Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
THE
THEOLOGY OF PAUL
BY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIANS
WHO ARE BRINGING APOLOGETICS ON
STONE TABLETS DOWN FROM
MOUNT OLYMPUS TO MOUNT RUSHMORE
Edited by jeffperado
BNOresearch Press
Advanced Information
The term is used to describe the type of theology which looks
to Paul, rather than to other NT authors, for its chief
inspiration. The Reformation was essentially a revival of
Paulinism, for the distinctive Pauline doctrine of
justification by faith was and has remained for all
Protestant churches "the article of faith by which the
Church stands or falls" (Luther). In broader terms, however,
the whole Western church may be regarded as "Pauline," over
against the Orthodox churches of the East, which look rather to
John for the NT foundation of their theology. Here Augustine's
influence has meant that the Western churches, Catholic and
Protestant alike, are partners in a theological tradition which
values legal categories of thought and metaphors as the most
fruitful way of talking about the relationship between God and
the world, and which therefore regards justification as the
central soteriological issue, even if Catholic and Protestant
interpret Paul's teaching differently.
Lutheran theologians have generally been conscious of the
priority they give to Paul, but recently three factors have
contributed to a growing feeling that this exaltation is
questionable. Ecclesiastically, the ecumenical movement has
made Western theologians more aware of the Eastern
theological tradition with its very different approach to
justification and Pauline theology generally. Theologically, the
awareness has grown that religious language can only hint and
suggest, never describe, so that perhaps legal language is only
one of several possible metaphor groups that may validly be
used to talk about God and the world. And in NT scholarship a
sharper awareness of the parallel but distinct historical
development of the different theological streams within the NT
(Pauline, Johannine, Synoptic, etc,) has led to a desire to
interpret each within its own terms and not to seek out a
"canon within the canon" on the basis of which the rest of the
Bible can be interpreted. Ecumenical conversations are
therefore found to be mirrored within the NT itself, so that the
issue of diversity and unity in the NT has tremendous modern
relevance.
Several approaches to this problem are available today. The
traditional Lutheran - Protestant solution is still well
represented: it distinguishes an original, pure, Pauline gospel
from "Early Catholicism," a term used to describe the earliest
movements, traceable in the NT itself, toward a Catholic
emphasis on the sacraments, ordered ministry, and an ethical
Christianity (regarded as a degeneration from the truth). Some
scholars even find this degeneration in Paul himself, and so
locate pure Paulinism only in the earliest epistles. Another
approach identifies a common denominator between Paul and
the other NT authors and questions the possibility of finding
theological harmony outside this center. For Dunn, the NT
authors agree in identifying Jesus of Nazareth with the risen
and exalted Christ, but beyond that show very substantial
diversity of thought, so that Paulinism is simply one version of
Christianity, inevitably existing in tension with other versions.
Recently a third approach has appeared, associated
particularly with the German scholars Martin Hengel and Peter
Stuhlmacher, which asserts a substantial unity between the
main NT streams by finding in them the same central
theological ideas differently expressed and applied. The heart
of Pauline as of Johannine theology is thus the proclamation of
Jesus as the messianic Reconciler who dies a sacrificial death
for the people of God.
NT scholarship is in a considerable state of flux, matching
that in the parallel area of ecumenism. Whatever the outcome,
we must affirm that those for whom, like Luther, the Epistle to
the Romans contains "the purest gospel" have not misplaced
their faith.
S Motyer
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
Bibliography
J D G Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the NT; E Kasemann, "The
Problem of a NT Theology," NTS 19; J W Drane, "Tradition, Law
and Ethics in Pauline Theology," NovT 16; M Hengel, The
Atonement.
Saul of Tarsus
Jewish Viewpoint
Information
BELIEVE
Religious
Information
Source
web-site BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By
Alphabet Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects E-mail The
individual articles presented here were generally first published in
the early 1980s. This subject presentation was first placed on the
Internet in May 1997. This page - - Paulinism - - is at http://mb-
soft.com/believe/txc/paulinis.htm This subject presentation was last
updated on - - 08/18/2016 08:47:21
Copyright Information
Send an e-mail question or comment to us: E-mail
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet
http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html
Did Paul Change His Mind? -
An Examination of Some
Aspects of Pauline Eschatology
by Paul Woodbridge
Dr Paul Woodbridge is Academic Dean at Oak Hill
Theological College, London, and is tutor in New Testament.
Themelios 28.3 (Summer 2003): 5-18.
[Reproduced by permission of the author]
This article was one of a series of lectures, given at the
Tyndale Fellowship Associates Conference at Tyndale
House, Cambridge in June 2002.
Conclusion
It has been argued that the method of solution which
provides the most satisfactory way of resolving the three
alleged inconsistencies that we have examined is an alternative
exegesis of appropriate passages, and the conclusions we have
reached provide us with a coherent picture of Paul's
eschatological thinking on these matters. Thus in arguing that
for Paul the parousia was always imminent, that he looked
upon death as a possibility at all stages of his Christian life, not
just from the time immediately before he wrote 2 Corinthians
(although it seems that he considered death for himself more
probable as time went on), it was natural for Paul also to
consider the state of the believer between death and the
parousia (which, we argue, he thought to be one of disembodied
conscious fellowship with Christ), and the events which would
take place at Christ's return (including the receiving by
believers of the spiritual body), although one should also bear
in mind that it was often the questions of, and the difficulties
facing the Christians Paul wrote to, that have resulted in us
having his views on these matters.
Thus we submit that the three alleged inconsistencies which
we have considered are more apparent than real, and given an
appropriate exegesis of the relevant passages, a
[p.18]
basic coherence and consistency in Paul's writings on these
matters is to be seen. In addressing altered situations in his
own life and in the life of his churches (especially the
Corinthian Church), Paul may use new imagery and apply
further reflection, and particular situations may have evoked
particular emphases in his teachings, but he does not go back
on anything he has asserted in previous epistles. Paul's basic
eschatological framework, which posits the dual possibility of
the believer's death or the prior return of Christ, remains
constant.[22]
References
[1] C.L. Mearns, 'Early Eschatological Development in Paul: the
Evidence of I and II Thessalonians', New Testament Studies 27,
1981, 154. On the issue of development in Paul's eschatology
and various approaches, see especially L.J. Kreitzer,
'Eschatology', in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, eds. G.E.
Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid, lVP, Illinois/Leicester,
1993, 260-61.
[2] C.H. Dodd, 'The Mind of Paul: I; and 'The Mind of Paul: II'
in New Testament Studies (Manchester: University Press, 1953),
67-82 and 83-128. Kreitzer comments that 'one cannot
overestimate the seminal work by C.H. Dodd in this area', Li.
Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Paul's Eschatology (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1987), 250, n. 22.
[3] See M.J. Harris, '2 Corinthians 5:1-10: Watershed in Paul's
Eschatology?', Tyndale Bulletin 22, 1971, 56f.; FF. Bruce, Paul:
Apostle of the Free Spirit, (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1977), 295,
300, 310.
[4] See on these points, among others, R. Berry, 'Death and
Life in Christ' Scottish Journal of Theology 14, 1961, 60f.; W.G.
Kummel, The Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1974),
239; B.E. Meyer, 'Did Paul's View of the Resurrection of the
Dead undergo Development?', Theological Studies 47, 1986, 384ff.;
D.E. Garland, 2 Corinthians (Nashville: Broadman and Holman,
1999) 254f.
[5] Compare C.E.B. Cranfield, 'Thoughts on New Testament
Eschatology', Scottish Journal of Theology 35, 1982, 506: 'it seems
to me perfectly possible to take the "we" to mean "We
Christians" (in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 - "those of us (Christians)
who are alive, who are left")'; l.H. Marshall, 1 &2 Thessalonians
(London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1983), 127: 'Here in the
present passage (1 Thessalonians 4:15) there is really no
difficulty in taking his words to mean "those of us who are
alive". (We may well ask how Paul could have said, "those of us
who are living then" shortly and succinctly without using the
actual wording employed here)'.
[6] See H. Ridderbos, Paul - an Outline of his Theology (London:
SPCK, 1977, 492. Ridderbos notes another example of this type
of facultative sense in Romans 15:1.
[7] C.K. Barrett, 'New Testament Eschatology', Scottish Journal
of Theology 6, 1953, 143 n 2.
[8] See on this topic, G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Eerdmans:
Grand Rapids, 1961, 142-44; R.E. Bailey, 'Is "Sleep" the Proper
Biblical Term for the Intermediate State?', Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 55, 1964, 162ff.; D.E.H. Whiteley,
The Theology of St Paul (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974), 262-69.
[9] See on these points, C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians (London: A. & C. Black, (1971), 275; E. Best, A
Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians
(London: A. & C. Black, 1977), 185; D.E.H. Whiteley, Theology,
268f.
[10] See for these points (and the quotations), M.J. Harris, '2
Corinthians 5:1-10: Watershed in Paul's Eschatology?', Tyndale
Bulletin 22, 1971, 4Sf. See also M.J. Harris, 'Paul's View of Death
in 2 Corinthians 5:1-10' in R.N. Longenecker & M.C. Tenney
(eds.), New Dimensions in NT Studies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1974), 324 and Harris' Raised Immortal the relation between
resurrection and immortality in New Testament teaching (London:
Marshall. Morgan and Scott, 1983), 136f.
[11] On these points, see H. Ridderbos, Paul, 498ff.; F.F. Bruce,
Free Spirit, 311ff; A.T Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 104; M.J. Harris,
Immortal, 134.
[12] On these points, see M.J. Harris, 'Watershed', 39f.; R.
Gundry, 'Soma' in Biblical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1976), 150; J. Osei-Bonsu, 'Does 2 Corinthians
5:1-10 teach the reception of the resurrection body at the
moment of death?', Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28,
1986, 97, n. 24; P. Barnett, 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1997), 259f.
[13] See on this, J. Osei-Bonsu, '2 Corinthians 5:1-10', 82f.
[14] See for this interpretation, among others, G. Vos, Pauline
Eschatology, 188; H. Ridderbos, Paul, 501; C.K. Barrett, The Second
Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: A. & C. Black, 1973), 151;
R. Gundry, Soma, 150f.; A.T. Lincoln, Paradise, 63f.; R.P. Martin, 2
Corinthians (Waco: Word, 1986), 104.
[15] See on this, F.F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Corinthians (London: Marshall,
Morgan and Scott, 1971), 202ff.; C.K. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 152f.;
R.H. Gundry, Soma, 152; A.T. Lincoln, Paradise, 66; P. Barnett, 2
Corinthians, 259f.; D.E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, 258.
[16] See C.K. Barrett 2 Corinthians, 256; A.T. Lincoln, Paradise,
66.
[17] On these points, see C.K. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 156; A.T.
Lincoln, Paradise, 67; R.P Martin, 2 Corinthians, 106ff.; B.E. Meyer,
'Paul's View of the Resurrection', 380ff.; I. Osei-Bonsu, '2
Corinthians 5:1-10', 91; P. Barnett, 2 Corinthians, 264f.
[18] On this line of interpretation, see, among others, R.P.
Martin, 2 Corinthians, 109ff.; V. Furnish, 2 Corinthians (Garden
City: Doubleday, 1984), 301ff.; P. Barnett, 2 Corinthians, 268ff.;
D.E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, 264f.
[19] See on these points, R. Berry, 'Death and Life in Christ',
Scottish Journal of Theology 14, 1961, 67; A.T. Lincoln, Paradise,
69f.; R.H. Gundry, Soma, 152. Compare also G.E. Ladd, The Pattern
of New Testament Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 106f.
[20] See further on this, M.J. Harris, Raised Immortal, 255 n. 4.
Note also the comments of W.L. Craig, 'The Bodily Resurrection
of Jesus', in Gospel Perspectives - Studies of History and Tradition in
the Four Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT, 1983), 62ff.
[21] For detailed treatment of 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, see
especially R. Berry, 'Death and Life', 60-76; A.T, Lincoln,
Paradise, 59-71; J. Osei-Bonsu, '2 Corinthians 5:1-10', 81-101; R.
Gundry, Soma, 146-54; P. Barnett, 2 Corinthians, 255ff.; D.E.
Garland, 2 Corinthians, 253ff.; M.E. Thrall, 2 Corinthians I
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 357ff. See also W.L. Craig,
'Paul's Dilemma in 2 Corinthians 5:1-10: a "Catch-22 "?', New
Testament Studies 34, 1988, 145-47, where he argues that Paul
was in a sort of 'Catch-22' situation, and the appearance of
inconsistency 'arises out of the paradoxical situation in which
Paul was placed and the Catch-22 decision with which he was
confronted.
[22] On these and other aspects of Pauline eschatology, see W.
Baird, 'Pauline Eschatology in Hermeneutical Perspective', New
Testament Studies 17, 1971, 314-27; A.C. Perriman, 'Paul and the
Parousia: 1 Corinthians 15:50-57 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-10', New
Testament Studies 35, 1989, 512-21; B. Witherington, Jesus, Paul
and the End of the World (Exeter: Paternoster 1992), 152-231. See
also the detailed bibliography in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters,
268-69.
The Paulinism of Acts Again:
Two Historical Clues in I
Thessalonians
by David Wenham
Themelios 13.2 (Jan./Feb. 1988): 53-55.
[Reproduced by permission of the author]
Introduction
Few books of the NT are so important as the book of Acts for
the question of the historical reliability of the NT, and few
books are so controversial. Many scholars have seen Acts as
offering the most objective and concrete evidence for the
historical competence of one of the evangelists; others have
seen Acts as a thoroughly theological book which is of doubtful
historical value.
Scholars arguing in favour of the first view have noted,
among other things, the remarkable accuracy of Acts on points
of historical and geographical detail, e.g. over the names of the
officials of the different cities mentioned (e.g. the 'strategoi' of
Philippi in Acts 16:20; the 'politarchs' of Thessalonica in 17:6;
the 'grammateus' of Ephesus in 19:35; the 'protos' of Malta in
28:7). They have seen this as confirmation of the seriousness of
Luke's claim in the prologue of his gospel to be writing an
accurate account on the basis of eyewitness testimony (1:1-4)
and of his implicit claim in the 'we' passages of Acts to have
been a companion of Paul, closely in touch with eyewitness
tradition (cf Acts 16: 10ff.).
William Ramsay (1851-1939), who was one of the foremost
experts on ancient Asia Minor in his day, was one of the best
known advocates of this first view: he started out with a
sceptical opinion of Acts as a theological and historically
imaginative work of late date (a view resembling that of some
modern redaction critics), but he ended up convinced of Luke's
stature as a historian of the first rank.[1] A modern scholar in
the same general tradition is F. F. Bruce, who concludes a major
recent survey on 'The Acts of the Apostles: Historical Record or
Theological Reconstruction?' as follows: 'A writer may be at one
and the same time a sound historian and a capable theologian.
The author of Acts was both. The quality of his history naturally
varied according to the availability and trustworthiness of his
sources, but being a good theologian as well as a good historian,
he did not allow his theology to distort his history.'[2]
Scholars arguing in favour of the more sceptical view of
Luke's writings have noted particular historical difficulties,
such as the supposedly anachronistic references to Quirinius in
Luke 2:2 and to Theudas in Acts 5:36. They have also detected
significant discrepancies between the account given of Paul in
Acts and what we know of the apostle from his own writings.
For example, it is argued that there are historical
contradictions between Paul's own account of his conversion
and the events following it in Galatians 1 and 2 and Luke's
account in Acts 9-15; also that the Lukan portrait of Paul as a
moderate man open to compromise, for example in Acts 21, is
quite unlike the radical apostle of freedom whom we meet in,
for example, Galatians.
Such arguments have not gone uncontested. For example, on
the question of Paul's radicalism it is observed that in his
epistles Paul can be conciliatory and flexible, and that the Paul
of Acts 21 is not very different from the Paul of 1 Corinthians
9:19-23 (though this is not to deny that Luke may have
emphasized some aspects of Paul's theology and ministry more
than others). On the questions of chronology, the difficulties
are admitted, and yet, it is argued, they are much less
formidable than they at first appear, when the limitations of
our historical knowledge, the fallibility of Josephus (whose
testimony is sometimes at variance with Luke's) and the
differing purposes of Acts and Paul's epistles are borne in mind.
Also, there are satisfactory explanations of some of the
difficulties: for example, if Paul's visit to Jerusalem in Galatians
2 is identified with the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30, not
with the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15, this eliminates
one group of historical problems.[3]
However, the purpose of this article is not to tackle the
question of the Paulinism of Acts in general, but simply to make
a few observations about two possibly relevant texts in 1
Thessalonians. I have argued elsewhere that 1 Thessalonians
throws a lot of light on the history of gospel traditions, notably
on the traditions of Jesus' eschatological teaching, since Paul
presupposes and echoes those traditions.[4] I wish now to
suggest also that the epistle throws some interesting light on
the book of Acts.
References
[1] On Ramsay and on the history of Acts studies see W. W.
Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles
(Tübingen/Grand Rapids: Mohr/Eerdmans, 1975).
[2] This very valuable article is in Aufstieg und Niedergang der
Römischen Welt, eds. H. Temporini and W. Haase (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1985), vol. 11.25.3, pp. 2578-2603.
[3] On this see, for example, Colin Hemer's article 'Acts and
Galatians reconsidered', Themelios 2:3 (1977), pp. 81-88.
Compare also his 'Luke the Historian' in BJRL 60 (1977), pp. 28-
51. Before his recent death, Dr Hemer read and kindly
commented on this paper; I gratefully acknowledge his help on
this and many previous occasions. On the Quirinius and
Theudas questions see, for example, I. H. Marshall, Luke (Exeter:
Paternoster, 1978), pp. 99-104, and Acts (Leicester: IVP, 1980),
pp. 122-123.
[4] See my Rediscovery of Jesus' Eschatological Discourse
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1984). I did not there point out another
historical question which may be clarified by the evidence of 1
Thessalonians, namely the question of the authenticity of 2
Thessalonians. It is often argued that 2 Thessalonians expresses
a different eschatological understanding from 1 Thessalonians.
If, however, it can be shown that both 1 and 2 Thessalonians are
drawing on the same corpus of dominical teaching (as I argue in
Rediscovery), and that the supposedly divergent theological
perspectives derive from that underlying tradition, then the
negative case against Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians is
weakened and the positive case for common authorship of the
two epistles is strengthened.
[5] Cf L. Cerfaux, Christ in the Theology of St Paul (New
York/Edinburgh and London: Herder/Nelson, 1959), pp. 15ff.
[6] Cf U. Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte
(Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1963:2), pp. 81-88. It may be noted
that the Lystra speech of Acts 13 does not resemble 1 Thes. 1:9-
10 as closely as the Areopagus speech.
[7] In G. Lüdemann's radical reconstruction of the chronology
of Paul's ministry, put forward in his Paul, Apostle of the Gentiles
(London: SCM, 1984), Paul's foundation of the churches in
Greece is dated before AD 40. My particular argument about the
Areopagus speech works just as well given Lüdemann's
chronology as on the traditional chronology. But Lüdemann's
relatively negative assessment of the historicity of Acts is called
into question by the sort of observations noted in this article.
For criticisms of Lüdemann's reconstruction see F. F. Bruce,
'Chronological Questions in the Acts of the Apostles', BJRL 68
(1986), pp. 273-295.
[8] We must, of course, take seriously Paul's statements in 1
Corinthians about the centrality of the cross in his gospel. Some
scholars have explained the absence of reference to the cross in
the Areopagus sermon through the hypothesis that Paul had a
major change of policy when he came to Corinth. But this
hypothesis is unnecessary (and improbable): in the first place, it
is a silly reading of Paul's words in I Cor. 2:2 to take them to
mean that he preached about the cross and nothing else - 1
Corinthians itself shows that the resurrection was an important
part of his gospel; see l5:lff. - or even that the cross was always
the most prominent (as opposed to the most fundamental)
element in his sermons. In the second place, it is a silly reading
of Acts 17 to suppose that Luke intends this as a complete
transcript of Paul's sermon, rather than a selective summary of
important points. The climactic point of the sermon is the
resurrection, and it is not unlikely that Luke presupposes that
the preaching of the resurrection included explanation of the
death of the one who rose. In any case the point remains that
Paul too - in 1 Thessalonians - can summarize his evangelism at
this time in a similar way to Luke, without specific mention of
the cross.
[9] E.g. E. Haenchen, Acts (Oxford: Blackwells, 1971), p. 437.
[10] C. K. Barrett, I Corinthians (London: Black, 19712), speaks
of 'helps and administrations' possibly foreshadowing the
ministry of deacons and bishops (pp. 295, 296).
[11] We note also the evidence of Phil. 1:1 as showing that yet
another church founded on the same missionary journey by
Paul had officially appointed leaders, 'bishops and deacons'.
The accumulation of evidence noted makes it clear that the sort
of church order presupposed in the Pastoral Epistles is not as
obviously unPauline as is often suggested. On the passages in 1
Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians, and generally on the structure
of ministry in the Pauline churches, see E. E. Ellis, Prophecy and
Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Tübingen/Grand Rapids:
Mohr/Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 1-22.
Paul And The Historical Jesus:
A Case Study In First
Corinthians
By Stephen J. Bedard
Meaford, ON
McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 7 (2006) 9-22
Introduction
How well did the Apostle Paul know the earthly life of
Jesus of Naz- areth? Did Paul know anything of the life
and ministry of Jesus or was he only interested in the
theological implications of the crucifixion and
resurrection? These questions have divided New
Testament scholars for many years. The classic contrast
is that of W.D. Davies who argued that “Paul is steeped
in the mind and words of his Lord”1 and R. Bult- mann
who claimed that “the teaching of the historical Jesus
plays no role, or practically none, in Paul”.2 This debate
has expanded beyond the disputes of the academic
world, as seen by the recent claim of one former New
Testament professor writing for a popular audience:
1
9
6
7
)
,
p
.
1
4
0
.
2. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York:
Scribner, 1951), vol. I, p. 35.
3. Tom Harpur, Pagan Christ (Toronto: Thomas Allen, 2004),
pp. 166-67.
p
.
1
6
3
.
9. Gordon D. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 292-93.
10. Nikolaus Walter, “Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-
Tradition,” in A.J.M. Wedderburn (ed.), Paul and Jesus
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), p. 69.
text and its situation, although it is closely dependent on
the instructions of the Lord received in the tradition.”11
Although Paul considers his teaching to be
authoritative, even when not quoting Jesus, it is clear
that he sees Jesus’ authority as higher than his own.
When Paul speaks on his own authority, he “speaks,”
not “commands.”12 F.W. Grosheide worded it this way:
“The apostle may recommend, the Saviour
commands.”13 While, most likely Paul saw his teaching
as more than recommendations, his regret at not having
a word of the Lord in 1 Cor. 7:12 demonstrates his
esteem for Jesus’ teaching: “It is not Paul’s practice to
quote dominical sayings, but he evidently takes Jesus’
instruction…as absolutely binding on the church.”14 In
contrast to this, J. Murphy-O’Connor sees Paul’s
apparent allowance for divorce in 1 Cor. 7:15 as
questioning Jesus’ absolute authority: “We are forced to
the conclusion that Paul considered Jesus’ prohibition of
divorce, not as a binding precept, but as a significant
directive whose relevance to a particular situation had to
be evaluated by the pastor responsible for the
community.”15 However, Paul’s teach- ing about divorce
in 1 Cor. 7:15 may simply be explicative of the radical
prohibition for dealing with mixed marriages.16
Why does Paul explicitly use a teaching of Jesus at
this point when most often he does not? Fee sees the
reason for Paul’s usual lack of ex- plicit reference to
Jesus as the result of (1) Paul seeing all his ethical
commands as coming from the Lord as Paul models
himself after Jesus and (2) that many of the situations
faced by the Gentile churches were not addressed by
Jesus.17 Barrett sees one reason for Paul’s use of Jesus in
this case as the difference between this teaching on
divorce and that of the current Jewish teaching and even
the Old Testament allowance
Gospel.
19. David Wenham, Paul and Jesus: The True Story (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans,
2
0
0
2
)
,
p
.
1
5
7
.
20. Dale C. Allison, Jr., “The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic
Gospels: The
Pattern of the Parallels,” New Testament
Studies 28 (1982), p. 9.
are extensive and the thoughts are similar.21 It seems
clear that Paul had
Luke 10 (or the tradition behind it) in mind when he
wrote 1
Corinthians 9, with 1 Cor. 9:14 only being the most
obvious example.
The actual saying of Jesus was originally a proverb
and not a command. However, within the tradition,
Jesus’ authority makes it a command.22 Although it is
unknown if the Corinthians were aware of the
missionary discourse, Paul’s casual use of it suggests
that it was known to them.23 The purpose of Paul’s use
of a Jesus saying at this point is that he was trying to
build up a particularly strong case by com- bining
reason and common experience, the Old Testament,
universal religious practice and finally the teachings of
Jesus.24 The fact that 1
Tim. 5:18 explicitly quotes Lk. 10:7 is significant. If 1
Timothy was written by Paul, this is proof that Paul was
very familiar with this par- ticular Jesus tradition. If 1
Timothy was written by someone else, he was being true
to Paul in identifying 1 Cor. 9:14 with Lk. 10:7.25 1 Cor-
inthians 9:14 is very important for helping us to
understand Paul’s pat- tern of using the Jesus tradition.
As Holtz states, “Paul appeals to an instruction of Jesus,
gives its factual content in so far as it is necessary for
the context of his argument, but does not quote the
saying of Jesus which he envisages, although he surely
had it in mind in a fixed form of words.”26
2. Liturgical
Traditions of
Jesus
t
h
e
m
.
3
4
1
Corin
thian
s
4:11-
13
h
i
s
p
r
e
c
e
p
t
s
.
5
1
1
Cori
nthi
ans
13:2
-3
C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
Chapter One
Pauline Terms For Righteousness And
Usages
Definition of Terms
The term oticatocruvri is usually translated from the Hebrew
term mpnv In the LXX, It is used 81 times for "Sticatoavvri"
and six times it is translated "just," or "righteous." In eight
instances the term is used for "IP;71, meaning "loving-kindness,"
or
"mercy."2
In Hebrew usage, the term indicates more than a Western idea
of appropriate justice to each person. "Usually the word suggests
Yahweh's saving acts as evidence of God's faithfulness to his
covenant."3 Thus, the term, while it may indicate the idea of
equality and justice, announces a commitment to the people as
well as the covenant God both initiated and maintained. The
emphasis, in the Hebrew concept, is on the faithfulness to the law
and Covenant and thereby God himself.'
The Hebrew word is most often used as a "term rooted in a
legal forensic terminology"5 rarely implying an ethical quality.
Usually, it is rooted in relationship terms depicting a kinship
between two parties.6 In the relationship between Saul and
David in 1 Sam 24:17, David is reckoned to be more righteous
than Saul since he maintains his role as a subject of Saul's rage
without retaliating.' Thus, righteousness is established on sealing
a covenant and maintaining it.
1
G. Schrenk, "Staicatoavvri vcr, Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, Vol II, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 195.
2
K.L. Onesti and M.T. Brauch, "Righteousness, Righteousness
of God," Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. Hawthorne
and R. Martin (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 829.
3
"
.
5
Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. trans. W.
Ardnt, (Chicago: University Press, 1979), 196. Cf. Morris,
101, Dunn, 164.
6
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Vol I.(New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1954), 271.
7
James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 342.
Of the 302 times a otic- word is used, 138 of those are found in
the Pauline writings.12 Paul thus establishes the meaning of the
concept of the oticatoavvi and gives it its widest variance of
meaning.13 He affirms the close connection of the concept with the
Old Testament, and thus with the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, demonstrating the
8
Bultmann, 1:271.
'Ibid.,
1°
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids:
15
Dunn, 342.
16
Ibid., 343.
18
Cf. KAsemann, P. Stuhlmacher.
19
Alistar McGrath, Iuistia Dei: A History of the Christian
Doctrine of Justification, (Cambridge: University Press, 1986),
52. In history, a subjective understanding as well as an objective
interpretation of the construction iustita Dei implies "a gracious
act of justification rather than to a divine property which stands
over and against man. . . In a soteriological setting, it refers to
"the salvation of manking, whether as a consequence of God's
faithfulness to his promises of mercy or of the bestowal of the
divine righteousness upon the sinner.
20
Onesti, DPL, 835
21
Walter Schmithals, The Theology of the First Christians,
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 95-96.
Likewise, Bultmann, Theology, 1: 271
22
Dunn, 342.
23
Ibid..
25
Kertelge, 327.
Atic- as an adjective
The a Svc- used adjectivally in the Pauline corpus is rare. In
Rom 3:10, Paul declares the complete fallibility of man as he
declares that there are none who are inherently righteous. At
times, God is characterized as righteous in nature (Rom 3:26).
26
Fitzmyer, 342, notes that the pre-Pauline form of this saying
may have appeared as: "being justified freely through
redemption (which comes) in Christ Jesus, whom God
presented as a means of expiating sin through his blood, as a
manifestation of his uprightness for the pardon of past sins
committed in the time of forebearance."
27
Ibid.. Cf. J. Reumann, "Righteousness in the New Testament,"
Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol V, (New York: Doubleday Press,
1992), 758. "The phrase oticatocruvi Ogov , which occurs in
some of the pre-Pauline formulas, has a supposedly technical
term in the OT and Jewish Apocalyptic lit, and has been taken as
the starting point for Pauline development."
28
Schmithals, 96.
Amato)
This verbal form is used to "describe that divine action which
affects the sinner in such a way that the relationship to God is
altered or transformed (either ontologicallly. . . .orr
postionally)."31 This term is usually seen as a action of God,
changing and reshaping the person or groups, back toward the
covenant relationship with Him (Rom 3:21-31; 5:19; Gal 2:17).
Conclusion
The righteousness of God, therefore, is neither a new doctrine
nor a new idea, but "the appearing of that which had been
determined in the council of God with respect in the fullness of
time."' Using the established definition of oticatoavvi, Paul
addressed the issue of covenantal righteousness through a
multitude of usage.
This oticatocruvi egoli is the primary phrase chosen by Paul to
communicate both the foundation of the covenant and the
continuance of it. Both are to be found in the oticatoavvi egoli. It
is the means of justification (bringing believers into the rightness
of relationship) and sanctification (the continuing results of this
new covenant). The means for appropriating this into one's life is
through faith in the work of Christ.
This oticatocruvi comes from God himself and nowhere else.
He alone is the source for true oticatocruvi. Therefore, out of his
own good pleasure and desire to re-establish a right relationship
with man, God himself had to initiate the process.
31
Onesti, DPL, 835.
32
Herman N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology,
trans H.R. DeWitt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 162.
Chapter Two
Exegesis Of Romans 3:21-26
Rom. 3:21 - But now righteousness from God, apart from law,
has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets
testify.
33
Fitzmyer, 343.
34
Ibid., 341.
Fitzmyer, 341. "God himself has taken the initiative and has
restored for humaniry the right relationship of it to himself. The
gospel proclaiming Christ's passion, death and resurrection and
the effects of those events are thus manifestations of "God's
power (unleashed) for the salvation of everyone who believes"
(1:16).
36
r
i
.
38
James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary,
ed. G. Barker and D. Hubbard, (Dallas: Word Books, 1988),
164. He further notes its use as a transition from "one epoch to
another where a decisive new element has transformed the
circumstances which previously pertained." Cf. Fitzmyer, 343.
40
Ibid., 165.
Rom 3:22b-26: There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall
short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace
through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented
him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did
this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had
left the sins committed beforehand unpunished — he did it to
demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the
one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.'
45
Taken from Fitzmyer, 345
46
So Dunn, 165. Morris, 176.
n
i
52
Ibid. He notes that God's original purpose was for man to
share in his WIN. However, because of man's sin, another
plan for man to share in that glory had to be invented thus
the whole redemptive work of Christ.
54
Dunn, 168.
55 BAGD, 210.
56
u
n
58
Dunn, 169, notes this as a familiar term to Jewish writers.
He also notes the strong possibility that many of those
listening were either slaves or ex-slaves, speaking more
directly to the desire for freedom.
59
Chris Vogel, The Exegetical Substructure of Romans 3:10-18
and its Relationship to its Context, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1989), 25.
60
James Moffatt, Dictionary of The Apostolic Church,
"Righteousness", ed. J. Hastings (Charles Scribner's Sons,
1918), 389 states that it is here that Paul's concept of
righteousness crosses with his concept of atonement.
64
James Moffatt, "Righteousness", Dictionary of the Apostolic
Church, Vol II., (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1918), 388.
Moffatt notes "Whether aacrrEptov means propiatory gift or
sacrifice, it is offered by God himself, not by men and this
sacrifice of Christ was neccessary for the realization of God's
righteousness or redeeming purposes. . . .What enables God to
justify sinners, what justifies justifying them, is the aaateptov of
Christ. It is through this sacrificial death that God's moral
character as &mato; becomes in relation to human sin, the attitude
and action of Swaim. Till Christ and outside of Christ there is no
righteousness for men."
gvoe'41,v tfi;
oticatoaiwi; ociytoi5 iv t vbv - to the demonstration
of his righteousness in
the present time. That time had come. The vi5v icatixo indicated a
time frame of recent,
66
Dunn, 171.
"making available."
69
Cranfield, 212.
70
Ibid..
71
Dunn, 175. Morris, 184.
72
73
Fitzmyer, 342.
Chapter Three
Resultant Interpretations Of Aticatoavvii
egoi5
Distinction between the oticatoavvi Comb
and Jewish Piety
B
u
i
d
77
Bultmann, 276
78
Ridderbos, 50.
79
Bultmann, 281.
Types of Righteousness
Righteousness as Declared
Since this oucatoaiSvi is imparted, it also must be declared.
This declaration perceives one as righteous, regardless of
appearance or worthiness to receive it. It is righteousness based
on the character of God, not on the character of man. The
covenant renewal is announced and acted upon as if it were a
settled and proven fact, thus counted to him as "if it were
righteousness" (Rom 2:13; 3.26, 28; 4:2-9; 6:18, 20; 8:30; Gal
2:16; 3:24; 5:4; 2 Th 1:5; 1 Tim 3:16; Titus 3:7). The declaration
is based on the oticatoaim of God and nothing else. Without this
oticatoaiSvi, a declaration of this type would require God to
simply override his own Law which would violate his holiness.
However, because of the Christ event and the oucatoaiSvi that it
brings, man can be declared righteous and thereby in right
standing with God.
Righteousness as Dynamic
This oticatocnSvi is as alive as the Giver of the
oticatocnSvi. Far from a static concept of lifeless laws, the
righteousness imparted and declared is dynamic. The Law was
never intended to be dynamic, but always static. Therefore, to
speak of the oticatoaiwi Owl) as a dynamic, life-giving source
was a radical notion. Yet throughout the writings of Paul, such
a concept is seen repeatedly. In Rom 3:21,
80
Ibid., 285.
81
Note that these terms are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
In charting, there was a great deal of overlap, but not enough to
warrant the elimination of a category.
82
Dunn, Theology, 344.
83
Seebass, 363.
84
Sanday and Headlam, 89.
and the divine acquittal are revealed in the Cross and in the
resurrection of Christ."86 The oncatoaim is not simply for the life
of this physical body that is redeemed, but is for the time to come
as well. Thus, while oncatoaiSvi looks back toward the cross, it
also looks forward to the day of ultimate deliverance and
covenantal fulfillment. (Rom 2:5; 5:17, 19, 21; 6:18-20; 10:10;
14:7; Gal 3:8; Eph 5:5).
In the Pauline corpus, the Apostle takes special
consideration to distinguish the oncatoaim of which he spoke
from Jewish covenantal thought. He makes clear that simple
rule maintenance will no longer suffice.
In examing the various ways in which oticatoaim is used,
several elements become clear. Righteousness is depicted as
impute by the hand of God. Righteousness is seen as declared by
God in spite of appearances. Righteousness is seen as dynamic in
nature. Righteousness regularly has a forensic nature to it and
often has an element of eschatological hope found with it. These
combine to present the complete image of Pauline oucatoai5vi
0E015 as a right relationship restoring love for humanity that
reached beyond human efforts at covenant to the very heart of
man. This oncatoai5vi Ogoi5 is forged through the costly work of
Christ and is actualized in man through faith.
Conclusion
Blogroll
Biblical defense homepage
http://www.biblicaldefense.org