Messiahship Of Jesus Research Articles

Doktrin Kristologi: Apologetika Natur Keallahan, Kemanusiaan, dan Kemesiasan Yesus berdasarkan Markus 9:2-13

Throughout the church's history, the debate on Christology has been an important and controversial topic. One is about the Divinity and humanity of Jesus, which has been a long debate in the history of Christianity. Jesus' divinity and humanity are essential because they relate to the foundation of the believer's faith. In addition to the debate about the Christology of Jesus among Christians, there is another debate among the Jews about the person of Jesus himself, namely that Jesus is not the Messiah. Although many biblical texts have been used to defend the issue of Christology, there are still other biblical texts that have not been studied as a basis for discussing the issue. The purpose of this study is to add primary biblical references to the apologetics of Christology. The biblical basis for examining the nature of Godliness and humanity and the Messiahship of Jesus is the Gospel of Mark 9:2-13. The method used is the exegesis method. This method is suitable for finding a clear meaning of the word to be analyzed. The result of this study is that the words Transfigured (metamorphoo) , Son (huios), and Man (anthropos) explain that Jesus is a true man and a true God and as Heir, that is, the anointed Messiah of God.

Budućnost prožeta nadom

Despite valid criticisms and the challenge of definition, evangelicalism remains a real and vital coalition of like-minded Christians committed to the historic Christian faith both globally and in Croatia. Evangelical Christianity in Croatia has its distinct history, challenges, and needs for itas future, and its theologians will need to play a crucial role in the ongoing life and growth of evangelical churches. Four important areas are highlighted for the role of the theologian: commitment to scriptural teaching and discipleship in local churches; critical evaluation of outside influences; engagement with and contribution to the global evangelical faith, and engagement with wider Croatian society and Roman Catholicism. While some evangelicals approach the future with optimistic, pessimistic, or realistic approaches, the future of evangelical Christianity in Croatia is rather rooted in a hopeful view: the eschatological hope of the Gospel. The life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah Jesus and the gift of the eschatological Spirit to the church form the historical basis by which evangelical Christians in Croatia are called and empowered to live out their future hope in the present.

Jihye Lee. A Jewish Apocalyptic Framework of Eschatology in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Protology and Eschatology as Background

Jihye Lee. <i>A Jewish Apocalyptic Framework of Eschatology in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Protology and Eschatology as Background</i>

Cruciform Scripture: Cross, Participation, and Mission.

Cruciform Scripture: Cross, Participation, and Mission.

UMA NOVA HUMANIDADE: O HORIZONTE MESSIÂNICO DE JESUS DE NAZARÉ NO EVANGELHO DE MATEUS

A epígrafe do Evangelho de Mateus baliza sua catequese. Propõe-se a escrever o “livro da origem de Jesus Cristo” (Mt 1,1), narrar Jesus em sua condição messiânica. Sua identidade vai sendo descrita ao longo da narração, desde a genealogia até o envio dos apóstolos pelo Ressuscitado. O presente texto tem o escopo de verificar o horizonte da ação messiânica de Jesus, ou seja, os objetivos visados. Servindo-se das intuições do método da análise narrativa, a catequese mateana será revisitada, na tentativa de sistematizar os elementos que permitem captar a pretensão do Messias Jesus, no sentido de fazer germinar a nova humanidade, querida pelo Pai dos Céus. E, afinal, esboçar, em grandes linhas, o rosto dessa nova humanidade, expressão do Reinado de Deus e parâmetro para o agir dos discípulos e das discípulas de Jesus de Nazaré, de todos os tempos.

The First Christian Believer: In Search of John the Baptist by R. Nir

Reviewed by: The First Christian Believer: In Search of John the Baptist by R. Nir Barrie A. Wilson Nir, R. 2019. The First Christian Believer: In Search of John the Baptist. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Hardcover. ISBN 978-1910928554. Pp. 342. $90. Rivka Nir is noted for meticulous, careful dissection of ancient texts, having established an excellent reputation with her Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2003) and Joseph and Aseneth: A Christian Book (2012). This book follows in that vein with a detailed literary analysis of Josephus and the relevant biblical texts. Her thesis is straightforward: . . . I have attempted to prove that the figure of John the Baptist, as reflected in all our available sources, is filtered through a Christian prism. He is depicted not as a Jewish prophet, apocalypticist or ascetic but as a Christian who speaks for the ideas and beliefs of Christian theology and its core faith in the messiah Jesus. (258) Her arguments are impressive and well worth consideration in this yet another quest for the historical personage behind a received narrative. She contends that we cannot now know the John the Baptist of history: Christian theology has intervened and John is presented as a Christian witnessing to Jesus. John is not a Jew working out of the conceptual matrix of Second Temple Judaism. So his baptism is not a form of a [End Page 411] Jewish mikvah nor that of the immersion ritual of the Dead Sea Scroll community at Qumran. His was different. Nir’s methodology is that of detailed historical literary analysis, examining key ideas and situating them in the context of what we know of Second Temple Judaism and emerging Christianity of the late first century, the period that the Gospel writers reflect. Her major evidence has to do with the concept cluster in which the Gospels present John the Baptist. The conceptual landscape is Christian. Ideas such as “repentance,” “kingdom of heaven,” “the coming one,” “baptism,” “forgiveness of sins,” “holy spirit,” “the wrath to come” and “fruit worthy of repentance” are all interpreted in accordance with evolving Christian belief. The Jewish and Christian understanding of these concepts differ and Nir outlines the contrasts clearly. Repentance, in its Jewish sense, for instance, as a return to the covenant with God as expressed in Torah, is just not present in the Gospel accounts of John the Baptist. Similarly Josephus’s description of John the Baptist’s water ritual makes it clear that his ritual is not a Pharisaic baptism but an early Christian one. Nir carefully analyses the text, pointing out that the action is “a collective mass baptism under the administration of one person, which must be preached and proclaimed to be administered.” This along with “its characterization as an initiatory baptism into an elect group” (258) are hallmarks of the Christian rite of baptism. Moreover, John’s baptism “combines physical purification with inner moral spiritual purification, in which the latter constitutes a prerequisite for the former” (258). This contrasts with a Jewish Pharisaic baptism, which is a different ritual in which immersion signifies cleansing the body from various states of impurity. The contexts differ, significantly. This, in turn, argues for the view that Josephus’s account of John the Baptist is “not from the hand of the Jewish historian but a late interpolation written by a Christian or a Jewish Christian” (259). That finding is bound to be controversial but it adds to the suspicion that the passages about Jesus and James, brother of Jesus, have all been inserted into Josephus’s text by later Christian hands. Thus Josephus is not an independent witness to the subject matter of the Gospels. Nir’s meticulous study has implications for the larger question concerning “the parting of the ways.” The distinctions she draws out carefully delineate lines between the beliefs and practices of Second Temple Judaism and its early rabbinic modifications on the one hand and [End Page 412] developing Christian theology on the other hand. There are important boundaries which should not be blurred. Nir’s findings that John the Baptist is portrayed in neither the canonical Gospels nor in Josephus as a mysterious...

Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into Early Christian Reading Practices

Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into Early Christian Reading Practices

Matthew and Mark across Perspectives: Essays in Honour of Stephen C. Barton and William R. Telford ed. by Kristian A. Bendoriatis and Nijay K. Gupta

Reviewed by: Matthew and Mark across Perspectives: Essays in Honour of Stephen C. Barton and William R. Telford ed. by Kristian A. Bendoriatis and Nijay K. Gupta Bonnie Thurston kristian a. bendoriatis and nijay k. gupta (eds.), Matthew and Mark across Perspectives: Essays in Honour of Stephen C. Barton and William R. Telford (LNTS 538; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016). Pp. xxxix + 196. $112. Students of the first two Gospels will recognize those for whom this festschrift was prepared and be grateful these former students and colleagues contributed engaging essays. A collection by different authors presents challenges to a reviewer, and this book is no exception. My task was made easier since all these essays address the relationship between Mark and Matthew, framed by the opening question, Why did the early church retain Mark since Matthew incorporated so much of that Gospel? Nine essays follow appreciations and bibliographies of the honorees (by Walter [End Page 541] Moberly and Peter Francis) and an introduction (by Bendoriatis) that summarize the essays divided between traditional methods of interpretation (Francis Watson, "How Did Mark Survive?"; Helen K. Bond, "Paragon of Discipleship? Simon of Cyrene in the Markan Passion Narrative"; Craig A. Evans, "'He Laid Him in a Tomb' (Mark 15.46): Roman Law and the Burial of Jesus"; Donald A. Hagner, "The Newness of the Gospel in Mark and Matthew: Continuity and Discontinuity"; James D. G. Dunn, "Matthew—A Jewish Gospel for Jews and Gentiles"; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, "The 'Apocalyptic' Jewish Jesus and Contemporary Interpretation"); and more recent approaches (Daniel Frayer-Griggs, "'More than a Prophet': Echoes of Exorcism in Markan and Matthean Baptist Traditions"; Louise J. Lawrence, "Emotions of Protest in Mark 11–13: Responding to an Affective Turn in Social-Scientific Discourse"; Gupta, "The Spirituality of Faith in the Gospel of Matthew"). Essays are situated in the context of studies of the historical Jesus or investigation of the relationship between emerging Christianity and emerging rabbinic Judaism. Six essays are particularly strong. Watson argues that Mark survived because it was "too well established in the church's liturgical and catechetical life to be easily dislodged" (p. 10) and because "gospel plurality was becoming accepted as normal" (p. 17). Bond suggests that Simon of Cyrene is not a Marcan exemplar of discipleship but highlights Jesus' kingship. Evans on Mark 15:46 takes on the Jesus Seminar, proving that the "burial narrative we find in Mark 15 exhibits realism at every point" (p. 66). Discussing continuity and discontinuity between Mark and Matthew, Hagner finds discontinuity "more determinative" (p. 82). His note (70 n. 10) on the difficulty of negativity about Judaism is courageous, but absence of reference to the work of Amy-Jill Levine is surprising (e.g., The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus [San Francisco: HarperOne, 2007]). The social-scientific vocabulary of Lawrence's examination of Mark 11–13 is off-putting, but her reading of the text is enriching and nuanced. Dunn addresses what Matthew hoped to achieve in writing another Gospel, concluding that it was to make clearer the tradition to a "community made up primarily of Jews who believed in the Messiah Jesus" (p. 142). He demonstrates that Matthew's Jesus is not essentially different from Mark's. Stuckenbruck's essay concentrates on apocalyptic eschatology, evinces wide erudition and scholarship, but presumed of this reader more knowledge of Second Temple thought than she has. For Frayer-Griggs's essay on John the Baptist traditions to be convincing, more proof at the outset "of the polemical nature of Jn 10:41" (p. 39) and, at the close, of "the Fourth Evangelist's polemical stance against the Baptist" (p. 51) is required. Repeated use of the conditional "may" weakened the presentation. Gupta's treatment of pistis provided a fruitful approach to Matthew's spirituality, but the author omitted recent scholarship on the Canaanite woman, assumed "disciples" were all male, and neglected Sharyn Dowd's important work on the cursing of the fig tree. Nevertheless, Gupta is correct; in Matthew "pistis is a central way … humans ought to respond to Jesus and God" (p.123; see Sharon Echols Dowd, Prayer, Power, and the Problem of Suffering: Mark...

Paul and the Faithfulness of God

This book, the latest in Wright's series on ‘Christian Origins and the Question of God’, is a daunting phenomenon: over 1500 pages, packaged in two volumes, containing (I reckon) more than 800,000 words. Building on his earlier publications, and referring across to companion volumes – not even this gigantic text is self-sufficient – Wright here advances in full the synthetic vision of Paul's theology which he has developed and promoted over more than thirty years. The scale reflects his ambition: to integrate all the motifs in Pauline theology within a single large-scale schema; to elucidate its Jewish roots and its points of interaction with Graeco-Roman philosophy, religion and politics; to engage in most of the recent debates on Pauline theology; and to defend and advance his own distinctive theories on justification, covenant and the Messiahship of Jesus, against critics who have lined up against him on several sides. The structure and size of the project create considerable repetition. Many topics are opened, postponed for several hundred pages, then discussed and then later reprised, while the reader is liable to be wearied by a prose style which often seems excessively baggy. Wright strives to keep our attention with arresting metaphors, engaging illustrations and a knock-about lecture-hall style, but the latter is often tetchy in its criticism of others, and descends too often to caricature. Indeed, the standard of intellectual engagement with contrary opinions is often disappointing, and hardly improved by grand generalisations about ‘Enlightenment frameworks’ and ‘postmodern moralism’. It is only rarely that this large work engages in detailed exegesis (close engagement with texts, in debate with a range of exegetical options): the opening discussion of Philemon, the focused study of Galatians 6:16 and the close analysis of Romans 9–11 (the highlight of this work) are among the exceptions. Of course one cannot advance a thesis of such breadth without sacrificing some depth in textual debate, but the effect is to lessen considerably the persuasiveness of the whole.

The emerging Jewish views of the messiahship of Jesus and their bearing on the question of his resurrection

This article surveys the beliefs of Jewish scholars who have written about the historical Jesus. Specifically, it explores the modern Jewish scholarship on the person and role of the Messiah and how this relates to the study of the resurrection of Jesus. Many of the traditional beliefs about the messiah preclude a discussion of the resurrection of Jesus. However, with more understanding of the background of Second-Temple Judaism, many long-held beliefs about the messiah are being re-evaluated. The three main issues discussed in this article are the concept of a pagan messiah, the death of the messiah and the possibility of a divine messiah.

Messiah Jesus: Christology in His Day and Ours. By Douglas W.Kennard. Pp. 605, New York, Peter Lang, 2008, £66.98/$99.95.

The Heythrop JournalVolume 53, Issue 2 p. 318-318 BOOK REVIEW Messiah Jesus: Christology in His Day and Ours. By Kennard, Douglas W.. Pp. 605, New York, Peter Lang, 2008, £66.98/$99.95. Thomas E. Gaston, Thomas E. Gaston Oxford Christadelphian EcclesiaSearch for more papers by this author Thomas E. Gaston, Thomas E. Gaston Oxford Christadelphian EcclesiaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 27 February 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2011.00726_47.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume53, Issue2March 2012Pages 318-318 RelatedInformation

The Septuagint and Apostolic Hermeneutics: Amos 9 in Acts 15

Abstract The decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 clarified the identity and mission of the church. James's speech in 15:13–21 is the most crucial and controversial part of the discussion at the Council, because he gives the scriptural basis for the decision of the Council. According to Acts 15, James resolves the controversy at the Council by appealing to an adapted and conflated text of the Septuagint of Amos 9:11–12. This essay addresses some of the issues concerning the meaning, exegetical basis, and historical credibility of James's scriptural argument, as reported in Acts 15. In making its decision, the Council employed Jewish hermeneutical methodology, the Septuagint and MT texts, and testimony concerning God's recent work among the Gentiles. This essay argues that the scriptural basis in Amos 9:11–12 for the inclusion of Gentiles, as Gentiles, in the end-time people of God is the restoration of the "tent of David," which is the reign of the Davidic dynasty in the person of Jesus Christ. This Messianic reign is not as it would have been envisioned in the time of Amos; it is the reign of Messiah Jesus as universal Lord at God's right hand, and it involves the administration of new covenant blessings.

Correction

In his thoughtful “Theological Assessment” of the Cape Town Commitment, Robert J. Schreiter, C.PP.S., writes, “The question of the relation of God's covenant with the Jews and God's salvific activity in Christ, treated explicitly at Manila (A.3), does not reappear at Cape Town” ( IBMR 35 [April 2011]: 90). His statement was based on a draft of the document sent to him, not the final version of the Cape Town Commitment, which was published in the same issue of the IBMR (pp. 59–80). In the published version, the issue does appear quite explicitly in section IIB.1: We affirm that whereas the Jewish people were not strangers to the covenants and promises of God, in the way that Paul describes the Gentiles, they still stand in need of reconciliation to God through the Messiah Jesus. There is no difference, said Paul, between Jew and Gentile in sin; neither is there any difference in salvation. Only in and through the cross can both have access to God the Father through the one Spirit. We continue, therefore, strongly to affirm the need for the whole Church to share the good news of Jesus as Messiah, Lord and Saviour with Jewish people. And in the spirit of Romans 14–15, we urge Gentile believers to accept, encourage and pray for Messianic Jewish believers, in their witness among their own people. The editors regret the error.

Can the Messiahship of Jesus Be Read off Paul's Grammar? Nils Dahl's Criteria 50 Years Later

It is half a century since Nils A. Dahl wrote his important essay ‘Die Messianität Jesu bei Paulus’, in which he determines that χριστός in Paul is effectively a proper name, not a title, on the basis of four negative philological observations: it is never a general term; it is never a predicate of the verb ‘to be’; it never takes a genitive modifier; and it characteristically lacks the definite article. The purpose of this article is to reconsider what each of these observations entails about the messiahship of Jesus. My thesis is that, while all four observations are significant for understanding Paul's thought, they do not constitute proper criteria for assessing the role of the messiahship of Jesus therein.

Spit in Your Eye: The Blind Man of Bethsaida and the Blind Man of Alexandria

The account of Vespasian's use of spittle to heal a blind man at Alexandria has long been noted as a parallel to the use of spittle in Mark's healing of the Blind Man of Bethsaida, but little has been made of the temporal proximity of these two stories. Vespasian's healings formed part of the wider Flavian propaganda campaign to legitimate the new claimant to the imperial throne; to many Jewish ears this propaganda would have sounded like a usurpation of traditional messianic hopes. This article argues that Mark introduced spittle into his story of the Blind Man of Bethsaida to create an allusion to the Vespasian story as part of a wider concern to contrast the messiahship of Jesus with such Roman imperial ‘messianism’.

What Makes Glory Glorious? Reading Luke’s Account of the Transfiguration Over Against Triumphalism

A literary-critical analysis of narrative voice(s) in Luke’s account of the Trans-figuration leads to a reading over against triumphalism. Historical-critical readings of this passage view its tandem visions as mutually reinforcing a triumphal view of Jesus. This article puts forward a reading of these visions as, instead, antithetical. In this alternative reading, the epiphany of the transfigured Jesus is an inappropriate vision of the glory of the Messiah Jesus. Luke’s version sees messianic glory not as exaltation, but as humiliation. This is shown by reading the Transfiguration as the culmination of three themes: Jesus’ identity, ‘hearing’ Jesus and the ‘glory’ to be fulfilled in Jesus. The first two themes come to clear conclusions in the Transfigu-ration. However, the third refuses to be held by the visions, and the story forces us to the remaining pericopes of ch. 9 for an answer to the question of what makes glory glorious.

Paul, the Law and Judgement by Works

This article seeks to shed new light on Paul’s teaching on the Torah. It does so by analyzing Paul’s different statements about the criteria of judgement by works. The result of this study is that it is the same criterion that applies to Jews and Gentiles, believers and unbelievers, namely the Torah as interpreted and fulfilled by the Messiah Jesus, practised by believers in the power of the Holy Spirit, and summarised in the double commandment of love. Thus the whole Torah is still valid in the time of the new covenant, but in a wholly transformed way.

The Messiah Jesus in the Mythic World of James

I It often been observed, sometimes with consternation, that there is little in Letter of James that could not have been written by a non-Christian Jew. Beyond its spare references to Jesus, concepts that form central pillars in mythic thought of other early Christian are not obviously important in James. Most notably, James lacks any reference to Jesus' death and resurrection (let formers atoning significance), while allusions to closely related ideas of Holy Spirit1 and new creation or rebirth2 are controversial at best. Especially when seen alongside its infamous insistence on importance of works as opposed to faith alone attaining righteousness (2:14-26), these omissions raise fundamental questions about James's thought and particularly about nature of letter's interest in figure twice referred to as the Lord Jesus (1:1; 2:1). Interpreters have generally explained these perceived lacunae in various ways. Several interpreters from late nineteenth through mid-twentieth century found in this silence sufficient cause to posit that James was not originally a Christian composition at all and thus to excise its two references to Jesus as work of a later, Christian hand.3 When text is approached in this way, problem simply evaporates: figure of Jesus Christ plays integral role in thought of work as originally composed. With textual support such excisions and ample evidence, on contrary, of letter s composition within a Christian milieu, this position found few advocates.4 A second approach to perceived problem is to deny that any coherent mythic or theological system informs text at all. This approach is associated particularly with Martin Dibelius, whose influential commentary on James presents a running argument that James is simply a collection of savings, admonitions, and treatises of diverse origin.5 Dibelius contends that one cannot legitimately combine various isolated texts that are assembled here for purpose of constructing a theology. The Letter of James, Dibelius states flatly, has 'theology,' let a consistent and developed conception of significance of Jesus. Since presence or absence of this or that concept may only be accidental in such a collection, lack of reference to any given idea does not justify assertion that it no value author. Dibelius thus concluded that, while author himself likely a of some sort, we cannot determine with certainty how much [he] presupposes given composite and eclectic nature of text he produced.6 Though Dibelius's commentary enjoyed enormous influence,7 this explanation, too, been largely abandoned in recent decades. The initial indications of a significant paradigm shift came as several scholars began reading James as a wisdom writing-a model that allowed interpreters to posit an integral wisdom theology even while accepting essential features of Dibelius's literary analysis.8 More fundamentally important in this respect, however, have been two broader trends in NT studies. With general shift, since 1960s, toward reading strategies that emphasize coherence and connections in texts-redaction criticism, rhetorical criticism, and, more recently, literary and structuralist approaches-has come a steady erosion in hegemony of Dibelius's atomistic, form-critical approach to James.9 At same time, intensive study of Synoptic sayings source that John S. Kloppenborg's pioneering Formation of Q inspired raised important questions regarding possibility of early Christian kerygmata that were not centered on Jesus' death and resurrection.10 Whatever precise reasons, prospect of delineating basic features of James's religious thought is being taken with increasing seriousness in ever-expanding literature on letter. …

Paulus: Der Werdegang eines Apostels

Paulus: Der Werdegang eines Apostels, by Klaus Haacker. SBS 171. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997. Pp.140. N.P. (paper). One method recently well established in Pauline scholarship is to draw Paul's biographical data and missionary experiences into an interpretation of his theology. The works of J. Becker, M. Hengel, and R. Riesner are some of the more recent examples. Haacker's Paulus belongs to this category. Unlike them, it covers only a part of Paul's life, the period up to (and including) his Damascus conversion/call. But instead of following the usual practice of appreciating Paul's biographical material only in connection with a couple of his important theological themes, such as the doctrine of justification and Gentile mission, Haacker tries to use many details of Paul's background to shed light on additional aspects of his theology and self-understanding. Paul's Benjaminite origin and his Jewish name, Saul, are seen to have influenced his self-understanding and his theology much more than hitherto suspected. His Roman citizenship is used not only to explain his positive attitude to the Roman rule and his missionary vision and strategy, but also to interpret Romans as a form of the gospel contextualized (in terms of peace) to the milieu of Rome. Haacker believes that Paul grew up in a Hellenistic-Jewish home in Jerusalem. But against W. C. van Unnik, Haacker argues for taking the phrase at the feet of Gamaliel in Acts 22:3 along with the second participle anatethrammenos rather than the third pepaideumenos and interprets the verse to mean that Paul grew up in the home of Gamaliel, receiving a general education (not a rabbinic training) from the great teacher until he reached the schooling age. Paul the Pharisee stood closer to the school of Shammai, but the post-70 rabbinic Judaism followed the tradition of the school of Hillel. Haacker suggests that this explains the problem, raised particularly strongly since E. P. Sanders's works, that the Jewish positions on the law criticized by Paul cannot be verified as the typical rabbinic teachings. Paul was a zealot for the law in the tradition of Phinehas, the Maccabean, his namesake Saul, etc. But he persecuted Christians not because the Hellenists criticized the law or started a Gentile mission nor because he perceived the Christian message of the crucified messiah Jesus to be a blasphemy on the basis of Deut 21:23. Rather, to him the crucifixion of Jesus was a sign against his messiahship while the Christians' charismatic healing practice in the name of the dead person Jesus appeared to be magic. Thus he perceived the Christian message of the crucified Christ as a skandalon (1 Cor 1:23) and therefore he became a zealot who persecuted Christians after the example of Saul (1 Sam 28:9). But his conversion led to a complete reversal of his zealotic position. This is visible in his argument for justification by grace of the ungodly in Romans 4 and in various other themes in Romans, in his argument for justification and freedom and against circumcision in Galatians, etc. …

WHO DID PAUL THINK HE WAS? A STUDY OF JEWISH–CHRISTIAN IDENTITY

The question of Paul's identity is raised by his history as a diaspora Jew, then Pharisee, who became a believer in Messiah Jesus and apostle to the gentiles. How did he think of himself? The essay focuses on the categories ‘Jew’, ‘(in) Judaism’, ‘Hebrew’ and ‘Israel(ite)’, with particular reference to Rom 2.28–9, 1 Cor 9.20–1, Gal 1.13–14, 2 Cor 11.22, Phil 3.4–7 and Rom 11.1. It also contrasts Paul's devaluation of circumcision and food laws with his continued and characteristically Jewish hostility to idolatry and sexual licence. Paul's identity was evidently in transition, both rooted in his Jewish heritage and responding to fresh revelation, thus reflecting the emerging identity of Christianity.