Paul's Argument Research Articles

When the Fullness of the Time Came: Apocalyptic and Narrative Context in Galatians

This article examines the two phrases "the fullness of the time" and "the present evil age," found in Galatians, against the backdrop of Jewish apocalyptic chronologies of divine action and in relation to Paul's argument about the interpolation of the law in the letter. Whereas interpretation and theological reflection tend to generalize the intervention of God as the ideal pivot of salvation history, I argue that in Paul's mind the timing of the sending out of the Son is bound up with realistic perceptions of the condition of Israel and hopes for a transformed future. To the extent that the coming of "the fullness of the time" determined the end of the guardianship of the law, the moment is conceived not as a second exodus but as the final resolution of a tension that was inherent in the arrangement from the start.

Psalm 143.2 and the Argument of Galatians 3.10

AbstractIn the ongoing discussions of Gal 3.10–14, interpreters have underappreciated the connection between Paul's argument in 3.10 and his use of Ps 143.2 in 2.16. This article argues that Paul bases his denial of justification by works in 2.16 on the confession of humanity's universal sinfulness in Ps 143.2. Given the rhetorical function of 2.15–21 as well as the close verbal and logical ties between 2.16 and 3.10, it contends the same thought underlies Paul's charge in 3.10 that those of works are under a curse. On this basis, the article assesses various interpretations of Gal 3.10.

‘With’ Not ‘for’: An Alternative Reading of Paul's Use of Psalm 68.10b OG in Romans 15.3

This article demonstrates that Paul's use of Ps 68.10b OG in Rom 15.3 makes sense of the psalm's context, fits with the parenetic rhetoric of Paul's argument in 14.1–15.6 and necessitates Paul's justification in 15.4 of his use of Scripture. Citing Ps 68.10b because the δυνατοί (15.1) face actual reproaches for accommodating to the ἀδύνατοι's convictions, Paul grounds the call to bear these reproaches in emulating Christ's devotion to God, not his vicarious suffering. The focus on allegiance to God orients the δυνατοί towards the one who can then enable them to counter-culturally endure shame with fellow members of God's household.

The Bible & Ancient Science: Principles of Interpretation

The Bible & Ancient Science: Principles of Interpretation

God's Good Earth: The Case for an Unfallen Creation

God's Good Earth: The Case for an Unfallen Creation

The Generations of Heaven and Earth: Adam, the Ancient World, and Biblical Theology

The Generations of Heaven and Earth: Adam, the Ancient World, and Biblical Theology

Judgement for Israel: The Marriage of Wrath and Mercy in Romans 9–11

Reviewing John Barclay's Paul and the Gift, Susan Eastman recognises the need for ‘fuller analysis of judgment’ in Paul to accompany such penetrating work on grace. The dearth of interest in wrath often perpetuates the Marcionite premise that wrath precludes mercy, a false antithesis that especially skews interpretation of Romans. This presumed opposition leads scholars to find dithering dialectic, two covenants, two Israels or contradictory fantasy in Rom 9–11. Replacing the simple binary with a thicker lens of provisional judgement clarifies Paul's argument that God strikes Israel in wrath in order to heal them.

Bundle Theory with Kinds

Abstract Is it possible to get by with just one ontological category? We evaluate L.A. Paul's attempt to do so: the mereological bundle theory. The upshot is that Paul's attempt to construct a one category ontology may be challenged with some of her own arguments. In the positive part of the paper we outline a two category ontology with property universals and kind universals. We will also examine Paul's arguments against a version of universal bundle theory that takes spatiotemporal co-location instead of compresence or coinstantiation as the feature by which we can identify genuine bundles. We compare this novel theory, bundle theory with kinds, and Paul's mereological bundle theory and apply them to a case study concerning entangled fermions and co-located bosons.

Renaming Abraham's Children: Election, Ethnicity, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 9 by Robert B. Foster

Reviewed by: Renaming Abraham's Children: Election, Ethnicity, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 9 by Robert B. Foster Carol Bakhos robert b. foster, Renaming Abraham's Children: Election, Ethnicity, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 9 (WUNT 2/421; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). Pp. xvii + 327. Paper €89. A revision of his doctoral dissertation (Marquette University, 2011, supervised by Carol Stockhausen and Julian Hills), Foster's monograph opens with an intriguing reference to the musical Fiddler on the Roof. Tevye the milkman kvetches to God, "I know, I know [End Page 729] . . . we are your chosen people—but once in a while, can't you choose someone else?" Anyone elected to office, whether high school class president or president of a home owners' association knows all too well that the blessing of election is a burden if not an outright curse. Over the course of eight chapters, F. attempts to demonstrate the ways in which Paul's Romans 9 is a reconfiguration of Abraham's family along the lines established in Genesis whereby the younger son supplants his older brother. F. is first and foremost interested in Paul's pre-epistolary exegesis of Genesis in order to explain Paul's argument that Jews and gentiles are both equal yet distinct children of Abraham. Before getting to the crux of his argument in chaps. 6 and 7, F. sets the stage by exploring why the story of Abraham is important to Paul (chap. 2), why Paul writes a letter to Christ-followers in Rome (chap. 3), and how he uses scriptural quotations (chaps. 4 and 5). It is interesting to note that, in his introduction, F. spends little time outlining chap. 3 about the reasons Paul wrote Romans, which is his most compelling and lucid chapter. That is to say, while the book is primarily about the exegetical substructure of Romans, F.'s speculation about the letter's raison d'être is most intriguing. His argument against the consensus view of the sociohistorical context of Romans is provocative and clearly presented. To be sure, Genesis is shot through with the reversal of the law of primogeniture. First encountered in the narration of primordial history, in the story of Cain and Abel, the motif of the chosenness of the younger over the older comes to the fore in the narratives of the patriarchs and matriarchs. Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Leah and Rachel, Ephraim and Manasseh are part and parcel of this motif. As F. explains, "A younger brother is repeatedly assigned the status of firstborn, but he receives his inheritance only after suffering the rejection his elevation imposed on the elder son. It is this dialectic of election, displacement, and reversal that gives Rom 9 its much sought-after exegetical foundation" (pp. 1-2). Put another way, in Genesis the firstborn son is cast away; he not only suffers a loss of status, but his exile is synonymous with death. He suffers "so that the elect son shares the fate of his oppositional Other" (p. 260). Genesis is permeated with a pattern of irony and reversals such that, as F. and others before him have noted, election comes at a cost—exclusion and exile, displacement and near death before a metaphorical resurrection and restoration. F. writes, "Paul sees Israel's destiny in the messianic age as a capitulation of its etiology in the patriarchal age: the chosen and elect son Israel loses to his once displaced brother the privileged status he received by grace, only to receive it back again in the far side of his own exclusion" (p. 3). Foster should be commended for attempting to situate Paul's exegesis in light of Jewish exegetical principles and practices. In exploring the substructure underpinning Romans 9, F. detects Paul's use of strategies akin to the rabbinic gezerah shavah (comparison of verses based on a common word or phrase) and heqesh (analogy). Paul's atomistic use of biblical verses in Malachi, Hosea, and Isaiah, for example, demonstrates an approach to Scripture that is common in rabbinic works. The work is replete with long, detailed footnotes that often take the reader through a dense forest of bibliographic...

Moses in Corinth: The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3 by Paul B. Duff

Reviewed by: Moses in Corinth: The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3 by Paul B. Duff Timothy Milinovich paul b. duff, Moses in Corinth: The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3 (NovTSup 159; Leiden: Brill, 2015). Pp. xi + 238. $142. The curious reference to Moses in 2 Corinthians 3 has resulted in a variety of readings, many of which consider Paul's argument to be apologetic and opposed to the Mosaic covenant. In this book, however, Duff's view that internal opponents were the cause of Paul's apology and that Moses is used as a positive example for the audience, challenges the status quo of the debate. The first chapter introduces the reader to major exegetical challenges and the existing conundrum involved in 2 Corinthians 3, especially with the use of Moses and allusions to Exodus 34. D. engages adjacent issues of context (integrity of the letter) and situation (the identity of the opponents). Unsatisfied with the present view of the passage that Paul defends himself against criticism from external Judaizing opponents, D. instead offers that Paul is referring to Moses and exodus traditions to respond to internal criticism from Corinthians who questioned his integrity over the collection. Paul uses Moses as a comparative to his own ministry to highlight how God qualified him, but also uses Moses as a model for gentile Corinthians. Just as Moses takes off his veil to turn to God, the gentile Corinthians turned from idolatry to have a new perspective through faith. Their transformed vision and life in Christ are then proof of Paul's qualifications. Chapter 2 is devoted to the letter's integrity. D. abbreviates a history of the debate before settling on a sequence in which 2 Corinthians 8 (an independent letter) follows [End Page 334] 1 Corinthians and creates significant suspicions among the Corinthian detractors who questioned the collection. Paul then wrote 2 Cor 2:14–7:4 (excluding 6:14–7:1) as a defense of his ministry in this internal dispute. (Other separate sections, 10:1–13:13; 1:1–2:13 + 7:5-16; and 9:1-18, are viewed as later, and 6:14–7:1 is considered a post-Pauline interpolation). In chap. 3, D. lays out the situation behind Paul's defense, arguing that there is insufficient evidence to see the "false apostles" of 2 Corinthians 10–11 as the antagonists, or that Judaizing tendencies are a threat (as compared to Galatia). Instead, D. avers that members of the Corinthian church dissatisfied with Paul's leadership challenged him on the grounds that he was a common huckster who preached for money. Paul's main error was in changing his directions on the collection in 1 Cor 16:1-4, which allowed the Corinthians to choose emissaries to escort the collection to Jerusalem, to that in 2 Cor 8:16-24, which states that Titus would take the collection and travel without them. At this point the internal opposition pounced and argued that Paul's sufferings, imprisonments, and even appearance were divine punishments for his attempts to defraud the community. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 cover the major sections relevant to the study in exegetical fashion: 2:14–3:6; 3:7-11; and 3:12-18, respectively. D. finds that Paul's defensive position over his sincerity in 2:14–3:6 is aimed at the letters of recommendation that the Corinthians demanded to authorize his collection. The reference to the stone tablets (3:3) constitutes Paul's ministry as spiritual but does not denigrate the law. The emphasis is on Paul's ministry, not the effectiveness of the Mosaic covenant. D. then argues that the "ministry of death" that comes from glory refers to how God's glory could condemn gentiles who did not know or follow the covenant. Since the Corinthians themselves had been recipients of God's mercy that freed them from condemnation, they should not then presume that Paul's sufferings are a divine rebuke or punishment. Lastly, Moses is used as a double model: as a comparative to Paul's ministry, and as an analogy to the Corinthians' transformative experience in the community. Since their lives have been...

Romans 7 and Christian Identity: A Study of the 'I' in Its Literary Context by Will N. Timmins

Reviewed by: Romans 7 and Christian Identity: A Study of the 'I' in Its Literary Context by Will N. Timmins Christian A. Eberhart will n. timmins, Romans 7 and Christian Identity: A Study of the 'I' in Its Literary Context (SNTSMS 170; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017). Pp. xiv + 238. $99.99. This monograph is a revised version of the Ph.D. thesis of Will N. Timmins, submitted to the University of Cambridge in 2014, supervised by Peter Head. Exploring the "I" in Romans 7—and thus literally only one letter (at least in the English alphabet)—the volume could be considered as having too narrow a focus. But that is not the case. Timmins rightly demonstrates that chap. 7, specifically 7:7-25, is a key to the entirety of the theological concept presented in Romans. Likewise, a correct understanding of Paul's "I" passage unlocks the meaning of this particular chapter. Thus, by extension, a study of the riddle of the "I" (ἐγώ in Greek) is important for understanding the heart of Paul's theology in its mature stages. The book is organized in seven chapters. After an introduction (chap. 1) featuring a concise summary of recent research on the topic, T. dedicates chap. 2 to a discussion of the hypothesis of Stanley K. Stowers (referencing various publications by Stowers, among them: "Romans 7.7–25 as a Speech-in-Character [Προσωποποιία]," in Paul in His Hellenistic Context, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994] 180–202; A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994] 264–84) that Romans 7 is an example of the classical rhetorical device of prosopopoeia (speech-in-character). Deeming this argument unconvincing, T. proceeds in chap. 3 with an exploration of the context of the "I" in Romans. He investigates the singularity and solidarity of ambiguous first-person singular speech in Rom 3:7, suggesting that Paul takes on the persona of an exclusive individual boasting self-assurance so as to provide his audience in Rome with a negative model. Thus "the 'I' of 3:7 subtly prepares for the Adamic, confessing 'I' of Rom 7" (p. 201). Romans 6:12-19 also belongs to the context of the "I" in Romans 7; in chap. 4, therefore, T. scrutinizes Paul's argument about the believer's predicament between life in the mortal body and a new existence through participation in the life and resurrection of Christ. The fact that the new life of the believer does not translate into an intrinsic anthropological reality is also the subject of the central question of this book in its main section, which discusses the "I" and Adamic solidarity (Rom 7:7-13) and the "I" and the Christian existence (7:14–25). So in chap. 5, T. suggests that Paul employs a paradigmatic "I" to present his personal apology regarding the law, ultimately aiming at drawing the audience "into a recognition of their own Adamic solidarity" (p. 136). This means that, according to T., Paul does not assign the "I" to an imaginary interlocutor with whom he enters into dialogue for argumentative purposes, as argued by many scholars, but presents his own voice. In that case, the paragraph in 7:7-13 would feature no fictive use of the "I" and no diatribal exchange. Paul's next paragraph (7:14-25), discussed in chap. 6, goes on to describe the inner conflict of the "I," who remains under the power of sin as an anthropological condition despite having experienced salvation in Christ. Humans need the newness of the Spirit for fruitful service of God, but even the Spirit cannot change the fact that human bodies are weak and oriented toward death. Chapter 7 contains a summary of T.'s argument and shows how it corroborates Paul's vision of the Christian life. It covers the areas of life of faith, life of hope, and life of love. The book also features an appendix [End Page 559] illustrating the occurrences of first-person singular pronouns in Romans, an index of ancient sources, and an index of subjects and authors. Romans 7 and Christian Identity is to be commended for tackling the...

Separated from My Mother's Womb: An Appraisal of Paul's Testimony in Galatians 1:15

In Galatians 1:15, Paul uniquely presents his appointment and apostleship as God's separating him from his mother's womb and calling him by grace. However, Paul's meaning behind the phrase, “separated from his mother's womb,” has been speculated with little biblical-theological substance. Thus, this article presents a fresh argument that in this phrase Paul alludes to his birth as a Roman citizen, which is later followed by his calling to be an apostle to the Gentiles. This study also concludes that Galatians 1:15 functions as the center of Paul's argument in 1:6–2:10 with 2:11–21 as its illustration.

Righting Relations after the Holocaust and Vatican II: Essays in Honor of John T. Pawlikowski, OSM ed. by Elena G. Procario-Foley and Robert A. Cathey

Reviewed by: Righting Relations after the Holocaust and Vatican II: Essays in Honor of John T. Pawlikowski, OSM ed. by Elena G. Procario-Foley and Robert A. Cathey Eugene J. Fisher Elena G. Procario-Foley and Robert A. Cathey, eds., Righting Relations after the Holocaust and Vatican II: Essays in Honor of John T. Pawlikowski, OSM. A Stimulus Book. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2018. Pp. 334. $34.95, paper. The essays in this excellent volume are written by scholars from the Americas and Europe—Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims—reflecting the globalization of interreligious dialogue in our time. Aptly titled, it honors one of the great theologians of social ethics and pioneers of Catholic-Jewish relations. The book opens with a foreword by another great pioneer in Jewish-Christian relations, Judith H. Banki. Procario-Foley of Iona College deftly introduces the book, which summarizes the work leading to Nostra aetate and advances since the Council. The book is divided into three parts: Ethics and Theology, Holocaust Studies, and Interreligious Studies. In the first part, Mary Doak compares the works of Reinhold Niebuhr and Pawlikowski on social ethics. Cathey summarizes Pawlikowski's Christology and its challenges for rethinking Protestant theology. Edward Kessler of England formulates a theology of dialogue. Martin M. Lintner, OSM, probes the meaning of love of neighbor (Lev. 19:18) in the Bible and in the thought of Jewish philosophers Emmanuel Levinas and Martin Buber. Michael S. Kogan commits a small error in interpreting Galatians as "replacement theology," since Paul's argument was not against Judaism as such but an argument that gentile converts to Christianity need not observe the whole of the law/Torah but only the Noahide covenant (p. 74). Kogan discusses the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation from a Jewish point of view, which can be the basis for deepening Jewish-Christian dialogue. Jon Nilson concentrates on pedagogical and pastoral implications of Catholic scholars Pawlikowski, Karl Rahner, David Tracy, and Philip Cunningham. [End Page 451] In the section on Holocaust studies, John K. Roth explores the experiences of Jewish survivors of the Shoah, such as Albert Camus and Primo Levi. Stephen Jacobs describes the "righteous gentiles" who saved Jews from the Nazis, asking the reader, "What would you do?" Victoria Barnett of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum traces the work since World War II to remove anti-Judaism from Christian thought. Menhaz Afridi, a Muslim, discusses how we can understand the "others" as they understand themselves. Katherina von Kellenbach considers how we can learn to understand historical and present interreligious relations. Carol Rittner, RSM, examines challenges for Christian classrooms and sermons. In "Interreligious Studies," Susannah Heschel, daughter of Abraham Joshua Heschel, describes her father's involvement in the development of Nostra aetate. Amy-Jill Levine summarizes the progress since Nostra aetate, carefully critiquing traditional anti-Jewish readings of the Gospels and typological readings of the Hebrew Scriptures. Ruth Langer shows how Jews can in the future present a fair understanding of Christianity in Jewish liturgy. Carmen M. Nanko-Fernandez and Jean-Pierre Ruiz describe the history and present reality of Latino/a Catholic-Jewish relations, convivencia. Mary C. Boys traces the trajectory of Nostra aetate from World War II to its declaration in and since 1965. Yehezkel Landau of Israel, who has long worked there for Jewish-Christian-Muslim relations and Israeli-Palestinian peacebuilding, provides a moving tribute to Pawlikowski the man and to his work. James Carroll of Harvard provides an afterword drawing on his own experiences in Boston. [End Page 452] Eugene J. Fisher Saint Leo University, St. Leo, FL Copyright © 2018 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

Kynische Argumentation im Römerbrief: Römer 1–2 und Ps.-Diogenes,Epistula28 im Vergleich

Recent studies have discussed Paul's letters against the backdrop of ancient Greek philosophy, particularly of Stoicism, Platonism and Cynicism. This article will take up the latter suggestion, as it shows significant similarities between Paul's argument in Rom 1–2 and the Cynic tradition, which is a neglected aspect in scholarly discussion. A comparison of Rom 1.18–32; 2.14–29 and the Cynic epistle Ps.-Diogenes,Epistula28 will outline decisive assumptions and argumentative patterns that both letters have in common.

From Eloquence to Evading Responsibility: The Rhetorical Functions of Quotations in Paul's Argumentation

The purpose of this article is to highlight the variety of functions that quotations perform in Paul’s argumentation in light of two modern theories on quoting. First, psycholinguists Herbert Clark and Richard Gerrig’s Demonstration Theory describes various functions a quotation may perform in a discourse. Second, the Proteus Principle of Meir Sternberg sheds light on the process of recontextualizing quotations, which serves as a starting point for analyzing Paul’s strategies in integrating quotations into his own argumentation. Both theories can be illustrated by textual examples from Rom 9–11, and they bring conceptual clarity to recent debates about Paul’s use of Scripture. The final section addresses questions that arise when modern theories are applied to ancient texts and discusses the relevance of such approaches for the study of Paul’s argumentation.

Faith, Judgment, and the Life of the Believer: A Reassessment of 2 Corinthians 5:6-10

Given the cosmic scope of Pauline eschatology, there is often ambiguity concerning the role of the believer in God's redemption of creation. In the present essay, I examine the interrelated Pauline themes of faith, judgment, and existence through the lens of 2 Cor 5:6-10. I seek to establish that the significance of Paul's argument stems not from a temporal divide between the present and the future but rather from a theological divide between two present modes of existence shaped by two distinct perceptions of Christ—one defined by the realm of faith and one defined by the realm of human appearances.

Why Is God Justified in Romans?: Vindicating Paul's Use of Psalm 51 in Romans 3:4

The relationship between Romans 3:4 and Psalm 51:4 (Psalm 50:6 in the Septuagint) has long puzzled scholars. Many suggest that Paul's use of Ps 50:6LXX either seems not to fit the logic of Romans 3 or does not reflect the psalmist's meaning. This article offers an interpretation of Romans 3:4 that eliminates the apparent tension between the two texts. It clarifies Paul's meaning in Romans 3 by reinterpreting Psalm 51:4 in its context. Both Psalm 51:4 and Romans 3:4 refer to God's saving righteousness. The conclusion that Romans 3:4 speaks of God's saving righteousness is not unique to this study. However, typical arguments in favour of this view are susceptible to significant criticism. Specifically, they do not demonstrate how the whole of Psalm 50LXX shapes Paul's argument, and/or they do not explore the possibility that Psalm 50:6LXX also refers to God's saving righteousness. This article addresses both issues. After reviewing the theological and exegetical significance of Romans 3:4, four major questions that challenge readers today will be surveyed. Next, an integrated exegesis of both passages, showing how Psalm 50:6LXX sheds light on Romans 3, will be presented.

Sanctification and Oneness in 1 Corinthians with Implications for the Case of ‘Mixed Marriages’ (1 Corinthians 7.12–16)

This essay is a social-scientific study of Paul's deployment of holiness language in 1 Corinthians. Specifically, an interpretation of holiness is offered to explain Paul's argument in 1 Cor 7.12–16 in favour of non-separation in the case of a believer married to a non-believer. For Paul, holiness involves participation in the oneness of God interpreted christologically. This participation is embodied in the holiness-as-oneness of the church. In relations between believers and unbelievers, purity rules to do with sex and marriage carry a significant symbolic burden. In some cases, clear lines of demarcation are drawn. Other cases constitute grey areas; and the suggestion here is that ‘mixed marriages’ are one such. For Paul, holiness is a matter of neither genealogical nor cultic purity. Rather, it has a boundary-transcending quality. In the case of a mixed marriage, the unbelieving partner, together with the children, is sanctified by remaining in oneness with the believing partner. Paul's concern for the oneness of the church spills over into a concern for the oneness of the household.

Anthropological Crisis and Solution in theHodayotand 1 Corinthians 15

This article describes how the writers of theHodayotunderstand Gen 2.7 as describing an anthropological crisis: the human is formed from the dust and wasting away. Drawing on Ezekiel 37, the hymnists maintain that this crisis is overcome by God imparting his Spirit. This understanding of Gen 2.7 is used to illuminate Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul likewise reads Gen 2.7 as a description of an anthropological problem, and he finds the solution in Ezekiel 37. Yet, he introduces his own twist so that Gen 2.7 comes to express both the crisis and the solution.

“The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable” (Romans 11:29): If So, How Can Paul Declare that “Not All Israelites Truly Belong to Israel” (9:6)?

The translation(s) of Romans 9:6 have undermined the premise in verses 1-5 and in chapter 11 of an irrevocable covenant with Israelites regardless of whether they agree with Paul about Jesus (at the time that he was writing his argument in Romans). The traditional interpretive results challenge not only Paul's arguments but also a central feature of post Nostra Aetate 4 developments in Christian discourses about Jews. The context of Paul's arguments in chapters 9-11 are discussed for determining the most likely translation choices in the context of 9:6 and then for the verse itself. Two probable alternatives are offered, both of which offer a way to read this text to corroborate that Paul upheld the continued validity of Israelite identity for his peers, and to undermine the traditional role of this text in the replacement theological arsenal.