instead, Enns maintains that ‘Israel’s second creation story’ (50) conveys ‘religious beliefs’ (51) strongly held by God’s people. To make his point, the author details the extensive ‘differences’ between the ‘two creation accounts’ and asserts that these variances should be ‘respected rather than harmonized’. He maintains that from a ‘theological’ (52) perspective, ‘Genesis 1 tells the story of creation as a whole by the one sovereign God’. In contrast, ‘Genesis 2 focuses early and specifically on Israel’s story’.26 Enns provides a detailed comparison of the Atrahasis Epic and Genesis 2–8 to stress that the latter, like the former, ‘share a common way of describing the primordial world’ (53). Based on this information, he concludes that the ‘biblical text’ should not be considered an ‘historical’ account. 3.2.5  Israel and primordial time (chap. 4) Enns notes that people in ancient Near Eastern cultures tried to explain the enigmas of their lives by crafting stories about the ‘activities of the gods in primordial time’ (61). Put differently, as a way to make sense of ‘meaning and existence’, these prescientific societies drew upon tales about ‘divine activity in the deep past’. The author likewise states that ‘ancient peoples’ believed that ‘formative primordial divine actions’ in some way ‘intersected with the events of history’, including what occurred in ‘present earthly reality’. Correspondingly, he maintains that the ‘creation stories’ of Israel shared this common cultural heritage. So, like the sagas propagated by their ‘neighbors’ (62), those of Israel put forward their version of how God brought the ‘cosmos’ into existence and continued to remain actively present in the world. The author’s observations represent a continuation of his assertion in chapter 3 that the opening portions of Genesis, along with other passages in the Old Testament, ‘cries out to be read as something other than a historical description of events’ (58). For instance, he emphasizes that the ‘historical evidence’ (62), particularly from the findings of archaeological research, calls into question the biblical rendition of ‘Israel’s presence in Egypt, the exodus, and the conquest of Canaan’. While he concedes the possibility of ‘some type of authentic historical memory’ (156) 26. Italics are the author’s.

240 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

being present, he contends these depictions of Israel’s past are ‘greatly embellished’ (62). In his view, the intent of the editors and redactors was not to furnish a ‘blowby-blow’ report of ‘historical events’; rather, it was to proclaim that the ‘God of the primordial past’ likewise remained involved in Israel’s ‘formation as a nation’. For Enns, a case in point would be the ‘primordial cosmic battle themes’ found in ‘ancient Near Eastern stories’, as well as in the first chapter of Genesis. He observes that the Israelites used a similar literary motif to narrate their ‘deliverance from Egypt’ and ‘departure from Babylon’ (65). The line of reasoning is that just as God ‘defeated’ (62) His ‘enemies’ in the ‘primordial’ past, so too He is the ‘victor’ over ‘Israel’s historical enemies’ in the present. Expressed differently, God’s subjugation of the dark forces of chaos at the dawn of time is ‘revisited’ (63) and becomes the basis for relating contemporary episodes experienced by the Israelites. The author dismisses the notion that these ‘cosmic-battle overtones’, in which Yahweh is depicted as a divine warrior king, signifies ‘poetic exaggeration for effect’; instead, Enns primarily regards these sagas as bold ahistorical theological declarations. In keeping with the preceding observations, the author argues that the ‘Adam story’ (65) is not ‘about universal human origins but Israel’s origin’. For example, just as the primordial tale depicts God creating ‘Adam out of dust’ (66), so too Scripture portrays the ‘creation of Israel’ during the ‘exodus’. The divine ‘command’ prohibiting Adam from eating fruit from a certain ‘tree’ is mirrored in the ‘commandments’ recorded in the ‘law of Moses’. The ‘garden paradise’ corresponds to the ‘land of Canaan’. Finally, the first human couple’s transgression leading to ‘exile’ and ‘death’ is echoed in Israel’s violation of the law and eventual deportation from the Promised Land. In short, the Adam character is not an historical figure,27 but ‘proto-Israel’ or an archetypal ‘preview’ of ‘Israel’s national life’.28 As Enns sees it, the latter is part of the nation’s effort at ‘self-definition’ (69) and so not germane to the ‘modern question of human origins’.29 3.2.6  Paul’s Adam and the Old Testament (chap. 5) Enns recaps the preceding chapters by stating that a ‘literal reading of the Genesis creation stories’ (79) is at variance with what is known about the ‘past’. He then

27. E.g. the first Homo sapien. 28. Walton (2015) defines ‘archetype’ (240) as a ‘representative of a group’ who embodies ‘all others in the group’. In this ‘literary’ construction, archetypes ‘represent something beyond themselves’ (59). Put another way, they are ‘larger than the historical characters to whom they refer’. In contrast, Walton explains that a ‘prototype’ (217) is the ‘first in a series’. The ‘prototype’ is ‘only a model’ and ‘does not imply representation’. 29. Italics are the author’s.

t wo contr asting vie ws on the hi s tor i c a l au t h e n t ic i t y  | 241

directs his attention to Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:20–58, in which the Adam character is portrayed as the ‘first human being and ancestor’ of all Homo sapiens. The author observes how these biblical texts depicted ‘Adam’s disobedience’ as the catalyst and reason for ‘universal sin and death’, which in turn became the basis for the redemption of ‘humanity’ through the Messiah’s ‘obedience’. Enns proposes that one read the Adam tale as an ahistorical ‘wisdom story’ (80) from which theological insights can be drawn. The author regards this as the way in which Paul dealt with the Adam character. According to this view, Paul is one example of a ‘variety of ancient Jewish interpretations of Adam’. In each case, the intent was to ‘grapple with the significance’ (81) of the primeval saga for their ‘time and place’. Enns argues that Paul used the ‘hermeneutical conventions’ of his day— specifically those prevalent in Second Temple Judaism—to engage the relevant biblical texts in ‘creative’ and ‘imaginative ways’. In doing so, the apostle reinterpreted the ‘ancient stories’ (76) to enable to them to speak to the ‘present, higher reality of the risen Son of God’ (81). Enns maintains that Paul had a ‘rhetorical reason’ for introducing the fictitious Adam character into the theological ‘argument’ of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Specifically, this ahistorical figure serves as a worthy, archetypal counterpart to the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Enns contends that the historicity of Adam is ‘not a necessary component’ (82)30 either to Paul’s line of reasoning or the redemptive work of Jesus of Nazareth being a ‘fully historical solution’ to the ‘universal plight’ experienced by ‘humanity’. The author maintains that ‘explicit reference’ to Adam in the Hebrew sacred writings is ‘relatively absent’. Enns concedes that the Adam character is a ‘dominant theological motif in the Old Testament’. Moreover, he affirms that these writings depict ‘humanity in general and Israel in particular as out of harmony with God’ (84). The latter is where the author puts the theological emphasis of the story involving Adam, namely, whether ‘Israel’ (86) would ‘obey and receive blessing’ or ‘disobey and suffer consequences’. So, for the author, the implication is that Genesis 2 and 3 narrate an ahistorical incident that is ‘Israel-centered rather than universal’ (90). This supposition seems even more ‘compelling’ for him when he approaches these chapters as a ‘wisdom text’ (91), namely, a ‘narrative version of Israel’s failure to follow’ the ‘path of wisdom’ advocated in Proverbs. Enns asserts that it is difficult to find in the Hebrew sacred writings ‘any indication that Adam’s disobedience is the cause of universal sin, death, and condemnation’ (82). Hence, he thinks it is misguided to ‘extrapolate’ (158) from the Adam character ‘a theology of original sin’. As for the ‘role that Paul assigns 30. Italics are the author’s.

242 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

to Adam’ (81), Enns surmises that it is not only ‘largely unique’ to the apostle within the ‘ancient world’, but also ‘moves well beyond what Genesis and the Old Testament have to say’. Put another way, ‘what Genesis’ conveys regarding ‘Adam and the consequences of his actions’ fails to align with the ‘universal picture’ (92) found in a traditional reading of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. 3.2.7  Paul as an ancient interpreter of the Old Testament (chap. 6) Enns maintains that while Paul was ‘guided by the Spirit of God to proclaim his gospel’ (93), nevertheless the apostle was a ‘first-century Jew’ who expressed his theological views within his own ‘cultural context’. Put another way, according to Enns, Paul typified an ‘ancient way of thinking’ (94) when he made observations about ‘physical reality’, including (for example) a ‘three-tiered cosmos’ (93). In short, the ‘assumptions’ (94) the apostle ‘shared with his contemporaries’ about the ‘nature of physical reality’ point to a ‘faulty ancient cosmology’, especially against the backdrop of insights provided by modern science. Enns extends his line of reasoning to what Paul understood about ‘human origins’ (95), as seen in his remarks concerning ‘Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15’. This includes whatever the apostle might have ‘assumed about Adam as the progenitor of humanity’. As a continuation of what Enns put forward in chapter 5, he argues that Paul, in keeping with the interpretive conventions of Second Temple Judaism, utilized imaginative and innovative approaches to his reading of the Old Testament, including the Adam character of Genesis 2 and 3. The supposition is that ‘what Paul says about Adam’ (117) is not ‘necessarily what Genesis was written to convey’. Enns surmises that just as the apostle’s Jewish peers ‘rethought’ (96) their ‘own history in light of the crisis of the exile’, so too Paul reassessed his understanding of Scripture in light of the death, burial, and resurrection of Israel’s Messiah. Enns contends that an objective evaluation of how the apostle made use of the Tanakh indicates he was not ‘bound by the original meaning’ (103) of the text he quoted. In this view, the apostle was following contemporary hermeneutical practice when he retold and reapplied the Adam story in ways that departed from a strictly narrow, literal reading of the biblical passage. Enns regards Paul’s unique and novel approach as being entirely appropriate, given that the Adam character was an ahistorical archetype of Israel, not the literal first Homo sapien. 3.2.8  Paul’s Adam (chap. 7) In the previous chapter, Enns asserted that Paul, like his contemporary Jewish peers, deliberately molded biblical texts to fit the apostle’s theological argument. In chapter 7, the author contends that in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle, as a ‘child of Israel’s traditions’ (123), utilized the ‘theological vocabulary

t wo contr asting vie ws on the hi s tor i c a l au t h e n t ic i t y  | 243

available to him’. Enns concedes that Paul understood Adam to be the ‘historical first man’ (119) who was ‘responsible for universal sin and death’. The author notes that Paul’s main intent was not to inform his readers that Adam was a literal individual; rather, the apostle’s central objective was to use a transformational reading of Genesis to explain the significance of the Christ event. Enns maintains that, in light of the ‘scientific evidence’ (122) about ‘human origins’, along with the ‘literary evidence’ concerning the ‘nature of ancient stories of origins’, ‘belief in a first human’ is no longer a ‘viable option’. For him this conclusion remains valid, despite whatever culturally-conditioned, erroneous views Paul embraced about the Adam character of Genesis 2 and 3. Enns thinks the core message of the gospel is preserved, even when one sets aside ‘Paul’s understanding of Adam as a historical person’. According to this line of reasoning, the Adam character was a ‘primordial, prehistoric man’ (125) who was fabricated through ‘hundreds of years of cultural transmission’. In contrast, Jesus was a genuine individual, whose ‘resurrection’ was a ‘present reality for Paul’. The author opines that Adam and Jesus occupy completely different ‘historical’ (126) categories. For this reason, Enns considers it is possible for one episode recounted in mythic history31 to be parallel to another event narrated in real history32 without the point of comparison being weakened or lost. Similarly, the author holds that it is possible for the efficacy of Paul’s literary parallel to remain valid even when one of the characters33 turns out to be symbolic (or metaphorical) and the other34 is affirmed to be a real person who actually lived. 3.2.9 Conclusion: Adam today: Nine theses Enns brings his book to a close by articulating the following nine theses, or assertions, that he thinks are central both to valuing ‘Scripture as God’s Word’ (137) and accepting ‘evolution as the correct model for human origins’. (1) ‘Literalism is not an option’. By this the author means it is improper to ‘read Genesis’ as a ‘literally accurate description of physical, historical reality’. In his view, to do otherwise disregards ‘evidence’ arising from ‘scientific’ research and ‘stories’ about ‘origins’ from the ancient Near East. (2) There is a basic incompatibility between the ‘scientific and biblical models of human origins’ (138), for these two approaches convey their ideations in dissimilar ways. They are not only irreconcilable, but also an Adam character cannot be ‘found in the evolutionary scheme’. 31. 32. 33. 34.

E.g. in an ancient garden. E.g. commencing in the garden of Gethsemane. E.g. Adam. E.g. Jesus.

244 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

(3) The account of Adam in ‘Genesis reflects its ancient Near Eastern setting’; accordingly, the narrative ought to be ‘read that way’ (140). (4) Most likely, the ‘Adam story’ in Genesis 2 is the ‘older version’. So, after God’s people returned to their homeland from ‘exile’ in Babylon, they incorporated Genesis 2 under the first chapter as a way to ‘tell Israel’s story’. Additionally, Genesis 1 was ‘put at the head of Israel’s national story’ (141) for purposes of ‘self-definition’ and clarifying the nature of Israel’s ‘relationship with God’. Hence, even if the ‘Adam story’ had the ‘world stage as its backdrop’ and once possibly ‘functioned’ as a narrative about ‘universal human origins’, it eventually took on a ‘clearer Israelite-centered focus’. (5) Reading the ‘Adam story’ (142) in concert with ‘Proverbs’ demonstrates the ‘Israel-centered focus’ of the former. That being the case, the ‘Adam story’ is ‘not about a fall from perfection’, but ‘about failing to follow the path of wisdom and reach maturity’. (6) Paul used the ‘biblical idiom available to him’ to convey the ‘deep, foundational plight of the human condition’ and disclose ‘God’s solution’ through the Messiah’s ‘resurrection’. The implication is that the apostle was mistaken in his ‘assumptions about human origins’ (143). Be that as it may, the ‘need for a savior does not require a historical Adam’. (7) Communicating ‘deep and ultimate truth’ remains bounded by the conceptual ‘limitations of the cultures’ in which the ‘truth’ arose. (8) At the heart of the ‘conflict for many Christians’ (145) is the perceived ‘threat’ associated with contending that the ‘Adam story in Genesis is not a historical account’ and the way Paul ‘understood’ the narrative in terms of human origins is incorrect. Despite the teaching of longstanding ecclesial traditions, maintaining the latter two assertions does not subvert the ‘trustworthiness of the Bible’. (9) Making ‘evolution’ (147) an ‘add-on to Christianity’ is deficient; instead, to foster ‘serious intellectual engagement’, a ‘synthesis’ is required in which ‘one’s own convictions’ are changed ‘in light of new data’.

4.0 Conclusion As was noted in the Introduction to this chapter, both Collins and Enns address the same basic issues, examine a similar range of scientific and biblical data, and tend to arrive at opposite determinations. The main query explored by their respective works is the historical authenticity of the Adam character (and to a lesser extent Eve) in the Genesis creation narratives. The secondary topics they discuss include the following: the findings of modern evolutionary science concerning the origin of the cosmos and life on earth, including Homo sapiens; the sagas from various ancient Near Eastern accounts and how they compare with the opening chapters of Genesis; and the Christological view Paul held concerning

t wo contr asting vie ws on the hi s tor i c a l au t h e n t ic i t y  | 245

the notion of a first human pair through whom he believed sin and death entered the human experience and from whom the apostle declared all other Homo sapiens to be biologically descended. Both authors, in their respective ways, are attempting to bridge the gap between evolution and Christianity and thereby make it possible for ongoing fruitful dialogue to continue on a topic that is pertinent to the wider discussion on science and religion. While Collins and Enns affirm a high view of the Bible, the amount of importance each places on it is considerably different. In turn, this influences their respective assumptions, arguments, and conclusions. More specifically, Collins gives the Judeo-Christian Scriptures pride of place in the debate,35 while Enns puts greater emphasis on the data external to the Bible.36 Expressed differently, Collins aligns his hermeneutical decisions to favor the authority of Scripture, whereas Enns shifts his views to accommodate the narrative of human origins put forward by modern science. Accordingly, Collins maintains that any scientific premise concerning the Adam and Eve characters has to account adequately for a broad range of evidence he deems to be important, including information from Scripture, the prevailing cultures of the ancient Near East, Second Temple Judaism, and common human experience. His argumentation is influenced by his presupposition that some version of the traditional theological view concerning Adam does the best job of accounting for all the relevant data. Enns also thinks it is important to objectively consider the same assortment of information. His presupposition, though, is that it is no longer possible to affirm the historical authenticity of Adam. Enns reasons that the latter stance does an inadequate job of accounting for the pertinent findings arising from modern science, archaeological evidence, and how ancient cultures formulated their national tales. The preceding observations indicate how two different specialists in biblical studies can arrive at such dissimilar views about whether Adam (and Eve) ever really existed. In turn, whether greater stress should be placed on Scripture or science influences the specific positions Collins and Enns take on a series of interrelated topics. In general, Collins favors options that agree as much as possible with a more traditional view of a literal first Homo sapien. For Enns, the preference is for alternatives that best correspond to the present-day scholarly consensus about human origins. That being the case, whereas Collins maintains the opening chapters of Genesis convey truth that is essentially historical and factual, Enns argues that these texts are ancient myths that do not communicate any information that

35. Walton (2015:14) refers to this as a ‘Bible-first’ interpretive ‘approach’. 36. Walton (2015:14) refers to this as a ‘science-first’ or ‘extrabiblical-first’ interpretive ‘approach’.

246 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

corresponds to historical reality. Whereas Enns contends that Adam is a metaphorical character who never really existed, Collins asserts Adam literally existed in space-time history. Enns thinks a comparison of the Genesis creation stories with other ancient Near Eastern tales leads to the conclusion that the former is merely symbolic in character. While Collins recognizes the presence of symbolism in the opening chapters of Genesis and discusses the literary parallels these texts have with myths appearing in the surrounding culture, he holds that there is an essential historical core in Genesis 1–3. Put differently, for Collins, the literary genre, while being characterized by imaginative written conventions, remains essentially historical in what it recounts. Oppositely, for Enns, the presence of metaphorical elements in the biblical texts, like those found in other ancient tales, is conclusive evidence that readers are dealing with ahistorical information. Both authors acknowledge the literary differences between the two creation accounts found in Genesis; yet, while Collins sees them as being characterized by coherence, Enns considers any attempts at harmonization to be misguided. Furthermore, when Enns compares the opening chapters of Genesis with other Mesopotamian texts, he concludes there are unmistakable resemblances between them that point to the ahistorical nature of Genesis 1–3. In contrast, Collins deduces there are substantial dissimilarities between the biblical and extrabiblical renditions, which bolster his view that the Genesis version conveys factual information about real events. Moreover, both authors agree that terms for sin and disobedience do not appear in the Adam story; yet, whereas Enns reasons this omission undermines the traditional view of original sin, Collins thinks it is reasonable to retain the longstanding doctrine. Both take up the issue of what particular texts in the Old Testament and the writings of Second Temple Judaism have to say about the Adam character. Enns thinks references to Adam in the Old Testament are infrequent, while Collins asserts they are considerably more widespread. Each author is cognizant of the Adam character functioning as a dominant theological motif in the Old Testament. Even so, while Collins regards this as support for his view of the prevalence of Adam in the Hebrew sacred writings, Enns remains unconvinced. Collins regards the treatment of Adam in Second Temple Jewish literature as affirming the historicity of the character. Oppositely, Enns contends that the writers from this period used imaginative approaches to reapply the fictional individual known as Adam to their particular circumstances. Connected with the preceding observations is the significance each author assigns to the presence of storylike elements in the biblical text. Though Collins acknowledges that pictorial and symbolic features are present, he does not surmise

t wo contr asting vie ws on the hi s tor i c a l au t h e n t ic i t y  | 247

from this that the underlying information is fabricated. In contrast, Enns infers that what readers are encountering is fictitious. For him, this conclusion is keeping with what one finds in comparable literature from the ancient Near East. So, according to this line of reasoning, the opening chapters of Genesis are a retelling of similar creation tales found among Israel’s pagan neighbors. Likewise, Enns asserts that the Adam character, as an ahistorical, literary archetype, was taken up in varied ways and reapplied in differing contexts by writers in the Second Temple period. Moreover, he sees the same phenomenon occurring in Paul’s Christotelic use of Adam. Enns surmises that consonant with the hermeneutical practice of his day, the apostle departed from the original meaning of the biblical text to reapply the Adam story in ways that were new and novel. Both authors agree that Paul regarded Adam as an historical person who was the biological progenitor of the human race. Also, both affirm that the apostle thought a real Adam sinned in an actual ancient locale called the Garden of Eden. Moreover, both authors concur that Paul was convinced Adam’s single act of disobedience brought original sin, death, and corruption to the human race and the rest of creation. While Collins agrees with the Christocentric stance Paul articulated in these areas, Enns argues that the apostle was mistaken in his understanding about human origins. Furthermore, whereas Collins advocates retaining the traditional views of Adam, Enns contends it is no longer feasible to do so. Collins thinks the historic teachings of the Church best account for all the pertinent biblical and extra-biblical data. In contrast, Enns asserts that the consensus view of modern science regarding human origins should prevail and lead to a profoundly different understanding of what Scripture teaches Christologically about Adam, sin, and death.37

37. Cf. chapter 11 for further observations about Paul’s Christological understanding of Adam as a real, historical person.

chapter eleven

Epilogue

The main objective of this monograph is to deliberate various facets of Pauline discourse in Christocentric and Christotelic perspective. Admittedly, even in Paul’s day, he proved to be a provocative individual. He was born in Tarsus in the Roman province of Cilicia to Jewish parents. He was a citizen of both Rome and Tarsus,1 and was also familiar with Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures.2 During his adolescence, Paul learned his profession as a tentmaker or leatherworker from his father.3 In contrast, Paul received much of his religious education (especially rabbinic training) in Jerusalem under the tutelage of the esteemed Pharisee, Gamaliel the Elder.4 Before Paul’s conversion, he was a Pharisee who, due to misguided religious zeal, persecuted the early followers of Jesus.5 Acts records Paul’s life-changing encounter with the risen Lord.6 In turn, having become convinced that Jesus

1. Cf. Acts 21:39; 22:25. 2. Cf. Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:5–6. 3. Cf. Acts 18:3. In the first century ce, Jewish fathers would teach their sons a trade. While Joseph taught Jesus the carpentry profession, Paul’s father taught him tentmaking skills. 4. Or Rabban Gamaliel I; cf. Acts 22:3; 26:4. 5. Cf. Acts 8:3; 9:1–2; 22:3–5; 26:9–11; 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:6. 6. Cf. Acts 9:1–19; 22:3–16; 26:9–18.

e p i log u e  | 249

of Nazareth is the Messiah, Paul reevaluated his convictions and changed his commitment. As an apostle, he risked his life to proclaim the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Second Corinthians 11:23–27 indicates that Paul’s nearly three-decade long ministry was controversial, his reputation was contentious, and he suffered considerably for the cause of Christ. Eventually, the apostle was executed by the Roman government, but not before his work as a missionarytheologian was widely disseminated and firmly embraced. Despite Paul’s shortcomings as a human being, the Lord used the apostle in significant ways to spread the gospel, establish churches throughout the eastern Mediterranean region of the Roman Empire, and deliberate important Christological truths. As Paul did so, he left an enduring legacy, or as Brown (1997:450) puts it, a ‘living heritage’, one that is characterized by intellectual rigor and commitment to the faith communities the apostle built. According to the analysis offered by Witherington (2009:172), Paul was the ‘first and greatest Christian theologian’. Perhaps this is one reason why the apostle had such a profound impact on key luminaries throughout church history, including Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Barth (to name a few).7 Along with Acts, Paul’s letters are the primary source documents for grappling with his life, theology, and influence. These epistles were written to particular people in specific places at certain times regarding unique issues. In each situation the apostle addressed, his teaching was tailored to meet a distinctive congregational need. Hurtado (1997:153) surmises that the ‘Pauline letters’ convey an ‘impressively full and amazingly early pattern of belief ’ wherein ‘Jesus figures’ quite ‘prominently’. Tilling (2012:4) sharpens the focus by asserting that the apostle promulgated a ‘Christology’ that is ‘divine’. Concededly, as Segal (1990:xii) notes, ‘Paul’s writings are neither systematic nor simple’. Likewise, Young (1997:25) recognizes that the apostle’s ‘conceptual approach to theology’ tended to be ‘circular and interactive’, rather than ‘linear’. For all that, as Barrett (1962:3) makes clear, Paul ‘laid the foundations for systematic theology’. In short, the apostle continues to be the ‘pole star’ for traversing the ‘waters of early Christianity’. Schreiner (2012:22) opines that Jesus of Nazareth is the ‘heart and soul of Pauline theology’. On one level, Paul remained consistent and intelligible in his outlook concerning the ontological and salvific aspects of the Messiah; yet, on 7. For contrasting views of Paul’s historical and contemporary relevance, cf. the four portraits appearing in Bird (2012). The profiles are representative of the Jewish, Catholic, and Reformed traditions, along with a so-called ‘post-new perspective’. For a consideration of how Paul’s writings influenced theological interchange and ecclesial practice from the late first through the fifth centuries ce, cf. the collection of essays authored by early church history specialists in Babcock (1990).

250 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

another level, the apostle wrote about the Son in fresh ways using a variety of rhetorical strategies to deal with real world ecclesial challenges. In keeping with the preceding statement, the key theoretical argument of this study, as broached in chapter 1, is that Paul’s Christocentric and Christotelic perspective is an unmistakable feature of his discourse. That said, it would be incorrect to conclude that Paul lapsed into a form of Christomonism, wherein all aspects of Trinitarian theology are replaced with an all-encompassing focus on the Son; instead, the apostle understood the Messiah to be the starting point, trajectory, and endpoint of God’s inspired Word. In light of the above remarks, the observations that follow bring closure to the treatise by taking note of its primary findings. The study begins with chapter 1, in which I affirm the consensus tradition of the early church that there is unity and coherence throughout the Judeo-Christian canon. The historic creeds and confessions regard the Old Testament as pointing forward to the Messiah and His redemptive work. Moreover, ‘continuity and advance’ (Fanning 2015:2492) in the narrative arc of Scripture is seen with the New Testament retrospectively disclosing how the Son, as the embodied presence of Israel’s God, fulfilled the salvific promises and prophecies recorded in the Old Testament. Included within the unfolding drama of God’s Word is the recognition of the Creator’s eternal existence and direct, personal involvement with His creation, including the human race. The latter Old Testament, theocentric orientation is harmonized with and completed by the New Testament Christocentric stance that divine-human Word, Jesus of Nazareth, is both the Agent of creation and the (new) spiritual beginning for all who are baptismally united to Him by faith. Indeed, the Pauline corpus, as well as the remainder of the New Testament writings, bear witness to the truth that the Son became incarnate in space-time reality to actualize the Father’s eternal, redemptive plan. The Christocentricity of Paul’s discourse is complemented by its Christotelicity. The preceding statement means that from the apostle’s perspective, Jesus is not only the focus of Scripture, but also the nexus, apex, and consummation of its redemptivehistorical trajectory. An examination of Paul’s writings also affirms the organic, metaphysical connection between the Testaments, in which the Messiah’s death and resurrection sit at the center and jointly operate as the goal of the Bible’s narrative arc. Moreover, in concert with a predominately classical, ecumenical, and historically orthodox perspective, this study finds efficacy in viewing the Pauline corpus (as well as the rest of the Judeo-Christian canon) through a Christological prism. To extend

e p i log u e  | 251

this analogy further, the beams of light emanating from the Old Testament converge on the Messiah and then radiate throughout the New Testament.8 Dealing properly with the Christocentric and Christotelic contours of Paul’s discourse requires anchoring the apostle’s new creation theology with a thoroughgoing biblical and theological analysis of the old Adamic creation in Genesis 1–3. This is undertaken in chapter 2 of the study. To restate its salient conclusions, the opening chapters of Scripture take God’s eternal preexistence as a nonnegotiable operating premise. Also, the primeval record helps to set the stage for God’s creation of humankind, in which He is the focal point of the rendition, along with man and woman serving as His vice-regents over the world. Three doctrinal truths stand out at the gateway to the Judeo-Christian canon: (1) God reigns supreme over the cosmos; (2) He is actively present and involved in the world; and, (3) He cares and provides for His creation, including humankind. The locution about the divine likeness in humanity focuses on the ability of people to reason, make ethical decisions, and exercise dominion. Possessing high mental abilities and behaving morally concern the nature of human life, while governing the rest of creation deals with the function of human life. From a New Testament perspective, especially that conveyed by Paul in his writings, the spiritual character of the redeemed cannot be ignored. In short, becoming increasingly more like the Messiah is closely connected with bearing the image of God.9 Even within fallen humanity, though the image of God has been defaced through sin, people still bear the divine likeness to some degree,10 and this sets them apart from the rest of earth’s creatures. Whereas the Genesis narrative concerning the old Adamic creation is primarily theocentric in outlook, the Pauline writings concerning new creation theology are predominately Christocentic and Christotelic in orientation. Fittingly, the insights gleaned from chapter 2 of this treatise provide the literary backdrop and theological foundation for a consideration of the Christological aspects of Paul’s discourse, in which new creation theology is a defining characteristic. The preceding statement motivates the analysis undertaken of 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2, which is the main intent of chapter 3. 8. Dunn (1998:725) uses the following three analogies to illustrate Jesus’ significance in the Pauline corpus: (1) the Messiah ‘functioned as the fulcrum’ upon which ‘Paul’s whole theology pivoted’; (2) for the apostle, the Savior was the ‘key’ that ‘unlocked’ a number of ‘conundrums’ found in Scripture’; and, (3) the Son was the ‘light’ that ‘illumined’ the ‘dark places’ of God’s Word. 9. Cf. Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Eph 4:22–24; Col 3:9–10. 10. Cf. Gen 5:1; 9:6; Jas 3:9.

252 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

The consideration of relevant Old Testament passages and extra-canonical Jewish writings help to further establish the narrative framework and doctrinal context of Paul’s discourse concerning new creation theology. This analysis indicates that the Creator would reverse the effects of the Fall when He inaugurates the new order and causes perfect harmony to reign throughout the cosmos. Furthermore, the eternal Creator would grace His children with an everlasting inheritance. The latter includes God establishing unbroken communion with His people and claiming them as His own. The Christotelic reality of all people one day standing before the Lord’s presence invigorated Paul to minister the gospel with veracity, refute narcissistic charlatans of the truth, and enjoin Jesus’ followers to live in accordance with their profession of faith. Paul regarded the cross event as residing at the pivot of salvation-history and forming the basis of his new creation theology. Specifically, Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at Calvary brought about spiritual regeneration of the redeemed. At the Christocentric heart of Paul’s gospel proclamation was the impetus for believers to convey the Messiah’s compassion and forgiveness to the rest of humanity. The apostle considered this as signifying the dawn of a new era in which the salvation of the lost could not be separated from the Creator’s reconciliation of the world to Himself. Furthermore, at Calvary, Jesus of Nazareth defeated Satan, sin, and death, along with appeasing the Father’s wrath. In keeping with the main premise of this study, the new creation theology Paul articulated in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2 depicts the Messiah as the télos11 of the human race. In this Christological way of thinking, the Savior alone is the source of temporal and eternal existence, as well as the one who brings to pass the promise of new life and future glory for the redeemed. Likewise, He is the sole Agent who holds the cosmos together and carries it along to its divinely-intended consummation. The fourth chapter advances the discussion by exploring Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality. Central to the endeavor is a case study analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23, especially through the prism of its end-time backdrop. The primary assertion is that apostle’s eschatological worldview exercised a controlling influence on the Christocentric and Christotelic facets of his discourse, both directly and indirectly. This deliberation is first informed by taking into account 2 Corinthians 5:17–1912 and Romans 5:12–21, both of which point to an ‘already but not yet’ dynamic tension in Paul’s writings. A second point of clarification arises from Romans 8, which discloses that while Jesus’ followers have not yet been physically

11. I.e. purpose, goal, and fulfillment. 12. Recapping the analysis put forward in chapter 2 of this study.

e p i log u e  | 253

resurrected as a result of trusting in Him, they wait in eager anticipation for the arrival of that future day when their redemption is fully completed. The disquisition takes into account five key premises of Paul’s apocalyptic view of reality, all of which are Christologically oriented:13 (1) Since the dawn of time, the forces of darkness have threatened to undermine the cosmic order, including humankind; (2) The Father has triumphed over these malevolent entities through His Son’s redemptive work on the cross; (3) Believers, through their baptismal union with the divine-human Son, share in His victory won at Calvary; (4) Because the Son reigns supreme over every aspect of the believers’ lives, all their thoughts, feelings, and actions must be submitted to His rule; and, (5) Believers are a foretaste, down payment, and guarantee of the Father fulfilling His promise to reclaim and restore the entire created realm, all of which would be finalized at the Second Advent of His Son. Moreover, the fourth chapter deliberates the contextual backdrop of firstcentury Judaism apocalyptic literature, along with the polymorphic views of reality that prevailed within Greco-Roman culture. It is determined that the Spirit enabled Paul to move beyond these approaches to understand reality by viewing the created order through a set of Christocentric and Christotelic lenses. As the apostle discloses in Ephesians 1:15–23, the future hope of salvation through faith in the Messiah is an anchor for all of life, especially since it represents ultimate reality and the certain destination of believers. Of Paul’s five key premises stated above, the second is especially germane. In particular, the Son’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary brings about the vanquishing of Satan, sin, and death. This aspect of chapter four’s deliberation of Ephesians 1:15–23 anticipates chapter five’s exploration of the crucicentric facet of Paul’s discourse. The threefold Christological emphasis is as follows: (1) the suffering of the present era one day would be just a memory; (2) the agonies that prevail now would seem small compared to the beauty that has dawned; and, (3) and the glorification that the Father promises would be a reality because of what the Son achieved at Calvary. As just noted, chapter 5 shifts the focus to Paul’s theology of the cross.14 The latter is not only a key component of the apostle’s apocalyptic view of reality, but also is Christological in its outlook. Without exaggeration Paul’s emphasis on Jesus’ redemptive work at Calvary is a dominant leitmotif of the apostle’s teaching

13. The five key premises stated here, as well as in chapters 5 and 6 of this monograph, highlight their paramount importance to the Christocentric and Christotelic facets of Paul’s discourse. 14. In Latin, theologia crucis.

254 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

and a worthwhile heuristic device to view and interpret the apostle’s writings. Within this Christocentric and Christotelic stance, the emerging deliberation is facilitated by means of a case study analysis of 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10, which is representative of the apostle’s crucicentric thinking. It was noted that Paul did not operate in a narrative vacuum; rather, first century ce, secular-human culture15 had an aversion to suffering. Be that as it may, the apostle was unapologetic about embracing a theology of the cross as the heartbeat of his discourse. For the apostle, Jesus’ atoning sacrifice on Good Friday, not vaunted human knowledge and machinations, is the only true source of spiritual knowledge concerning who God is and how He saves the lost. Accordingly, Paul, reflecting Christological sensibilities, refused to trumpet his personal pedigree and attainments; instead, he drew attention to his inadequacies and deprivations, along with the Messiah’s ability to meet the apostle’s needs. Expressed differently, Paul’s sufficiency was not tethered to his own religiously motivated, dogged determination, but instead was centered in the dialectic of Jesus’s dying and rising from the grave. Indeed, this dynamic made for a truly Christocentric and Christotelic proclamation of the gospel. The sixth chapter of the study considers the issue of how Paul’s Christological outlook is shaped by the Old Testament and transformed by the cross-resurrection event. The Savior, whom the apostle served, declared on the first Easter Sunday that it was necessary for all the prophesies in the Hebrew sacred writings about the Messiah to be ‘fulfilled’ (Luke 24:44). Earlier, during Jesus’ public ministry, He stated to His interlocutors that Moses prophetically wrote about Him ( John 5:46). Jesus also revealed that Abraham, despite his limited vantage point, could discern that the predictive trajectory of Scripture pointed to the Son (8:56). Similarly, when Isaiah witnessed the preincarnate glory of the Messiah enthroned in the heavenly temple (Isa 6:1–5), the prophet fell down in worship ( John 12:41). Paul affirmed the notion of ‘continuity and advance’ (Fanning 2015:2492) between the Testaments when he referred to the ‘gospel’ (Rom 1:2) that was ‘promised beforehand’ through God’s ‘prophets’. Moreover, the apostle regarded these sacred writings as bearing witness to the ‘righteousness of God’ (3:21), which the Father graciously bestows through ‘faith’ in the Son (v. 22). Paul communicated this perspective, not just when he shared the gospel in Jewish synagogues, but also when he engaged unsaved Gentiles. A case in point would be the apostle’s speech to the Athenians, which is recorded in Acts 17. The analysis of it undertaken in chapter 6 of the study indicates that at a literary, conceptual, and linguistic level, Paul connected his Christocentric and Christotelic teaching with the theological 15. Along with that in the modern era.

e p i log u e  | 255

perspective of the Song of Moses (and more broadly with that of the Tanakh). Put another way, the apostle’s speech is thoroughly grounded in the teleological mindset of the Torah. Admittedly, Paul received a negative response from his Epicurean and Stoic interlocutors. He likely anticipated this reaction, especially since he was well aware of their belief that death was final and permanent. Be that as it may, the apostle remained resolute in focusing the Athenians’ attention on the Lord Jesus, who is in the words of Peterson (2009:503) the ‘key figure in God’s plan for humanity’. As Paul declared to his listeners, the Creator has chosen and commissioned the Messiah to be the divinely appointed Agent of judgment. The Christologicallyoriented confirmation of this truth is that God raised the Savior from the dead (Acts 17:31). Concededly, Jesus came to earth as a helpless infant, and as an adult died on the cross; yet, as stated earlier, He triumphed over Satan, sin, and death when God resurrected the Messiah and in doing so confirmed His status as the Son of God. Paul, in his oration to the Athenians, emphasized that the Lord intended the reality of this cross-resurrection event to move the lost to trust in the Redeemer and thereby experience deliverance on the Day of Judgment. As demonstrated in the analysis undertaken in chapter 6, this Christocentric and Christotelic mindset finds correspondence in the Song of Moses. For instance, the divine Warrior promised to ‘vindicate His people’ (Deut 32:36) and ‘take vengeance’ (v. 41) on His foes. The latter included making ‘atonement’ (v. 43) for God’s chosen people and the Promised Land. Chapters 7, 8, and 9 draw attention to additional facets of Paul’s Christologically-oriented teachings. This is done by taking into account other pertinent New Testament passages, especially as they relate to the theme of ‘continuity and advance in God’s redemptive plan’ (Fanning 2015:2492) being promulgated in Paul’s writings. The starting point is chapter 7, which explores how Satan (especially through his minions) strives to undermine the will of the Savior (particularly through His followers). Attention is directed to Ephesians 6:10–20, which arguably is the premier Pauline passage dealing with the subject of spiritual warfare. This endeavor is preceded by a consideration of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness and how He overcame the archenemy’s enticements.16 The analysis indicates that Lucifer uses spurious forms of verbal communication to tempt, deceive, and accuse people, including believers. Also, Satan’s decision to operate in this way is a deliberate perversion of how God used His powerful, creative decree to bring the entire universe into existence and sustain it 16. Cf. Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–11.

256 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

in all its manifold wonder. During Jesus’ First Advent, He relied on the Word of God to thwart the devil’s attacks. Furthermore, in light of the cross-resurrection event,17 Jesus’ followers are to make full use of Scripture to parry the attacks made by Satan, the counterfeit word. To reiterate once more what was affirmed above, the Christocentric and Christotelic basis for doing so is Jesus’ triumph over the price of darkness (along with Jesus’ victory over sin and death). The Son, through the Spirit, provides believers with God’s instruments of spiritual warfare, which they are exhorted to use in countering Lucifer’s attempts to tempt, deceive, and accuse them. In chapter 8, the focus shifts to the letter from James and how it correlates with the writings of Paul, along with the teachings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Of particular concern is the issue of justification by faith and whether, from a Christological perspective, there is an inherent contradiction between what is found in Jesus’ teachings and Paul’s writings (on the one hand) and the letter from James (on the other hand). A candid reading of pertinent texts, along with an objective assessment of the relevant data, indicates that the letter from James articulates a Christocentric and Christotelic outlook that is comparable and equivalent to the view put forward by Paul (in his writings) and taught by Jesus (in the Gospels). The preceding observation does not mean that Jesus, Paul, and James communicated in either a monolithic or univocal manner. On one level, they are in essential theological agreement; yet, on another level, they use different terminology in distinctive ways to address dissimilar pastoral issues. Even then, Paul and James—in keeping with what Jesus taught—affirmed that love is the essence and fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, particularly in terms of defining how people should treat one another. Also, both Paul and James reflect the wisdom tradition of the Hebrew sacred texts. Furthermore, both individuals convey a strong Christological emphasis in their respective writings. This includes an affirmation of the Father’s kingdom reign in the Son and an alignment of old covenant law to Jesus’ new covenant teachings. Even the disputed matter of justification by faith remains thoroughly Christocentric and Christotelic in the writings of Paul and letter from James. For instance, both individuals affirm that those who are born again possess saving faith, that this spiritual rebirth occurs through the proclamation of the gospel, and that the soteriological status of believers is due to the Father’s grace offered in the Son. For Paul, ‘justification’ primarily means to declare a sinner not guilty before the Father by means of faith in the Son and His death in the sinner’s place. In James,

17. This study regards the cross-resurrection event as the zenith of the Bible’s redemptivehistorical, narrative arc.

e p i log u e  | 257

the concept of ‘justification’ is taken one step further to include the validation of one’s faith in the sight of God and others. Paul affirms that because the Messiah died to atone for humankind’s iniquity, the repentant sinner can enjoy a standing of righteousness before God. James advances the teaching by upholding the truth that the upright status of believers in baptismal union with Jesus is vindicated in the way they choose to live. Chapter 9 deliberates the commonly held view in scholarly circles that Jesus is a new or second Moses. An analysis of the episode involving the Son’s transfiguration on a high mountain18 points to Jesus’ absolute supremacy over all individuals (including Moses) and institutions in the Old Testament era. Furthermore, an examination of Hebrews 3:1–6 points to Jesus’ unrivaled preeminence over Moses. Since the New Testament presents Jesus as the divine, incarnate Son, it seems inadequate to make Moses the point of reference for gauging the significance of Jesus’ messianic identity, claims, and activities. Actually, such a low Christology fails to appreciate that in every respect the Son eclipses Israel’s famed lawgiver. As a consequence of the preceding observations, an alternative view is posited, namely, that it is better to view Paul as a new or second Moses. This proposal, while admittedly counterintuitive, is especially appropriate in light of Paul’s prophetic-apostolic role of heralding a gospel that is Christocentric and Christotelic in outlook. Paul recognized that the Creator, in His grace, chose and commissioned a once-proud Pharisee to proclaim the good news about Jesus of Nazareth. Moreover, as Paul discharged his God-given responsibility, he did so with humility, yet without diluting or compromising his apostolic authority. Paul realized that the integrity of his mission was pivotal to his effectiveness in establishing, strengthening, and shepherding the body of Christ. As previously stated, Paul’s understanding of reality was apocalyptic in orientation. In turn, his eschatological worldview exercised a controlling influence on the Christocentric and Christotelic facets of the apostle’s discourse, both directly and indirectly. This included an emphasis on new creation theology, along with a crucicentric mindset that places Jesus’ atoning sacrifice at Calvary at the nexus of the redemptive-historical, narrative arc of Scripture. An examination of Romans 10:1–13, especially verses 6–8, further establishes the preceding observations. As Paul revealed, no one else but Jesus is the Lord of the covenant and the One who conquered death. He alone came to earth from heaven and returned there after His ascension. Particularly seminal is verse 4, which reveals that only Jesus is the télos, or culmination, of the Mosaic Law. He alone makes it possible for repentant,

18. Recounted in Matt 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36.

258 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

believing sinners to be declared not guilty in God’s sight and receive the blessing of eternal life. Lastly, chapter 10 explores two contrasting views on the historical authenticity of the Adam character in the Genesis creation narratives. The inclusion of this discourse is motivated by the fact that exegetes continue to vigorously debate the underlying question of whether Adam and Eve ever existed and whether they were actual progenitors for the entire human race. As articulated elsewhere in this study, I favor a predominately classical, evangelical, and orthodox interpretive approach to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Be that as it may, my intent in chapter 10 does not involve adjudicating whether the exegetical choices and theological positions advocated by either Collins (2011) or Enns (2012) has greater or lesser merit; instead, it is to provide a fresh perspective on how two representative biblical scholars address a topic that is pertinent to the wider discussion involving the opening chapters of Genesis and Paul’s Christological treatment of these passages within the apostle’s writings.19 A candid assessment of each author’s work indicates that both address the same basic issues, examine a similar range of scientific and biblical data, and tend to arrive at opposite conclusions. In the case of Collins, while he is well aware of the scientific data, his firmly held theological convictions lead him to adopt interpretations that agree with what he finds being taught in other portions of the Bible. He thinks it is sensible to hold that, depending on the context, the images portrayed in Scripture could convey truth about what is genuinely historical and factual. Collins also maintains that Paul regarded Adam (along with Eve) to be an actual person who existed in space-time history. Moreover, Collins sees the traditional orthodox understanding of the historicity of Adam and Eve as having the most explanatory power for making sense of the fallen human condition. With respect to Enns, he uses an incarnational model to affirm the divine origin of the Judeo-Christian canon, while at the same time seeing it as a set of ancient sacred texts produced within various historical, cultural, and literary contexts. Enns highlights the theological diversity, discontinunity of thought, and creative reimagining he finds in the Bible. According to this line of reasoning, such a dynamic epitomizes the way in which Paul reinterpreted and reappropriated the fictitious Adam character. Enns considers the findings of science as overturning the ecclesial consensus tradition view of the historicity of Adam and Eve. This includes a rejection of the notion that God specially created a first human couple; instead, Homo sapiens are said to be the product of an evolutionary process extending over a long period of time. This reflects a decision on the part of Enns 19. E.g. Acts 17:26, Rom 5:12–19, and 1 Cor 15:20–23.

e p i log u e  | 259

to give greater weight to the findings of science and modern scholarship, rather than the biblical data and the longstanding view of the Church connected with it. More generally, the opening chapters of Genesis are regarded as mythological, ahistorical retellings of Israel’s origins that convey a theological message to people living in a prescientific, premodern culture. In stepping back from these two contrasting perspectives, it is reasonable to affirm that Paul, as a first-century Jew, reflected his own historical, cultural, and literary context to express his Christological views. This includes regarding Adam as archetypal of fallen humanity, along with Jesus being archetypal of redeemed humanity. It remains open to debate, however, whether Paul’s understanding of physical reality invalidates his stance that Adam was a real, historical person (and the male progenitor of Homo sapiens) whose disobedience of God’s command in a primordial garden introduced sin in the human race. It also remains questionable whether Paul, in keeping with the interpretive practices prevalent in Second Temple Judaism, used imaginative approaches to make Old Testament passages, such as those from the opening chapters of Genesis, enunciate ideas found nowhere in the ancient sacred texts. In keeping with the main premise of this monograph, and as articulated in the study, the way in which Paul interpreted and applied the Old Testament aligns with the apostle’s Christocentric and Christotelic perspective. Specifically, Paul considered Jesus of Nazareth to be the heart of the metanarrative in the Judeo-Christian canon. From that vantage point Paul taught that the Son came to earth to fulfill the salvific promises the Father made to His chosen people through such luminaries as Abraham, Moses, and David. Within the context of Paul’s apocalyptic outlook of reality, he taught that prior to Jesus’ advent, sinful humanity was estranged from the eternal, all-powerful Lord; yet, as a result of the cross-resurrection event, the Son bridged the infinite chasm of separation between the Creator and those whom He created. In closing, Paul heralded the Christologically-oriented good news that all who come to the Messiah in faith are granted the privilege of being adopted as God’s regenerate children in His spiritual family to abide with Him forever in heaven.

Bibliography

Abasciano BJ 2005. Paul’s use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1–9: an intertextual and theological exegesis. London: T&T Clark. Abbott TK 1979. The epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Abernathy D 2001. Paul’s thorn in the flesh: a messenger of Satan? Neotestamentica. 35 (1–2) 69–79. Adamson JB 1989. James: the man and his message. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Aernie JW 2012. Is Paul among the prophets? An examination of the relationship between Paul and the Old Testament prophetic tradition in 2 Corinthians. London: T&T Clark. Albertz R 1997. Hebel. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:351–3. Peabody: Hendrickson. Albright WF 1959. Some remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32. Vetus testamentum. 9 (4) 339–46. Alexander DR 2001. Rebuilding the matrix: science and faith in the 21st century. Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Alexander LCA 1993. Chronology of Paul. In GF Hawthrone and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 115–23. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Alexander LCA 2006. Acts in its ancient literary context: a classicist looks at the Acts of the apostles. London: T&T Clark. Alexander TD 2008. From Eden to the new Jerusalem: exploring God’s plan for life on earth. Nottingham: InterVarsity. Allen TG 1986. Exaltation and solidarity with Christ: Ephesians 1:20 and 2:6. Journal for the study of the New Testament. 28 (1) 103–20.

262 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Ames FR 2012. Warfare and divine welfare. In MJ Boda and JG McConville (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament prophets, 827–35. InterVarsity: Downers Grove. Anderson BW 1962. Creation. In GA Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 1:725–32. Nashville: Abingdon. Anderson BW 1984a. Creation and ecology. In BW Anderson (ed.), Creation in the Old Testament, 152–71. Philadelphia: Fortress. Anderson BW 1984b. Introduction: mythopoetic and theological dimensions of biblical creation faith. In BW Anderson (ed.), Creation in the Old Testament, 1–24. Philadelphia: Fortress. Anderson BW 1994. From creation to new creation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Anderson GA 2001. The genesis of perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Ando C 2000. Imperial ideology and provincial loyalty in the Roman empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ando C 2009. The matter of the gods: religion and Roman empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. Anthony NJ 2010. Cross narratives: Martin Luther’s Christology and the location of redemption. Eugene: Pickwick. Arand CP and Herrmann EH 2015. Living in the promises and places of God: a theology of the world. Concordia journal. 41 (2) 101–10. Arnold BT and Beyer BE 2008. Encountering the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker. Arnold CE 2002. Acts. In CE Arnold (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 2:218–503. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Arnold CE 2010. Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Asher JR 2011. An unworthy foe: heroic Ἔθη, trickery, and an insult in Ephesians 6:11. Journal of biblical literature. 130 (4) 729–48. Asmis E 1992. Epicureanism. In DN Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 2:559–61. New York: Doubleday. Attridge HW 1989. The epistle to the Hebrews. H Koester (ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress. Auffret P 1978. Essai sur la structure littéraire du discours d’Athènes (Ac 17:23–31). Novum testamentum. 20 (3) 185–202. Aune DE 1993a. Apocalypticism. In CA Evans and SE Porter (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 25–35. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Aune DE 1993b. Religion, Greco-Roman. In CA Evans and SE Porter (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 786–96. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Aune DE 2000. Religions, Greco-Roman. In GF Hawthorne and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament background, 917–26. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Aune DE, Geddert TJ, and Evans CA 2000. Apocalypticism. In GF Hawthorne and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament background, 45–58. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Austin JL 1975. How to do things with words. JO Urmson and M Sbisà (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Averbeck RE 2015. The lost world of Adam and Eve: a review essay. Themelios. 40 (2) 226–39.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 263

Babcock WS (ed.) 1990. Paul and the legacies of Paul. Dallas: Southern University Methodist Press. Backhaus K 2012. ‘Before Abraham was, I am’: the book of Genesis and the Genesis of Christology. In N MacDonald, MW Elliott, and G Macaskill (eds.), Genesis and Christian theology, 74–84. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Badenas R 1985. Christ the end of the law: Romans 10:4 in Pauline perspective. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Baker DW 2003. God, names of. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 359–68. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Baker PA 2003. Sabbath, sabbatical year, jubliee. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 695–706. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Baker WR 2002. Christology in the epistle of James. Evangelical Quarterly. 74 (1) 47–57. Baker WR 2008. Searching for the Holy Spirit in the epistle of James: is ‘wisdom’ equivalent? Tyndale bulletin. 58 (2) 293–315. Balla P 2007. 2 Corinthians. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 753–83. Baker: Grand Rapids. Balz H 2000. kósmos. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 2:309–13. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Baltz H and Schneider G (eds.) 1990. Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Logos Research Systems edition. Barabas S 2009. Apple of the eye. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:266. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Barclay JMG 2015. Paul and the gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Barker KL (ed.) 2011. The NIV study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Barnes TD 1969. An apostle of trial. Journal of theological studies. 20 (2) 407–19. Barrett CK 1962. From first Adam to last: a study in Pauline theology. New York: Scribner. Barrett CK 1998. The Acts of the apostles. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Barrett M and Caneday AB (eds.) 2013. Four views on the historical Adam. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Barnett P 1997. The second epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Barth M 1986. Ephesians: introduction, translation, and commentary on chapters 1–3. New York: Doubleday. Bartholomew CG and Goheen MW 2004. The drama of Scripture: finding our place in the biblical story. Grand Rapids: Baker. Bauckham R 1999. James: wisdom of James, disciple of Jesus the sage. London: Routledge. Bauckham R 2008. Jesus and the God of Israel: God crucified and other studies on the New Testament’s Christology of divine identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bauckham R 2012. Humans, animals, and the environment in Genesis 1–3. In N MacDonald, MW Elliott, and G Macaskill (eds.), Genesis and Christian theology, 174–89. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bayer O 2003. Martin Luther’s theology: a contemporary interpretation. TH Trapp (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bayer O 2007. Theology the Lutheran way. JG Silcock and MC Mattes (trans. and eds.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

264 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Beale GK 2011. A New Testament biblical theology: the unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker. Bechtler SR 1994. Christ, the telos of the law: the goal of Romans 10:4. Catholic biblical quarterly. 56 (2) 288–308. Beer T 1984. La ‘theologia crucis’ de Lutero. Scripta theologica. 16 (3) 747–80. Beker JC 1982. Paul’s apocalyptic gospel: the coming triumph of God. Philadelphia: Fortress. Beker JC 1990. The triumph of God: the essence of Paul’s thought. LT Stuckenbruck (trans.). Philadelphia: Fortress. Beker JC 2000. Paul the apostle: the triumph of God in life and thought. Philadelphia: Fortress. Bell RH 2013. Demon, devil, Satan. In JB Green, JK Brown, and N Perrin (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 193–202. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Belleville LL 1996. 2 Corinthians. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Benoit P 1983. Pauline angelology and demonology: reflections on designations of heavenly powers and on origin of angelic evil according to Paul. Religious studies bulletin. 3 (1) 1–18. Bernhardt KH 1999. bara’. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), JT Willis (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 2:246–8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Best E 1987. Second Corinthians. Louisville: John Knox Press. Best E 1998. Ephesians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Betz HD 1992. Paul. In DN Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 5:186–201. New York: Doubleday. Bietenhard H 1986. Angel. In C Brown (ed.), The new international dictionary of New Testament theology, 1:101–3. Zondervan. Grand Rapids. Bietenhard H and Brown C 1986. Satan, Beelzebul, devil. In C Brown (ed.), The new international dictionary of New Testament theology, 3:468–73. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Billings JD 2014. Catholic and reformed: rediscovering a tradition. Pro ecclesia. 23 (2) 132–46. Bird MF (ed.) 2012. Four views on the apostle Paul. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Bivin DN and Tilton JN 2015. The kingdom of heaven in Jewish literature. Messiah journal. 119 (1) 60–8. Black DA 2012. Paul, apostle of weakness: astheneia and its cognates in the Pauline literature. Eugene: Pickwick. Blanshard B 2006. Wisdom. In DM Bochert (ed.), Encyclopedia of philosophy, 9:793–6. Detroit: Macmillian Reference. Blocher H 1994. Evil and the cross: an analytical look at the problem of pain. DG Preston (trans.). Grand Rapids: Kregel. Block DI 2012. Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Block DI 2013. Eden: a temple? A reassessment of the biblical evidence. In DM Gurtner and BL Gladd (eds.), From creation to new creation: biblical theology and exegesis, 3–29. Peabody: Hendrickson. Blomberg CL 1992. Matthew. Nashville: Broadman. Blomberg CL 2007. Matthew. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 1–109. Grand Rapids: Baker. Blomberg CL and Kamell MJ 2008. James. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Bock DL 1994. Luke. Vol. 1:1–9:50. Grand Rapids: Baker.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 265

Bock DL 2002. Jesus according to Scripture: restoring the portrait from the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker. Bock DL 2007. Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker. Boers H 2006. Christ in the letters of Paul. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Booth WC, Colomb GG, and Williams JM 2008. The craft of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Boring ME 1995. The gospel of Matthew: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 8:89–505. Nashville: Abingdon. Bornkamm G 1999. mystérion. In G Kittel (ed.), GW Bromiley (trans.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 4:802–28. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bosman HL 1997. Sabbath. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:1157–62. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Bradbury R 2012. Cross theology: the classical theologia crucis and Karl Barth’s modern theology of the cross. Cambridge: James Clarke and Co. Brandos DA 2006. Paul and the cross: reconstructing the apostle’s story of redemption. Minneapolis: Fortress. Branch RG 2003. Eve. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 240–4. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Branick VP 1985. Apocalyptic Paul? Catholic biblical quarterly. 47 (4) 664–75. Bratcher D 2005. Speaking the language of Canaan: the Old Testament and the Israelite perception of the physical world, 1–13. CRI/Voice, Institute. Website: http://www. cresourcei.org/pdf/langcaan.pdf. Bratsiotis NP 1997. ’îsh, ’ishshah. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), JT Willis (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 1:222–35. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bray GL 2000. God. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.), 511–21. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Bray GL 2005. Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture. New Testament VII: 1–2 Corinthians. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Logos Research Systems edition. Bring R 1971. Paul and the Old Testament: A study of the ideas of election, faith and law in Paul, with special reference to Romans 9:30–10:30. Nordic journal of theology. 25 (1) 21–60. Bromiley GW 1982. Image of God. In GW Bromiley (ed.) The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 2:803–5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bronson DB 1964. Paul and apocalyptic Judaism. Journal of biblical literature. 83 (3) 287–92. Brosend WF 2004. James and Jude. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown C 1986a. New international dictionary of New Testament theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Logos Research Systems edition. Brown C 1986b. Resurrection. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology, 3:259–75. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Brown C 1986c. Secret, mystery. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology, 3:501–11. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Brown DR 2015. The god of this age: Satan in the churches and letters of the apostle Paul. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Brown F, Driver SR, and Briggs CA 2000. The enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English lexicon. Bellingham: Logos Research Systems edition.

266 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Brown ML 1997. brk II. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:757–67. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Brown RE 1997. An introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday. Brown WP 1999. The ethos of the cosmos: the genesis of moral imagination in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Brown WP 2010. The seven pillars of creation: the Bible, science, and the ecology of wonder. New York: Oxford University Press. Bruce FF 1980. 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bruce FF 1982. The epistle to the Galatians: a commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bruce FF 1984. The epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bruce FF 1985. The epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bruce FF 1988. The book of the Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bruce FF 1993. Paul in Acts and Letters. In GF Hawthrone and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 679–92. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Bruce FF 2000. Paul: apostle of the heart set free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Brueggemann W 1997. Theology of the Old Testament: testimony, dispute, advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress. Büchsel F 1999. epithymia. In G Kittel (ed.), GW Bromiley (trans.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 3:168–71. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Burk D 2008. Is Paul’s gospel counterimperial? Evaluating the prospects of the ‘fresh perspective’ for evangelical theology. Journal of the evangelical theological society. 51 (2) 309–37. Byrne B 2000. The problem of nomos and the relationship with Judaism in Romans. Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 294–309. Calvin J 1547. Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote. Portland: Christian Publication Resource Foundation. Website: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/calvin_ trentantidote.html. Calvin J 1854. Commentaries on the epistles of Paul to the Galatians and the Ephesians. W Pringle (trans.). Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society. Website: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/ 1793. Carlson RF and Longman T 2010. Science, creation and the Bible: reconciling rival theories of origins. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Capes DB, Reeves R, and Richards ER 2007. Rediscovering Paul: an introduction to his world, letters, and theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Carpenter EE 1997. ‘śh I. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 3:546–52. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Carpenter EE 2009. Deuteronomy. In JH Walton (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 1:418–547. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Carr GL 1980. elyôn. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament, 668–9. Chicago: Moody Press. Carson DA 1984a. A sketch of the factors determining current hermeneutical debate in crosscultural contexts. In DA Carson (ed.), Biblical interpretation and the church: text and context.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 267

Exeter: The Paternoster Press. Website: http://obinfonet.ro/docs/herm/hermex/carsontext-context-bi.pdf. Carson DA 1984b. Matthew. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 8:3–599. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Carson DA 2000. Athens revisited. In DA Carson (ed.), Telling the truth: evangelizing postmoderns, 384–98. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Carson DA 2001. Summaries and conclusions. In DA Carson, PT O’Brien, and MA Seifrid (eds.), Justification and variegated nomism. Volume 1: the complexities of Second Temple Judaism, 505–48. Grand Rapids: Baker. Carson DA 2015a. A biblical-theological overview of the Bible. In DA Carson (ed.), The NIV Zondervan study Bible, 2637–9. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Carson DA (ed.) 2015b. The NIV Zondervan study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Carson DA (ed.) 2016. The enduring authority of the Christian Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Carson DA, Moo DJ, and Morris L 1992. An introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Cary P 2005. Why Luther is not quite Protestant: the logic of faith in a sacramental promise. Pro eccelsia. 14 (4) 447–86. Cary P 2007. Sola fide: Luther and Calvin. Concordia theological quarterly. 71 (3/4) 265–81. Cerfaux L 1966. Christ in the theology of St. Paul. G Webb and A Walker (trans.). New York: Herder and Herder. Chapman B and Shogren GS 1994. Greek New Testament insert. Quakertown: Stylus Publishing. Charles JD 1995. Engaging the (neo)pagan mind: Paul’s encounter with Athenian culture as a model for cultural apologetics (Acts 17:16–34). Trinity journal. 16 (1) 47–62. Charles RH 1913. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Charlesworth JH (ed.) 1983. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: apocalyptic literature and testaments. New York: Doubleday. Chavalas MW 2003. Moses. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 570–9. InterVarsity. Downers Grove. Chester A and Martin RP 1994. The theology of the letters of James, Peter, and Jude. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Childs BS 1986. Old Testament theology in a canonical context. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Chilton B 1992. Transfiguration. In DN Freedman (ed.), The anchor Bible dictionary, 6:640–2. New York: Doubleday. Chilton B 2005. Wisdom and grace. In B Chilton and C Evans (eds.), The mission of James, Peter, and Paul: tensions in early Christianity, 307–22. Leiden: Brill. Chisholm RB 1991. A theology of Isaiah. In RB Zuck (ed.), A biblical theology of the Old Testament, 305–40. Chicago: Moody. Christensen DL 2002. Word biblical commentary: Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12. Thomas Nelson. Nashville. Clancy RD 1994. Theology of the cross: the doctrine of justification and the problem of human suffering. Currents in theology and mission. 21 (4) 267–73.

268 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Clark GH 2009a. Epicurean. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 2:363–5. Zondervan: Grand Rapids. Clark GH 2009b. Stoic. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:609–12. Zondervan: Grand Rapids. Clark JC 2006. Martin Luther’s view of cross-bearing. Bibliotheca sacra. 163 (651) 335–47. Clements RE 1998. Deuteronomy. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 2:271–538. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Clifford RJ 1985. The Hebrew scriptures and the theology of creation. Theological studies. 46 (3) 507–23. Clifford RJ 1994. Creation accounts in the ancient Near East and in the Bible. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America. Cockerill GL 2012. The epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Cohick LH 2013. Ephesians: a new covenant commentary. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press. Cole RA 1983. The gospel according to St. Mark: an introduction and commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Cole RA 2009. Son of God. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:572–9. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Collins AY 1992. Early Christian apocalypticism. In DE Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 1:288–92. New York: Doubleday. Collins CJ 2011. Did Adam and Eve really exist? Who they were and why you should care. Wheaton: Crossway. Collins CJ 2012. Book review: the evolution of Adam. The gospel coalition. Website: http:// thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/the_evolution_of_adam. Collins JJ 1992. Early Jewish apocalypticism. In DE Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 1:282–8. New York: Doubleday. Collins JJ 2000. Apocalyptic literature. In GF Hawthorne and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament background, 40–5. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Collins RF 2013. Second Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker. Coote RB and Ord DR 1991. In the beginning: creation and the priestly history. Minneapolis: Fortress. Coppes LJ 1980. ’adam. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Bellingham: Logos Research Systems edition. Cornelius I 1997a. ‘eden II. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 3:331–2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Cornelius I 1997b. gan. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:875–8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Cousar CB 1990. A theology of the cross: the death of Jesus in the Pauline letters. Minneapolis: Fortress. Craddock FB 1998. The letter to the Hebrews: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 12:3–173. Nashville: Abingdon. Craige PC 1976. The book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Cranfield CEB 1959. The gospel according to saint Mark: an introduction and commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 269

Cranfield CEB 1983. A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistle to the Romans. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Crossan JD and Reed JL 2004. In search of Paul: how Jesus’ apostle opposed Rome’s empire with God’s kingdom. A new vision of Paul’s words and world. San Francisco: HarperOne. Culpepper RA 1995. The gospel of Luke: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 9:3–490. Nashville: Abingdon. Curtis EM 1992. Image of God (OT). In DN Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible dictionary, 3:389–91. New York: Doubleday. Damgaard F 2013. Recasting Moses: the memory of Moses in biographical and autobiographical narratives in ancient Judaism and 4th-century Christianity. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. D’Angelo MR 1979. Moses in the letter to the Hebrews. Missoula: Scholars Press. Danker FW (ed.) 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Logos Research Systems edition. Das AA 2001. Paul, the law, and the covenant. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Davids PH 1980. Theological perspectives on the epistle of James. Journal of the evangelical theological Society. 23 (2) 97–103. Davids PH 1982. The epistle of James: a commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Davids PH 1993. James and Paul. In GF Hawthorne and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 457–61. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Davids PH 2001. James’ message: the literary record. In B Chilton and J Neusner (eds.), The brother of Jesus: James the just and his mission, 66–87. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Davies WD 1980. Paul and rabbinic Judaism: some rabbinic elements in Pauline theology. Philadelphia: Fortress. Dayton WT 2009a. James. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 3:450–5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Dayton WT 2009b. James, epistle of. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 3:456–63. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. De Blois R and Mueller ER (eds.) 2013. Semantic dictionary of biblical Hebrew. Swindon: United Bible Societies. Website: http://www.sdbh.org. de Boer MC 2000. Paul and apocalyptic eschatology. In JJ Collins (ed.). The encyclopedia of apocalypticism. Vol. 1. The origins of apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, 345–83. New York: Continuum. de Boer MC 2002. Paul, theologian of God’s apocalypse. Interpretation. 56 (1) 21–33. deSilva DA 2004. An introduction to the New Testament: contexts, methods, and ministry formation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Dibelius M 1976. James. MA Williams (trans.). Philadelphia: Fortress. Driver SR 1986. Deuteronomy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Duling DC 1992. Kingdom of God, kingdom of heaven. In DN Freedman (ed.), The anchor Bible dictionary, 4:49–69. New York: Doubleday. Dumbrell WJ 1981. The logic of the role of the law in Matthew 5:1–20. Novum testamentum. 23 (1) 1–21.

270 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Dumbrell WJ 2004. Paul and salvation history in Romans 9:30–10:4. In C Bartholomew, et al. (eds.), Out of Egypt: biblical theology and biblical interpretation, 286–312. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Dunn JDG 1988. Romans 9–16. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Dunn JDG 1998. The theology of Paul the apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Dunn JDG 2009. Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the making. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Dyrness W 1977. Themes in Old Testament theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Eckardt BF 1985. Luther and Moltmann: the theology of the cross. Concordia theological quarterly. 49 (1) 19–28. Edwards JR 2002. The gospel according to Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Edwards MJ (ed.) 2005. Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture. New Testament VIII: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians. InterVarsity: Downers Grove. Logos Research Systems edition. Eichrodt W 1961. Theology of the Old Testament. Volume 1. JA Baker (trans.). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Eichrodt W 1967. Theology of the Old Testament. Volume 2. JA Baker (trans.). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Eisenman R 1997. James the brother of Jesus. New York: Penguin Books. Ellington DW 2012. Not applicable to believers? The aims and basis of Paul’s ‘I’ in 2 Corinthians 10–13. Journal of biblical literature. 131 (2) 325–40. Ellingworth P 1993. The epistle to the Hebrews: a commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Elliot N 1997. The anti-imperial message of the cross. In RA Horsley (ed.), Paul and empire: religion and power in Roman society, 167–83. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. Elliott N 2004. The apostle Paul’s self-presentation as anti-imperial performance. In RA Horsely (ed.), Paul and the Roman imperial order, 67–88. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. Elliott N 2008. The arrogance of nations: reading Romans in the shadow of empire. Minneapolis: Fortress. Ellis EE 1983. The gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Emerson MY 2013. Christ and the new creation: a canonical approach to the theology of the New Testament. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Emery AC 2003. Warfare. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 877–81. InterVarsity: Downers Grove. Engelbrecht EA 2011. Luther’s threefold use of the law. Concordia theological quarterly. 75 (1–2) 135–50. Weblink: http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/EngelbrechtLuthersThreefold UseOfTheLaw.pdf. Enns P 2011. Book review: still in the weeds of human origins. Perspectives. Website: https:// www.rca.org/Page.aspx?pid=7796. Enns P 2012. The evolution of Adam: what the Bible does and doesn’t say about human origins. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press. Enns P 2015. Inspiration and incarnation: Evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 271

Erickson MJ 2013. Christian theology. Grand Rapids: Baker. Evans CA 1999. Paul and the prophets: prophetic criticism in the epistle to the Romans (with special reference to Romans 9–11). In SK Soderlund and NT Wright (eds.), Romans and the people of God: essays in honor of Gordon D. Fee on the occasion of his 65th birthday, 115–28. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Evans CA 2001. Comparing Judaisms: Qumranic, Rabbinic, and Jacobean Judaisms compared. In B Chilton and J Neusner (eds.), The brother of Jesus: James the just and his mission, 161–83. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Evans CA 2004. The Bible knowledge key word study: Acts–Philemon. Colorado Springs: David C Cook. Fanning BA 2015. Introduction to Hebrews. In DA Carson (ed.), The NIV Zondervan study Bible, 2489–92. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Fast MS 2011. A theology of disability: living as a theologian of the cross. Journal of religion, disability and health. 15 (4) 414–30. Fee GD 1994. God’s empowering presence: the Holy Spirit in the letters of Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker. Fee GD 2007. Pauline Christology: an exegetical-theological study. Peabody: Hendrickson. Feinberg JS (ed.) 1991. Continuity and discontinuity: perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, essays in honor of S. Lewis Johnson. Wheaton: Crossway. Feldman LH 2007. Philo’s portrayal of Moses in the context of ancient Judaism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Ferguson SB 2002. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: developing a Christ centered instinct. London: The Proclamation Trust. Finley G 2003. Homo divinus: the ape that bears God’s image. Science and Christian belief. 15 (1) 17–27. Fitzgerald JT 1972. The temptation of Jesus: the testing of the messiah in Matthew. Restoration quarterly. 15 (3–4) 152–160. Fitzgerald JT 1988. Cracks in an earthen vessel: an examination of the catalogues of hardships in the Corinthian correspondence. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Fitzgerald JT 1990. Paul, the ancient epistolary theorists, and 2 Corinthians 10–13: the purpose and literary genre of a Pauline letter. In DL Balch, E Ferguson, and WA Meeks (eds.), Greeks, Romans, and Christians: essays in honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, 190–200. Minneapolis: Fortress. Fitzmyer JA 1989. Paul and his theology: a brief sketch. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Fitzmyer JA 1998. The Acts of the apostles. New Haven: Yale University Press. Fletcher-Louis C. 2013. Angels. In JB Green, JK Brown, and N Perrin (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 11–7. InterVarsity: Downers Grove. Flemming D 2002. Contextualizing the gospel in Athens: Paul’s Areopagus address as a paradigm for missionary communication. Missiology. 30 (2) 199–214. Forde GO 1997. On being a theologian of the cross: reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg disputation, 1518. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fossum J 1992. Son of God. In DN Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 6:128–37. Doubleday. New York.

272 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Foster RL 2008. Reoriented to the cosmos: cosmology and theology in Ephesians through Philemon. In SM McDonough and JT Pennington (eds.), Cosmology and the New Testament, 107–124. London: T&T Clark. Foulkes F 1979. The epistle of Paul to the Ephesians: an introduction and commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fouts DM 1997. bnh. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:677–81. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. France RT 2002. The gospel of Mark: a commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. France RT 2007. The gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Freedman DN and O’Connor MP 1996. yhwh. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), DE Green (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 5:500–21. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fretheim TE 1994. The book of Genesis: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 1:321–674. Nashville: Abingdon. Fretheim TE 1997a. ’elohîm. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:405–6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Fretheim TE 1997b. śkl I. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 3:1243. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Fretheim TE 1997c. Yahweh. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:1295–1300. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Frick B 2012. Covenantal ecology: the inseparability of covenant and creation in the book of Genesis. In N MacDonald, MW Elliott, and G Macaskill (eds.), Genesis and Christian theology, 204–15. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fudge E 1971. Paul’s apostolic self-consciousness at Athens. Journal of the evangelical theological society. 14 (3) 193–8. Funderburk GB 2009. Angel. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:183–91. Zondervan. Grand Rapids. Furnish VP 1984. 2 Corinthians. New Haven: Yale University Press. Garland DE 1989. Paul’s apostolic authority: the power of Christ sustaining weakness (2 Corinthians 10–13). Review and expositor. 86 (3) 371–89. Garland DE 1996. Mark. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Garland DE 1999. 2 Corinthians. Nashville: B&H Publishing. Garlington DB 1994. Jesus, the unique Son of God: tested and faithful. Bibliotheca sacra. 151 (603) 284–308. Gärtner B 1955. The Areopagus speech and natural revelation. CH King (trans.). Copenhagen: C.W.K. Gleerup. Gaventa BR 2007. Our mother saint Paul. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Geldenhuys N 1983. Commentary on the gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gempf C 1993. Paul at Athens. In GF Hawthorne and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 51–4. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Gentry PJ 2008. Kingdom through covenant: humanity as the divine image. The Southern Baptist journal of theology. 12 (1) 16–43.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 273

Gentry PJ and Wellum SJ 2012. Kingdom through covenant: a biblical-theological understanding of the covenants. Wheaton: Crossway. Georgi D 1986. The opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians: a study of religious propaganda in late antiquity. Philadelphia: Fortress. Georgi D 2009. Theocracy in Paul’s praxis and theology. DE Green (trans.). Minneapolis: Fortress. Gerrish BA 1973. ‘To the unknown God’: Luther and Calvin on the hiddenness of God. Journal of religion. 53 (3) 263–92. Getty MA 1982. An apocalyptic perspective on Rom 10:4. Horizons in biblical theology. 4 (1) 79–131. Gibbs JG 1971. Creation and redemption: a study in Pauline theology. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Gibson JB 1994. Jesus’ wilderness temptation according to Mark. Journal for the study of the New Testament. 53 (1) 3–34. Gilchrist PR 1980. ’tôledôt. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Gill DWJ 1994. Achaia. In DWJ Gill and C Gempf (eds.), The book of Acts in its first century setting. Vol. 2: the book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman setting, 433–53. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gillman FM 1992. James, brother of Jesus. In DN Freedman (ed.), The anchor Bible dictionary, 3:620–1. New York: Doubleday. Given MD 2001. Paul’s true rhetoric: ambiguity, cunning, and deception in Greece and Rome. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. Glancy JA 2004. Boasting of beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23–25). Journal of biblical literature. 123 (1) 99–135. Glasson TF 1963. Moses in the fourth Gospel. London: SCM Press. Godet FL 1977. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Kregel. Goetzmann J 2014. Sophia. In M Silva (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Logos Research Systems edition. Goldberg L 1980a. Chokmah. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Goldberg L 1980b. śekel. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Goldingay J 2003. Old Testament theology: Israel’s gospel. Vol. 1. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Goldsworthy G 2010. Gospel-centered hermeneutics: foundations and principles of evangelical biblical interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Gordon RP 1997. twb. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 2:353–7. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Görg M 2004. raqîa‘. In GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and H-J Fabry (eds.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 13:646–653. DE Green (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gorman MJ 2001. Cruciformity: Paul’s narrative spirituality of the cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gorman MJ 2004. Apostle of the crucified Lord: a theological introduction to Paul and his letters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gow MD 2003. Fall. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 285–91. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

274 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Gray P 2012. Opening Paul’s letters: a reader’s guide to genre and interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker. Green DJ 2010. ‘The Lord is my shepherd’: Psalm 23 as messianic prophecy. In P Enns, DJ Green, and MB Kelly (eds.), Eyes to see, ears to hear: essays in memory of JA Groves, 33–46. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing. Green JB 2013a. Kingdom of God/heaven. In JB Green, JK Brown, and N Perrin (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 468–81. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Green JB 2013b. Transfiguration. In JB Green, JK Brown, and N Perrin (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 966–72. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Greene B 2012. The elegant universe: part 2. Boston: WGBH Educational Foundation. Website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/elegant-universe.html#elegant-universestring. Gribble RF 2009. Transfiguration. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:910–2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Grisanti MA 1997. ’adamâ. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:269–74. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Grudem W 1994. Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Guelich RA 1991. Spiritual Warfare: Jesus, Paul and Peretti. Pneuma. 13 (1) 33–64. Guhrt J 1986. Earth. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology, 1:521–6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Gundry RH 2012. A survey of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Gundry-Volf JM 1993. Conscience. In GF Hawthrone and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 153–6. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Gunkel H 1984. The influence of Babylonian mythology upon the biblical creation story. In BW Anderson (ed.), CA Muenchow (trans.), Creation in the Old Testament, 25–52. Philadelphia: Fortress. Guthrie D 1981. New Testament theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Guthrie D 1984. Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Guthrie D 1990. New Testament introduction. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Guthrie GH 2007. Hebrews. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 919–95. Grand Rapids: Baker. Haag E 2004. šabat. In GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and H-J Fabry (eds.), DW Stott (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 14:381–6. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Haarsma DB 2012. How are the ages of the earth and universe calculated? San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe. Haarsma DB and Haarsma LD 2007. Origins: a reformed look at creation, design, and evolution. Grand Rapids: Faith Alive. Haberer J 2008. Ephesians 1:15–23. Interpretation. 62 (3) 312–4. Hadley JM 1997. Idolatry: theology. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), Dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:715–7. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Hafemann SJ 1990. ‘Self-commendation’ and apostolic legitimacy in 2 Corinthians: a Pauline dialectic? New Testament studies. 36 (1) 66–88.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 275

Hafemann SJ 1993. Paul and his interpreters. In GF Hawthorne, RP Martin, and DG Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 666–79. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Hafemann SJ 2000a. A call to pastoral suffering: the need for recovering Paul’s model of ministry in 2 Corinthians. The southern Baptist journal of theology. 4 (2) 22–36. Hafemann SJ 2000b. 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Hafemann SJ 2005. Paul, Moses, and the history of Israel: the letter/spirit contrast and the argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. Bletchley: Paternoster. Hagerty BB 2011. Evangelicals question the existence of Adam and Eve. NPR. Website: https:// www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve. Hagner DA 1990. Hebrews. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Hagner DA 1992. James (person). In DN Freedman (ed.), The anchor Bible dictionary, 3:616–8. New York: Doubleday. Hagner DA 1997. Balancing the Old and the New: the law of Moses in Matthew and Paul. Interpretation. 51 (1) 20–31. Hahn SW 2009. Kingship by covenant: a canonical approach to the fulfillment of God’s saving promises. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hall WS 1982. Paul as a Christian prophet in his interpretation of the Old Testament in Romans 9–11. PhD dissertation. Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology. Hamilton VP 1980a. ’arar. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Hamilton VP 1980b. damâ. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Hamilton VP 1990. The book of Genesis 1–17. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hamilton VP. 1992. Satan. In DN Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 5:985–9. New York: Doubleday. Hamilton VP 1997a. ’adam I. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:262–6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Hamilton VP 1997b. ’îš I. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:388–0. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Hamilton VP 1997c. ’iššâ I. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:537–40. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Hamilton VP 1997d. tôledôt. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 2:459–60. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Harner PB 1967. Creation faith in Deutero-Isaiah. Vetus testamentum. 17 (3) 298–306. Harner PB 2004. What are they saying about the Catholic epistles? New York: Paulist Press. Harris MJ 2005. The second epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Harris MJ 2008. 2 Corinthians. In T Longman and DE Garland (eds.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 11:417–545. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Harrison EF and Hagner DA 2008. Romans. In T Longman and DE Garland (eds.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 11:19–237. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Harrison RK 1980. Apple of the eye. In GW Bromiley (ed.), The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 1:215. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

276 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Harrison RK 2009. Creation. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:1080–6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Harstine S 2002. Moses as a character in the Fourth Gospel: a study of ancient reading techniques. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Hartley JE 1980. selem. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Hasel GF 1991. Old Testament theology: basic issues in the current debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hasel GF 1992. Sabbath. In DN Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible dictionary, 5:849–56. New York: Doubleday. Hays RB 1989. Echoes of Scripture in the letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hays RB 1996. The moral vision of the New Testament: community, cross, new creation. San Francisco: HarperCollins. Hays RB 2005. The conversion of the imagination: Paul as interpreter of Israel’s scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Heidel A 1951. The Babylonian Genesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heil JP 2000. The transfiguration of Jesus: narrative meaning and function of Mark 9:2–8, Matt 17:1–8, and Luke 9:28–36. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Heil JP 2001. Christ, the termination of the law (Romans 9:30–10:8). Catholic biblical quarterly. 63 (3) 484–500. Heil JP 2006. Jesus with the wild animals in Mark 1:13. Catholic biblical quarterly. 68 (1) 63–78. Heim SM 2006. Saved from sacrifice: a theology of the cross. Grand Rapids. Eerdmans. Hemer CJ 1989. The book of Acts in the setting of Hellenistic history. CH Gempf (ed.). Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Hendel KK 1997. Theology of the cross. Currents in theology and mission. 24 (3) 223–31. Hendricksen W 1968. Galatians. Grand Rapids: Baker. Hendriksen W 1982. Exposition of the gospel according to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker. Hendriksen W 1995. Exposition of Ephesians. Baker. Grand Rapids. Henry CFH 2001. Image of God. In WA Elwell (ed.), Evangelical dictionary of theology, 591–4. Grand Rapids: Baker. Hess RS 2003. Adam. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 18–21. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Hiebert DE 1979. The epistle of James: tests of a living faith. Chicago: Moody. Hiebert DE 1992. Warrior, divine. In DN Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 6:876–80. New York: Doubleday. Hiebert DE 2009. Satan. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:332–8. Zondervan. Grand Rapids. Hill AE 1997. ‘sûr I’. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), Dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 3:793–4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Hills JV 1993. Christ as the goal of the law (Romans 10:4). The Journal of theological studies. 44 (2) 585–93. Hinkson CQ 1993. Kierkegaard’s theology: cross and grace. The Lutheran and idealists traditions in his thought. Chicago: University of Chicago.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 277

Hoehner HW 2002. Ephesians: an exegetical commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker. Hood JB 2009. The cross in the New Testament: two theses in conversation with recent literature (2000–2007). Westminster theological journal. 71 (2) 281–95. Hooker MD 1994. The letter to the Philippians: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 11:469–549. Nashville: Abingdon. Horsley RA 2004. Introduction. In RA Horsley (ed.), Paul and the Roman imperial order, 1–23. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. Horton M 2011. The Christian faith: a systematic theology for pilgrims on the way. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Houston WJ 2012. Sex or violence? Thinking again with Genesis about fall and original sin. In N MacDonald, MW Elliott, and G Macaskill (eds.), Genesis and Christian theology, 140–51. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Höver-Johag I 1986. tôb. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), DE Green (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 5:296–317. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Howard G 1974. The head/body metaphors of Ephesians. New Testament studies. 20 (3) 350–6. Hubbard MV 2002a. New creation in Paul’s letters and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hubbard MV 2002b. 2 Corinthians. In CE Arnold (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 3:194–263. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Hübner H 2000. epithymia. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 2:27–8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Huey FB 2009. Bashan. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:521–2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Hughes PE 1962. Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hughes PE 1977. A commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hughes PE 1985. The Christology of Hebrews. Southwestern journal of theology. 28 (1) 19–27. Hulst AR 1997. bnh. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.). ME Biddle (trans.). Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:245–6. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Hultgren AJ 2011. Paul’s letter to the Romans: a commentary. Grand Eerdmans. Hurtado LW 1997. Christology. In RP Martin and PH Davids (eds.), Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, 170–84. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Hurtado LW 2003. Lord Jesus Christ: devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hyers MC 1984a. Dinosaur religion: on interpreting and misinterpreting the creation texts. Journal of the American scientific affiliation. 36:208–15. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/ PSCF/1984/JASA128–4Hyers.html. Hyers MC 1984b. The narrative form of Genesis 1: cosmogenic, yes; scientific, no. Journal of the American scientific affiliation. 36:142–8. Website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1984/ JASA98–4Hyers.html. Hyers MC 2003. Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins. In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 19–33. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hyers MC 2015. The ‘cosmogonic’ form of Genesis 1. Biologos. Grand Rapids: The Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/blog/the-cosmogonic-form-of-genesis-1-part-1.

278 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Ito A 2006. The written Torah and the oral gospel: Romans 10:5–13 in the dynamic tension between orality and literacy. Novum testamentum. 48 (3) 234–60. Jacob E 1958. Theology of the Old Testament. AW Heathcote and PJ Allcock (trans.). New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers. Jeal RR 2000. Integrating theology and ethics in Ephesians: the ethos of communication. Lewiston: The Edward Mellon Press. Jenni E 1997a. dmh. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:339–42. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Jenni E 1997b. yhwh. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:522–6. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Jerome 1892. De viris illustribus (On illustrious men). In P Schaff and H Wace (eds.), EC Richardson (trans.), From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing. Website: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm. Jewett R 2007. Romans: a commentary. EJ Epp (ed.). Minneapolis: Fortress. Jipp JW 2012. Paul’s Areopagus Speech of Acts 17:16–34 as both critique and propaganda. Journal of biblical literature. 131 (3) 567–88. Jobes KH 2011. Letters to the church: a survey of Hebrews and the general epistles. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Johnson LT 2003. The scriptural world of Hebrews. Interpretation. 57 (3) 237–50. Johnson LT 2004. Brother of Jesus, friend of God: studies in the letter of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Johnson LT 2006. Hebrews: a commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Johnson LT 2012. The Paul of the letters: a Catholic perspective. In MF Bird (ed.), Four views on the apostle Paul, 65–96. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Johnson SL 1966. Temptation of Christ. Bibliotheca sacra. 123 (492) 342–52. Johnston GH 1997. hebel. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), The new international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:1003–5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Jones PR 1973. The apostle Paul: a second Moses according to II Corinthians 2:14–4:7. PhD dissertation. Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary. Jones PR 1974. The apostle Paul: second Moses to the new covenant community. A study in Pauline apostolic authority. In JW Montgomery (ed.), God’s inerrant word: an international symposium on the trustworthiness of Scripture, 219–41. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship. Jones PR 1979. The figure of Moses as a heuristic device for understanding the pastoral intent of Hebrews. Review and expositor. 76 (1) 95–107. Josephus F 2013. The antiquities of the Jews. W Winston (trans). Salt Lake City: Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Website: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848h.htm. Just AA (ed.) 2003. Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture. New Testament III: Luke. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Logos Research Systems edition. Kaiser WC 1971. Leviticus 18:5 and Paul: do this and you shall live (eternally?). Journal of the evangelical theological society. 14 (1) 19–28. Kaiser WC 1980. shem. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament, 934–5. Chicago: Moody Press.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 279

Kaiser WC 1991. Kingdom promises as spiritual and national. In JS Feinberg (ed.), Continuity and discontinuity: perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, essays in honor of S. Lewis Johnson, 289–313. Wheaton: Crossway. Kaiser WC 1995. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Kaiser WC 2008. The promise-plan of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Kalland ES 1992. Deuteronomy. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 3:3–2235. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Käsemann E 1970. The Pauline theology of the cross. JP Martin (trans.). Interpretation. 24 (2) 151–77. Keck LE 1984. Paul and apocalyptic theology. Interpretation. 38 (3) 229–41. Keck LE 1993. Paul as thinker. Interpretation. 47 (1) 27–38. Kedar-Kopfstein B 1999. ‘eden. In GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and H-J Fabry (eds.), JT Willis (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 10:481–90. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Keener CS 1999. A commentary on the gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Keener CS 2003. The gospel of John: a commentary. Volumes One and Two. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Keener CS 2005. 1 and 2 Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keil CF and Delitzsch F 1981. Biblical commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 1: The Pentateuch. J Martin (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Keil CF and Delitzsch F 1982. Biblical commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 3: The Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kelle BE 2008. Warfare imagery. In T Longman and P Enns (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament wisdom, poetry, and writings, 829–35. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Keller CA 1997a. brk pi. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:266–76. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Keller CA 1997b. ’rr. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:179–82. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Kent HA 1981. The epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Baker. Kidner D 1967. Genesis: an introduction and commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Kim S 1997. Kingdom of God. In RP Martin and PH Davids (eds.), Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, 629–38. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Kim S 2002. Paul and the new perspective: second thoughts on the origin of Paul’s gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kim S 2008. Christ and Caesar: the gospel and the Roman empire in the writings of Paul and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. King LW (trans.) 1902. The seven tablets of creation. Santa Cruz: Internet Sacred Text Archive. Website: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm. Kirk JA 1969. The meaning of wisdom in James: examination of a hypothesis. New Testament Studies. 16 (1) 24–38. Kistemaker SJ 1984. Exposition to the epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Baker. Kistemaker SJ 1997. 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker. Kitchen M 1994. Ephesians. Routledge. London.

280 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Kittel G and Friedrich G (eds.) 1964. Theological dictionary of the New Testament. GW Bromiley (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Logos Research Systems edition. Klassen W 1992. War in the NT. In DN Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 6:867–75. Doubleday. New York. Klauck HJ 2006. Ancient letters and the New Testament: a guide to context and exegesis. DP Bailey (trans. and ed.). Waco: Baylor University Press. Klein MG 1975. The Old Testament origins of the gospel genre. Westminster theological journal. 38 (1) 1–27. Kline MG 2006. Kingdom prologue: Genesis foundations for a covenantal worldview. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Klug EFA 2003. Lift high the cross: the theology of Martin Luther. Saint Louis: Concordia. Knauth RJD 2003. Israelites. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 452–8. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Knowles MP 2005. Paul’s ‘affliction’ in Second Corinthians: reflection, integration, and a pastoral theology of the cross. Journal of pastoral theology. 15 (1) 64–77. Koehler L and Baumgartner W 2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. 3rd ed. MEJ Richardshon (trans.). London: E.J. Brill. Logos Research Systems edition. Koenen K 2004. śekel. In GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and H-J Fabry (eds.), DW Stott (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 14:112–28. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Koester CR 1991. Hebrews. New York: Doubleday. Koester CR 2010. Hebrews. In DE Aune (ed.), The Blackwell companion to the New Testament, 613–31. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. Kolb R 2002. Luther on the theology of the cross. Lutheran quarterly. 16 (4) 443–66. Konkel JH 1997a. dmh I. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:967–70. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Konkel JH 1997b. ysr I. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 2:503–6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Köstenberger AJ and O’Brien PT 2001. Salvation to the ends of the earth: a biblical theology of mission. Downers Grove. InterVarsity. Krämer H 2000. mysterion. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.), Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 2:446–9. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kreitzer LJ 1987. Jesus and God in Paul’s eschatology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Kreitzer LJ 1993. Kingdom of God/Christ. In GF Hawthorne and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 524–6. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Kruse CG 2012. Paul’s letter to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kühlewein J 1997a. ’iššâ. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:187–91. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Kühlewein J 1997b. ’îš. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:98–104. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Kuhn KG 1968. The epistle to the Ephesians in light of the Qumran texts. In J MurphyO’Connor (ed.), Paul and Qumran, 115–131. London: G. Chapman. Laato T 1997. Justification according to James: a comparison with Paul. M Seifrid (trans.). Trinity journal. 18 (1) 43–84.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 281

Labuschagne CJ 2013. The Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32—logotechnical analysis. Groningen: University of Groningen. Website: http://www.labuschagne.nl/2b.deut32.pdf. Ladd GE and Hagner DA 1993. A theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lambert WG (trans.) 2008. Mesopotamian creation stories. In MJ Geller and M Schipper (eds.), Imagining creation, 17–59. Leiden: Brill. Website: http://www.ancient.eu.com/ article/225/. Lambrecht J 1996. Dangerous boasting: Paul’s self-commendation in 2 Cor 10–13. In R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian correspondence, 325–46. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Lane WL 1982. The gospel according to Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lane WL 1991. Hebrews 1–8. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. LaSor WS 1980. Bashan. In GW Bromiley (ed.), The international standard Bible encyclopedia, 1:436–7. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Laws S 1980. A commentary on the epistle of James. London: Adam and Charles Black. Laws S 1992. James, epistle of. In DN Freedman (ed.), The anchor Bible dictionary, 3:621–8. New York: Doubleday. Leitch AH 2009. Image of God. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 3:281–4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Lenski RCH 1961a. The interpretation of St. Paul’s epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Lenski RCH 1961b. The interpretation of St. Paul’s first and second epistles to the Corinthians. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House. Lessing RR 2010. Yahweh versus Marduk: creation theology in Isaiah 40–55. Concordia journal. 36 (3) 234–44. Leuchter M 2007. Why is the song of Moses in the book of Deuteronomy? Vetus testamentum. 57 (3) 295–317. Levison JR 1988. Portraits of Adam in early Judaism: from Sirach to 2 Baruch. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Levison JR 1993. Creation and new creation. In GF Hawthorne and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 189–90. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Lewis CS 1996. The problem of pain. New York: Simon and Schuster. Lewis GR and Demarest BA 1990. Integrative theology. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Liefeld WL 1984. Luke. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 8:797–1059. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Lierman J 2004. The New Testament Moses: Christian perceptions of Moses and Israel in the setting of Jewish religion. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Lincoln AT 1990. Ephesians. Dallas: Word Books. Lincoln AT 1995. ‘Stand therefore …’: Ephesians 6:10–20 as peroratio’. Biblical interpretation. 3 (1) 99–114. Lind MC 1980. Yahweh is a warrior: the theology of warfare in ancient Israel. Scottdale: Herald Press. Lindars B 1991. The theology of the letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lioy D 2003. The book of Revelation in Christological focus. New York: Peter Lang.

282 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Lioy D 2005. The search for ultimate reality: intertextuality between the Genesis and Johannine prologues. New York: Peter Lang. Lioy D 2007a. Jesus as Torah in John 1–12. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Lioy D 2007b. The moral law from a Christ-centered perspective: a canonical and integrative approach. Conspectus 3 (1) 54–89. Lioy D 2007c. The NIV international Bible lesson commentary: September 2007–August 2008. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook. Lioy D 2008a. The divine sabatoge: an expositional journey through Ecclesiastes. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Lioy D 2008b. The NIV international Bible lesson commentary: September 2008–August 2009. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook. Lioy D 2010. Axis of glory: a biblical and theological analysis of the temple motif in Scripture. New York: Peter Lang. Lioy D 2011a. Evolutionary creation in biblical and theological perspective. New York: Peter Lang. Lioy D 2011b. Jesus’ resurrection and the nature of the believer’s resurrection body. Conspectus. 12 (2) 89–127. Lioy D 2012. Two contrasting views on the historical authenticity of the Adam character in the Genesis creation narratives. Conspectus. 14 (2) 191–228. Lioy D 2013a. A comparative analysis of the Song of Moses and Paul’s Speech to the Athenians. Conspectus. 16 (2) 1–45. Lioy D 2013b. David C. Cook Bible lesson commentary: September 2013–August 2014. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook. Lioy D 2013c. From dignity to disgrace: a comparative analysis of Psalms 8 and 14. Conspectus. 15 (1) 207–41. Lioy D 2014a. Biblical theology. In B Domeris and K Smith (eds.), A student’s A–Z of theology, 77–89. Rivonia: South African Theological Seminary Press. Lioy D 2014b. New creation theology in 2 Corinthians 5:11–6:2. Conspectus. 17 (1) 53–87. Lioy D 2014c. Opposing Satan, the counterfeit word. Conspectus. 18 (1) 2–34. Lioy D 2015a. Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of reality: a case study analysis of Ephesians 1:15–23. Conspectus. 19 (1) 27–64. Lioy D 2015b. Paul’s theology of the cross: a case study analysis of 2 Corinthians 11:16–12:10. Conspectus. 20 (1) 89–148. Lioy D 2016. Putting the letter from James in its place: a candid assessment of its continuing theological value. Conspectus. 21 (1) 41–76. Litwak KD 2004. Israel’s prophets meet Athens’ philosophers: scriptural echoes in Acts 17, 22–31. Biblica. 86 (2) 199–216. Long FJ 2004. Ancient rhetoric and Paul’s apology: the compositional unity of 2 Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Longenecker BW 2002. The narrative approach to Paul: an early retrospective. Currents in biblical research. 1 (1) 88–111. Longenecker BW and Still TD 2014. Thinking through Paul: an introduction to his life, letters, and theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 283

Longenecker RN 1977. The ‘faith of Abraham’ theme in Paul, James, and Hebrews: a study in the circumstantial nature of New Testament teaching. Journal of the evangelical theological society. 20 (3) 203–12. Longenecker RN 1981. Acts. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 9:207–573. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Longenecker RN 2009. Paul. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 4:698–733. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Longman T 2009. Warrior, divine. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:1045–7. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Longman T and Reid DG 1995. God is a warrior. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Losie LA 2004. Paul’s speech on the Areopagus: a model of cross-cultural evangelism. In RL Gallagher and P Hertig (eds.), Mission in Acts: ancient narratives in contemporary context, 221–38. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Louw JP and Nida EA (eds.) 1989. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament based on semantic domains. New York: United Bible Societies. Logos Research Systems edition. Lowery DK 1994. A theology of Paul’s missionary epistles. In RB Zuck (ed.), A biblical theology of the New Testament, 243–97. Chicago: Moody Press. Luc A 1997. ‘arûm. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 3:539–41. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Lucas EC 2003. Cosmology. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 130–9. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Luther M 1957. Luther’s works: career of the reformer. Vol. 31. HT Lehmann and HJ Grimm (eds.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Maass F 1997. ’adham. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), JT Willis (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 1:75–87. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Macky PW 1998. St. Paul’s cosmic war myth: a military version of the gospel. New York: Peter Lang. MacPherson RC 2009. A Lutheran view of the third use of the law. Mankato: Bethany Lutheran Theological Seminary. Weblink: http://www.ryancmacpherson.com/publication-list/26research-papers/73-a-lutheran-view-of-the-third-use-of-the-law.html. Madsen A 2007. The theology of the cross in historical perspective. Eugene: Pickwick. Majercik R 1992. Rhetoric and oratory in the Greco-Roman world. In D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 5:710–2. New York: Doubleday. Mangum D 2012. The law in Paul’s letters. Faithlife study Bible. Bellingham: Lexham Press. Logos Research Systems edition. Mangum D and Brown DR 2014. Lexham theological wordbook. Bellingham: Lexham Press. Logos Research Systems edition. Marlow HF 2012. Creation theology. In MJ Boda and JG McConville (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament prophets, 105–9. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Marshall IH 1980. The Acts of the apostles: an introduction and commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Marshall IH 1983. The gospel of Luke: a commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Marshall IH 2004. New Testament theology: many witnesses, one gospel. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

284 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Marshall IH 2005. The theology of the atonement. Evangelical Alliance/London School of Theology symposium on the atonement. London: London School of Theology. Website: http://cmaministries.org/Studies/ihowardmarshall%20Atonement.pdf. Marshall IH 2009. Kingdom of God (of heaven). In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.), The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 3:911–22. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Marshall P 1987. Enmity in Corinth: social conventions in Paul’s relations with the Corinthians. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Martin RP 1986. 2 Corinthians. Waco: Word Books. Martin RP 1988. James. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Martin RP 1993. Center of Paul’s theology. In GF Hawthrone and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 92–5. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Martin HM 1992. Areopagus. In DN Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 1:370–2. New York: Doubleday. Martin JA 1992. Athens. In DN Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 1:513–8. New York: Doubleday. Martyn JL 1997. Theological issues in the letters of Paul. Nashville: Abingdon. Martyn JL 2009. Epistemology at the turn of the ages: 2 Corinthians 5:16. In WR Farmer, CFD Moule, and RR Niebuhr (eds.), Christian history and interpretation: studies presented to John Knox, 269–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mateo-Seco LF 1982. Teología de la cruz. Scripta theological. 14 (1) 165–79. Matera FJ 2003. II Corinthians: a commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Mathewson D 2011. The apocalyptic vision of Jesus according to the gospel of Matthew: reading Matthew 3:16–4:11 intertextually. Tyndale bulletin. 62 (1) 89–108. Matthews VH 1992. Letters (Greek and Latin). In DE Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 4:290–3. New York: Doubleday. Mauck JW 2001. Paul on trial: the book of Acts as a defense of Christianity. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. McCartney DG 2000. The wisdom of James the just. Southern Baptist journal of theology. 4 (3) 52–64. McCartney DG 2003. Should we employ the hermeneutics of the New Testament writers? New Philadelphia: Bible Researcher. Website: http://www.bible-researcher.com/mccartney1. html. McCartney DG 2009. James. Grand Rapids: Baker. McClain AJ 2001. The greatness of the kingdom: an inductive study of the kingdom of God. Winona Lake: BMH Books. McComiskey TE 1980a. ’îsh. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. McComiskey TE 1980b. ’ishshâ. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. McConville JG 2002. Deuteronomy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. McGrath AE 1987. The enigma of the cross. London: Hodder and Stoughton. McGrath AE 1993. Cross, theology of the. In CA Evans and SE Porter (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 192–7. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 285

McGrath AE 2011. Luther’s theology of the cross: Martin Luther’s theological breakthrough. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. McKeown J 2003. Blessings and curses. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 83–7. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. McKnight S 1995. Galatians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. McKnight S 2011. The letter of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. McRay JR 2000. Athens. In CA Evans and SE Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament background, 139–40. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Mendenhall GE 1975. Samuel’s ‘broken rîb’: Deuteronomy 32. In JW Flanagan and AW Robinson (eds.), No famine in the land: studies in honor of John L McKenzie, 63–74. Missoula: Scholars Press. Merklein H 1991. metanoeo. In H Balz and G Schneider (eds.), Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament, 2:415–9. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Merrill EH 1997. Fall of humankind. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:638–9. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Merrill EH 2003a. Image of God. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of Old Testament: Pentateuch, 441–5. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Merrill EH 2003b. The Bible knowledge key word study: Genesis –Deuteronomy. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook. Meyer JC 2009. The end of the law: Mosaic covenant in Pauline theology. Nashville: B&H Publishing. Michel O and Marshall IH 1986. Son. In C Brown (ed.), The new international dictionary of New Testament theology, 3:639–48. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Miller KB 2011. ‘And God saw that it was good’: death and pain in the created order. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 63 (2) 85–94. Miller PD 1990. Deuteronomy. Louisville: John Knox Press. Miller PD 2006. The divine warrior in early Israel. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Milligan G 1899. The theology of the epistle to the Hebrews. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Minear PS 1994. Christians and the new creation: Genesis motifs in the New Testament. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Moberly RWL 2009. The theology of the book of Genesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moltmann J 1974. The crucified God: the cross of Christ as the foundation and criticism of Christian theology. New York: Harper and Row. Moo DJ 1996. The epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Moo DJ 2015. James: an introduction and commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Morgan R 2012a. Superstition and demons (2). The testimony. 82 (2) 87–9. Morgan R 2012b. Superstition and demons (3). The testimony. 82 (3) 146–9. Morris L 1974. The gospel according to St. Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Morris L 1981. Hebrews. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12:3–158. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Morris L 1986. New Testament theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Morris L 1988. The epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

286 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Morrow JF 2009. Creation as temple-building and work as liturgy in Genesis 1–3. Journal of the Orthodox center for the advancement of biblical studies. 2 (1) 1–13. Morrow SB 1986. Paul, his letters and his theology: an introduction to Paul’s epistles. New York: Paulist Press. Moses ADA 1996. Matthew’s transfiguration story and Jewish-Christian controversy. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Motyer JA 1985. The message of James. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Motyer S 2001. New creation, new creature. In WA Elwell (ed.), Evangelical dictionary of theology, 825–6. Grand Rapids: Baker. Mouton J 2001. How to succeed in your master’s and doctoral studies: A South African guide and resource book. Cape Town: Van Schaik. Mueller JT 1934. Christian dogmatics: a handbook of doctrinal theology for pastors, teachers, and laymen. Saint Louis: Concordia. Munck J 1959. Paul and the salvation of mankind. F Clarke (trans.). London: SCM Press Ltd. Munck J 1967. Christ and Israel: an interpretation of Romans 9–11. I Nixon (trans.). Philadelphia: Fortress. Munday JC 2003. Animal pain: beyond the threshold? In KB Miller (ed.), Perspectives on an evolving creation, 435–68. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Muñoz-Larrondo R 2012. A postcolonial reading of the Acts of the apostles. New York: Peter Lang. Murphy GL 2010. Human evolution in theological context. BioLogos. 1–9. San Diego: Biologos Foundation. Website: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/murphy_scholarly_essay.pdf. Murphy-O’Connor J 1991. The theology of the second letter to the Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murray J 1984. The epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Murray SR 2008. The third use of the law: the author responds to his critics. Concordia theological quarterly. 72 (2) 99–118. Myers JM and Freed ED 1966. Is Paul also among the prophets? Interpretation. 20 (1) 40–53. Neary M 1983. Creation and Pauline soteriology. Irish theological quarterly. 50 (1) 1–34. Nel PJ 1997. bwš I. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:621–7. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Nelson RD 2002. Deuteronomy: a commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Nestingen JA 1992. Luther’s Heidelberg disputation: an analysis of the argument. Word & World, Supplement Series 1. 145–53. Netting R 2012. The big bang. Washington, DC: NASA. Website: http://science.nasa.gov/ astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/. Neufeld TY 1997. Put on the armour of God: the divine warrior from Isaiah to Ephesians. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Neusner J 2001. Introduction: what is Judaism? In B Chilton and J Neusner (eds.), The brother of Jesus: James the just and his mission, 1–9. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Neusner J 2005a. Rabbinic Judaism in late antiquity. In L Jones (ed.), Encyclopedia of religion,11:7583–7590. New York: Macmillan Reference. Neusner J 2005b. Sin, repentance, atonement, and resurrection: the perspective of rabbinic theology on the views of James 1–2 and Paul in Romans 3–4. In B Chilton and C Evans

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 287

(eds.), The mission of James, Peter, and Paul: tensions in early Christianity, 409–34. Leiden: Brill. Newsom CA and Watson DF 1992. Angels. In DN Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 1:248–55. New York: Doubleday. Neyrey JH 1990. Acts 17, Epicureans and Theodicy: A Study in Stereotypes. In DL Balch and WA Meeks (eds.), Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, 118–34. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Website: http://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/epicureans. html. Niditch S 1985. Chaos to cosmos: studies in biblical patterns of creation. Chico: Scholars Press. Niehaus JJ 1997. Deuteronomy: theology of. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), Dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:537–44. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Niehr H 2001. ‘arôm, ‘erôm. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), JT Willis (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 11:349–66. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Nolland J 2005. The gospel of Matthew: a commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Nolte CM 2003. A theology of the cross for South Africa. Dialog. 42 (1) 50–61. Oakes P 2005. Re-mapping the universe: Paul and the emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians. Journal for the study of the New Testament. 27 (3) 301–22. Oakes P 2007. Moses in Paul. In T Romer (ed.), La construction de la figure de Moïse, 249–61. Paris: Gabalda. O’Brien GJ and Harris TJ 2012. What on earth is God doing? Relating theology and science through biblical theology. Perspectives on science and Christian faith. 64 (3) 147–56. O’Brien PT 1993. Letters, letter forms. In CA Evans and SE Porter (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 550–3. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. O’Collins GG 1971. Power made perfect in weakness: 2 Cor 12:9–10. Catholic biblical quarterly. 33 (4) 528–37. Oden RA 1992. Cosmogony, cosmology. In DN Freedman (ed.), The anchor Bible dictionary, 1:1162–71. New York: Doubleday. Oden TC and Hall CA (eds.) 2005. Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture. New Testament II: Mark. InterVarsity: Downers Grove. Logos Research Systems edition. Ollenburger BC 1987. Isaiah’s creation theology. Ex auditu. 3:54–71. Osborn LH 2000. Creation. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds.), New dictionary of theology, 429–35. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Osborne GR 2006. The hermeneutical spiral: a comprehensive introduction to biblical interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Ostling RN 2011. The search for the historical Adam. Christianity today. 55 (6) 22–27. Website: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/historicaladam.html. Oswalt JN 1980a. barak. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Oswalt JN 1980b. bôsh. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Oswalt JN 2003. Theology of the Pentateuch. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 845–59. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

288 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Oswalt JN 2009. The Bible among the myths: unique revelation or just ancient literature. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. O’Toole RF 1982. Paul at Athens and Luke’s notion of worship. Revue biblique. 89 (2) 185–97. Otzen B 1990. ysr. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), DE Green (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 6:257–265. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Paige T 1993. Philosophy. In GF Hawthorne and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 713–8. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Painter J 1999. Just James: the brother of Jesus in history and tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress. Painter J 2001. Who was James? Footprints as a means of identification. In B Chilton and J Neusner (eds.), The brother of Jesus: James the just and his mission, 10–65. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Pak JY 1991. Paul as missionary: a comparative study of missionary discourse in Paul’s epistles and selected contemporary Jewish texts. New York: Peter Lang. Pao DW and Schnabel EJ 2007. Luke. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 251–414. Grand Rapids: Baker. Parsons MC 2008. Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker. Pate CM 1991. Adam Christology as the exegetical and theological substructure of 2 Corinthians 4:7–5:21. Lanham: University Press of America. Pate CM 1993. The glory of Adam and the afflictions of the righteous: Pauline suffering in context. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press. Pate CM 1995. The end of the age has come: the theology of Paul. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Pate CM 2013. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker. Paul MJ 1997. Adam and Eve. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:359–62. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Payne JB 1980a. ’ab. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament, 5–6. Chicago: Moody Press. Payne JB 1980b. raqîa‘. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Payne JB 1980c. yhwh. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Peach ME 2016. Paul and the apocalyptic triumph: an investigation of the usage of Jewish and GrecoRoman imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. New York: Peter Lang. Pearsall J 2014. Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online edition. Penner TC 1996. The epistle of James and eschatology: rereading an ancient Christian letter. Sheffield Academic Press. Peppler C 2012. The Christocentric principle: a Jesus-centered hermeneutic. Conspectus. 13 (1) 117–35. Perkins P 1995. The gospel of Mark: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 8:509–733. Nashville: Abingdon. Perkins P 2000. The letter to the Ephesians. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 11:351–466. Nashville: Abingdon. Persaud WD 2014. The theology of the cross as Christian witness: a theological essay. Currents in theology and mission. 41 (1) 11–16.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 289

Peterson DG 2009. The Acts of the apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Pfitzner VC 1997. Hebrews. Nashville: Abingdon. Philip M 2011. Leviticus in Hebrews: a transtextual analysis of the tabernacle theme in the letter to the Hebrews. New York: Peter Lang. Pickett R 1997. The cross in Corinth: the social significance of the death of Jesus. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Pitre BJ 2013. Apocalypticism and apocalyptic teaching. In JB Green, JK Brown, and N Perrin (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 23–33. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Plantinga A 2000. Warranted Christian belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ploger J 1997. ’adhama. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), JT Willis (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 1:88–98. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Plummer A 1978. A critical and exegetical commentary on the second epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Polhill JB 1992. Acts. Nashville: Broadman. Polkinghorne JC 2007. The science and religion debate—an introduction. Faraday papers, 1:1–4. Cambridge: The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. Website: http://graphite. st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php. Pollock J 2012. The apostle: a life of Paul. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook. Popkes W 1999. James and Scripture: an exercise in intertextuality. New Testament studies. 45 (2) 213–29. Porteous NW 1962. Image of God. In GA Buttrick (ed.), The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible, 2:682–5. Nashville: Abingdon. Porter SE and Stanley CD (eds.) 2008. As it is written: studying Paul’s use of Scripture. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Preuss HD 1997. damah. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), JT Willis, GF Bromiley, and DE Green (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 3:250–60. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Price SRF 2004. Response. In RA Horsely (ed.), Paul and the Roman imperial order, 175–83. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. Putnam FC 2002. Hebrew Bible insert: a student’s guide to the syntax of biblical Hebrew. Ridley Park: Stylus Publishing. Rapa RK 2008. Galatians. In T Longman and DE Garland (eds.), The expositor’s Bible Commentary, 2:549–640. Reese GL 1976. Acts. Joplin: College Press. Reeves R 2011. Spirituality according to Paul: imitating the apostle of Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Reinhard DR 2005. Ephesians 6:10–18: a call to personal piety or another way of describing union with Christ? Journal of the evangelical theological society. 48 (3) 521–32. Reumann J 1973. Creation and new creation: the past, present, and future of God’s creative activity. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Reumann J 1999. Christology of James. In MA Powell and DR Bauer (eds.), Who do you say that I am? Essays on Christology, 128–39. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Richter SL 2008. The epic of Eden: a Christian entry into the Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

290 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Ridderbos HN 1984. The epistle of Paul to the churches of Galatia. H Zylstra (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ridderbos HN 1997. Paul: an outline of his theology. JR de Witt (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ringgren H 1997. ’elohîm. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), JT Willis (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 1:267–84. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ringgren H 2001. ‘aśa. In GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and H-J Fabry (eds.), JT Willis and GF Bromiley (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 11:387–403. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Robbins CM 1997. The testing of Jesus in Q. Peter Lang. New York. Robinson JA 1979. Commentary on Ephesians: exposition of the Greek text. Grand Rapids: Kregel. Roetzel C 1999. Paul: the man and the myth. Minneapolis: Fortress. Rogers CL 1998. The new linguistic and exegetical key to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Rose WH 2003. Messiah. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 565–8. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Ross AP 1988. Creation and blessing: a guide to the study and exposition of the book of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker. Ross AP 1997. šem. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), Dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 4:147–151. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Rost S 2004. Paul’s Areogagus speech in Acts 17: a paradigm for applying apologetics and missions in non-Christian religious movements. In I Hexham, S Rost, and JW Morehead (eds.), Encountering new religious movements: a holistic evangelical approach, 113–36. Grand Rapids: Kregel. Rowe CK 2000. Romans 10:13: what is the name of the Lord? Horizons in biblical theology. 22 (2) 13–73. Rowe CK 2009. World upside down: reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman age. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rudolph K 2005. Wisdom. In L Jones (ed.), Encyclopedia of religion, 14:9746–54. Detroit: Macmillan Reference. Ruemann JHP 1990. Colossians 1:24 (‘what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ’): history of exegesis and ecumenical advance. Currents in theology and mission. 17 (6) 454–61. Runge S 2008. The Lexham discourse Greek New Testament. Bellingham: Logos Research Systems edition. Rupprecht A 2009. Areopagus. In MC Tenney and M Silva (eds.). The Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:337–8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Russell DM 1996. The ‘new heavens and new earth’: hope for the creation in Jewish apocalyptic and the New Testament. Philadelphia: Visionary Press. Ruzer S 2014. The epistle of James as a witness to broader patterns of Jewish exegetical discourse. Journal of the Jesus movement in its Jewish setting. 1 (1) 69–98. Ryan S 2014. Wisdom. In EN Zalta (ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University. Website: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/wisdom.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 291

Ryken L, Wilhoit JC, and Longman T (eds.). 1998. Dictionary of biblical imagery. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Saebø M 1990. yôm. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), DE Green (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 6:12–32. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Saebø M 1997. śkl. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 3:1269–72. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Sailhamer JH 1990. Genesis. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 2:3–284. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Sailhamer JH 1992. The Pentateuch as narrative: a biblical-theological commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Sampley JP 1991. Walking between the times: Paul’s moral reasoning. Minneapolis: Fortress. Sampley JP 2000. The second letter to the Corinthians. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 11:3–180. Nashville: Abingdon. Samuelson NM 1992. The first seven days: a philosophical commentary on the creation of Genesis. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Sandars NK (trans.) 1971. The Enuma Elish: the Babylonian epic of creation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Website: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Ane/ enumaA.html. Sandnes KO 1991. Paul–one of the prophets? A contribution to the apostle’s self-understanding. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sandnes KO 1993. Paul and Socrates: the aim of Paul’s Areopagus speech. Journal for the study of the New Testament. 50 (1) 13–26. Sarna NM 1966. Understanding Genesis. New York: McGraw Hill. Sasse H 1999. kósmos. In G Kittel (ed.). GW Bromiley (trans.). Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 3:868–95. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Savage TB 2004. Power through weakness: Paul’s understanding of the Christian ministry in 2 Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scaer DP 1983. The concept of Anfechtung in Luther’s thought. Concordia theological quarterly. 47 (1) 15–30. Schaivo L 2002. The temptation of Jesus: the eschatological battle and the new ethic of the first followers of Jesus in Q. L Milton (trans.). Journal for the study of the New Testament. 25 (2) 141–164. Scharbert J 1997. ’rr. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), JT Willis (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 1:405–8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Scharbert J 1999. brk. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), JT Willis (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 2:279–308. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Schifferdecker K 2008. Creation theology. In T Longman and P Enns (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: wisdom, poetry, and writings, 63–71. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Schmeller T 1992. Stoics, stoicism. In DN Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 6:210–4. New York: Doubleday. Schmid HH 1997. ’adamâ. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:42–5. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers.

292 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Schmidt KL 1999. proskollao. In G Kittel (ed.), GW Bromiley (trans.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 3:823. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Schmidt WH 1997a. br’. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:253–6. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Schmidt WH 1997b. ’elohîm. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:115–26. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Schmidt WH 1997c. ysr. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:566–8. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Schnabel EJ 2005. Contextualising Paul in Athens: the proclamation of the gospel before pagan audiences in the Graeco-Roman world. Religion and theology. 12 (2) 172–190. Schnabel EJ 2008. Paul the missionary: realities, strategies and methods. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Schnabel EJ 2012. Acts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Schnelle U 2009. Theology of the New Testament. ME Boring (trans.). Grand Rapids: Baker. Schnittjer GE 2006. The Torah story: an apprenticeship on the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Schönweiss H 1986. Desire, lust, pleasure. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology, 1:456–8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Schreiner J 2006. tôledôt. In GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and H-J Fabry (eds.), DE Green (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 15:582–8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Schreiner TR 1993a. Law of Christ. In GF Hawthrone and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 542–4. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Schreiner TR 1993b. Paul’s view of the law in Romans 10:4–5. Westminster theological journal. 55 (2) 113–35. Schreiner TR 1998. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker. Schreiner TR 2001. Paul, apostle of God’s glory in Christ: a Pauline theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Schreiner TR 2008. New Testament theology: magnifying God in Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker. Schreiner TR 2012. Paul: a Reformed reading. In MF Bird (ed.), Four views on the apostle Paul, 19–47. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Schreiner TR 2013. The king in his beauty: a biblical theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Baker. Schultz C 1980a. ‘arôm, ‘êrom. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Schultz C 1980b. ‘eden. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Schütz JH 1975. Paul and the anatomy of apostolic authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott BR 1998. Jesus’ superiority over Moses in Hebrews 3:1–6. Bibliotheca sacra. 155 (618) 201–10. Scott JB 1980. ’elohîm. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Scott JM 1994. Luke’s geographical horizon. In DWJ Gill and C Gempf (eds.), The book of Acts in its first century setting. Vol. 2: the book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman setting, 483–544. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 293

Scott RBY 2007. Wisdom. In M Berenbaum and F Skolnik (eds.), Encyclopaedia Judaica, 21: 95–9. Detroit: Macmillan Reference. Scroggs R 1966. The last Adam: a study in Pauline anthropology. Philadelphia: Fortress. Seebass H 1986. Join, cleave to. In C Brown (ed.), New international dictionary of New Testament theology, 2:348–50. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Seebass H 1999. bósh. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), JT Willis (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 2:50–60. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Seevers BV 1997. ‘arôm, ‘erôm. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 3:532–3. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Segal AF 1990. Paul the convert: the apostolate and apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press. Seifrid MA 2007. Romans. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 607–94. Grand Rapids: Baker. Senior D 1998. Matthew. Nashville: Abingdon. Seybold K 1997. hebhel. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), JT Willis, GW Bromiley, and DE Green (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 3:313–20. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Shanks H and Witherington S 2003. The brother of Jesus: the dramatic story and meaning of the first archaeological link to Jesus and his family. New York: HarperCollins. Shulam J and Le Cornu H 1998. A commentary on the Jewish roots of Romans. Baltimore: The Lederer Foundation. Silva M 1993. Old Testament in Paul. In GF Hawthorne and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 630–42. Silva M 1996. Explorations in exegetical method: Galatians as a test case. Grand Rapids: Baker. Silva M (ed.) 2014. New international dictionary of New Testament theology and exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Logos Research Systems edition. Simkins RA 1994. Creator and creation: nature in the worldview of ancient Israel. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Simonetti M (ed.) 2003. Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture. New Testament Ia: Matthew 1–13. InterVarsity: Downers Grove. Logos Research Systems edition. Skehan PW 1951. Structure of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy (Deut 32:1–43). Catholic biblical quarterly. 13 (2) 153–63. Slayton JC 1992. Bashan. In DN Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible dictionary, 1:623–4. New York: Doubleday. Smillie GR 1997. Ephesians 6:19–20: a mystery for the sake of which the apostle is an ambassador in chains. Trinity Journal. 18 (2) 199–222. Smith KG 2012a. Integrated theology: discerning God’s will in our world. Johannesburg: South African Theological Seminary Press. Smith KG 2012b. The Christocentric principle: promise, pitfalls, and proposal. Conspectus. 13 (1) 157–70. Smith MS 2010. The priestly vision of Genesis 1. Minneapolis: Fortress. Smith RL 1993. Old Testament theology: its history, method, and message. Nashville: B&H Publishers.

294 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Soards ML 1994. The speeches in Acts: their content, context, and concerns. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Southgate C 2008. The groaning of creation: God, evolution, and the problem of evil. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Spanner DC 1987. Biblical creation and the theory of evolution. Exeter: The Paternoster Press. Speiser EA (trans.) 1955. Mircea Eliade ‘from primitives to Zen’: Mesopotamian cosmology. In I Mendelsohn (ed.), Religions of the ancient Near East. New York: Library of Religions. Website: http://www.mircea-eliade.com/from-primitives-to-zen/055.html. Speiser EA 1990. Genesis. New York: Doubleday. Spicq C 1994. Theological lexicon of the New Testament. J.D. Ernest (trans. and ed.). Peabody: Hendrickson. Sprankle TD 2014. Inconspicuous Adam: why the first Adam fades from Israel’s memory and its meaning for the modern debate. Cyber-center for biblical studies. 1 (1) 1–11. Stanley DM 1961. Christ’s resurrection in Pauline soteriology. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Steenburg D 1990. The worship of Adam and Christ as the image of God. Journal for the study of the New Testament. 39 (1) 95–109. Stegner WR 1990. The temptation narrative: a study in the use of Scripture by early Jewish Christians. Biblical Research. 35 (1) 5–17. Stein RH 2008. Mark. Baker. Grand Rapids. Stendebach FJ 2003. selem. In GJ Botterweck, H Ringgren, and H-J Fabry (eds.), DW Stott (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 12:386–96. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Stockhausen CK 1989. Moses’ veil and the glory of the new covenant: the exegetical substructure of II Cor. 3,1–4,6. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Stoebe HJ 1997. tob. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:486–495. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Stolz F 1997a. bôš. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:204–7. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Stolz F 1997b. šbt. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 3:1297–1302. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Stonehouse NB 1949. The Areopagus address. In The Tyndale New Testament lecture, 5–48. London: The Tyndale Press. Website: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/areopagus_ stonehouse.pdf. Stott JRW 2006. The cross of Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Stowers SK 1986. Letter writing in Greco-Roman antiquity. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press. Strange JR 2010. The moral world of James: setting the epistle in its Greco-Roman and Judaic environments. New York: Peter Lang. Strauss ML 2007. Four portraits, one Jesus: a survey of Jesus and the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Strimple RB 2005. Was Adam an historical person? And what difference does it make? Westminster writings. Escondido: Westminster Seminary California. Website: http://wscal. edu/faculty/wscwritings/wasadamhistorical.php.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 295

Stulac GM 1993. James. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Suggs MJ 2009. ‘The word is near you’: Romans 10:6–10 within the purpose of the letter. In WR Farmer, CFD Moule, and RR Niebuhr (eds.), Christian history and interpretation: studies presented to John Knox, 289–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Suh JS 2003. The gospel of Paul. New York: Peter Lang. Swanson J 2001a. A dictionary of biblical languages: Hebrew Old Testament. Bellingham: Logos Research Systems edition. Swanson J 2001b. A dictionary of biblical languages: Greek New Testament. Bellingham: Logos Research Systems edition. Tabor JD 1989. Returning to divinity: Josephus’ portrayal of the disappearance of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses. Journal of biblical literature. 108 (2) 225–38. Tannehill RC 1967. Dying and rising with Christ: a study in Pauline theology. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelamann. Tannehill RC 1994. The narrative unity of Luke–Acts: a literary interpretation. Vol. 2: the Acts of the apostles. Minneapolis: Fortress. Taylor LH 1958. The new creation: a study of the Pauline doctrines of creation, innocence, sin, and redemption. New York: Pagent Press. Taylor NH 2001. The temptation of Jesus on the mountain: a Palestinian Christian polemic against Agrippa I. Journal for the study of the New Testament. 83 (1) 27–49. Thielman FS 1993. Law. In GF Hawthrone and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 529–42. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Thielman FS 1994. Paul and the law: a contextual approach. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Thielman FS 2005. Theology of the New Testament: a canonical and synthetic approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Thielman FS 2007. Ephesians. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 813–33. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Thielman FS 2010. Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Baker. Thiselton AC 2009. The living Paul: an introduction to the apostle’s life and thought. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Thompson JA 1974. Deuteronomy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Thrall ME 1970. Elijah and Moses in Mark’s account of the transfiguration. New Testament studies. 16 (4) 305–17. Thrall ME 2000. The second epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. II: commentary on II Corinthians VIII–XIII. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Thurén L 1995. Risky rhetoric in James? Novum testamentum. 37 (3) 262–84 Tidball D 2001. The message of the cross: wisdom unsearchable, love indestructible. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Tigay JH 1996. Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. Tilling C 2012. Paul’s divine Christology. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Tobin TH 2004. Paul’s rhetoric in its contexts: the argument of Romans. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Tomlin G 2006. The power of the cross: theology and the death of Christ in Paul, Luther and Pascal. Eugene: Wipf and Stock.

296 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Towner PH 1996. New creation. In WA Elwell (ed.), Evangelical dictionary of theology, 561–3. Grand Rapids: Baker. Treat JR 2014. The crucified king: atonement and kingdom in biblical and systematic theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Turner DL 2008. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker. Turner N, Moulton JH, and Howard WF 1976. A grammar of the Greek New Testament. Vols. 1–5. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Tsumura DT 1997. raqîa‘. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 3:1198. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. van der Woude AS 1997. sûr’. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:1067–71. Peabody: Hendrickson. VanDrunen DM (ed.) 2006. Report on justification presented to the seventy-third general assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Willow Grove: Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Website: http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf. Van Duen P (ed.) 2006. Corpus Christianorum. Eustratius presbyter Constantinopolitanus De statu animarum post mortem. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers NV. VanGemeren WA (ed.) 1997. New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Logos Research Systems edition. Van Groningen G 1990. Messianic revelation in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker. Vanhoye A 2015. The letter to the Hebrews. L Arnold (trans.). New York: Paulist Press. VanIaningham MG 2012. Christ, the Savior of Israel: an evaluation of the dual covenant and Sonderweg interpretations of Paul’s letters. New York: Peter Lang. Van Leeuwen RC 1997a. br’ I. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 1:728–735. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Van Leeuwen RC 1997b. Form, image. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 3:643–648. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Van Pelt MV and Kaiser WC 1997. rhp. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 3:1098. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Van Till HJ 1999. The fully gifted creation. In JP Moreland JP and JM Reynolds (eds.), Three views on creation and evolution, 161–218. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Venter DJ 2014. The requirement of the law fulfilled in Romans 8:4. In die Skriflig. 48 (1) 1–7. Verhoef PA 1997. yôm. In WA VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, 2:419–424. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Verseput DJ 1997. Reworking the puzzle of faith and deeds in James 2:14–26. New Testament studies. 43 (1) 97–115. Vollmer J 1997. ‘śh. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.). ME Biddle (trans.). Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:944–951. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. von Loewenich W 1976. Luther’s theology of the cross. HJA Bouman (trans.). Belfast: Christian Journals Limited. von Rad G 1962. Old Testament theology. Vol. 1: the theology of Israel’s historical traditions. DMG Stalker (trans.). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. von Rad G 1966. Deuteronomy: a commentary. D Barton (trans.). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 297

Vos G 1972. The Pauline eschatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Vos G 2000. Biblical theology: Old and New Testaments. Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust. Vyhmeister JN 2008. Quality research papers: for students of religion and theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Wagner S 1999. banah. In GJ Botterweck and H Ringgren (eds.), JT Willis (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 2:166–81. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Walaskay PW 1998. Acts. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Wall RW 1997a. Community of the wise: the letter of James. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International. Wall RW 1997b. James, letter of. In RP Martin and PH Davids (eds.), Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments, 545–61. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Wall RW 2002. The Acts of the apostles. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 10:3–368. Nashville: Abingdon. Wallace DB 1996. Greek grammar beyond the basics: an exegetical syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Wallace HN 1992a. Adam. In DN Freedman (ed.), The anchor Bible dictionary, 1:62–4. New York: Doubleday. Wallace HN 1992b. Eden, garden of. In DN Freedman (ed.), The anchor Bible dictionary, 2:281–3. New York: Doubleday. Wallace HN 1992c. Eve. In DN Freedman (ed.), The anchor Bible dictionary, 2:676–7. New York: Doubleday. Wallace HN 1992d. Garden of God. In DN Freedman (ed.), The anchor Bible dictionary, 2:906–907. New York: Doubleday. Walters JC 1993. Ethnic issues in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International. Walton JH 2003a. Creation. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 155–68. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Walton JH 2003b. Eden. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 202–7. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Walton JH 2009. Genesis. In JH Walton (ed.), Zondervan illustrated Bible backgrounds commentary, 1:2–159. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Walton JH 2011. Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Walton JH 2015. The lost world of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the human origins debate. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Waltke BK 1980. banâ. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody. Logos Research Systems edition. Waltke BK 1991. Kingdom promises as spiritual. In JS Feinberg (ed.), Continuity and discontinuity: perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, essays in honor of S. Lewis Johnson, 263–87. Wheaton: Crossway. Waltke BK and Fredricks CJ 2001. Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Waltke BK and Yu C 2007. An Old Testament theology: an exegetical, canonical, and thematic approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Walvoord JF 1983. The millennial kingdom: a basic text in premillennial theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

298 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Watson DF 1993. James 2 in light of Greco-Roman schemes of argumentation. New Testament studies. 39 (1) 94–121. Watson PS 1947. Let God be God! An interpretation of the theology of Martin Luther. Philadelphia: Fortress. Watts RE 2007. Mark. In GK Beale and DA Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, 111–249. Grand Rapids: Baker. Weima JAD 2000. Letters, Greco-Roman. In GF Hawthorne and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament background, 640–4. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Weitzman S 1994. Lessons from the dying: the role of Deuteronomy 32 in its narrative setting. Harvard theological review. 87 (4) 377–93. Wells H 1992. The Holy Spirit and theology of the cross: significance for dialogue. Theological studies. 53 (3) 476–92. Wengenroth K 1982. The theology of the cross. Concordia theological quarterly. 46 (4) 267–75. Wengert TJ 2002. ‘Peace, peace … cross, cross’: reflections on how Martin Luther relates the theology of the cross to suffering. Theology today. 59 (2) 190–205. Wenham D 1995. Paul: follower of Jesus or founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Wenkel DH 2007. The ‘breastplate of righteousness’ in Ephesians 6:14: imputation or virtue? Tyndale bulletin. 58 (2) 275–87. Wessel WW 1984. Mark. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 8:603–793. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Westcott BF 1980. The epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Westermann C 1974. Creation. JJ Scullion (trans.). London: SPCK. Westermann C 1994. Genesis 1–11: a commentary. JJ Scullion (trans.). Minneapolis: Augsburg. Westermann C 1997. ’adam. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:31–42. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Westerholm S 2004. The righteousness of the law and the righteousness of faith in Romans. Interpretation. 58 (3) 253–64. Westerholm S 2012. Did Luther get Paul right on the doctrine of justification? Preaching and teaching the law and gospel of God. 2012 Theological Conference. Golden Valley: Lutheran Core/NALC. Weblink: http://windowsmedia.alphameetings.com/calvary_vod/lcore_wed_ am_session2.wmv. Westfall CL 2000. Moses and Hebrews 3:1–6: approach or avoidance? In SE Porter and BWR Pearson (eds.), Christian-Jewish relations through the centuries, 175–201. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Westhelle V 2006. The scandalous God: the use and abuse of the cross. Minneapolis: Fortress. White J 2009. Anti-imperial subtexts in Paul: an attempt at building a firmer foundation. Biblica. 90 (3) 305–33. Whiteley DEH 1974. The theology of St. Paul. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wilckens W 1971. Sophia. In G Kittel and G Friedrich (eds.), GW Bromiley (trans.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Logos Research Systems edition. Wild RA 1984. The warrior and the prisoner: some reflections on Ephesians 6:10–20. Catholic biblical quarterly. 46 (2) 284–298.

b i b l io g r a p hy  | 299

Wildberger H 1997. selem. In E Jenni and C Westermann (eds.), ME Biddle (trans.), Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, 3:1080–85. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Williamson PR 2003. Covenant. In TD Alexander and DW Baker (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 139–55. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Wilson JH 1997. Chokmah. In W VanGemeren (ed.), New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Logos Research Systems edition. Wilson SG 1973. The gentiles and the gentile mission in Luke–Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Win A 2013. Son of God. In JB Green, JK Brown, and N Perrin (eds.). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 886–94. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Winger M 1998. Meaning and law. Journal of biblical literature. 117 (1) 105–10. Winter BW 1993. Rhetoric. In GF Hawthorne and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 820–2. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Winter BW 1996. On introducing gods to Athens: an alternative reading of Acts 17:18–20. Tyndale bulletin. 47 (1) 71–90. Wiseman DJ 1980. yeshûrûn. In RL Harris, GL Archer, and BK Waltke (eds.), Theological wordbook of the Old Testament, 418. Chicago: Moody Press. Witherington B 1993. Christology. In GF Hawthorne and RP Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, 100–5. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Witherington B 1998. The Acts of the apostles: a socio-rhetorical commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Witherington B 2007. Letters and homilies for Jewish Christians: a socio-rhetorical commentary on Hebrews, James, and Jude. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Witherington B and Hyatt D 2004. Paul’s letter to the Romans: a socio-rhetorical commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Wittmer M 2013. What makes a full atonement full? The gospel coalition. Website: http:// thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/09/26/what-makes-a-full-atonement-full/. Wollack EJ 2012. How old is the universe? Washington: NASA. Website: http://map.gsfc.nasa. gov/universe/uni_age.html. Wood AS 1978. Ephesians. In FE Gaebelein (ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary, 11:3–92. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Wright AG 1967. Midrash: the genre. New York: Alba House. Wright CJH 1992. Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Wright CJH 1996. Deuteronomy. Peabody: Hendrickson. Wright CJH 2006. The mission of God: unlocking the Bible’s grand narrative. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Wright EL 2009. Age of the universe. Los Angeles: UCLA Division of Astronomy and Physics. Website: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html.ocabs.org/journal. Wright NT 1992. The climax of the covenant: Christ and the law in Pauline theology. Minneapolis: Fortress. Wright NT 2002. The letter to the Romans: introduction, commentary, and reflections. In LE Keck (ed.), The new interpreter’s Bible, 10:395–770. Nashville: Abingdon.

300 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Wright NT 2009. Paul: in fresh perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress. Wright NT 2013. Paul and the faithfulness of God. Parts I and II. Minneapolis: Fortress. Wright NT 2014. Paul and the powerful word. America. New York: America Press, Inc. Website: http://www.americamagazine.org/paul-and-powerful-word. Young BH 1997. Paul the Jewish theologian: a Pharisee among Christians, Jews, and Gentiles. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. Zimmerli W 1978. Old Testament theology in outline. DE Green (trans.). Atlanta: John Knox Press. Zlotowitz M 1988. Genesis. Vol. 1. New York: Mesorah Publications. Zobel HJ 2001. elyôn. In GJ Botterwick, H Ringgren, and HJ Fabry (eds.), DE Green (trans.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 11:121–39. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Zweck D 1989. The exordium of the Areopagus speech, Acts 17:22, 23. New Testament studies. 35 (1) 94–103.

Subject Index

A ‘abad (‘work’), 37 Abraham, 5, 28, 83–84, 114, 181–182, 181–182 n 57, 228–229, 254, 259 Acts, historicity, 7 n 21 ’adam (‘man, mankind’), 26, 34 ’adamah (‘ground’), 34 Adam character, historicity of, 9, 28, 28 n 53, 28 n 55, 34, 34 n 84, 38, 144–145, 145 n 90, 145 n 91, 223–247, 224 n 5, 242–247, 247 n 37, 258–259 Adam character, Second Temple Judaism, 64–65, 64 n 25, 229–230, 241, 242–243, 246–247, 252 Adam, new or second, 81–82, 156, 156–157 n 51, 220 Adamic creation, old, 6, 13–53, 55, 57–58, 77, 223, 251 Areopagus, 140, 140–141 n 70 ambassadors, Rome, 72–73

analytical essay, 54 n 1 angels, 50, 94, 134, 152–155, 158, 160, 206–207, 210 apokalypsis (‘revelation, disclosure, unveiling’), 78, 92 n 76 apocalyptic genre, 58 n 12, 78–82, 99 ‘arôm (‘naked’), 44 ‘arûm (‘crafty’), 44, 48 n 144 ’arûr (‘cursed’), 48, 48 n 145 ‘asah (‘to do, make, or prepare’), 18, 26, 32 Athens, 129–130 atonement, 71, 101 n 6, 103 n 10, 105, 132, 149, 182–183, 208, 210–211 n 79, 221, 252, 255, 257

B banah (‘to build or construct’), 39 bara’ (‘to shape, fashion, or make something new’), 17, 60

302 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

barak (‘bless’), 25 big bang, 19 bosh (‘shame’), 41

C canon within a canon, 173, 173 n 3, 185, 185 n 72, 192 chavvah (‘living one or life-giver’), 50 Christocentric, defined and described, 1 n 2, 5–6, 5–6 n 16 Christomonism, 185 n 70, 199, 250 Christological, defined and described, 1 n 2 Christology, defined and described, 2–5 Christotelic, defined and described, 1 n 2, 12 Christus Victor (‘Christ the Victor’), 48–49, 73–74, 98, 98 n 109, 103 n 10, 163, 253 confession of faith, early church, 208, 208 n 59, 217–218, 218 n 115 continuity and advance between the Testaments, 4, 7–8, 8 n 22, 125, 190, 222, 250, 254–255 cosmology, ancient Near Eastern, 22–23, 22 n 33, 24–25, 28–29, 51–52, 94, 118, 118 n 96, 134, 134 n 26, 225–227, 235–237, 238–240, 242, 246–247 covenants, biblical, 17, 17 n 14 creatio continua (God’s continuing creative activity), 31, 31 n 69 creatio ex nihilo (‘creation out of nothing’), 17–18, 18 n 16, 154, 154 n 31 creation days, 20 creation week, 16–32 crux sol est nostra theologia (‘the cross alone is our theology’), 105, 105 n 17

D decision theology, 90–91 n 64 death (physical and spiritual), 38, 42, 44, 47, 49–50, 50 n 157, 53, 57, 62, 81, 82–83, 83 n 22, 96, 98, 98 n 109, 101,

114–115, 122, 152, 154, 170, 179, 205, 207, 209, 212 n 89, 241, 247, 252, 256 demons, 94, 98 n 109, 101, 136, 136 n 46, 152–155, 163–164, 170–171, 181, 255 demuth (‘likeness’), 26–27 divine sabotage, 136–137, 136–137 n 50 divine Warrior, 128–129, 128–129 n 5, 132, 137–139, 147, 149, 165 n 112, 240, 255 doxa, doxes (‘glory’), 186–187, 202, 202 n 32

E ‘eden (‘delight, plain’), 35 Elohim (‘God’), 32–33 Elyon (‘Most High’), 133–134, 133 n 23, 134 n 24 Epicureans, 141, 141 n 71, 148 epithymía (‘lust’), 45 ‘erôm (‘naked’), 44 evolution, 18, 18 n 20, 19–20, 20 n 23, 26 n 40, 29–30, 29 n 63, 29 n 64, 31, 154–155, 155 n 32, 224–247, 258 exodus, event and motif, 31–32, 59, 65–66, 74, 133, 135, 147, 156–157, 194, 202, 202 n 36, 203, 209, 220–222, 239–240

F faith, concept of, 90, 180–184, 181 n 54, 211–212 n 82, 215, 256 Fall (of humankind), 37, 41–51, 57, 60, 62, 64–65, 75, 154, 227–229, 231–232, 241, 244, 246–247, 252, 259 fatherhood of God, 133, 133 n 22 fear of the Lord, 43, 45, 66–67, 179, 182, 205 fool’s speech or discourse, 111, 111 n 34

G gan (‘garden’), 35 gap theory, 19

s u b j e c t i n d e x  | 303

Genesis themes fulfilled in Revelation, 62 Gospels, historicity, 8 n 24, 9 n 25, 159, 189 n 98 gospel-centered hermeneutic, 184–185, 184 n 68 gospel monism, 185, 199 n 18

H heart, concept, 92–93, 93 n 79 hermeneutics, 4, 4 n 9, 4 n 10, 4 n 11, 4 n 12, 5, 5 n 15 hevel (‘empty things, things of a mere breath’), 137, 137 n 51

I imago Dei (‘image of God’), 15, 27–28, 33, 35, 40, 42, 52–53, 56–57, 76, 146, 230–231, 232, 235, 251 ’ish (‘man’), 40 ’ishshah (‘woman’), 40 Israél tou theou (‘Israel of God’), 84 n 28, 201, 209

J James, person, 174 Jesus, atonement, 69, 69 n 42, 71–74, 76 Jesus, incarnation, 65, 85, 94, 143, 150, 162 n 95, 167, 175, 179, 187–188, 190–191, 191 n 105, 195, 206–207, 206 n 55, 250 Jesus, sinlessness, 47, 47 n 137, 72, 72 n 72, 207, 212, 215 justification, concept of, 8, 80, 86, 107, 123, 172–173, 181–184, 181 n 54, 183 n 63, 185 n 73, 192–193, 218–220, 256–257

K kainé ktísis (‘new creation’), 14, 55, 70 kainòn ánthropon (‘new man’), 14–15, 56

kainóteti zoes (‘new life’), 14, 56 kingdom of God, 8, 13, 13 n 3, 17 n 14, 55, 55 n 4, 63, 81 n 14, 83, 83 n 27, 86, 90, 97, 101, 101 n 5, 101 n 6, 123, 162, 175–176, 176 n 22, 178, 191, 200, 205, 206, 217 n 114, 231, 256 kósmos (‘world’), 45, 71 kyrios (‘Lord’), 187, 188

L law, concept, 176–179, 192 law of Christ, 178 law, use and purpose of, 80, 178–179, 178 n 36, 178 n 37, 214–215 n 102, 215–216 light and darkness, 22, 22 n 31

M metamorphoo (‘transfigured’), 201 Midrash, 6, 216, 216 n 111 missio Dei (‘mission of God’), 13–14, 13 n 1, 55, 97, 106, 143 moralistic therapeutic deism, 104–105 n 16 Moses, new or second, 8–9, 194–222, 257–258 Moses, Second Temple Judaism, 195–196, 195–196 n 4, 197, 197 n 11, 202–203, 203 n 38, 207, 207 n 56, 207 n 57 mystérion (‘mystery), 41, 41 n 112, 169

N new Jerusalem, 36 nomos (‘law’), 177

O ontological holism, 180, 180 n 50, 231

304 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

P

R

palaiòs ánthropos (‘old man’), 14–15, 56 Parthenon, 144 Paul, adversaries at Corinth, 67, 67 n 30, 76, 108–110, 108–109 n 27, 109 n 29, 112, 113, 117, 121, 123–124, 151 Paul, apocalyptic interpretation of reality, 7, 58 n 12, 69–70, 78–98, 98 n 109, 79 n 5, 90, 98–101, 108, 122, 162 n 93, 213, 215 n 107, 216, 218, 252–253, 257, 259 Paul, authorship of epistles, 7 n 18, 88 Paul, theological nucleus of writings, 80 n 7, 101 n 5, 101 n 6 Paul, crucicentricism, 7, 87, 87 n 49, 93, 99–124, 184–185, 253–254, 257 Paul, Hellenism vs. Judaism, 84 n 30 Paul, key life events, 1–2 n 3, 87–88, 92, 109–110, 114–122, 117 n 79, 129–130, 140–149, 163, 164–165, 165 n 111, 169–170, 196–197, 211–212, 213–214, 248–249, 255, 257 Paul, new creation theology, 6, 14, 14 n 4, 15–16, 54–77, 81, 84, 176, 197 n 12, 219 n 124, 251–252, 257 Paul, new perspective on (NPP), 212 n 83, 219–220 Paul, representative literature, 2 n 5 Paul, theocentricity correlated with Christocentricity, 213 n 93, 216, 218–219 Paul, thorn in the flesh, 117, 117 n 87, 119–120 Paul, use of the Old Testament, 211 n 80, 217 n 114, 242, 259 Pauline Christology, history of research, 2 n 6 Pax Romana (‘Roman peace’), 72 peirazo- (‘testing, temptation, enticement’), 156 n 41 penal substitution, 73–74, 103 n 10 Pentateuchal authorship, 6 n 7, 199 n 16, 236–238 proskollao (‘united’), 40 protoevangelium (‘first good news’), 48, 48 n 148

rachaph (‘hovering’), 19 Rahab, 181, 184 raqiya‘ (‘vault’), 22 reconciliation, 13, 31, 55, 70, 71–74, 76, 80, 80 n 6, 81, 86, 97, 103 n 10, 148, 166, 208, 252 repentance, 147, 147 n 106, 148 righteousness, 6, 8, 182–184, 198, 211–214, 216–218, 218 n 117, 219–220, 257 Romans, purpose of the letter, 211 n 81 Rome, imperial cult and ideology, 84–87, 94–95, 97, 99, 100, 253

S salvation history (Heilsgeschichte), 13, 13 n 2, 14, 14 n 4, 16–17, 17 n 14, 55, 55 n 3, 79, 82–83, 82–83 n 21, 84, 88–89, 91, 96, 97–98, 98 n 109, 99–100, 101, 122–123, 139, 139 n 63, 147–148, 152, 170–171, 175, 185, 185 n 71, 189, 199, 210, 215, 215 n 107, 217 n 114, 218, 221, 231, 250, 251–256, 256 n 17, 257, 259 šamar (‘take care of ’), 37 sárka, sarx (‘flesh’), 69, 112 Satan, 8, 19, 42–43, 45, 48–49, 53, 58, 62, 71, 73, 76, 83, 83 n 22, 98 n 109, 99 n 1, 101, 109, 109 n 28, 119, 119 n 110, 120, 122, 151–171, 205, 230, 252, 255, 256 śāṭān (‘adversary, opponent, or accuser’), 153 Scripture, redemptive-historical, narrative arc, 5, 9, 12, 13 n 1 seals, ancient uses, 91 Second Temple period of Judaism, 3, 58, 58 n 12, 63–64, 64 n 25, 65, 78 n 3, 83–84, 97, 98 n 109, 117, 158, 165 n 112, 179, 180 n 49, 182 n 57, 195, 195 n 3, 197 n 11, 202, 203 n 38, 204, 207 n 56, 207 n 57, 215 n 102, 219–220, 226, 228–230, 241–242, 245–247, 259 sekel (‘wisdom’), 43

s u b j e c t i n d e x  | 305

serpent, snake, 42–44, 46–47, 48–49, 154, 230 shabath (‘to stop, cease, or rest’), 30–31 Shekinah (God’s sacred, ineffable presence), 123, 121 n 126, 187, 204, 204 n 42, 204 n 43 Shema (‘hear’), 188, 219 n 121 simul justus et peccator (‘at the same time righteous and a sinner’), 81–82, 82 n 15, 107, 107 n 23, 173, 173 n 4 sin, defined and described, 212–213 n 89 skenoo (‘tabernacled’), 201–202 Song of Moses, 7, 125–150 sophia (‘wisdom’), 179 speech-act theory, 25 n 38, 89–90, 89 n 59, 92 n 77, 162 n 95 spiritual warfare, 8 n 23, 161–171, 255–256 Stoics, 141, 141 n 72, 148

T Tabernacles, feast of, 203–204, 203 n 40 télos (‘end or goal’), 5 n 14, 12, 77, 191, 199, 202, 213 n 90, 214–215, 215 n 104, 221, 250, 252, 252 n 11, 257 temple-creation motif, 20, 31, 35–36, 37–38 temptation, 8, 8 n 24 theodicy (the problem of evil and suffering), 30, 30 n 67, 106 theologia crucis (‘theology of the cross’), 7, 7 n 20, 101 n 7, 104, 107, 123, 253, 253 n 14 theology of glory, 104–105, 109, 112, 114, 119, 123, 124 ṭôḇ (‘good’), 21–22, 21 n 28, 39, 155 tohu wabohu (‘formless and empty’), 18 tôledôt (‘account’), 32, 32 n 76 tôrâ’ (‘law, instruction, teaching, or way of life’), 38, 176, 190, 195 Transfiguration, 9, 199–206, 221, 257 tree of life, 36, 46–47 tree of the knowledge of good and evil, 36–37, 38, 41, 43, 46–47 Trinity, 26, 186–187, 188 n 92, 199, 204, 209, 219, 219 n 121, 250

tsela‘ (‘rib or side’), 39 tselem (‘image’), 26–27

W wisdom, concept, 179–180, 191 n 110, 192

Y yatsa’ (‘to cause something to come forth’), 18 Yahweh (‘Lord’), 32–33, 132, 132 n 11, 188, 218–219, 238 yatsar (‘to form or fashion’), 34

Ancient Sources Index

Old Testament Genesis 1–11��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 225 1–5����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 228 1–3������������������������������������������������������� 6, 13–53, 55, 57–58, 57 n 10, 75, 223 n 1, 230, 246, 251 1–2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������21, 144 n 85, 229 1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154, 228, 238, 239, 244 1:1–2:25����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 17 1:1–2:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������16–32, 34, 228 1:1–2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������17–19, 154 n 34, 209 n 67 1:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16, 18, 19, 53, 59 n 14 1:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18–19, 20, 30, 155 1:3–5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 19–22 1:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 20 1:4��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21, 21 n 26, 22, 30, 154 n 33 1:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22 1:6–8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22–23 1:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22 1:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 1:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23

308 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

1:9–13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 1:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 1:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������21 n 26, 23, 30, 154 n 33 1:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 23 1:12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������21 n 26, 23, 30, 154 n 33 1:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 23 1:14–19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������20, 23–24 1:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 23 1:15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 24 1:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 24 1:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 24 1:18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������21 n 26, 24, 30, 154 n 33 1:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 24 1:20–23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 24–25 1:20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 24, 35 1:21�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������21 n 26, 24, 30, 154 n 33 1:24–2:1����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25–30 1:24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������18, 25, 35 1:25������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18, 21 n 26, 25, 30, 154 n 33 1:26–31�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 235 n 21 1:26–28���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 146 1:26–27������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 26, 33 n 80, 40 n 107, 145 n 93, 230 1:26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������26, 27, 39 n 103, 95 n 92 1:27������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 27, 35 1:28–29������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 27 1:28�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������28, 39 n 103, 229 n 8 1:29–30���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 n 34 1:29�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29, 46 n 134 1:30���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29, 35 n 88 1:31�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������21 n 26, 30, 154 n 33 2–8����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 239 2–3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 65, 239, 241, 242, 243 2��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������41, 239, 244 2:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 2:2–4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30–33 2:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 2:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 2:4–3:24����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16 2:4–25�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������32–41, 228 2:4–7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 33–35 2:4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 32, 32 n 76 2:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 34 2:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 34 2:7����������������������������������������������������������������� 34, 35 n 87, 35 n 88, 50 n 155, 145 n 92, 235 n 21

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 309

2:8–17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35–38 2:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35 2:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������35, 36, 46 n 134, 62 n 19 2:10–14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 35 2:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 35 2:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 35 2:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 35 2:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 37, 49 n 152 2:16–17���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 42 n 120, 47 n 135 2:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 38, 41 2:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 38 2:18–24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 38–41 2:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 38 2:19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35 n 87, 39 2:20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 34, 39 2:21–23�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 145 n 92 2:21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 39 2:22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 39, 235 n 21 2:23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 40 2:24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������40, 41, 49 n 150, 229 2:25������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 41, 44 3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38, 41, 42, 154, 154 n 27, 227, 229 3:1–24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 41–51 3:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������42, 44, 48 3:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 43 3:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 43 3:4–5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 49 n 153 3:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 43 3:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 43 3:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 43, 212 n 89 3:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������44, 46, 50 n 160, 212 n 89 3:8–24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 44–51 3:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 45 3:9–13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 3:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 46 3:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 46 3:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 46 3:12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 46 3:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 46 3:14–19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 3:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 48 3:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48, 229 n 10 3:16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 49, 50 n 159 3:17–19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 61 n 18

310 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

3:17–18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 140 3:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 48, 49 3:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 49 3:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 n 135, 49, 229 3:20�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 n 101, 50, 145 n 93 3:21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 50 3:22–24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 135 3:22, 24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 93, 36 n 94 3:22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 50 3:23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 50 3:24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 50 4–5����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 230 4:25�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 10 5��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 228 5:1�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������32 n 76, 53 n 168, 251 n 10 5:24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 n 38 6–9����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 238 6:9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 32 n 76 6:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 50 n 155 6:18–19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 7 9:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 229 n 7 9:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27, 42 n 116 9:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29 9:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������53 n 168, 231 n 16, 251 n 10 9:8–17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 229 n 7 10:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 n 76 11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 228 11:1–9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 134 11:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 n 76 11:27�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 n 76 12:2–3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 229 n 9 12:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 11 13:10–13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 138 n 55 13:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35 n 89 13:15–16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 229 n 11 14:18–22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 134 n 24 14:19, 22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 144 n 85, 209 n 67 14:22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139 n 59 15:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 11 15:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 181, 229 n 11 15:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181, 182 15:12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 205 n 48 17:7–9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 11 17:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 229 n 11

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 311

17:20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 9 18–19����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 n 55 22:1–19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 182 22:12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 182 22:17–18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 9, 229 n 11 24:60������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 229 n 11 25:12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 n 76 25:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 n 76 26:3–4, 24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 229 n 9 26:3–4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 11 28:3, 14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 9 28:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 205 n 48 36:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 n 76 36:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 n 76 37:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 n 76 48:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 11 49:24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 133 n 18

Exodus 2:1–10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 207 n 56 3����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 222 n 129 3:8, 17���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135 n 40 3:14–15���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������33 n 78, 132 n 12, 139 n 58 4:10–11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 72 4:22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 22 4:23���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 6:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139 n 59 13:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135 n 40 13:21–22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 43 14:19–20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 43 14:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 160 n 83 14:31������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 209 n 72 15:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 87 15:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139 n 58 15:22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 15:25������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 156 n 46 16:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 46 16:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 43 16:13–36������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 158 n 64 16:31������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 209 n 64 19:4–5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 71 19:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135 n 37 19:9, 16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43

312 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

20:1–12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 177 n 27 20:1–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 188 n 91 20:8–11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 31 20:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 33 n 78 20:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 144 n 86 20:18–21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 205 n 47 20:18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 45 20:20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 156 n 46 23:20, 23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 160 n 83 24:1, 9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 n 24 24:4–8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 207 n 56 24:15–18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 43 24:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 200 n 23 24:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 n 75 25:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 121 n 126, 202 n 31 25:12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 39 28:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 n 76 32:30–32������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 198 n 13 32:34������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 160 n 83 32:38������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 134 n 35 33:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 n 83 33:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135 n 40 33:9–11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 33:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 207 n 56 33:18–23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 106 n 19 33:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 132 n 12 34:5–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 12 34:28������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 157 n 52 34:29–35������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 200 n 30 34:20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 205 n 48 40:34–38������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 43 40:34–35���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 121, 202 n 31

Leviticus 10:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 64 11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29 n 61 11:1–47���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25 n 39 16:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 17:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 136 n 46 18:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 216 n 109 19:18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 177 n 32, 178 20:24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 135 n 40 23:33–43������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 41 26:14–39������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 137 n 53

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 313

Numbers 3:7–8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 37 n 100 6:1–21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139 n 60 8:25–26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 37 n 100 9:15–23�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 11:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 209 n 72 11:25������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 43 12:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������197, 208, 209 12:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 207 n 56, 209 n 72 13–14����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 158 n 67 14:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135 n 40 14:21, 28, 30������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139 n 59 14:33������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 156 n 49 18:5–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 37 n 100 23:7, 10, 21, 23�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 34 24:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 34 24:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 134 n 24 24:17–19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 134 n 34 25:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 136 n 45 29:12–39������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 41 32:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 156 n 49

Deuteronomy 1–11��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 198 1:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 43 1:39���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 97 2:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 47 3:1–11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135 n 41 3:24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 72 4:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 185 n 72 4:7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 146 4:20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 35 4:24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 136 n 45 4:26���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 9 4:32���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 34 n 85 4:33���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 47, 205 n 48 4:35, 39�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139 n 58 5:5, 25���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 47 5:6–21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 177 n 27 5:6–10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 188 n 91 5:6–7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 135 n 39 5:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147 n 103 5:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 136 n 45

314 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

5:11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 33 n 78 5:12–15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 31 6:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 45 n 131, 135 n 40 6:4����������������������������������������������������������� 33 n 77, 181 n 56, 188, 188 n 90, 188 n 92, 219 n 121 6:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 177 n 31 6:13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 6:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 136 n 45 6:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 8��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 158 8:2–5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 156 n 46 8:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 43 8:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 158 8:17���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9, 199, 211, 216 9:4�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9, 199, 211, 216 9:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 19 9:9, 18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157 n 52 9:28�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 n 54 10:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 118 n 96 10:20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 12–26������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 198 12:5, 11, 21�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 12 13:1–5, 6–11, 12–18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 6 13:6–11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 214 n 102 14:1–2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 20 14:3–21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25 n 39 14:23–24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 132 n 12 16:2, 6, 11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 12 16:13–17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 41 18:1–2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 35 18:15, 18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 195 n 2, 200 19:16–21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 214 n 102 20:17–18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 6 21:23�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 70 n 52 25:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 115 n 64 26:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 12 28:15–68������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 137 n 53 29:23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 138 n 55 30������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 217 30:12–14����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5–6, 9, 199, 211, 216 30:13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 217 n 112 30:14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 217 n 113 30:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 9 31:1–29���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 128 31:28�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 9

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 315

31:30–32:44��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 127 31:30������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 127, 128 32��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������7, 126, 127 32:1–3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������127, 128, 132 32:2–3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 132 32:3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������132 144, 147 32:4–25�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 129, 133 32:4–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������127, 129, 133 32:4����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 136, 144, 147, 148 32:5����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133, 137, 143, 150 32:6��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133, 144, 145, 147, 150 32:7–14����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 127, 129, 133, 136 32:8��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������126, 134, 144, 145, 147, 150 32:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134, 144 32:10–14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 135, 146 32:10–11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 159 n 71 32:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135 32:12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 135, 147 32:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 135, 147 32:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 135, 147 32:15–18�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������127, 129, 136 32:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 136 32:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 136, 147 32:17�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������136, 147, 150 32:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 136, 147 32:19–25��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 127, 129, 136, 139 32:20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 32:21–25�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 32:21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 147, 148 32:22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 32:23�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 32:24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 32:25�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 32:26–42�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������129, 133, 137 32:26–31��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 128, 129, 137, 138 32:26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 143 32:28������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 138, 143 32:29������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 138, 143 32:30�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 32:31�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 32:32–35�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������128, 129, 138 32:33�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 32:34�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 32:35���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������138, 138 n 56, 150

316 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

32:36–38�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������128, 129, 138 32:36�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������144, 149, 255 32:37�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 32:38�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 32:39–42�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������128, 129, 139 32:39������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 143, 147 32:40�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139 32:41�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������139, 149, 255 32:42�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139 32:43������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 128, 132, 144, 149, 255 32:44�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 128 34:5–7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 n 38 34:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 n 76 34:10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 195, 207 n 56 34:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 209 n 66

Joshua 1:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 72 1:13, 15���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31 n 70 2:1–21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 184 2:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 n 81 2:25���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 184 2:26���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 184 8:31, 33�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 72 21:43–45�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31 n 70 22:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31 n 70 24:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 66

Judges 13:1–5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139 n 60 16:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139 n 60

1 Samuel 2:35���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 9:12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 n 81 12:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 66 12:22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 137 n 54 17:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 157 n 53 25:25�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 33 n 78

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 317

2 Samuel 14:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 37 n 98 14:20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 37 n 98, 153 n 7

1 Kings 1:8–10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 202 n 31 3:9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 37 n 98 8:27���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96, 144 n 87 8:46������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 216 n 110 19:3–8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 n 84 19:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157 n 54

2 Kings 2:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 n 38 6:17���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 n 8 9:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 14

1 Chronicles 1:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 34 n 85, 229 n 10 7:14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 16:40������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 209 n 72 21:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 n 21 23:32������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 37 n 100 29:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 144 n 88

2 Chronicles 2:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 6:18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 6:36������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 216 n 110 20:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 182 n 61

Nehemiah 9:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 9:20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 48 9:21�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 47

318 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Esther 3:10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91 n 66

Job 1:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 32 1:6, 7, 8, 9, 12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 n 21 2:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 32 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 n 21 14:23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 45 n 129 28:28������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 43 n 121 31:33������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 34 n 85, 229 34:14–15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 50 n 155 38:28������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 179 n 45 38:39, 41�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 n 66 39:3, 16–17, 20, 25, 30����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 n 66 41:14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 n 66

Psalms 1:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 43 2:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 n 77 7:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 19 7:14–16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 179 n 47 8:5–8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������27, 28, 33, 42 n 116 8:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 9:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 n 109 10:11, 13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 n 79 14:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 180 n 51 14:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 145 n 95 16:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 87 18:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 18 18:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 143 n 82 18:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 134 n 24 18:49�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 33 n 78 19:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 133 n 18 21:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 24 22:27�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 83 n 25 28:7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 166 n 119 33:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 n 19 33:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 n 19 33:13–15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 45 n 129

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 319

34:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 179 n 45 36:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 19 36:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 n 96 39:5–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 n 51 44:25������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 48 n 147 46:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 92 47:1–9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 83 n 25 48:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 87 49:12, 20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 50 n 156 50����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 17 50:7–15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 144 n 88 53:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 180 n 51 62:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 n 51 68:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 68:21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139 n 60 68:33������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 118 n 96 72:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 n 147 72:17���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 83 n 25, 229 n 11 74:12–14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 42 n 119 74:16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 20 n 25 78:17–22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 156 n 47 78:17, 35, 56������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 134 n 24 74:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 145 n 94 79:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 132 n 14 81:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135 n 40 82:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 33 82:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 26 82:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 24, 134 n 32 86:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 83 n 25 89:5–7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 33 90:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18, 139 n 59 91:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 24 91:11–12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 158 91:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 153 n 16 92:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 24 95:10–11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 156 n 49 96:1–13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 83 n 25 96:13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 n 109 97:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 98:9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 148 n 109 99:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 207 n 56 103:14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 50 n 156 103:20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 153 n 6 104:19–26������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 22 n 30

320 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

104:19–21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 30 n 66 104:29–30���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 50 n 155 104:30���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 67 104:37���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 140 105:1–2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 12 106:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 216 n 110 106:37���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 136 n 46 110:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 87 110:11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 179 n 45 111:10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 43 n 121 113:4–6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139 n 58 115:2–8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 147 n 103 118:22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 n 86 119:149�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 19 125:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 84 n 28 128:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 84 n 28 135:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 138 n 56, 138 n 57 136:7–9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 24 139:1–16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 45 n 129 145:18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 146 n 96 147:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 45 n 129 147:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 n 66 148:5–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 n 19

Proverbs 1:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 67 n 29, 179 n 45 2:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 93 n 79 3:18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 93 8:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 145 n 95 8:29�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 26 9:10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������43 n 121, 67 n 29, 179 n 45 11:30�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 93 13:12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 93 14:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 67 n 29 15:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 45 n 129 15:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 93 15:33���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 43 n 121, 67 n 29 22:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 n 79 23:12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 n 79 26:27������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 179 n 47 28:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 179 n 47 31:30������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 179 n 45

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 321

Ecclesiastes 1:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 n 51 1:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 n 143 3:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 33 n 81, 48 n 143 3:14–15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 n 143 3:14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 67 n 29 3:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 189 n 96 3:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 50 n 155 3:20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 50 n 156, 229 7:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 n 143 7:20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 7:29������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 n 138, 229 8:16–17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 n 143 11:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 189 n 96 12:7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 184 n 67, 229 12:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 n 51 12:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������43 n 121, 67 n 29, 179 n 45 12:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 189 n 96

Isaiah 1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 17 1:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 196 n 5 1:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 132 n 9 1:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 n 55 2:2–4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63 n 23 3:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 n 55 4:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 92 n 75 4:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 6:1–13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 196 n 5 6:1–5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 254 6:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 6:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 153 6:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 33 n 78 6:4–5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 43 6:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 26 8:14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213 9:6–7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63 n 22 11:1–9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63 n 22 11:1–2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 179 n 46 11:4–5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 165 n 112 11:6–9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 161 n 89

322 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

14:12–14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 153 n 20 24:5–13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 140 24:16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 7 24:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 134 n 26 25:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 33 n 78 27:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 42 n 117, 42 n 119 28:16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213, 218 n 118 30:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 133 n 19 31:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 n 66 32:14–20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 161 n 89 34:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 9 35:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 n 75 37:19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147 n 103 40:6–8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 90 n 60 40:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 106 n 19 40:26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24 n 35 41:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139 n 58 41:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 87 42��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 58 42:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59, 157 n 56 42:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 144 n 85, 144 n 89 42:8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 59 42:9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 59 43:10, 13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139 n 58 43:16–17���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59 43:18–19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59 44:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139 n 58 44:9–20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 147 n 103 45:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 143 n 82 45:6–7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 n 66, 139 n 58 45:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 34 n 83 45:15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 106 n 19 45:21–22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139 n 58 48:1–5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59 48:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 59 48:12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139 n 58 48:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 188 n 92 49:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 4 49:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 n 80 49:8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 74 49:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139 n 59 49:23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 48 n 147 51:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 92 51:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 n 80

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 323

52:7�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������165 n 112, 166 n 122, 196 n 7 52:13–53:12����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 81 53:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 7 53:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 73 n 73 53:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 137 55:3–5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 83 n 26 55:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 145 n 95 55:10–11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 90 n 60 56:6–7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63 n 23 57:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 137 n 51 59:17–20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 165 n 112 59:17���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 167 n 130 59:20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147 n 106 60:2, 13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 n 75 60:19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 63:7–10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 48 63:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 133 n 22 64:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 22 65–66��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63 65��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 60 65:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 145 n 95 65:17–25���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59 65:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 n 141, 59, 81 n 9 65:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 60, 136 n 49 65:19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 60 65:20–25���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 61 65:20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 61 65:21–23���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 61 65:21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 61 65:22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 62 65:23���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 62 65:24���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 62 65:25���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������48 n 147, 62, 161 n 89 66:1–2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 144 n 87 66:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 n 109 66:22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 n 141, 59

Jeremiah 1:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 196 n 4 1:7–8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 6 2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 17 3:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 22 8:5–6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 160 n 86

324 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

10:12, 16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 144 n 85 12:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 64 13:27�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 7 14:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 7 15:19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147 n 106 16:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 45 n 129 17:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 138 22:24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139 n 59 23:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 138 n 55 23:23–24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 146 n 96 25:31���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 n 109 29:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 145 n 95 30:7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 164 n 109 31:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 22 31:12–14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 n 141 31:31–34���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 83 n 24, 197 n 10 31:31���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59 32:40������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 197 n 10 33����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 141 33:25–26���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59 49:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 160 n 86

Lamentations 3:38���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 n 66 4:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 n 55

Ezekiel 1:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 196 n 5 1:2–3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 6 1:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 153 n 9 1:28–2:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 2:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 3:12, 14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 5:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139 n 59 8:1–3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 159 n 74 8:4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 196 n 5 11:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 11:19–20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 83 n 24 11:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 59, 197 n 10 14:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 147 n 106 16:44–52������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 138 n 55

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 325

18:30���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147 n 106 18:31���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59 18:32���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147 n 106 28:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 92 30:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 31:9, 16, 18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 92 34:25������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 160 n 88 36:21–38������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 137 n 54 36:26–27������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 83 n 24, 91 n 70 36:26������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 197 n 10 36:35�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 92 37��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 81 37:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 37:27���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 121 n 126 40:1–2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 43:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 44:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 37 n 100 47:12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 96

Daniel 2:36–45�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 145 n 94 6:17���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91 n 66 6:22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 n 15, 160 n 88 7:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 7:13–14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 148 n 111 7:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 8:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 8:17–18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 9:21�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 n 12 10:1–2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 10:8–12, 18–19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 10:13–21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 134 n 33 10:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 153 n 18 12:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 n 33, 164 n 109

Hosea 1:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 20 2:18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 161 n 89 6:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 34 n 85, 229 8:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 64 9:12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 7

326 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

11:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 22 13:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135 n 39

Joel 2:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 36 n 92 2:28–30���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91 n 70 2:32���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 218

Amos 4:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135 n 41

Obadiah 1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 5

Jonah 2:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 206 n 55

Micah 1:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 132 n 9 4:1–4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63 n 23 6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 17 6:1–2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 9 6:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 66 7:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 n 147

Nahum 11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 5

Habakkuk 2:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 196 n 5

Zephaniah 1:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 327

Zechariah 3:1–2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 153 n 21 4:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 163 n 99 8:20–23���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63 n 23 12:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 n 76 14:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 92 14:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63 n 22 14:16–19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63 n 23

Malachi 2:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 n 22 3:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 158 3:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 179 n 46 3:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 33 n 78 4:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 n 39

New Testament Matthew 3:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147 n 106 3:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 39, 188 n 92 3:17���������������������������������������������������������������������������������157 n 56, 157 n 60, 188 n 92, 204 n 44 4:1–11����������������������������������������������� 8 n 24, 155–161, 156 n 37, 157 n 57, 171 n 158, 255 n 16 4:1, 5, 10, 11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 157 n 57 4:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156, 156 n 41 4:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 157 4:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 157 4:4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 158 4:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 158, 159 4:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 158 4:7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 159 4:8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 159 4:9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 159 4:10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 4:11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 4:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147 n 106, 178 n 34 5:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 194 5:17–48���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 194 n 1 5:17–18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 215 n 105

328 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

5:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 177, 202 n 37 5:22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 n 89 6:16–20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 50 6:25–34�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 144 n 89 8:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 n 17 10:15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 138 n 55 10:40������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 208 n 60 11:22, 24���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 n 109 11:23–24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 138 n 55 11:25������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 144 n 86 11:28–30�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31 n 71 12:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31 n 72 12:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 157 n 56 12:24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 12:34�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 n 79 12:36���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 n 109 13:55�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174 n 8 15:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 n 79 16:16–20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 205 n 51 16:16–19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 200 n 25 16:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 157 n 63 16:21–27�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 16:28�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 17:1–8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9, 199–206, 199 n 20, 257 17:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 17:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 17:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 202 17:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 17:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������121 n 126, 157 n 56, 204 17:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 17:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 17:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 17:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 19:4–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 40 n 110 19:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 19:8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 6 n 17 19:28������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 n 141 21:42������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 212 n 86 22:24���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 n 17 22:30���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 152 n 5, 153 n 10 22:37–40���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 191 n 112 22:37�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 n 79 22:39�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 177

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 329

22:40�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 177 24:21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 164 n 109 25:31–46���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 n 111 25:31������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 202 n 35 25:41������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 154 n 27 26:36–46���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 120 n 116 26:37������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 200 n 29 26:64�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 87 28:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 188 n 92

Mark 1:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 39 1:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157 n 56 1:12–13������������������������������������������������������������� 8 n 24, 155–161, 156 n 37, 171 n 158, 255 n 16 1:12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 1:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 160, 160 n 82 1:14–15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 n 34 5:37�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 n 28 6:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 174 n 8 7:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 6 n 17 8:29–30�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 51 9:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 200 9:2–8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9, 199 n 20, 200 n 22, 257 9:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 200 9:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 121 n 126, 157 n 56 9:37�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 60 10:4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 6 n 17 10:6–9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 40 n 110 10:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 12:28–31���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 191 n 112 12:29�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181 n 56, 188 n 92 12:36�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 87 13:19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 164 n 109 14:32–42���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 120 n 116 14:33������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 200 n 29 14:62������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 43 16:19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 87, 187 n 81

Luke 1:35�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157 n 63 2:30–32�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139 n 63

330 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

3:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 167 n 133 3:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139 n 63 3:22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 39, 157 n 56 3:38������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 145 n 91, 230 4:1–11����������������������������������������������� 8 n 24, 155–161, 156 n 37, 157 n 57, 171 n 158, 255 n 16 4:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156, 156 n 41 4:3–4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 158 n 66 4:5–8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 160 n 78 4:9–12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 72 4:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 n 80 4:43�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 n 34 8:51�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 n 28 9:28–36�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9, 199 n 20, 200 n 22, 257 9:28���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 9:31���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 202 9:34������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 121 n 126 9:35�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157 n 56 10:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 208 n 60 10:18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 100 n 4 10:25–28���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 191 n 112 16:31���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 n 17 18:1–8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 168 n 142 20:17–18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 212 n 86 20:36������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 153 n 11 21:26������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 118 n 96 21:27������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 43 22:40–46���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 120 n 116 22:44–47������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 184 n 68 23:41������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 n 137 24:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 n 9 24:27������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 6 n 17, 184 n 68 24:44���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 177 n 26, 254 24:49�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 n 58

John 1:1�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������94 n 88, 162 n 95, 210 n 74 1:1–2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 143 n 83 1:3–4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 n 96 1:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 154 n 34, 209 n 68 1:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 71 1:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 22 n 31 1:12–13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 90 n 64 1:14–17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 80 n 8

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 331

1:14�������������������������� 94 n 88, 121 n 126, 143 n 83, 162 n 95, 187, 187 n 85, 201, 202, 210 n 74 1:18��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 88, 143 n 83, 162 n 95, 204, 208 n 60 1:29, 36���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 206 n 55, 208 n 61 1:51�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 39 3:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 90 n 64 3:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31 n 74 3:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 60 3:34�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 167 n 133, 208 n 60 4:13–14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 n 100 4:32–34�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 158 n 65 5:18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157 n 62 5:19, 30�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 n 78 5:21–23, 27, 30������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 148 n 111 5:36�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 60 5:39�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 184 n 68 5:45–47�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 210 n 78 5:46���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 254 6:14–15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 50 6:15���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 195 n 2 6:35�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 n 100 6:38�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 n 78 7:2–5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174 n 9 7:18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 73 n 72 7:39�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 202 n 33 8:44�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������43, 153, 154 n 28, 230 8:46�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 n 137, 73 n 72, 215 n 105 8:47������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 167 n 133 8:56���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 254 10:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 210 10:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 217 n 114 12:23, 28������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 202 n 33 12:28������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 45 12:31���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������100 n 4, 153, 159 n 75 12:41�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 254 13:23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 200 n 26 13:31–32������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 202 n 33 14:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 n 79 14:6–7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 143 n 83 14:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 206 n 55 14:15, 21, 23���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 190 n 101 14:16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 n 58 14:26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 n 77 14:30�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 15:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 166 n 119

332 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

15:10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 190 n 101 15:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 210 n 77 16:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 159 n 75 16:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 n 77 17:1, 4–5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 202 n 33 17:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31 n 75 17:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 187 n 87 17:11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 217 n 114 18:22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 113 n 53 20:21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 208 n 60 20:27�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 101 n 6

Acts 1:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 94 n 86 1:4–5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 n 58 1:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 50 1:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 1:14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174 n 11 2:24, 32������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 148 n 112 2:30–36������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 148 n 111 2:33, 38–39���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 n 58 2:33�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 187 n 81 2:36�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������188 n 93, 208 n 59, 213 n 97 2:38������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 147 n 106 3:14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 73 n 72 3:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 147 n 106 3:22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 195 n 2 4:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 n 86 5:42�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 59 6:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 6 n 17 7:37���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 195 n 2 7:48�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 144 n 87 7:56�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 187 n 81 7:59–60������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 120 n 115 8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 n 79 8:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 175 n 21 8:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 248 n 5 8:26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 n 17 9����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 222 n 130 9:1–9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 248 n 6 9:1–8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 117 n 79 9:1–2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 248 n 5 9:9–24���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 n 79 9:15–16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 106 n 20, 119 n 99

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 333

9:20–22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 n 79 9:20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 59 9:22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 59 9:23–25�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 n 81 9:25�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 n 79 9:26–29�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 n 79 10:9–15���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29 n 62 10:37–38������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 156 n 40 10:42���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 n 111 11:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 175 n 21 11:25–26������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 118 n 93 12:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 174 n 6, 200 n 27 12:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 174 n 12 13:1–2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 195 13:27������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 184 n 68 13:33������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 157 n 61 14:15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 144 n 85 14:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 n 107 14:22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 106 n 20 15:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 183, 219 n 122 15:13–18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 183 15:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174 n 12, 174 n 14 15:21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 n 17 15:39–18:22��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 129 16:22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 115 n 65 17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7, 125, 126, 127, 141, 254 17:14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 140 17:16–34�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 129 17:16–17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 129, 130, 140, 142 n 78 17:16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 140 17:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 140 17:18–21�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������129, 130, 140 17:18�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������141 n 74, 142, 148 n 110 17:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 142 17:20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 142 17:21�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 142 17:22–31�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 126 17:22–28�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 131 17:22–23�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������129, 131, 144 17:22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 142 17:23�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������142, 143, 150 17:24–25�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������129, 131, 144 17:24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 144 17:25������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 144, 150 17:26–28�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������129, 131, 144

334 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

17:26������������������������������������������������ 9 n 26, 34 n 84, 126, 144, 147, 150, 223 n 2, 230, 258 n 19 17:27�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 146 17:28�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 146 17:29–31�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 131 17:29������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 129, 131, 147, 148, 150 17:30�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������129, 131, 147 17:31������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 129, 131, 148, 150, 255 17:32�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������129, 130, 142 17:33–34�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������129, 130, 140 17:33�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 140 17:34������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 140, 142 18:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 248 n 3 18:9–11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 68 n 37 20:23–24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 106 n 20 20:27�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 185 21:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 174 n 12 21:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 106 n 20 21:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 174 n 13 21:21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 n 17 21:39�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 248 n 1 22:3–16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 248 n 6 22:3–5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 248 n 5 22:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 214 n 98, 248 n 4 22:25�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 248 n 1 23:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 113 n 54 24:27�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 n 53 26:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 248 n 4 26:9–11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 248 n 5 26:9–18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 248 n 6 26:16–17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 6 26:17–18, 23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 139 n 63 27:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 n 53 27:39–44������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 115 n 67 28:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 n 53 28:16, 20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 165 n 111 28:30–31���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88, 169 n 154 28:30�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 n 53

Romans 1–11��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 198 1:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������125, 198, 254 1:3–4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 39, 208 n 59 1:4�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������81 n 13, 148 n 113, 157 n 61, 187 n 86 1:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 86 n 43

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 335

1:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 211 n 81 1:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 211 n 81 1:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 211 n 81 1:16–17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 166 n 120 1:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 73 n 76, 214 n 99 1:23�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4 n 8 1:24, 26, 28�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 136 n 50 1:32�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 n 89 2:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 216 n 109 2:29���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 84 n 28 3:9–20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 123 n 139 3:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14 n 5, 56 n 5, 216 n 110 3:21�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������125, 198, 254 3:22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������125, 198, 254 3:23�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 n 138, 69 n 41, 216 n 110 3:24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 211 n 79 3:25–26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������73 n 78, 148 n 107, 182 n 59 3:25�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 210 n 79 3:27–31������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 215 n 108 3:28�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 183 n 62 4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181 n 57 4:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 182 4:9–12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 65 5:1–21�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������53 n 169, 241, 242 5:1–2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 35 5:1, 6–11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 208 n 62 5:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 187 5:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 148 n 108 5:12–21����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 81, 96, 235 n 22, 241, 252 5:12–19��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 n 26, 34 n 84, 223 n 2, 230, 258 n 19 5:12, 15–17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 145 n 91 5:12, 14, 18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154 n 29 5:12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 n 89, 216 n 110 5:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14 n 6, 56 n 6 5:8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 73 n 79 5:9–11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 86 n 45 5:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 14 n 7, 56 n 7 5:12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 15 n 8, 57 n 8 5:14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 50 5:20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 n 85 5:21�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 44 n 125 6����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15, 56 6:3–8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 87 n 49, 100 n 3 6:3–7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 69 n 44 6:3–4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 199 n 19

336 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

6:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14, 56 6:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14, 56 6:23�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������44 n 125, 47 n 138, 69 n 41, 154 n 29 7:4–11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 215 n 103 7:5, 7–13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 212 n 85 7:5, 13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 138 7:7–12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 n 38 7:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 214 n 102 7:10–11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 44 n 125 7:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 216 n 109 7:12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 215 7:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 123 n 139 7:25�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 179 n 39 8��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82, 252 8:1–39���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 53 n 170, 57 n 9 8:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 190 n 100 8:3–4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 215 n 103 8:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 73 n 73 8:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 44 n 125 8:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 n 33 8:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 123 n 141 8:17–18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 119 n 99 8:18–25���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27, 81 n 12 8:18–23���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 45 8:18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 98 n 108 8:19–22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 15, 57 8:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 15, 57 8:21–25���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82 n 19 8:21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 15, 57 8:23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 15, 57 8:26–27������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 168 n 138 8:29������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 53 n 167, 251 n 9 8:31–34������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 166 n 121 8:38������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 164 n 108, 219 n 122 9–11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 97 n 107 9:1–4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213 9:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 198 9:30–33���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213 9:30–32�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213 n 90 9:30���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 211 9:31���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 9:32���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213 9:33���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213 10:1–13��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 199, 199 n 21, 221, 257 10:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 337

10:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 214 10:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 214, 219 n 122 10:4������������������������������������������������177, 177 n 30, 202 n 37, 213 n 90, 214–215, 215 n 104, 217 10:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 216 10:6–8����������������������������������������������������������������������������������5–6, 9, 199, 199 n 16, 211, 221, 257 10:6–7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 216 10:8–15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 184 n 65 10:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 217 10:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������188 n 93, 208 n 59, 217 10:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 93 n 79, 218 10:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 218 10:12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 218 10:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 218 10:14–17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 7 10:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 137 n 52, 198 n 14 11:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 196 n 7, 213 n 97 11:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 198 n 14 11:32���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 216 n 110 11:33–35������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 106 n 19 12–16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 198 12:1–2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69, 90 n 63, 96 n 101 12:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82 n 17 12:8–10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 190 n 104 12:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 n 56, 198 n 14 13:3–4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 214 n 102 13:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 n 37 13:8–10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 179 n 39 13:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 13:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 13:12, 14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 163 n 98 15:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 132 n 10 15:12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 43 15:17–19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 8 15:24–25������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 211 n 81 15:33�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 n 46 16:1–2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 211 n 81 16:20�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������49, 87 n 46, 98 n 109 16:26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 43

1 Corinthians 1:1–2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 68 n 37 1:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 120 n 115 1:18–31������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 123 n 140

338 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

1:18–25�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 n 49, 100 n 3 1:22–24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 191 n 108 1:24, 30�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 179 n 48 2:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 119 n 100 2:6–9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 n 48 2:6–8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 101 2:6, 8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82 n 17 2:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 169 n 149 3:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 196 n 9 3:18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82 n 17 4:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 197 4:9–13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 114 n 62 4:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 112 n 44 4:21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 n 76 5:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 98 n 109 5:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 198 n 14 7:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 98 n 109 8:4–6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 41 8:6�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������86 n 35, 199 n 16, 208 n 59, 219 n 121 9:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 198 n 14 9:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 7 9:19–21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 190 n 100 9:20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 9:21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 178, 179 n 39 10:1–5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157 n 55 10:1–4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 70 10:20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 136 n 46 11:7–12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 230 12:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 59 12:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 n 47, 123 n 141 12:27���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 n 94, 209 n 65 12:28�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 14:34������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 178 n 33 14:37�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 15:1–58����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 53 n 171, 218 n 115, 241, 242 15:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 73 n 73 15:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174 n 10 15:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 5 15:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 248 n 5 15:20–58���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 235 n 22, 241 15:20–23������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 n 26, 34 n 84, 223 n 2, 230, 258 n 19 15:21–22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 81 n 11, 145 n 91 15:23–28�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 42 15:24���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 164 n 108

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 339

15:26, 54�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82 n 20 15:26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 101 15:27–28�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 n 92 15:45–49���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 81 n 10, 145 n 91 15:45������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 156 n 50 16:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 162 n 96 16:22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 120 n 115

2 Corinthians 1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 124 1:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 68 n 37, 108 n 25 1:7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 78 n 2 1:12–23���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 68 n 36 1:19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 39 1:21–22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82 n 19 1:22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91 n 66, 91 n 69 1:30�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 97 n 102 2:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 98 n 109 3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 121 3:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������67 n 34, 109, 151 3:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 197 3:7–11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 n 30 3:15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 6 n 17 3:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 53 n 167, 251 n 9 4:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 67 n 34 4:4�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������98 n 109, 153, 159 n 75 4:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 59 4:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 n 49, 100 n 3 4:16–18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 98 n 108 5:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 91 n 69 5:9–10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 66, 75 n 84 5:11–6:2���������������������������������������������������������������������6, 54–77, 78, 103 n 10, 197 n 12, 251, 252 5:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������66, 67, 68 5:12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 68 5:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 68 5:14�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������68, 69, 69 n 42 5:15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 69 5:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 69 5:17–21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 45, 96 5:17–19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 81, 252 5:17��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14, 55–56, 70, 81, 90 n 61, 197 5:18–21�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 62 5:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 71, 81

340 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

5:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 71, 81 5:20�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������72, 73 n 74, 148 n 108 5:21�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 n 137, 73, 73 n 74, 73 n 78 6:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 74 6:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 74 6:4–5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 114 n 62 6:15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 98 n 109, 153 6:16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4 n 8, 121 n 126 7:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 108 n 26 8:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 108 n 26 9:2–4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 108 n 26 10–13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 123 10:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 108 n 25 10:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 167 n 134 10:10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 119 n 100 10:13–16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 109, 151 11:1–12:13��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 111 n 34 11����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 n 79 11:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 111, 111 n 34 11:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������42 n 117, 154 n 28, 230 11:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 109, 151 11:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117, 151 11:7–9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 109 11:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 151 11:14–15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 109, 151 11:14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 42 n 117, 98 n 109 11:16–12:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7, 99–124, 111 n 34, 111 n 35, 254 11:16–20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 113 11:16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 111 11:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 111, 112 11:18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 112 11:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 112 11:20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������109, 112, 113 n 55 11:21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 112, 113 n 56 11:22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������109, 114, 213 n 97 11:23–29���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 106 n 20, 114 11:23–27�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 249 11:23�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 114 11:24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 114 11:25������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 114, 115 11:26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 115 11:27�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 115 11:28�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 116 11:29�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 116

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 341

11:30������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 116, 124 11:31�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 116 11:32–33������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 117 n 79 11:32�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 11:33�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 12:1–4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 196 n 5 12:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117, 118 12:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 117 n 88, 118 12:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 12:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 12:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 119 12:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 119 12:7����������������������������������������������������������������������� 98 n 109, 117 n 87, 117 n 88, 120 n 112, 124 12:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 120, 124 12:9����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 120, 121, 122, 124 12:10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������111 n 34, 122, 124 12:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 12:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 111 n 34 12:18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 111 n 34 13:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 197 13:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 188 n 92 14:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154 n 28

Galatians 1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 n 79 1:6–9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 6 1:12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 78 n 2, 196 n 5 1:13–14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 248 n 2, 248 n 5 1:14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������81 n 12, 82 n 17, 101, 214 n 98 1:15–16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 4 1:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 n 5 1:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 n 79 1:18–24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 n 79 1:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 174 n 8, 174 n 13 2:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 196 n 5, 219 n 122 2:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174 n 12, 183 2:20��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 69 n 43, 86 n 39, 87 n 49, 100 n 3, 105 3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181 n 57 3:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 182 n 58 3:12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 216 n 109 3:13�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������70 n 52, 73 n 78, 199 n 16 3:14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 n 58 3:16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 11

342 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

3:19–24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 n 38, 214 n 102 3:22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 216 n 110 3:24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 214 n 102 3:26–27������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 217 n 114 3:28���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 n 47 4:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 60 4:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 89 n 58 4:8–11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 86 n 41 4:8–9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 4 n 8 4:26–28���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 84 n 28 5:14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 5:16–17���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 84 n 28 5:22–26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 n 49, 100 n 3 5:22–25������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 191 n 109 5:22–23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 191 n 110 5:24–26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 96 n 101 6:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 92 n 76 6:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 179 n 39 6:14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������87 n 49, 100 n 3, 101 n 6 6:15–16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 84 n 28, 179 n 39 6:15�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14, 55–56, 90 n 61 6:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 51, 209 n 65 6:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 114 n 62

Ephesians 1–3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 1:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 167 n 126 1:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 166 n 123 1:3–14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91 1:4–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 1:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91 1:7–12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 1:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 97 n 105 1:12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 91 1:13–14�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������82 n 19, 89, 123 n 141 1:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 166 n 122, 167 n 126 1:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 91 1:13�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������90 n 62, 91, 166 n 118 1:15–23....................................................7, 58 n 12, 78–98, 80 n 6, 91, 99, 122, 162 n 93, 163 n 103, 252, 253 1:15�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������88 n 54, 91, 92, 167 n 126 1:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 92 1:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 92

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 343

1:18�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������92, 92 n 78, 93 1:19��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92, 93, 163 n 99, 167 n 126, 169 n 149 1:20–23�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������86 n 42, 98, 162, 209 n 69 1:20�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������93, 94, 162 1:21�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������94, 162, 163 n 104 1:22�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������94, 95, 95 n 92 1:23���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95, 95 n 97 2–3��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 97 n 107 2:1–3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 n 138 2:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 69 n 41 2:2����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82 n 17, 101, 153, 159 n 75, 163 n 104 2:5, 8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 183 2:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 190 n 103 2:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 162 2:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 97 n 106 2:8–10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 190 n 102 2:8–9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 90 n 62 2:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 167 n 126 2:13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 84 n 29 2:14–18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 n 47, 166 n 123 2:14–15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 217 n 114 2:15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 14, 56 2:20–22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 65 2:20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 n 86 3:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 3:2–10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 169 n 149 3:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 88 n 54 3:6, 8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 84 n 29, 166 n 122 3:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 97 n 106 3:12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 167 n 126 3:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 167 n 126 4–6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 4:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 4:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 166 n 123 4:4–6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 35 4:4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 95 n 94 4:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 167 n 126 4:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 4:12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 n 94 4:13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 39, 167 n 126 4:15–25������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 166 n 118 4:15���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 n 93 4:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 n 94 4:21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 n 54

344 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

4:22–24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14–15, 53 n 167, 56, 251 n 9 4:22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 15, 56 4:24���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������15, 56, 166 n 120, 231 n 17 5:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 166 n 118, 166 n 120 5:26������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 166 n 122 5:30������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 95 n 94, 209 n 65 5:31������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 40 5:32������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 41 5:33������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 41 6:2–3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 n 33, 198 n 14 6:10–20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������8, 161–171, 255 6:10–17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 161 n 92 6:10–13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 162, 165 6:10–12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 27 6:10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������161, 163, 163 n 100 6:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������152 n 2, 161, 163 6:12��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 98 n 109, 153 n 13, 161, 162, 163, 164 6:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������161, 162, 164 6:14–17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 162, 165 6:14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 165 n 116, 166 6:15���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 166 6:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 166 6:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 162, 167 6:18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 168 6:18–20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 162 6:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 168, 169 6:20�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������87, 164 n 110, 169 6:20–22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 139 6:21–22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 n 52

Philippians 1:12–14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 169 2:1–8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 87 n 49, 100 n 3 2:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 168 n 144 2:8–11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 188 n 93 2:9–11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 40, 210 n 75 2:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 187 n 81 2:10–11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 97 n 103 2:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 59 2:12–13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 190 n 104 3:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 84 n 28 3:4–6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 213 n 97

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 345

3:5–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 114 n 58, 248 n 2 3:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 248 n 5 3:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 n 49, 100 n 3 3:12–16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213 n 90 3:20–21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 42 3:20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 40 4:9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 87 n 46 4:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 163 n 98, 166 n 119

Colossians 1:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 93 n 82 1:9–20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 80 n 6 1:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 1:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 93 1:11–12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 93 1:13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 44 1:15–20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 42 1:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 187 n 82 1:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96, 209 n 68 1:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 77 n 85, 209 n 68 1:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 88, 94 n 91 1:16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 n 13 1:18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 n 93 1:19–20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 71 n 64 1:19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 88 1:20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 97 n 104, 118 n 96 1:24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 95 n 94, 106 n 21 1:26–27������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 169 n 149 1:27���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 n 82 2:8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 94 n 90 2:9–10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 86 n 40 2:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 88, 187 n 82 2:11–12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 n 49, 100 n 3 2:15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48, 100 n 4, 101, 163, 164 n 108 2:16–18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 90 2:20�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������87 n 49, 94 n 89, 100 n 3 3:9–10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������15, 53 n 167, 56, 251 n 9 3:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 231 n 17 3:11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������87 n 47, 95 n 99, 217 n 114 3:24���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 n 83 4:7–9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 n 52

346 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

1 Thessalonians 1:9–10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 86 n 41 1:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4 n 8 2:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 98 n 109 2:12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 n 44 3:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 98 n 109, 153 3:11–13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 120 n 115 4:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 5:2–4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 164 n 109 5:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 167 n 130 5:23���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 n 46

2 Thessalonians 1:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 86 n 44 1:7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 153 n 6 1:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 97 n 106 2:3–12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 164 n 109 2:9–10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154 n 28 3:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 153 3:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 n 46

1 Timothy 1:8–11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 n 37 1:13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 214 2:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 206 n 55 2:13–14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 230 3:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 65 4:3–5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29 n 60 5:21�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 n 19 6:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 106 n 19, 143 n 82 6:17���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82 n 17

2 Timothy 3:12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 106 n 20 3:16–17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 185 n 72 4:10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82 n 17

Titus 2:12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 101 2:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 190 n 102 3:5�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������90 n 61, 90 n 64, 190 n 103

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 347

Philemon 1:10–12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 n 52

Hebrews 1:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 191 n 106, 205 n 49 1:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������154 n 34, 205 n 49, 209 n 68 1:3������������������������������������������������������� 77 n 85, 94 n 87, 187 n 81, 187 n 82, 187 n 85, 209 n 68 1:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 152 n 4, 153 n 14 1:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 n 19 1:14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 210 n 73 2:5–18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 53 n 172 2:5–9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 27, 42 n 116 2:6–9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 n 92 2:11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 207 n 57, 210 n 77 2:14–15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 n 76 2:18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 n 38 3:1–6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 199, 206–210, 221, 257 3:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 207, 208 3:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208, 209 3:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 209 3:4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 209 3:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 209 3:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 210 3:7–4:11��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31 n 73 3:7–19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 156 n 49, 210 n 76 4:12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 90 n 60 4:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 45 n 129 4:14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 59 4:15���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 n 137, 73 n 72, 156 n 38 5:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 n 62 6:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 167 n 133 7:26���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 n 137, 73 n 72, 206 n 55 8:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 n 64 10:10, 14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 207 n 57 10:23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 208 n 59 10:30������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 138 n 56 11��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181 n 57, 230 11:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 211 n 82 11:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18, 154 n 34 11:4–7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 230 n 15 11:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������16 n 12, 184 n 66, 212 n 82 11:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 n 16 11:17–19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 182 n 60 11:23–28���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 221 n 128

348 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

11:31������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 184 n 66 12:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157 12:18–21�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 45 n 130, 205 n 47

James 1:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174, 175, 186, 187 1:5–7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 180 n 51 1:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 179 n 41 1:18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������90 n 64, 183, 190 n 103 1:25���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������172, 177, 191 n 111 1:27������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 190 n 104 2����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������181 n 57, 186, 187 2:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 n 35 2:8�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������172, 178, 191 n 111 2:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 175 2:10–11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 177 n 29 2:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 n 84 2:12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������172, 177, 191 n 111 2:14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 180 2:15���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 180 2:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181 2:17���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181 2:18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181 2:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181, 188 2:20���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181 2:21���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 182 2:22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 182 2:23���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 182 2:24���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 182 3:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������53 n 168, 231 n 16, 251 n 10 3:13–16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 112 n 39 3:13, 15, 17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 179 n 41 3:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 191 n 110 4:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 45 n 127 4:12���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 189 5:7–9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 189

1 Peter 1:10–11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 202 n 34 1:18–19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 206 n 55 1:19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 n 137, 73 n 72 1:23���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 90 n 64

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 349

1:24–25���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 90 n 60 2:4–8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 212 n 86 2:22–24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 137 2:22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 73 n 72 2:24���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 73 n 73 3:18���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 73 n 72 3:22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 87, 164 n 108 4:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 121 n 125 5:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153, 155 5:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 161 n 90

2 Peter 1:16–18������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 9 n 25 1:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 201 1:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157 n 56 1:20–21�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 185 n 72 2:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154 n 26 3:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 n 16, 154 n 34 3:7, 10–12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 60 n 16 3:10–13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 141 3:13������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 60, 81 n 9 3:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 60

1 John 1:5–7�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22 n 31 2:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 73 n 78, 208 n 61 2:15–17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 45 2:15������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 45 2:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 45 2:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 45 2:18, 22�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 162 n 94 2:28������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 60 3:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 n 89 3:5�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 n 137, 73 n 72, 118 n 96 3:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 3:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 42 n 117 3:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 3:12–13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 3:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 n 89 3:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 73 n 79 4:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 162 n 94 4:7–12������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 73 n 79

350 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

4:10�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������73 n 78, 90 n 64, 208 n 60 5:19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 75

2 John 1:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 162 n 94

Jude 1:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154 n 26 1:9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 162 n 97, 203 n 38

Revelation 1:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 78 n 2 1:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 187 n 87, 205 n 52 1:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 1:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 1:12–18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 187 n 87 1:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 1:18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 52 2:7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 36 n 93 2:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 45 2:18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157 n 61 4:1–2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 159 n 74 4:8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 153 5:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 101 n 6 6:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 14 9:11���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 11:3–13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 n 38 12:7–9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153 n 20 12:9���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������42, 154, 154 n 27, 154 n 28 12:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154 12:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 163 n 99 14:14������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 204 n 43 16:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 14 17:1–3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 17:14���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 218 n 119 18:20������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 132 n 14 19:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 n 14 19:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 218 n 119 20:1–22:21��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 53 n 173 20:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 42

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 351

20:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154 n 28 20:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154 20:12–15���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 n 111 21–22��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14, 55 21:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 n 141, 60, 81 n 9 21:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 60 21:3–4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 31 n 75 21:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 61, 121 n 126 21:4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 61 21:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 61 21:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 62 21:7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 62 21:9–10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 22:1–2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 36 n 92 22:2, 14, 19���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 93 22:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 95, 62 22:3–4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 62 22:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 189 22:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93 n 80 22:18–19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 185 n 72

Noncanonical Writings Antiquities of the Jews 1.2.3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 14 1.42, 50�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 n 146 3.180�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 195 n 3 4:323–326���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 n 38 4.8.2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 14 20.9.1����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174 n 15

Apocalypse of Abraham 9:9�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 64 15:2–3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 19:5–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 29:9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 164 n 109

Apocalypse of Baruch 21:4–6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 18 n 16 48:31���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 164 n 109

352 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Apocalypse of Moses 15:1–3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 37 n 99 16:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 42 n 118 17:4�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 42 n 118 35:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 37:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 40:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96

Ascension of Isaiah 3:13, 18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 4:14, 16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 6:13�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 7:8, 13, 17–28, 32–37���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 8:1, 7–9, 12, 15–16, 19, 21, 25��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 9:1, 4, 6, 18–19, 23�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 10:1, 5, 8–9, 11–12, 14, 17, 19–27��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 11:24–32, 40������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 118 n 96

Apocalypse of Zephaniah 2:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 3:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74

Assumption of Moses entire book��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 n 38 11:6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 195 n 3

Babylonian Talmud Yoma 75a��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 n 146

2 Baruch 4:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 138 6:3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 13:1–2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 15:8�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 141 17:2–4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 138 17:2–3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 49 n 154

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 353

23:4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 n 138, 64 n 24 32:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63 43:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 138 48:42–44�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 64 n 24 48:42–43, 46������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 n 138 53:1–12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 54:15–19�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 64 n 24 54:15, 19������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 n 138 56:5–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 138 57:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63 70:10���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63 72:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63 73:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63

3 Baruch 11:1–2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96

De Viris Illustribus 2:7-8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 174 n 15

Deuteronomy Rabbah 3:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 n 38

Ecclesiastes Rabbah 10:11������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 48 n 146

1 Enoch 4:13–14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 14:40������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 200 n 30 24:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 93 50:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 164 n 109 51:4–5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 141 55:3������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 164 n 109 60:3–4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 60:10–12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 90 61:10�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 90 63:8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 164 n 109

354 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

69:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 42 n 118 71:2–3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 72:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63 75:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74 91:16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63 96:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 164 n 109 99:4������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 164 n 109

2 Enoch 1:5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 n 30 1:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 8:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 8:3, 5, 8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 93 9:1������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 36 n 93 20–22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 90 20:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 20:2�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 21:2–3���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 22:4–5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 31:1–2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 31:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 37 n 99

3 Enoch 1:7–9������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 205 n 48 17:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 48:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96

4 Ezra 3:4–7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 49 n 154 3:7, 21–22, 26–27���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 138 3:7, 21–22������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 64 n 24 4:30�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 138 6:25–26�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 n 38 7:11–12�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 140 7:75������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63 7:116–126���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 140 7:116–119������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 64 n 24 7:118������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 n 138 8:52���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 n 93 13:3�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 355

Genesis Rabbah 12:6�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 140 20:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 n 146

Jubilees 1:29������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63 2:2������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 94 n 90 3:15–16���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 37 n 99 3:23�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 n 146 4:26������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63 23:16–25���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 164 n 109

Life of Moses 1:334������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 207 n 56 2:2–7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 207 n 56 2:66–67�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 207 n 56 2:153–158���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 207 n 56 2:187, 225���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 207 n 56

1 Maccabees 2:58�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 n 38

2 Maccabees 2:8���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 n 43 3:24���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 90 7:28���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 n 16

4 Maccabees 4:11�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 5:14–15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 n 48 10:30������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 205 n 48

Sibylline Oracles 1:59–64�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 n 146 3:808���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63

356 

| 

face ts of pauline discourse

Sirach 14:17�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 138, 229 n 13 15:14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 138, 229 n 13 17:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 13 25:16–26������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 229 n 13 25:24���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 n 138, 64 n 24 33:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 229 n 13 40:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 13 42:15�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 n 16 45:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 195 n 3 45:4–5���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 207 n 56 48:10������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 203 n 39 49:16�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 3:14�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 n 146

Testament of Abraham 10:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 n 74

Testament of Benjamin 5:2���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 n 87

Testament of Daniel 5:4–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 164 n 109

Testament of Issachar 7:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 n 87

Testament of Levi 2:7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 3:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96 3:14–22���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 n 90 5:5�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 164 n 109 18:5–6���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118 n 96

a n c i e n t s o u r c e s i n d e x  | 357

Testament of Naphtali 8:4���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 n 87

Tobit 8:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 229 12:17������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 205 n 48 15:5������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63 15:6������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63

Wisdom of Solomon 1:13���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 64 n 24 2:18�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 158 n 70 2:23–24������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 n 138, 229 2:23���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 64 n 24 2:24�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 42 n 118 5:15–23������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 165 n 112 7:1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 12 7:7������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 92 n 76 10:1�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 n 12 10:16������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 209 n 72 18:21������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 209 n 72

Studies in Biblical Literature This series invites manuscripts from scholars in any area of biblical literature. Both established and innovative methodologies, covering general and particular areas in biblical study, are welcome. The series seeks to make available studies that will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. Scholars who have interests in gender and sociocultural hermeneutics are particularly encouraged to consider this series. For further information about the series and for the submission of manuscripts, contact: Peter Lang Publishing Acquisitions Department 29 Broadway, 18th floor New York, NY 10006 To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: (800) 770-LANG (within the U.S.) (212) 647-7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647-7707 FAX or browse online by series at: WWW.PETERLANG.COM