Paul's Argument Research Articles

Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3

Corinthians has long been recognized as one of the most difficult texts for understanding Paul's apostolic self-conception, his view of the law in relationship to the gospel, and his distinctively Christian use of the Old Testament. In this work, Scott Hafemann offers a detailed exegetical and traditionsgeschichtliche study of Paul's argument in 2 Corinthians 3 against the backdrop of the call of and the prophets on the one hand, and in view of the Second Giving of the Law from Exodus 32 34 and the ensuing history of Israel on the other. Against this backdrop, Hafemann proposes that Paul understood himself to have been called like Moses, albeit with a ministryunlike that of Moses because of the distinctive new covenant context of his apostolic ministry. The author puts forth the provocative thesis that within this redemptive-historical context the letter/Spirit contrast is not to be seen as a contrast between the law and the gospel per se, but between the law itself with and without the power of the Spirit, the former of which is essential to Paul's gospel ministry. Hafemann argues that Paul supported this position on the basis of a careful and contextual interpretation of Exodus 32 34, Jeremiah 31, and the canonical history of Israel, which remained true to their original intention. In conclusion, the significance of Paul's argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 for understanding Paul's view of the Law, the relationship between Israel and the Church, and his OT hermeneutic is outlined. This work breaks new ground in offering a thorough study of the contours of Paul's thought concerning the nature and defense of his apostolic ministry in view of theministry of Moses, the Sinai covenant, and the history of Israel. It also interacts extensively with the secondary literature in the field.

The Pauline Letter Closings: Analysis and Hermeneutical Significance

Abstract The contention of this article is that the Pauline letter closings are carefully constructed units, shaped and adapted in such way that they relate directly to—sometimes, in fact, even summarize—the major concerns and themes taken up in the bodies of their respective letters. Consequently, the letter closings aid in important ways our understanding of Paul's purpose, arguments and exhortation. The article begins by evaluating the reasons why the Pauline letter closings have been ignored in the past and offers in response suggestive comments about their potential significance. This claimed significance of the Pauline letter closings is then established by examining one of the closing conventions (the peace benediction) as it occurs in two of Paul's letters (1 Thess 5:23–24; Gal 6:16).

Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe

In Romans 4 Paul turns to the scriptural figure of Abraham, a vivid personification of faith and obedience in Jewish thought. While the most obvious reason for Paul's depiction of Abraham is to undermine any use of Abraham as a counterexample to his foregoing argument, Paul turns the common Jewish conception of Abraham on its head and offers him instead as positive support for his own position. The nature of Paul's argument in the previous two chapters of Romans has been identified by James Dunn and others as rejecting the Jewish assumption that covenant privileges are strictly associated with ethnic Israel and therefore unavailable to Gentiles. Over against the Torah, Paul has instead offered faith as the identifier or boundary marker of those who are members in God's people – a difference which allows Gentiles full participation in the covenant.

The Pauline Letter Closings: Analysis and Hermeneutical Significance

Abstract The contention of this article is that the Pauline letter closings are carefully constructed units, shaped and adapted in such way that they relate directly to—sometimes, in fact, even summarize—the major concerns and themes taken up in the bodies of their respective letters. Consequently, the letter closings aid in important ways our understanding of Paul's purpose, arguments and exhortation. The article begins by evaluating the reasons why the Pauline letter closings have been ignored in the past and offers in response suggestive comments about their potential significance. This claimed significance of the Pauline letter closings is then established by examining one of the closing conventions (the peace benediction) as it occurs in two of Paul's letters (1 Thess 5:23–24; Gal 6:16).

Unexpected Mercy: Echoes of a Biblical Motif in Romans 9–11

Of the many problems which trouble interpreters of Romans 9–11, none rises more massively from its pages or casts a more impenetrable shadow than the relationship between Paul's argument in 9:6–13 and his argument in 11:25–31. The issue in both passages is whether God's biblical promises to save Israel have failed (9:6, 11:29), exposing the God of Paul's gospel as untruthful (15:8) and unrighteous (3:5, 10:3). In 9:6–13 Paul denies the charge by defining Israel on the basis of God's choice rather than on the basis of national affiliation. In 11:25–32, however, he denies the charge by pointing forward to a time in which God will fulfill his promises and secure the salvation of all Israel. The problem is that these two defenses of God's faithfulness seem to contradict one another, and the defense in chapter eleven seems not only to contradict the one in chapter nine but to oppose Paul's frequent and emphatic denial in several letters, and especially in Romans, that national Israel has any soteriological advantage over the Gentiles.

Paul's Argumentation in Galatians 1–2

In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul directly addresses only the Galatian churches; through them, however, he is engaged in a polemic against rival missionaries who had influenced the churches with another gospel. If one intends to analyze Paul's argumentation in Galatians 1–2, it is necessary first to ask about the characteristics of these missionaries and their gospel. In the history of research, many different pictures of the opponents and their gospel have been drawn. These reconstructions result partly from the method of so-called mirror reading; this method infers the position of the opponents by reversing the negations and affirmations in Paul's argumentation. Recently and with good reason this method has been criticized. In my analysis I confine myself to what can be said with certainty about the opponents: First, the opponents shared with Paul the belief in Jesus as the messiah; otherwise Paul could not have termed their message a “gospel” (Gal 1:6). Second, for the opponents the gospel of Paul was incomplete, because it lacked part of the commandments of the covenant, particularly the commandment of circumcision as a prerequisite for full membership among the people of God (Gal 5:3–4; 6:12–13). Although Paul himself did not mention it, we can safely assume that on this point the opponents referred to scripture. Gen 17:10–11, for example, states clearly that without circumcision no one can be a member of the covenant.

The Testing by Fire of the Builders' Works: 1 Corinthians 3.10–15

One of the most interesting passages to deal with the apostle Paul's thoughts on the Last Day and the final Judgment is found in 1 Cor 3.10–15. Far from being an excursus, a digression or an insertion, having almost nothing to do with its context, the verses are an important element in Paul's arguments on the diversity in the Christian community in Corinth in chapters 1–4. It runs partly parallel with vv. 5–9, illustrating the same point along more or less similar lines: people responsible for the growth of the Christian communities are just servants of God and will be recompensed according to their labours at the end of time.

Yhwh and His Messiah: Pauline Exegesis and the Divine Christ

AbstractIn Romans 9-11 Paul laments the status of unbelieving Jews and its resultant disjuncture with believing Jews and Gentiles now included in the people of God. He attempts to justify this astonishing, new situation by frequent appeals to God's plan revealed in scripture.1 Pivotal to his discussion is Rom 9:30-10:13 which describes why Israel had not yet attained God's righteousness revealed in Christ.2 Paul's discourse tracks carefully along the path of scriptural exegesis in allusions and comments on the Law (Lev 18:5; Deut 9:4; 30:12-14) and the Prophets (Isa 8:14; 28:16; Joel 3:5). Since it is generally acknowledged that this part of Paul's argument (9:30-10:21) is christocentric3, this article will explore how the apostle "reads" these texts and expands their meaning through christological reflection.4 Specifically, I will investigate Paul's exegetical methods and conclusions in Rom 9:30-10:13 and draw some implications for his understanding of Jesus.

’n Diskoersanalitiese perspektief op 1 Korintiërs 6:12-20

1 Corinthians 6:12-20 has been interpreted in various ways by modem scholars. In this article a detailed analysis is made of this pericope, on both the microlevel and the macrolevel, in an attempt to determine the crux of Paul's argumentation in this passage.

Yet Once More—'the Works of the Law': a Response

This is a response to C.E.B. Cranfield's rebuttal of Dunn's earlier treatment of 'the works of the law' in JSNT 43 (1991), pp. 89-101. Dunn first clarifies that the phrase 'works of the law' is Paul's characterization of (1) what the law requires, (2) focused in particular test cases, (3) as paralleled by Qumran usage where it denotes sectarian halakhah. Secondly, in response to the charge that in Romans the phrase indicates a universal indictment, he argues (1) that the thrust of Rom. 2.1-3.20 is to include the 'Jew' within the universal indictment, and (2) to indict the 'Jew' of both actual disobedience and assumption of a privileged position before God which dulls the seriousness of that sin. (3) Rom. 3.27ff. confirms that the thrust of Paul's argument is directed against Jewish boasting; and (4) Rom. 4.4-5 does not disturb that conclusion. Finally, a brief study of Gal. 2.16 and 3.10 clarifies how it is that 'those who are of the works of the law' can be said to be under the curse of the law.

Understanding Romans in the Light of 2 Corinthians

The thesis of this paper is that conclusions reached in studying 2 Corinthians may profoundly affect the way Romans is read and interpreted — indeed, a number of difficulties in grasping the nub of Paul's argument may be resolved if we come to Romans with the insight into Paul's thinking that 2 Corinthians provides. The argument depends upon the findings reported in the author's joint work with David Ford, Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians (SPCK 1987): for convenience the most relevant of these will be outlined first.

Paul's Arguments as Evidence of the Christianity from which he Diverged

While the topic of this paper is familiar, I believe that one source of information has been generally neglected: the arguments that Paul does not use. Since Bishop Stendahl has done so much to illuminate Paul's words, it seems appropriate to dedicate to him this brief sketch of things to be learned from Paul's silence.

The ‘Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3. 13–14

The path of Paul's argumentation in Gal 3. 1–4. 7 presents vexing problems for any who would attempt to retrace it. The terminal points are clear: he begins with ‘Christ … crucified’ (3. 1; cf. 2. 21) and ends with the inclusion of the uncircumcized Gentile believers among the true ‘seed’ of Abraham (3. 26–29; 4. 7). But the route by which he moves from ‘cross’ to ‘Gentiles’–a maze of laboured exegesis, puzzling illustration, and cryptic theological shorthand–is anything but clear.

"Have We Found Abraham To Be Our Forefather According To the Flesh?" a Reconsideration of Rom 4:1

by S. K. Stowers and C. T. Rhyne have moved the discussion forward significantly by demonstrating that formal considerations require this chapter to be read in a larger context; 2 however, even in these treatments, major obscurities remain concerning the meaning and function of Rom 4:1. This essay seeks to clarify the discussion of Romans 4 by re-examining this verse which introduces Abraham into Paul's argument and offering a new proposal for translating the Greek text. This proposal, if viable, will cast new light on the way in which Paul employs the figure of Abraham in his discussion, and it will consequently make the continuity of the argument in Romans 3 and 4 more readily discernible. Let us consider the evidence.

Book Review: Life after Death : Paul's Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor. 15. Part I: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background

Book Review: Life after Death : Paul's Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor. 15. Part I: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background

Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status among the Corinthians

In 1 Corinthians the apostle Paul is attempting to straighten out some people in his newly founded community who, by virtue of their possession of wisdom, were claiming a special spiritual status. Apparently they designated themselves aspneumatikoiin contrast with thepsychikoi, or those of lesser religious achievement. By a careful reading of Paul's arguments in 1 Corinthians we can discern some of their key religious terminology and principles. On the basis of pertinent parallels to these terms and principles, especially in Hellenistic philosophical sources and Hellenistic Jewish texts, it is then possible to draw certain conclusions regarding the religious viewpoint of these Corinthians.

Conflicting Movements in the Early Church as Reflected in Philippians

AbstractAssuming the dispatch of one letter from Ephesus to Philippi around 54-55 A.D., the article seeks to determine the character of the groups Paul discusses. The critics of Paul's imprisonment in Ph. i 15 ff. are linked to those "who look after their own interests" in ii 21 and identified as divine-man missionaries who felt his humiliating imprisonment jeopardized the mission. The references to the Philippian congregation are seen to reveal a piety marked by Hellenistic enthusiasm. The opponents in iii 17 ff. are identified as libertinists expelled during Paul's initial mission in Philippi who deny the saving efficacy of the cross and boast in immoral behavior. The opponents in iii 2 ff. are Judaizing missionaries who potentially threaten the congregation by offering circumcision as a means to gain perfection. The enthusiastic piety of the Philippian congregation thus lent itself to an appeal from both the libertinists and the Judaizers, and Paul's argument is seen as an attempt to establish a cross-oriented concept of humility and an apocalyptically-grounded sense of history to counter their propaganda and at the same time to correct the Philippians' viewpoint.

Book Review: The Resurrection and Paul's Argument

Book Review: The Resurrection and Paul's Argument