Paul's Use Research Articles

Faith in Jesus and Paul: A Comparison with Special Reference to "Faith That Can Remove Mountains" and "Your Faith Has Healed/Saved You,"

in and Paul: A Comparison with Special Reference to Faith that Can Remove Mountains and Your Has Healed/Saved You, by Maureen W. Yeung. WUNT 2/147. Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2002. Pp. XV + 341. euro59. This slightly revised 1999 dissertation from the University of Aberdeen seeks to assess the extent of the historical and theological continuity between and Paul by means of a narrowly focused study on the meaning of Yeung's dialogue partner in this study is the exegetical tradition, represented by W. Wrede and R. Bultmann, that poses a sharp discontinuity between the advocated by and that of Paul. Yeung characterizes this perceived discontinuity in terms of the assumed by Jesus, understood as the demand for belief in the miraculous powers of (often a precursor to Jesus' miracles [e.g., Mark 2:5]), and the kergyma/salvation of Paul (i.e., belief in as Christ). The first task in this revisionist project is to determine a firm point of contact between and Paul that explicitly engages the issue of faith. The author locates this at 1 Cor 13:2b (. . . but if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing), where Paul refers to tradition that also surfaces in Mark 11:23 (par. Matt 21:21) and Q (Luke 17:6; Matt 17:20). After an extensive analysis of both biblical and noncanonical parallels, Yeung concludes that this tradition regarding removal is eschatological and refers specifically to the elimination of a holy mountain (probably mount Zion), indicating both judgment upon Israel and the possibility of new creation/restoration. Since, according to OT tradition, this removal work is the prerogative of God, Yeung claims Jesus is actually speaking of a that appropriates God's will . . . to hurl the covenant mountain into the sea (p. 44). Among the conclusions reached in this in-depth reading of Mark 11:23 are that: (a) claims to speak for God as the messiah of Israel, (b) pronounces judgment upon Israel, (c) God's promises of restoration are restated, and (d) those who have in as Israel's Christ will participate with him in some of the activities traditionally assigned to God at the eschaton. In drawing such conclusions, Yeung is able to mitigate the difference recovered by the radical exegetical tradition represented by Bultmann between the of and the of Paul. In short, Yeung claims that both and Paul share an understanding of that includes elements of eschatological miracle and the kerygma that is Christ, a kergyma that judges institutional Judaism and finds it wanting, while it reconfigures the notion of who are the people of God. Note that in this eschatological reconstruction of Israel, the traditional covenantal boundaries between God and the chosen of God are both transgressed and completely redefined. Once Yeung has established her faith connection between and Paul on the basis of her exegesis of 1 Cor 3:2, she is ready to move on to the heart of the project. This is the thesis that Hab 2:4-The righteous will live by his (RSV)-was interpreted in a messianic mode by so as to provide Paul with a precedent for Paul's use of Hab 2:4 within his theology of justification. Since there is no direct evidence to substantiate this claim, Yeung builds on Otto Betz's observation (Was wissen wir von Jesus? [Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1991], 72) of certain similarities between Hab 2:4 and Jesus' formulaic saying, Your has saved/healed you, found in the stories of the healing of the bleeding woman (Mark 5:34 par. Matt 9:22; Luke 8:48), Bartimaeus (Mark 10:52 par. Luke 18:42), the woman with the ointment (Luke 7:50), and the ten lepers (Luke 17:19). Betz's understanding of Jesus' interpretation of Hab 2:4 (to those healed) is paraphrased in the following terms (p. …

‘If Anyone Hungers …’: An Integrated Reading of 1 Cor 11.17–34

Based on an integrated reading of the social and sacramental dimensions of 1 Cor 11.17–34, this study suggests that, rather than denoting the private homes of the wealthy, Paul's use of οικια/οικος (11.22, 34) refers to the domain of the Corinthian church's gathering. As a result, his exhortation in these verses entails not a tacit endorsement of stratified resources but a concerted argument for the feeding of the hungry in the community's shared meal (δειπνον), a meal he hopes will imitate Jesus' pattern of self-sacrifice and so will become a meal that is ‘of the Lord (κυριακον δειπνον)’.

Book Reviews : Paul's Use of Scripture for His Ethics

Book Reviews : Paul's Use of Scripture for His Ethics

The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14.1-15.13 in Context

The Strong and Weak: Romans 14.1-15.13 in Context, by Mark Reasoner. SNTSMS 103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. xxi + 272. $59.95. This monograph revises and brings up to date author's 1990 University of Chicago dissertation completed under supervision of H. D. Betz, Arthur Droge, and Richard Saller. Reasoner provides a helpful outline of various interpretations that have been offered to date of Rom 14:1-15:13 and explains implications of each of them for interpreting this section and overall letter. He aligns himself with those who attribute behavioral characteristics of such as vegetarianism, wine abstinence, and observance of days to Jewish practices among some of members of Roman churches. Yet he joins those who do not categorize simply along a Jew/Gentile line. He includes in category of some Gentile Christians who may have been attracted to Jewish practices, and in category of some Jewish members who may have considered themselves now free of Mosaic Law. He proposes to expand this position by arguing that some of were abstaining for extra-Jewish pro-Roman reasons. In this pursuit Reasoner provides an interesting study of social world of addressees according to classical sources. He examines a range of vegetarian and ascetic practices that might motivate abstinence of weak, considers background for observance of days, stigma of superstition, and social value of obligation. For example, he argues that terms weak and strong in Paul's usage correspond with the Roman tendency to define social hierarchies within various levels of early imperial society and differentiate positions in a hierarchy on basis of (p. 45). By way of this insight Reasoner seeks to penetrate social salience of Paul's language for addressees as Romans. He considers primary Latin evidence that in Roman society potentes (strong ones) exercised power and influence, whether a result of political strength or wealth. Thus it was considered important for inferiores (those socially beneath or inferior) to cultivate relationships with stronger ones and avoid offending them, to favor them even if this might require mistreating those of lesser status. These were not fixed categories as much as relative social statuses, so that from Caesar down there is a ranking at every level of society, and a variety of criteria of ability and competence that might apply in determining people's level of social influence, worth in society measured against those over whom could social power. Such clout did not go uncontested, and vulnerability of stronger reinforced ideal of discrimination in cultivation of relationships of advantage. Discussion includes other Roman terms of reference for relative strength and weakness. Reasoner presses this evidence to argue that these terms were used by Roman addressees to distinguish among themselves before Paul's letter. He does not think that Paul would count himself among in 15:1 if he had invented labels, and reasons that he would risk offending those to whom he was writing to win support. Although admitting that letter provides no explicit evidence for social status differentiation in terms of wealth or civil position, he nevertheless argues that it implies different social estimations of honor at work within confines of these groups. That scale is determined by whether or not one is ashamed, and since Paul is not ashamed of himself or his gospel, he is strong. Reasoner has made a good case that terms were used to indicate one's relative social standing in Roman society, and that this dynamic should be considered in Paul's use of language in this letter. However, his conclusions that the 'strong' are Roman citizens or foreign-born residents who display a proclivity toward things Roman, that their appearance may be described as healthy, if not robust, since eat everything (14:2a) and are `strong,' that exercise auctoritas over those whom Roman society has placed below or equal to them in status (14:3a), that they have material resources to appear more self-sufficient than others within particular class and rank (15:1), and that their place in social hierarchy of most likely corresponds to those freedmen who had risen in status, social influence, and property holdings above freeborn within lower population of Rome (pp. …

SPEIRETAI: Paul's Anthropogenic Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44

Bell & Howell Information and Learning: Foreign Text Omitted. This essay examines the meaning of the metaphor of sowing in 1 Cor 15:42-44 by examining its context in Paul's argument in 1 Cor 15:35-37 and the use of the metaphor as describing human origins and generation in the GrecoRoman world.1 As is evidenced by the frequency with which ... is found in w. 42-44 and w. 36-38, an understanding of the meaning of this metaphor is critical for interpreting w. 42-44 and extremely important for interpreting Paul's argument in w. 35-57. This importance has been recognized by a number of scholars who have attempted to determine what this metaphorical language means, posing two basic theories to explain Paul's metaphor of sowing in w. 42-44. First, on the basis of their interpretation of w. 36-38, scholars have argued that OICipeat in vv. 42-44 refers to the burial or interment of a deceased human being.2 As evidence of this, they can appeal and have appealed to the presence of death in v. 36, to the details of the agricultural analogy in vv. 36-38, which clearly implies the covering of a seed, and to the application of that analogy to the resurrection of the dead in v. 42a: Thus also is the resurrection of the Since the issue Paul is addressing in 1 Cor 15 involves the resurrection of the dead (v. 12) and since he continues to refer to death and the dead in vv. 36-38 and 42, their interpretation seems to be a natural one. Others, however, argue that the verb refers to all preresurrection human existence, including the living and the dead.3 As evidence, they note that not all the predicates describing the verb ... in vv. 42-44 can refer to an interred body, but must refer to human existence in general. Many argue that Paul is merely demonstrating the possibility of life from death, not death as a precondition of the resurrection. When Paul's use of ... is examined in the context of his argument in vv. 35-57 and of the mythic and philosophical history of this metaphor, however, both of these interpretations prove to be untenable. In contrast, the evidence strongly suggests that Paul's metaphor of sowing in vv. 42-44 is used antithetically to contrast not burial or human existence, but human origins with the resurrection. In I Cor 15:42-44 Paul uses the verb ... as an anthropogenic metaphor describing the creation of the first human being, Adam. I. ... in the Contxt of Paul's Argument in 1 Corinthians 15:35-57 Paul's sowing metaphor in vv. 42-44 is located in a complicated argument regarding the resurrection of the dead. As Paul's argument indicates in v. 12, some members of the Corinthian community were saying that there is no resurrection of the dead. Paul's aim in 1 Cor 15 is to persuade them otherwise. To do so, he presents a two-part argument, with vv. 1-34 demonstrating that a denial of the resurrection is inconsistent with what the Corinthians and Paul believe and practice and withvv. 35-57 directly addressing the issue that led to their denial. Given the nature of Paul's argument in w. 35-57, it seems quite likely that some of the Corinthians denied the resurrection because they believed it violated the principles of their cosmological doctrine. They probably argued that it is absurd to think that a terrestrial body could be raised to the celestial realm. Since all we have is one side of what was undoubtedly a two-sided exchange, we cannot be absolutely sure that this was the problem. Nevertheless, it seems quite likely because Paul goes to great lengths to prove that the resurrection is compatible with a cosmological system where the terrestrial and celestial realms were considered opposites.4 It is essential to understand how ... fits into this argument. Paul uses the verb ... to refer to the creative power of God in the creation of Adam and extrapolates from this event that God's creative power will be the cause of the resurrection.5 In vv. 35-57, Paul concentrates on demonstrating two essential points: the cause and the effect of the resurrection. …

A Reconsideration of Paul's Use of the Word 'Baptism' in Romans 6

A Reconsideration of Paul's Use of the Word 'Baptism' in Romans 6

THE CONVERSION OF THE IMAGINATION: SCRIPTURE AND ESCHATOLOGY IN 1 CORINTHIANS

This article argues two major theses: (1) Paul was trying to teach the Corinthian church to think eschatologically; (2) Paul was trying to teach the Corinthian church to reshape its identity in light of Israel's Scripture. These theses entail two important corollaries: (1) the Corinthians did not have an ‘overrealized eschatology’; (2) scholars who contend that Paul engaged in OT interpretation only when his hand was forced by Judaizing opponents cannot explain Paul's rich and varied use of Scripture in 1 Cor. These theses are explained and defended with reference to 1 Cor 10.1–22; 1.18–31 and 5.1–13.

The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity: From Alexander to Bar Kochba (review)

Hebrew Sludies 40 (1999) 355 Reviews and marital behavior" which were at variance among sectarian groups within first century Judaism. The phrase n,mn ~l'Q shows similarity with epyoov VOJ.lOU in the Pauline letters; it is unlikely, however, that this was the heading of the document or that Paul's use of the phrase was a direct reference to it. On the whole, these essays are carefully argued and cautious in their approach , specially in the search for biblical or rabbinic parallels. In spite of the problems raised by the fragmentary character of 4QMMT and the uncertainty of the composite text, the authors generally agree on a few major points, such as the proto-Sadducean and early setting of the document . They also show the importance of 4QMMT for Jewish and New Testament studies, and map the ground for further research. It is to be hoped that they fmd followers from various horizons whose work will enhance our understanding of this important text from Qumran. Jean Duhaime Universile de Montreal Montreal Quebec, Canada jean.duhaime@umontreal.ca THE JEWISH PEOPLE IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY: FROM ALEXANDER TO BAR KOCHBA. By John H. Hayes and Sara R. Mandell. pp. x + 246. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Paper. $28.00. In The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity: From Alexander 10 Bar Kochba, John H. Hayes and Sara R. Mandell have produced an erudite and readable text for the study of the Judean-Jerusalem community from 333 B.C.E. through 135 C.E. This work is described in the preface as being the companion volume to J. M. Miller and John H. Hayes' earlier work A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia/London: Westminster Press/SCM Press, 1986). The book consists of an introduction followed by four chapters: "The Jewish Community under Ptolemaic and Seleucid Rule" (chap. 1), "The Hasmonaeans" (chap. 2), "The Herodian Period" (chap. 3). and "The Jewish-Roman Wars" (chap. 4). In the Introduction, Hayes and Mandell treat three critical issues that must be carefully considered by any scholar writing about ancient Judaism. First, the scholar must be conscious of-and avoid-the theologicallyrooted tendency to see the Yahwistic community of Jerusalem, beginning with the Babylonian returnees of 538 B.C.E., as being the "authentic" representative of a "normative" Judaism to which essentially all Jews gave their assent. Such a reading of the history. the authors correctly point out. Hebrew Studies 40 (1999) 356 Reviews was probably adhered to by the Jews of the time who saw themselves as the heirs of that particular Yahwistic tradition and by those today whose view of the history is built upon a Jewish or Christian faith perspective. Yet it is an unacceptable perspective for an historian, who must not be swayed by an image of the Jews as a "totally unique people, chosen by the one and only real deity" (p. 1). Rather, we must recognize that "normative Judaism" is a construct, and that the evidence shows great diversity in religious and political viewpoints among the Yahwists who lived in Palestine during this period . The members of these various groups "were Jewish insofar as they were Yahwists" (p. 2). Hayes and Mandell next take up the issue of the sources available to the historian of the period. While primary source materials for the period are scarce, there are the accounts of Josephus, 1 and 2 Maccabees, some material that may help shed light on the Samaritans, the Qumran community, and the followers of Bar Kochba, and the writings of a number of Greek and Roman authors (aside from Josephus) including Polybius, Cicero, Livy, and Tacitus. Hayes and Mandell correctly argue that the literary products of the Roman world outside of Palestine are relevant to a study of the Judean community because we thereby gain a Roman perspective on Rome's interactions with those under its suzerainty. This information can then balance the information obtainable from internal Judean sources alone. Yet Hayes and Mandell are aware that caution is also required when using Roman sources, since the latter often do not explicitly treat the issue for which they are being mined-the relationship of Greeks or Romans to...

Was Paul Out of His Mind? Re-Reading 2 Corinthians 5.13

Paul's use of the words έξίστηιμ and σωϕρoνέω in 2 Cor. 5.13 has proven ex tremely difficult for interpreters. Some believe Paul is making reference to a charge of eccentric behavior, while others think he is alluding to his own ecstatic expe rience. This article argues that the complaint of 2 Cor. 5.13 should be read in light of the central complaint leveled against Paul in Corinth: his poor rhetorical skills (10.10; 11.6; 12.19; 13.3). After demonstrating the prominence of this issue in 2 Cor. 10-12, 1 Cor. 1-4 and 2 Cor. 2-5, this article allows Paul's detractors to explain their terminology. Understood as a complaint against Paul from those whose rhetorical tastes were more refined, the language of 2 Cor. 5.13 is consid erably illuminated. Both έξίστημτ and σωϕρoνέω were used in rhetorical hand books in relation to proper oratorical style. This reading anchors this text firmly within the literary context, while also reflecting issues prominent in the Greco- Roman world of first-century Corinth.

Paul's Use of the Old Testament in 2 Corinthians

The Jewish scriptures provide a rich resource for Paul's reflection and argument in 2 Corinthians. Quotations and images from the Old Testament illuminate Paul's mission and suffering, and point to the theocentric perspective of his ministry, which has as its goal the praise of God's glory.

A Precursor of the Nrsv?‘Sons and Daughters’ in 2 cor 6.18

The phrase ‘sons and daughters’ in 2 Cor 6.18 provides the only instance of θυγάτηρ in all of the letters ascribed to Paul. It is argued that (1) the OT allusions in vv. 16–18 are from similar contexts of warning against combining the worship and service of God with that given to other gods, with (2) v. 18 being an echo of Deut 32.19, another instance of Paul's use of Deut 32. (3) Another influence is the OT practice, unlike that of the NT, of predominantly using both ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’ in parenting and family contexts.

"Women Tongue Speakers, Be Silent": a Reconstruction Through Paul's Rhetoric 1

AbstractWhereas interpreters commonly assert that women play a marginal role in 1 Corinthians 12-14, this article argues that Paul's prohibition of women's public speaking in 1 Cor. 14:34 is actually the main issue. Paul's use of the insinuatio, the Subtle Approach, as his rhetorical strategy is the key interpreters need to reconstruct the rhetorical situation and to understand adequately his argumentation. A group of tongue-speaking women who have gained the status of a spiritual elite, pose a threat to Paul and create disorder in the worship services. In a critical dialogue with Antoinette Clark Wire, it is maintained that Paul designates these women pneumatics to be not "prophets" but merely "tongue speakers."Paul uses much male/female imagery for the polemical purpose of making a gender-based dissociation and redefinition of the wider phenomenon "inspired speech," into the categories "prophecy" and "glossolalia."He connects prophecy with rationality, order and male social roles in the public sphere, and glossolalia with contemporary ideas of female inferiority. Paul's negative portrayal of glossolalia is part of his rhetorical effort to silence the women tongue speakers in the church meeting.

Die Jerusalemse tempelkuItus se huweliksmaatreel versus Christelike waardes

The marriage arrangements in the Jerusalem Temple cult in opposition to Christian values. Equal access for everyone to God's grace in an unmediated way is a central aspect of Jesus' presentation of the Kingdom of God. Inclusivity and egalitarity should be regarded as essential aspects of Christian selfunderstanding. This article aims to show how these values stood in opposition to the marriage arrangements in the Jerusalem Temple cult. Marriage strategies during the patriarchal and monarchical periods prior to the first-century Jerusalem Temple cult are also briefly touched upon. In a following up article the author will argue that Paul's use of the notion "adopted as children of God" should be seen as an expression of the Christian values advocated within an inclusive and egalitarian community.

Role Reversal and Paul's Use of Scripture in Galatians 3.10-13

The article examines Paul's use of Deut. 27.26, Hab. 2.4, Lev. 18.5 and Deut. 21.23 in Gal. 3.10-13. In their respective contexts, each passage from the Torah addresses the issue of perseverance versus apostasy. Therefore, when Paul applies these texts to his opponents, he accuses them of being 'latter-day apostates', because they have rejected the Christ of his preaching. Additionally, the essay attempts to resolve a problem: whereas Gal. 3.10a pronounces a curse upon anyone who would attempt to live by the law. the biblical text to which Paul appeals, Deut. 27.26, affirms the opposite. The proposed explanation is that there is an irony involved in Paul's assertion and its biblical support: it is in their very retention of the Torah that the opponents have not kept it, because they have not 'upheld' it in its long-range eschatological design.

4QMMT and Galatians

The occurrence of the phrase in 4QMMT had already been exciting comment for some years prior to the official publication of the scroll fragments. In one of the first reflections on the official publication, Martin Abegg has suggested that Paul's use of the same phrase, ἔργα ν⋯μον, in Galatians and Romans (Gal 2.16; 3.2, 5,10; Rom 3.20, 28) indicates that Paul was ‘rebutting the theology of documents such as MMT … that Paul was reacting to the kind of theology espoused by MMT, perhaps even by some Christian converts who were committed to the kind of thinking reflected in MMT’. As we shall see below, Abegg has given some further reasons for seeing a parallel or even connection between the thought of 4QMMT and Paul's argumentation in Galatians in particular, but even he does not seem to have appreciated all the points of possible connection. At this early stage in assessing the significance of 4QMMT for New Testament study (‘nothing short of revolutionary’, concludes Abegg), it may be of value simply to summarize what these points of possible connection amount to.

Prolegomena to Paul's Use of Scripture in Romans

Abstract Paul's use of Scripture in his epistle to the Roman Christians raises many questions: Why does he appeal to Scripture so frequently in this letter? How is the distribution of quotations to be understood? Why did Paul appeal to Scripture at all, since most of his readers were Gentiles? How are we to understand Paul's diverse exegetical methods? There are other questions that suggest themselves. This paper attempts to answer all of these questions by carefully considering the recipients' background and experience, the nature of Paul's argument in Romans and in his other extant writings, and Paul's understanding of the gospel, especially as it impinges on Israel.

Side-notes from Graeco-Roman and Hellenistic-Semitic literature to the notion ‘adopted as God's child’ (YIOθEΣIA)

This article aims at showing that Paul's use of the expression ‘adoption as God's child’ contains connotations of which the background needs to be sought in the Graeco-Roman and Hellenistic-Semitic world. Seneca's tragedies Hercules Furens and Hercules Oetaeus, his satire of the emperor Claudius' deification in his Apocolocyntosis as well as the interpretation of the myths relating to Herakles by Diodorus Siculus are investigated. As far as documents in Latin are concerned, the word adoption appears in particular within the context of ensuring the continuation of the imperial dynasty of the Julius-Claudius family. In Hellenistic-Semitic literature a possible trajectory in the stories about Rachel and Ruth in the Septuagint and Jesus in the New Testament, with reference to Celsus' comparison of Jesus with Dionysos and Herakles, is considered. It is argued that it is not conceivable that converts from heathendom to Christianity would not have been aware of these parallels from Egypt, Greece and Latium.

Prolegomena to Paul's Use of Scripture in Romans

AbstractPaul's use of Scripture in his epistle to the Roman Christians raises many questions: Why does he appeal to Scripture so frequently in this letter? How is the distribution of quotations to be understood? Why did Paul appeal to Scripture at all, since most of his readers were Gentiles? How are we to understand Paul's diverse exegetical methods? There are other questions that suggest themselves. This paper attempts to answer all of these questions by carefully considering the recipients' background and experience, the nature of Paul's argument in Romans and in his other extant writings, and Paul's understanding of the gospel, especially as it impinges on Israel.

The Completion of a Religious Duty: The Background of 2 Cor 8.1–15

There has been a tendency among some exegetes to treat 2 Cor 8.1–15 as ‘merely’ an administrative and financial issue. Often this conclusion is based on Paul's use of ἐπιτελέω which, they argue, draws on the language of business and government. However, the distinction between ‘administrative’ and ‘religious’ is improper; one of the primary ways of demonstrating piety in antiquity was by the giving of money to a god. There is much inscriptional evidence for the use of ἐπιτελέω in contexts of religious duty.1Given the social context of Paul and the Corinthians, these inscriptions provide helpful background for the way in which Paul's injunction to give generously would have been heard and understood.2

A Brief Note on "Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul's Use of AΠANTHΣIΣ in 1 Thessalonians 4:17"

Abstract This brief essay responds to an earlier essay by Michael R. Cosby (BBR 4 [1994] 15–34) which has created some confusion with respect to the meaning of ἀπάντησις in Thess 4:17. The parallels between Paul's description of the Parousia of Jesus in 1 Thess 4:15–17 and those of Hellenistic formal receptions are closer than Cosby allows. It is probable that Paul's use of ἀπάντησις does indeed reflect such Hellenistic customs and traditions.