Category: Pauline Studies
Writing a thesis (thought #1)
This last weekend I sent my first reader the second draft of the first chapter of my Master of Theology (Th.M.) thesis. I thought it may be useful to openly journal through the process for anyone who comes along later down the road seeking to work on a similar project. I don’t have much advice yet, but maybe if I say a little bit about each step it will result in a something helpful.
The aforementioned reader is James DeYoung, the Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary. One of his great scholarly strengths is exegesis and especially that of the Pauline corpus. It is good to have a reader who is familiar with the area of study you hope to engage.
Jim has a reputation for being a stickler about grammar, punctuation, et al. I made sure to ask him to ignore those mistakes before he examined my first draft. What I needed was another set of eyes reading over the first chapter to see if it made sense. A good introduction is more important than I think many realize.
When I received his corrections back they were very helpful. There were several important questions written in red ink in the margins. I imbedded some answers in the body, some in footnotes, and chose (wisely or unwisely) to not respond to a couple because I intend to do so in subsequent chapters.
Now that he has the second draft he can mark, mark, mark away on the finer details. I hope word-processor technology served me well.
Honestly, I am not sure how the second reader’s role works just yet. I don’t know if he has to read chapter-by-chapter like my first reader or just the whole thing at the end before my oral defense. I need to ask my advisor.
If you haven’t had a chance to hear about the subject of my thesis let me tell you about it. It focuses on the eschatologically loaded passage of Rom. 8.1-25. In this passage it appears to me that that there are several faint echos from the Book of Genesis. After reading some commentary on this chapter in articles and books it seemed to me that if the exegete doesn’t recognize these echos then the message loses some important nuance.
Yet no where in 8.1-25 does Paul explicitly quote the Book of Genesis (most recognize he refers to it in vv. 18-23). And this is how many of his references to Genesis work in this epistle. Unlike his use of Isaiah or Psalms he is not very blunt. Two brief examples would be 1.18-25 and 16.20. These are very much “he who has an ear to hear, let him hear” type echos.
So part of my project is to show that plausibility that Genesis-motifs are present from the beginning to the end of the epistle. Even chapters like 3-4, 6-7 and 12-16 don’t make as much sense without hearing the important Genesis echos in 1, 4-5, and 8.
Of course, this demands that one spend at least a little bit of time thinking about Pauline hermeneutics and his use of Scripture. I will be following Richard Hays and others who have talked a little bit about metalepsis seeking to show how Paul’s use of Genesis is more apparent when we pay attention to this insight into literature.
This is all I have to say on the matter for now. In the meantime I hope to take advantage of the bibliography that the “Paul and Scripture seminar” of SBL compiled to assist me as I work on chapter two (find the bibliography here)! The goal is to make this next chapter smooth and simple. Smooth enough that it sets the stage for the rest of the thesis; simple enough that the reader doesn’t get distracted by its claims to the demise of the main point of the thesis.
Why didn’t the Apostle Paul cite the Book of Jonah?
I don’t know why it bothers me that the Apostle Paul never cited the Book of Jonah in defense of his Gentile mission, but it does. When I was taking my biblical Hebrew sequence in seminary we chose Jonah for our exegetical exercises. I had to write a couple papers on the book as well as a half dozen translation assignments. By the end of the semester I wrote the following (in “Exegetical Exposition of Jonah 4″, p. 10):
Yet Jonah 4 shows that the problem that Jesus sought to address was already apparent
even before the return from exile. Jonah is the Jews par excellence. He boasts in his relationship with YHWH. He sees himself as loyal to the God of the temple. He even sings Psalms (see Jonah 2) regarding YHWH‟s deliverance and mercy. Yet he refuses to announce to the pagan world that YHWH is a God of mercy and grace for all people
I know the Apostle is fond of using characters are represent Israel (i.e. Adam) so why not use Jonah? Would there have been a better representative of a pious Israelite who missed the point? Couldn’t he have slipped a metalepsis into Rom. 9-11 somewhere?!
I guess there is no way to answer this question, but it is one I have had for a long time. Thoughts?
Neither Jew nor Gentile = act of reconciliation
In 1 Maccabees 2.7-13 a priest named Matthias grieves over the destruction of Jerusalem and its pagan conversion under the thumb of Antiochus Epiphanes. These are his words:
“Woe is me! Why was I born to see the ruin of my people and the ruin of the holy city, and to sit idle while it is given into the hands of enemies, and the sanctuary into the hands of strangers? Her temple has become like a man disgraced, her glorious ornaments have been carried off as spoils, Her infants have been murdered in her streets, her young men by the sword of the enemy. What nation has not taken its share of her realm, and laid its hand on her possessions? All her adornment has been taken away. From being free, she has become a slave. We see our sanctuary and our beauty and our glory laid waste, And the Gentiles have defiled them! Why are we still alive?”
This narrative must have been imbedded deep into the psyche of faithful Jews. Now imagine hearing the Apostle Paul say, “There is neither Jew nor Greek…for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3.28)
The Pauline gospel was an act of reconciliation. I don’t mean simply that the Jews were asked to embrace Gentiles whom they understood to be impure. That is part of it, but not all of it. These impure pagans had a history of mistreating Israel. The Babylonian exile was still part of Jewish memory. At the time of Paul the empire of Rome controlled the land of the Jews, Judea. Yet Paul calls them to equality before the Messiah…Israel’s Messiah!
Scandalous.
Paul is asking his fellow Jews not to forsake their covenantal markers in order to compromise in the face of pagan persecution. Rather, he tells them that the very actions that once determined faithfulness to YHWH under pagan persecution were not preventing the pagans from finally recognizing Israel’s God as God of the world and Israel’s Messiah and the King of the world.
The same markers that saved Jewish identity were now preventing the Jews from realizing their greater identity as Abraham’s children through whom the whole world was to be blessed. I admit, if I were a Jew, it would be very difficult to accept Paul’s claim that the true people of God are both Jews and Gentiles in Messiah, and Gentiles can come as they are without proselytizing to Judaism.
The Adam-Christ Juxtaposition in the Epistle to the Romans (Pt. 3)
Read Pt. 1 here.
Read Pt. 2 here.
As I read through 1.18-25 last week I decided to list statements that sounded like references to Adam. I have compiled this list:
v. 18b τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων (“suppress the truth in unrighteousness”): Adam received the law of God yet he did nothing to defend his wife Eve while she was being deceived by the serpent.
v. 19 διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς, ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν (“because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them”): Who personifies this reality better than Adam. While the Apostle is writing his condemnation of humanity in general in vv. 18-32 it should be noted that Adam is the paradigm. He was the only person who can really, really fit this description while rejecting God. Everyone else has very indirect interaction with God in contrast.
v. 2ob ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου (“since the creation of the world”): While it would appear that this indictment covers everyone (and I think it does) there is only one person who was around at the very beginning of the biblical narrative: Adam. No one else would have known the “power” and “deity” of God like him.
v. 21 διότι γνόντες τὸν θεὸν οὐχ ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ ηὐχαρίστησαν ἀλλὰ ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία (“For even though they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened”): Adam (and Eve) knew God as God. Yet they listened to a serpent instead. This is a denial of God as God. Their obedience toward the serpent was motivated by their desire for the one thing that God denied them: the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They ignored everything else that God had given them. There is no better way to describe this than that they were simply not thankful. This resulted in “futile thinking” and a “darkened heart”.
v. 22 φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν (“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools”): The serpent tricked them into seeing themselves as being able to know things like God knows things. They assumed that they were able to handle the knowledge of good and evil. They affirmed the serpent when he proposed that maybe God didn’t want them to be like him. In the end, they became fools.
v. 23 καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν (“and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human being and birds and beast and reptiles”): It is here we began to see the transition toward “Adam as humanity”. It appears to me that the “glory of the immortal God” is another way of describing what we would call the imago Dei or what Gen. 1.26 describes as the “image…and likeness” of God. In 2.7 those who seek “immortality” receive it. This seems to indicate that humans get to share in the “immortality” of God that they once forsook.
Likewise, these categories match the LXX in Gen. 1.20-27. We find the birds, the beast, the reptiles (or “creeping things”), and, of course, humanity. What Adam and Eve were created to rule it appears they worshiped according to the Apostle. It would seem that the best example of this was their obedience of the serpent rather than they “subduing” of creation (cf. Gen. 1.28). For Paul this obedience is reenacted whenever humans create idols worshiping the animals they were supposed to control in honor of the Creator (see v. 25b as well)
v. 25a οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει (“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie”): While the grammatic construct ἐν τῷ ψεύδει can mean “for a lie” because it is part of a prepositional phrase, it would seem to me that even if we use the indefinite article there is a particular “lie” in place. Another option would be that there is a general “error” into which all humans fall. Yet the flow of this whole passage makes me think that whether we say “the lie” or “a lie” this whole thing is informed by Gen. 3.4 where the serpent tells Adam and Eve that God was wrong and that their disobedience will not lead to death.
In v. 32 Paul clearly points out abouts the sins he just listed “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” Yes, the “righteous decree” is embodied in the Law (for the Jew, 2.12b) first and foremost, yet there is a “law” that has been embedded in the human psyche that holds all humans accountable (see 2.12a). Adam’s reception of God’s commandment in Eden is an good example of this.
Licona on the Resurrection (Pt. 5)
Licona, Michael R. (2010) The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. (Buy from IVPress.com here)
Read Pt. 1 here.
Read Pt. 2 here.
Read Pt. 3 here.
Read Pt. 4 here.
Now that we have just celebrated Easter (i.e. “Resurrection Sunday) it is time to continue the journey through Michael Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. In chapter three he introduces the sources he will be using for his investigation. Today we will focus upon those that eventually because official Christian literature (i.e. canonized). In our next post we will take a look at those sources that are not Christian, those that we considered to be fringe works (i.e. non-canonical), and some works from the era of the “apostolic fathers” (e.g. Clement, Polycarp).
In order to rate the value of each document as a solid source for historical resource Licona put together the following ratings: unlikely, possible-minus, possible, possible-plus, highly probable, indeterminate, and not useful (p. 201).
The investigation begins with the canonical gospels. Licona explores how scholarship has shifted from seeing them as sui generis (unique genre) to a subset of bioi (or ancient biographies/lives). Ig gospels are a form of bioi then it would seem the authors saw themselves as doing serious historical work. In other words the gospels are not hagiography that can be easily dismissed let alone mythos.
As Licona examines how the resurrection narrative relates to the Synoptic Problem as well as the Fourth Gospel he concludes that they are probable resources for accurate historical reconstruction. There are many valuable elements that lend themselves to solid historiography, but there are also obvious theological and literary arrangements. Also, although two gospels are claimed to be written by disciples of Jesus (Matthew and John) we have n0 way of verifying this. We can be sure of at least two gospels (Mark and Luke) that they are second-hand testimonies (pp. 201-208).
Licona ranks the Pauline Epistles as highly probable. I would agree. In fact, it is the letters of Paul and the “antedated” materials found especially in Paul’s writing that I find the most convincing as early, early sources for Christian belief. Other antedated sources like the hypothetical Q document (ranked unlikely) and the so-called “Pre-Markan” tradition (ranked possible) are not found to be very useful because there is not much in support of their existence (pp. 210-220)!
Oral formulas like Rom. 1.3b-4a (possible-plus); Lk. 23.33-34 (possible); and especially (!) 1 Cor. 15.3-8 (highly probable) are given the most weigh (pp. 220-235).
It has long been my conviction that the testimony of 1 Cor. 15.3-8 is the the most sound historical evidence for my belief in the resurrection. I have never been able to shake Paul’s own conversion. It is not like Joseph Smith who was seeking these types of mystical experiences or Muhammad. Paul hated Christians. He recalls a life in Pharisaic Judaism that wasn’t all that bad (e.g Phil. 3.1-11). I can’t see a motivation for converting other than that he really saw the resurrected Jesus.
The same can be said of James the Just whom the evangelist depict as not believing that his brother was the Messiah during his earthly ministry. Why did he change his mind when his brother was crucified? Why did the defeated disciples come to find new life in proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection? Why would Paul claim that five hundred people saw him at one time if he knew that this meant his readers could check these claims?
I know the objections, but they don’t make as much sense as the straightforward reality that these people had no motivation to invent a resurrection, yet they willingly died in proclaiming one. I am in agreement with Licona that these should be considered valuable historical pointers toward a real event in space-time history where God raised Jesus from the dead.
The Adam-Christ Juxtaposition in the Epistle to the Romans (Pt. 2)
Martin Luther
I mentioned almost a month ago that I would be writing a bit on the Adam-Christ juxtaposition as a main theme in the Epistle to the Romans (read my thoughts on 1.18-32 here). Obviously, I have not done this. I thank Martin Luther for prodding me to resume.
Last week I was reading his “Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans” (read here). As I came to the place where he begins to address the fifth chapter something Luther wrote stopped me. It is well known that he was a bit consumed with the Law-Grace antithesis in this epistle, but it seems like (to me) he missed the main points in favor of a supporting point.
As regards 5.12-21 he writes, “Next St. Paul makes a digression, a pleasant little side-trip, and relates where both sin and justice, death and life come from. He opposes these two: Adam and Christ. What he wants to say is that Christ, a second Adam, had to come in order to make us heirs of his justice through a new spiritual birth in faith, just as the old Adam made us heirs of sin through the old fleshy birth.”
A digression? I think not. No, the Adam-Christ juxtaposition is not a lapse in Paul’s train of thought. He does not suddenly mention Adam because he forgot his main subject and he had a sudden thought he wanted to relay in the meantime. This is the cord that holds the epistle together.
If in 1.18-32 we see the Apostle using language that sounds like it is about Adam to explain the sins of the human race then it should be no surprise to us that in 5.12-21 he unpacks this very idea. In 5.12 he makes two important points: (1) Sin entered the world through Adam (ancestral sin) and (2) it spreads because everyone sins.
In other words, we all are Adamic in part because we all act like Adam.
In 5.14 Paul makes sure everyone understands that it does not matter if one sinned “in the likeness of the sin of Adam” or not, the point is that they sinned like Adam did. It is not the “type” of sin, it is simply sin.
This is why it is interesting that we see humanity’s fall away from God as seemingly describing Adam in 1.18-23, yet in vv. 24-32 Paul runs off a long list of offenses common in the pagan, Gentile world.
So did Paul make “a digression” like Luther says? No, Luther just didn’t realize that what Paul said in black and white in 1.18-32 has now been colored by 5.12-21. Paul’s vague reference to humanity’s falling away in 1.18-22 is showed to be Adam and likewise the list of other sins in 1.23-32 is highlighted by Paul’s emphasis that it doesn’t matter if the sin was like Adam in how it was done, merely that it was sinning, like Adam.
Nuancing the “righteousness of God”
In his essay “The Theme of Romans” (from Karl P. Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate, 2nd Ed., 338) Peter Stuhlmacher makes this important observation that should factor into discussions on the oft debate phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (e.g. Rom. 1.17):
Even the expression “the righteousness of God,” which is so difficult for us to understand, need not have been unknown to those whom Paul addressed. Again and again in the Psalms, in (Deutero-) Isaiah, and in Israelite prayers of repentance God’s salvific righteousness is mentioned, and the concept of the “righteousness of God” is also used in the Gospels (cf. Matt. 6.33) and in James (cf. Jas. 1.20). This famous concept was in no way unintelligible. The question was only how Paul wanted to nuance it.
Stuhlmacher emphasizes that many of Paul’s early converts were from synagogues. They would have been familiar with Torah and the language of Torah. Therefore, as we wrestle with obscure sayings from Paul, we should ask if the concept can be found anywhere in Scripture.
Stuhlmacher doesn’t deny that we must discover how Paul nuanced the term “righteousness of God”, but neither should we feel like he made the statement in a vacuum.
The Adam-Christ Juxtaposition in the Epistle to the Romans (Pt. I)
Christ raising Adam
Over the next while I will be writing a bit on the Adam-Christ juxtaposition in the Epistle to the Romans. Most people are aware of the most obvious passage where it occurs in 5.12-21. It is hard to argue against consider both characters are named, but I propose that one cannot really grasp the argument here unless it is heard as an underlying motif from the beginning to the end of the letter. I propose that an awareness of this motif will assist the reader in understanding everything from the indictment against humanity in 1.18-32 to the obscure benediction in 16.20 where it says, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.”
Today let us examine 1.18-32 (see previous post referencing Morna Hooker here and James D.G. Dunn here). Paul has introduced himself as an apostle (royal herald) of Jesus, the prophesied Messiah of the lineage of King David, who has been enthroned by God through the Spirit by his resurrection from the dead (1.1-6). While we will not dwell on this, let it be observed that it is part of Jesus’ identity that he has permanently overcome death. As an royal herald the Apostle Paul writes to the church in Rome whom he has desired to visit for some time (1.7-13). He wants to go to Rome because he is obligated to proclaim his gospel to everyone (1.14-15).
Paul is not ashamed to proclaim this gospel because it is the power of God unto salvation. Paul tells us that those who believe and remain faithful will live (again, it is here for the second time we have an obvious emphasis on life with the first being Christ’s resurrection). It is here that Paul introduces his solution, but we have yet to hear about the problem.
We have seen Christ introduced early, now we meet Adam indirectly.
In 1.18-25 the Apostle begins to describe those upon whom God’s wrath will come. They are the opposite of those who will “live by faith”. In fact, once Paul is done describing them he says they are “worthy of death” (1.32).
Oddly enough, when he begins describing those “destined for wrath” (to borrow a phrase he will use later in the epistle) it seems like he is retelling the story of Adam. It is here that I will duplicate the words of Morna Hooker because she says it better than I (From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul, 77-78):
“…the sequence of events outlined in Rom. 1 reminds us of the story of Adam as it is told in Gen. 1-3. Of Adam it is supremely true that God manifest to him that which can be known of him (v. 19); that from the creation onwards, God’s attributes were clearly discernible to him in the things which had been made, and that he was thus without excuse (v. 20). Adam, above and before all men, knew and allowed his heart to be darkened (v. 20). Adam’s fall was the result of his desire to be as God, to attain knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3.5), so that, claiming to be wise, he in fact became a fool (v. 21). Thus he not only failed to give glory to God but, according to rabbinic tradition, himself lost the glory of God which was reflected on his face (v. 23). In believing the serpent’s lie that his action would not lead to death (Gen. 3.4) he turned his back on the truth of God, and he obeyed, and thus gave his allegiance to a creature, the serpent, rather than to the creator (v. 25).”
As I have argued previously it seems that “the lie” (τῷ ψεύδει) could very well be that of the serpent (Ray Aguilar pointed out that the definite article within a prepositional phrase does not demand it be definite, but as James Tucker noted there still may be something to it) as Hooker notes. This does not seem to be dependent upon the article though, but rather whether or not 5.12-21 unfolds these themes and whether or not one finds Hooker’s argument convincing that Adam should be read here.
Also, as I mentioned previously, “the statement φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν derives its creational-categories from the LXX of Gen. 1.20-27 where humans are placed in relation to the created order. So not only does Paul see humanity as reenacting Adam’s failure to subdue creation when he obeyed the voice of the serpent, but he sees all humans as following Adam into what is essentially the root of idolatry—forsaking the glory of God in order to worship the creation instead. For Adam this took place when he obeyed the serpent; for Adam’s descendents it takes place when we make idols out of created things.”
Two books to read for those who want to understand the Apostle Paul
As I have studied the Apostle Paul over the last few years there are two books that I think everyone must read to understand his gospel and mission:
(1) The Book of Genesis
(2) The Book of Isaiah
You’re welcome.
The Law of Sin and Death (Romans 8.2)
Christ, the resurrection
As you may be aware the thesis that I am writing is titled “Creation Waits: The Pauline Interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Epistle to the Romans with Emphasis on 8.1-25″. I may be finding what I am seeking simply because I seek to find it, but I am more and more convinced that much of the language used by the Apostle in this epistle is shaped by his interaction with Genesis-motifs (I would add the Book of Isaiah as well). For a long time I had read the reference to “the law of sin and death” (τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου) in Rom. 8.2 to be in the context of the Law of Moses which is mentioned throughout the epistle as well. Now I think this statement has Gen. 2.17 in mind.
Is the “law of sin and death” a reference to the Law of Moses? Maybe in some sense, but it would be indirect. I think there is a better contender. In Gen. 2.17 we have God announcing that if humans disobey his commandments “you will certainly die”. This cause-and-effect has been established since the Garden of Eden.
In this epistle we have a very obvious Adam-Christ contrast in 5. 12-21, but I postulate that it can be found through the entire epistle beginning with the underlying Adamic themes in 1.18-23 (read this passage with Gen. 1.20-27 and 3.4 in mind) and ending with the cryptic echo of Gen. 3.15 in Rom. 16.20a where it is written, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet”.
In the seventh chapter we see the Apostle merging a personification of Adam/Eve with the negative impact of the Law of Moses upon sinful humans. So when we get to 8.2 we may see the Law as playing into this, but not as the primary referent. No, rather the Apostle has Eden in mind.
The nomos of sin and death is that sin results in death. There is only one “law” that can override this: “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus”. Why? It is resurrection that overrides death. Christ’s atoning work has made it so that when the curse of Gen. 2.17 is enacted death cannot keep us down. The same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead dwells in believers (even now, in this age) so it is not possible for us to remain dead, like it was not possible to Christ to remain dead (8.11).
The Adamic cry that all humans share—”Wretched person that I am! Who will set me free from this body of death?” (7.24)—is answered by the promise that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (8.1)
Even here in 8.2 the contrast between Adam and Christ is seen. Adam’s sin initiated the “law of sin and death”. Christ’s obedience initiates “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus”. For a broader commentary by the Apostle on this subject that seems to go well with what I am saying here read 1 Cor. 15.45-49.
Resources? Pauline statements on human slavery
I am searching for resources on the various statements about slavery in the Pauline corpus. I will note that part of my emphasis is on the immediate context in which these statements were written, but also the early reception history (i.e. no later than Augustine)., though I am open to pieces that deal with theological-canonical implications as well. Thus far I have been made aware of the following:
S.S. Barchy, First Century Slavery in 1 Corinthians 7:21
Peter Garnsey, Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine (Amazon.com)
Jennifer A. Glancey, Slavery in Early Christianity (Amazon.com)
J.A. Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament
I came across a paper/blog series by Cynthia R. Nielsen titled “Paul and Slavery: Submit, Subvert, or Something in Between” (here, here, here, and here). If anyone knows of any other great web based articles on the subject those are welcomed as well.
Finally, if you know of biblical commentaries that do a good job on this subject let me know.
Timothy G. Gombis Against Triumphalism
The Drama of Ephesians by Timothy G. Gombis
In his brilliant (!) book titled The Drama of Ephesians author Timothy G. Gombis writes about how God used the preaching of the Apostle Paul from a prison cell to confound the powers. In Roman society it would seem that the gods had been victorious over the Lord Jesus Christ since his apostolic herald was sitting in jail, but this is exactly how God works. From such a position the gospel rings forth, creating the church, boggling the mind of evil powers.
Gombis notes how evangelicals tend to avoid this method. We do not want to preach Christ from a place of humility in order to see the power of God at work. Rather, we often play by societies rules of power and prestige. Gombis writes this rebuke (p. 119):
“Evangelical culture, at least in the United States, is almost completely beholden to triumphalism—the notion that God is magnified through human power, prestige, political influence and outward success. We love it when we see our leaders sitting with presidential candidates talking earnestly over policy and international relations. We do not recognize, however, that often we are being played: candidates are merely looking to gather support from a potentially huge pool of votes. If it takes mentioning God here and there and talking about family values, then candidates will do that while posing for pictures with the evangelical leader of the moment. Is this too cynical? In my view, it may not be cynical enough! I would have thought that we had learned our lesson by now. Billy Graham realized decades ago that he was being used as a prop to earn favor with evangelicals and vowed not to be used in such a way again. It seems that every year or so we are embarrassed by another evangelical leader, ambitious to gain political powers, compromised in the process. The temptation is great to matter in a wider culture that seems out of control. But if we pay attention to how Paul plays his role in God’s triumph, we would not be hunting for political power or social prestige.”
I couldn’t have said it better! God, let us remember your gospel is powerful in our weakness. Sadly, we often weaken it in our craving for power.
The Conversion or the Calling of the Apostle Paul?
Converted or Called?
In Acts 9.1-31 (cf. 22.1-21) we read of the event traditionally known as the “conversion” of Saul of Tarsus to the Apostle Paul. Saul was on his way to capture Christians in the northern city of Damascus. Damascus was not very close to Jerusalem so we may suppose that he saw it as being a strategic location for this new sect to spread their apostasy. Whatever the case may be he seems to have traveled quite a ways before the bright light shown upon him from heaven knocking him to the ground. When he asked who the “Lord” was that was addressing him (τίς εἶ κύριε) it was revealed to him that it was Jesus, who he was persecuting.
But was this a “conversion” so much as a “calling”? This has been a question asked by many. Did Paul see himself as participating in something radically different from the Judaism that he knew before meeting Christ? Or did he see himself as part of the same Judaism, but as one who now knew the Messiah?
I think this question shapes how we read Paul’s epistles. If we see a radical break then we see this as a conversion. If we do not see it as a radical break, but rather, like the prophets of old, a calling first to the Jews then to the Gentiles, this will lead us to read Paul differently.
What do you say? On the road to Damascus was Paul converted to something new or called to something new?
A Pauline Millennium?
Last week I was asked what I thought of the doctrine of the millennium. I had to answer honestly, “I don’t know.” I explained that I see it mentioned in the Book of Revelation and it seems to lead toward the new heavens and the new earth. But I struggle with the vision of the Hebrew prophets who see a time when the earth will be ruled by God and how the Apostle Paul seems to see this as beginning with the eschaton, i.e. Rom. 8.18-23 and 1 Thess. 4.13-18.
It was pointed out to me that it may be that Paul saw a time when a millennium is in view as well as an ending (similar to Rev. 21). The passage would be 1 Cor. 15.26-28 which read,
“The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”
What do you think? Does Paul see an era post-Messianic Kingdom indicating he does believe in some sort of “millennium”? If so, what is his vision of the Messianic Kingdom and what does he see as coming when God is made “all in all”?
The Gospel According to the Apostle Paul
What did Paul's gospel proclaim?
What is the gospel?
This is a popular discussion topic these days. Most people are aware of the group known as The Gospel Coalition that organized around a common desire to better understand the gospel (it is worth stating it is very debatable whether or not this has been successful since when many think of this group other, secondary matters seem more defining than the gospel itself). At the seminary where I study (Western Seminary in Portland, OR) the motto is “Gospel-Centered Transformation” and I can attest to the reality that the professors do ask how their various subjects relate to the gospel, its proclamation, and its mission in the world. A flurry of books on the subject have been published in recent years as well as many articles.
I confess that I spend most of my study time reading the Apostle Paul. It is my niche. It is his writings where I see the story of Israel unfold from a post-resurrection perspective in relation to the real life of some of the earliest Christian communities. So when I ask myself what I mean when I say that I am trying to better understand the gospel this means, in part, that I am asking what the great Apostle meant by the gospel.
This is not to say the rest of the canon doesn’t contribute. It does have much to say and I know that this discussion must be made with an eye toward catholicity. That being said, I want to talk about the Pauline gospel in this post.
First, I think most students of Paul would say we ought to begin with 1. Cor. 15.1-8, which he wrote just prior to addressing the Corinthian’s misunderstanding of the resurrection:
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (NIV)
As we see it is the gospel from the beginning to the end for Paul. This gospel is defined here in relation to the error that Paul addresses, so we should not say it is his final summary on the matter, but merely the central aspect that he wishes to highlight in relation to doubts regarding the resurrection of the dead.
In his gospel we see that it is “according to the Scriptures”, sometime he says elsewhere in relation to this subject. It is about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. It includes the fact that Jesus was seen post-resurrection by central figures in the early church and Paul includes himself as one of those people.
At the beginning of his letter to Rome (Rom. 1.1-7) he notes similar points of contact: (1) Paul’s apostleship is about announcing the “gospel of God”; (2) it is derived from the Scriptures; (3) it builds on Jesus being a Davidic descendant; (4) it proclaims his enthronement as occurring by the Holy Spirit at the resurrection; (5) this marks Jesus as Lord.
In Rom. 1.16-21 we note that Paul understands this message as being either one of salvation from the judgment of God for those who live by faithfulness in Christ or it is a message of judgment for those who continue to suppress the truth of God in their wicked state. Throughout this epistle there is a continual division between those who remain in rebellion against God in their Adamic state and those who proclaim their allegiance to Christ (Rom. 10.9-10). Those who pledge allegiance to Christ receive the Holy Spirit which resurrects the dead into the age to come where they will be adopted children of God reigning in the new, redeemed Creation (Rom. 8.1-25; cf. Eph 1.11-2.10).
In his letter to Rome he intended on realigning the paradigm that had caused division in that church. It was split between Jews and Gentiles. For Paul this is not how humanity is divided. One is either in the sphere of Adam or the sphere of Christ. Since this is so, we must note that part of Paul’s gospel proclamation included that there would be a new people that included the remnant of faithful Israel as well as Gentile converts. This is what Paul writes in Gal. 3.8:
“Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” (NIV)
For those who choose to remain identified with Adam there is nothing but judgment as the aforementioned Rom. 1.16-21 notes as well as 2 Cor. 2.12-17 where Paul sees his apostolic announcement as an aroma of life to those who are saved and one of death to those who are perishing.
This whole approach by Paul frames the gospel as (1) the message of God to the world (2) about his Son, Jesus the Messiah (who is part of the Davidic line and who was foreseen by the prophets) who (3) has been enthroned by the Holy Spirit at the resurrection into the heavenlies.
(4) As the King he has demanded allegiance (read Ps. 2 for such context) and Paul, an apostle, functions as a royal herald. (5) Those who believe will confess Jesus as Lord declaring their allegiance to God’s Messiah. This will result in resurrection life by the Holy Spirit. (6) Those who continue to rebel remain part of the Adamic sphere whose end is eternal death.
(7) A new people have formed around Christ. This ends the division between Jews and Gentiles who have declared allegiance to Christ (see also Eph. 2.11-3.13). As we see in Rom. 9-11 this results in the people of God being centered on Christ which includes a Jewish remnant and Gentile converts.
(8) According to 1 Thess. 4.13-18 both the dead and living followers of Messiah will be resurrected to welcome Christ to reign on earth when the Father decides that Christ’s inauguration is not enough and it is time he rule the earth (again, see Rom. 8.18-25 and 1 Cor. 15.24-28 where death is the last enemy).
What would you add to this description? What would you say is missing that ought to be given more attention? I could not give all the details to this broad outline, e.g. the Abrahamic promise to be a blessing to the whole world. Do you think some assumed details need to be given more prominence for this to make sense?
