With Upward Eyes of One: Notes on Ephesians 2:11-22

Last Sunday, Allison and I preached at St. Barnabas Episcopal Church (our home church). Allison tackled v.11-16, and I focused on the latter half of our passage for liturgy. It was a truly invigorating experience. Here are my scattered notes, including initial notes I did on v.11-16. 

Enjoy!

In many ways, Ephesians 2:11-22 is a highly systematic compression of Paul’s work in Romans 1-3 and 9-11. For example, Romans 3:9 states that “both Jews and Greeks are all under the power of sin” (CEB), and even states to the potentially boastful Gentiles in 11:21 that “If God didn’t spare the natural branches, he won’t spare you either” (CEB). There is this sense of unique racial and ethnic tension that runs through Romans and Ephesians. However, the tension between Jew and Gentile has been abolished in Christ, removing any tension between the two groups, who have now become one.

We can find plenty of what God has done in Christ in the first major pericope in Ephesians, 1:3-14. In this text we find a reference to “the saints” (τοῖς ἁγίοις), which seems to presuppose the entirety of the new group in Christ Jesus (v.1b). This may be confirmed in v.3 where we (ἡμᾶς; plural pronoun) are blessed by God in Christ, indicating a wide net of people who are already included in the people of God. We see this sense of unity already assumed before we’ve even gotten to our main text. Remember, this is a church that is being written to, not a singular individual.

V.11 begins with an admonition to “therefore remember” (Διὸ μνημονεύετε). Because of Gentiles being “dead” in 2:1 (νεκροὺς), we “Gentiles” (ἔθνη) have now been “brought near by the blood of Christ” (V.13). This is made clear by the adjacent references to “alienation” and “strangers” in v.12. V.13 caps off v.11-12 by asserting that we are now “near” to one another and not separate.

V.14 asserts that αὐτὸς (the implication is that αὐτὸς refers to Christ given the immediate previous reference to him in v.13) “is” (ἐστιν: present) “our peace” (εἰρήνη ἡμῶν). The use of εἰρήνη occurs quite prominently in Paul’s opening addresses to his churches, specifically the εἰρήνη of God or from God. Specifically in Ephesians 1:2: “grace and peace to you from God” (ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ). Conflict undone. Or hesed (Allison’s note).

Because of Christ who, having made (ποιήσας) us one (ἓν), the barrier has been “broken down” (λύσας). However, λύσας seems more apt at describing something that has been (or is being) destroyed or dissolved (λύω; the root). F.F. Bruce notes that “not only has [Christ] reconciled his people to God through his death but he has reconciled them to each other” (Bruce, Commentary, 295). However, it seems premature to conclude that this reconciliation has already been accomplished with one another, as we are still a church divided. The foundation has been laid, but we have stopped building a place of unity for one another.

Thus, v.14 is a call in some sense for active participation with one another, as disciples, as parents, as brothers and sisters.

In v.15, John Muddiman writes, “As revealed Scripture and prophecy of the coming of Christ, the Old Testament Law still has an important place (see Rom. 3:21); it also provides moral guidelines of continuing validity (1 Cor. 10:11); it is only in its regulative and statutory aspects, the element of external compulsion, that it is no longer needed, because the spirit of freedom in Christ achieves the same end by other means and without the cost of creating division between Gentiles and Jews.” (Muddiman, 133).

The emphasis on the “annulment” of the Law and her ordinances results “in one new humanity” (εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον) by “making peace” (ποιῶν εἰρήνην). This εἰρήνη occurs 8 times in Ephesians, and seems to suggest a focal point in assuming unity: you cannot have εἰρήνη without the unity of the body.

Within v.16, we see a continuum with the conjunction καὶ and the subjunctive ἀποκαταλλάξῃ, “and might reconcile” the both, which is an adjective that qualifies the previous group of Jew and Gentile, specifically with it being in plural form (ἀμφοτέρους). The subjunctive indicates an aspect of accomplishment within the past (hence the aorist tense), with implications towards the future (hence the subjunctive active tense). A key component of this is the “already, not yet” aspect of Christian theology: for example, we await the redemption (or liberation) of our bodies, certain and yet hopeful for that which comes later, on the basis of the previous resurrection of the Son of God. The language of reconciliation appears in 2:16, specifically in a tense only found here. The 3rd person singular aorist subjunctive (ἀποκαταλλάξῃ) specifically states that “he might reconcile.” The use of subjunctives throughout this passage seems paradoxical: this is something that has been accomplished, and is something that is in the process of being accomplished.

We have been reconciled; how now do we live as a reconciled people? The text specifies a specific sequence of events: ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ (…in one body to God through the cross); this reconciliation in one body (the united church) has happened (and must continue to happen) because “by putting to death the hostility in him [Christ] (ἀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ). V.16 speaks very strongly—in violent language—of destruction or death. In this specific form, it is used to refer to the slaying of a person in John 16:2. The use of the aorist participle ἀποκτείνας reveals that this hostility is being utterly destroyed, or even killed. The NRSV captures this tense perfect when they write: “putting to death.” Paradoxically, it is the process of being destroyed or abolished or dissolved.

Christ’s proclamation of peace involves those who were far (Gentiles) and those who were near (Jews). Through the life and death of Christ all people now have access to God, and this access results in peace for both parties. There is no impartiality or discrimination in Christ. This access results in one people group being united together, knit together, into one new humanity.

Christ is seen here in Ephesians as the point of integration where the construction of the new building is to take place: the temple of God which is comprised of God’s people. Christ is at the center of this reconciliation, and has set a base for how the church is to be knit and built together. The church, in other words, is an organic being, comprised of many members all on a level playing field.

Verse 19-22 seems to comprise a singular sentence, focusing on the continual aspects of unity in Christ. Here in v.22, then, is the climactic statement: we are in the process of being knitted (united) together. The entirety of v.11-22 is so focused on the body of Christ being united and knit and integrated together that we almost miss the simplicity of this: in Christ, we are one. Jews and Gentiles are thus one new humanity, not two. They are not two groups living under one roof, they are one body, living under the holy auspice of God through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. They are not separate but equal groups; rather they are one group period. While there are differences within the family, nevertheless they are one family.

This has happened because Jesus has died and been resurrected, offering himself as an end to the hostility between ethnic divisions. Now, as diverse believers in him, there is no “me” and there is no “us versus them” – there is “us.” As we await the consummation of Christ’s kingdom, we live as a holy body, a sanctuary dedicated to reconciliation and unity for one another.

Reconciliation with Christ means reconciliation with one another.

This does not mean I lose my distinctiveness, but that you and I are fully embraced members of my new family in Christ. And that is the central point of this passage.

• What is the solution to these barriers or dividers? What concrete practices can we invoke? An example for myself, I was instantly welcomed and assumed to be part of the family when I came here. That is a positive breaking down of any potential barriers. How then, as the church universal, can we bring about reconciliation for all people?

The NOW and HOW of this reconciliation. 

Here is my own (rough!) translation of v.17-22. 

17.

Greek: 
καὶ ἐλθὼν εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην ὑμῖν τοῖς μακρὰν καὶ εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς·

My translation: 
And having come, he proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace [to you] who were near.

Building off of the previous verse (v.16), we have a powerful statement of about peace for those who were far and those who were near. This proclamation includes a double repetition of “peace,” which indicates that this affects both Jew and Gentile; there is not partiality between both groups. The Jewish people who were close have peace, and the Gentiles who were far have peace. The grammatical construction explicitly includes εἰρήνην for both gentile and Jew.

The coming of Christ is the focal point of ἐλθὼν: his coming indicates what is to take place: peace and unity for his one people.

There appears to be an intertextual echo to Third Isaiah 52:7 and 57:19, and they have been combined to form a singular concept: peace for those who were far and near.

How is this peace enacted? It is explained in v.18.

18.

Greek: 
ὅτι δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγὴν οἱ ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα.

My translation: 
So that through him [Christ] we both have [Jew and Gentile] access in one Spirit to the Father.

Present active indicative verb: ἔχομεν – this is something we, as a Church, have now. The plural form includes all members of the church universal; all now have access to God through Christ in the power of the Spirit (Rom. 5:2).

Through the life and death of Christ all people now have access to God, and this access results in peace. There is no impartiality or discrimination in Christ.

19.

Greek:
῎Αρα οὖν οὐκέτι ἐστὲ ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι ἀλλὰ ἐστὲ συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων καὶ οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ

My translation: 
So now you are no longer strangers and aliens, but rather you are fellow-citizens with the saints in the household of God.

Because of v.18, we are all fellow-citizens and members of God’s household. The conjunction (καὶ) includes the household members, as the issue of citizens and household bring two separate spheres of life together into one.

20.

Greek: 
ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,

My Translation: 
Having been built together on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.

The only other use of “cornerstone” in the New Testament is found in 1 Peter 2:6, where the author is quoting the Old Testament: “See, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame” (Is. 28:16). Christ is seen here in Ephesians as the point of integration where the construction of the new building is to take place. Christ is the center of this reconciliation, and has set a base for how the church is to be knit and built together.

21.

Greek: 
ἐν ᾧ πᾶσα οἰκοδομὴ συναρμολογουμένη αὔξει εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν κυρίῳ,

My translation: 
In whom [Christ Jesus] the whole building is being knitted together, growing into a holy temple in the Lord.

A reference to αὔξει (growing, increasing) is found in the parallel text in Colossians 2:19, where the body “grows” from God. The knitting of the body together is akin to a building being built is a temple in the Lord. Together, as Christians, we comprise something holy. The picture is of complete and holy unity.

This process of growing implies progression towards a singular goal, a goal that will be actualized when Christ comes to restore his kingdom.

22.

Greek: 
ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικοδομεῖσθε εἰς κατοικητήριον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν πνεύματι.

My Translation: 
And in whom you are also being knit together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Because X, now Y. It has broader implications beyond Jew and Gentile.

Questions to consider:

• Given the church’s past and present history of segregation (white churches having only white members of affluence), how can the body of Christ work to remove these dividing walls? 
  
• There is a completed sense at work, and also a work in progress in Ephesians 2:11-22. How do we as a church see this as accomplishment, and as process?
  What kinds of obstacles do we as a global church face for reconciliation? What obstacles do we as a congregation face for reconciliation? What barriers or dividers do we have?
  
• What is the solution to these barriers or dividers? What concrete practices can we invoke? An example for myself, I was instantly welcomed and assumed to be part of the family when I came here. That is a positive breaking down of any potential barriers. How then, as the church universal, can we bring about reconciliation for all people?

The Place and Priority of Single Women in Pauline Theology

A post I recently wrote for the Junia Project (you can read that here) has me thinking more about a claim I made therein:

Indeed, the marital status of most of the women and men who assisted in Paul’s extensive missionary activities (Rom. 16; Phil. 4:2-3) is rarely mentioned.

Now I fully stand by my statement (because I think it is largely correct), but it begs for more explanation and data, which I aim to provide.

It is quite common to see married couples within Paul doing missionary work. The famous couple Prisca and Aquila is most probably a married couple because they are mentioned together in multiple epistles and in various other writings in the New Testament. The fact that both Paul[1] and Luke[2] place Prisca’s name before Aquila is most often thought to be because of her status. 2 out of 3 references in Paul concerning Prisca place her before her husband (Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19) – a fairly uncommon practice as many have pointed out.[3]

Andronicus and Junia are thought to be a married couple, but I think it is somewhat ambiguous. We have no record of them outside of this one reference, though if Bauckham and others are correct, we do have multiple references to her in Luke (8:3; 24:10).[4] The references in Luke specify she was married to “Herod’s steward.” If they are married, they were still missionaries together: same as Prisca and Aquila.

Paul, however, was unmarried for what seems to be most of his epistles. We see this most clearly in 1 Cor. 7: “I wish that everyone was as I am” (θέλω δὲ πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν). The most likely implication is that Paul is single and probably celibate. He did not consider it to be a problem for an unmarried man or woman: most likely, it was due to the call of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 12). One’s status was not a problem for participation and fellowship within the body (Gal. 3:26-29), and Paul did not want even slaves to fear their exclusion, and encouraged them to gain their freedom (1 Cor. 7:21).[5]

In Romans 16:1-2 we have Phoebe (Φοίβην), who is “our sister” (τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν).[6] It would be common for a husband to be named, but none are in this text. Paul specifies that Phoebe herself was “a patroness of many, and especially to me” (αὐτὴ προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ). Her status as διάκονον was no hindrance to her as a single sister in Christ.

The text in Romans 16:6 speaks of this “Mary, who has worked very hard (ἐκοπίασεν) among you.” The same aorist active verb is applied also in Romans 16:12 to three other women who exercised work ἐν Κυρίῳ: Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis. Persis is even called “the beloved” (τὴν ἀγαπητήν), illustrating Paul’s awareness and love for her. These women worked within a world that did not value them nearly to the extent that Paul did. It is likely that Tryphaena and Tryphosa were still working at the time Paul was writing, as he uses a present active participle (κοπιώσας) to indicate their continued involvement in the church at Rome. All of these women mentioned in Romans 16 are not mentioned as married except for someone’s mother (16:13) and Paul even mentions this unnamed mother! A strong showing of active women in the church of God, and others send their love because Paul writes “All the churches of Christ greet you” (αἱ ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι τοῦ Χριστοῦ): it is possible that other men in these churches would have been aware of these women and their activity.

I mentioned in the Junia Project post that Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3) were not married. They labored (συνήθλησάν) together with Paul (μοι), and along with all of the other “co-workers” (συνεργῶν). Their status in Christ is assured, and they are not mentioned as being married, though an oblique reference to Clement could point to one of them being his wife or brother or fellow-worker. We simply do not know of their marital status.

Three other women deserve mentioning. Apphia (Philemon 1:2) is called “the sister” (τῇ ἀδελφῇ). Some translations believe that this is meant to convey “our sister” and some commentators believe that Apphia was Philemon’s wife. However, Paul does not refer to Apphia as γυναικὸς but as ἀδελφῇ. This likely means she was not his wife, but rather involved within the household in some form. She is not called a wife, a slave, or anything: ἀδελφῇ is the noun Paul uses and he leaves it at that. It is certainly likely that she is single and it is not uncommon for single women to live with their family, so maybe Philemon is her brother.

In Col. 4:15, Paul greets Nympha and also “the church that meets in her house” (καὶ τὴν κατ᾿ οἶκον αὐτῆς ἐκκλησίαν). It is curious that Paul does not mention her husband at all, either as “head” of the home, or as a “mutual partner.” It is possible that a wealthy single woman could own a home, so her singleness included facilitating a Christian atmosphere and the sharing of resources within the early community of Christians.

In 1 Cor. 1:11, Paul refers to a woman named Chloe, who is written in the genitive form (Χλόης), indicating a possessive genitive that indicates her oversight over these people who gave Paul some information. Again, her marital status is not mentioned or stated. It is ambiguous, but we can rest in the belief that Paul saw no reason to mention her husband, should she have had one.

Of course, all of my arguments do not hinge on new discoveries. It is certainly possible that these women were married, but is equally likely (more likely in my opinion) that their marital status was not an issue. The mere fact that Paul does not emphasize their status as married means that it was likely not largely relevant to him. Much more could be added, but in summation single and married women have a place in our churches and we ought not exclude single women from ministry.

Paul certainly didn't. 

NQ

[1] Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19, if by Paul.
[2] Luke specifies that Aquila and Prisca are together (Acts 18:2) by the use of γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ. All of Luke’s reference to this couple is found in ch18. 2 out of 3 references place her first, the same ratio as in Paul.
[3] Sandra Hack Polaski, A Feminist Introduction to Paul (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2005), 45: “It is unusual to see the woman’s name listed first. This practice implies that Prisca is the more prominent member of the couple, possibly because she is of higher social class but perhaps more likely because she is the more important church leader.”
[4] Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 165-185.
[5] Philip Payne, “Twelve Reasons to Understand 1 Corinthians 7:21-23 as a Call to Gain Freedom,” manuscript. link  
[6] The use of the article τὴν specifies who Phoebe is: our sister.

Prodigals and Parables: A (Short) Analysis of Luke 15:11-32

This is short, and I was not allowed to consult commentaries. One thousand words for the win.

The story of the prodigal son is a staple in my evangelical story. People referenced it constantly when I returned to the faith, and I read it that way for a long time: until now. Reading this text within its canonical context and co-text has pushed me to reflect on the nature of the overall narrative in relation to the first-century readers.

Within the larger context of ch14-15, our text sits comfortably after 15:1-7 and 15:8-10, and both sections refer to lost items (coin, sheep). Both pieces are significant as they are parables, but the subject of the younger son in the third unit (v.11-32) indicates that we’ve progressed beyond items into personhood. 14:1 tells us that Jesus “was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the Sabbath.” It seems that the entirety of 15:11-32 can be aspectivally located within 14:1. All of these stories are being told over a meal, where social privilege is evident (14:7) and situated within that specific residence. Jesus’ address to his host (14:12) indicates that there were no poor at this event (14:13-14), thus indicating a social hierarchy. Crowds, having followed Jesus (14:25), are outside. The meal within the dwelling of the Pharisee illustrates that some were open to Jesus.

15:1-2 indicate that the tax collectors, sinners, Pharisees, and scribes were all near Jesus, placing implicit mixed social, political and religious pressure. Themes of eschatological reversal play quite heavily here as Jesus emphasizes the ones who would be discarded (15:3-7), and the one who seeks them out. Each parable has an audience of the haves and the have-nots, with the focus on reversal and repentance. Now, Jesus can launch into the parable of the prodigal son, which concerns each listener at this meal.

The story begins (v.11) with a father and his two sons. The younger demands his share of the father’s property. Is it implied that the older son is given his dowry as well (“… he divided his property between them”, v.12)? After leaving for a distant land, the younger son lost everything; the adverb ἀσώτως is used here and only here in the New Testament to describe his life (which is the present active participle ζῶν). BDAG 148 defines ἀσώτως as “wastefully, prodigally.”

The younger son goes to a foreign land (v.14). Perhaps this is rhetorical irony by Jesus, as the one with excess is caught in a land that is now barren; the younger son (Joseph from Genesis 37-50) is not in Kansas anymore. In v.15-16, the younger son’s duty is to feed the owner’s pigs, which are seen as “unclean” animals in Leviticus 11:7-8. There is nothing there for the younger son to “fill himself”; the verb “γεμίζω” indicates a perverse reversal of being “filled.”

V.17-19 tells of the plot point concerning the younger son’s return to his father. He remembers his former status as a well-fed younger son. The people outside the Pharisees’ house identify with this son at this point, as they are perhaps hungry outsiders. The younger son remembers his father’s wealth and how even hired workers had enough bread to eat (v.17). Staple foods like bread are gold in light of starvation. Simply, the younger son wants nothing more than to be a hired hand, a keeping of his current status.

In v.20, the father sees him from far off, indicating that he was looking for him, and knew where he would come from. The father was filled with compassion, and he runs out to him and weeps. A possible intertext for this passage may be Gen. 45:14, where Joseph weeps with his brothers after a long time apart because of horrific actions on the part of his brothers. Here, the roles are reversed: the older embraces the younger this time.

Despite this display, the son blurts out his failures. How often do we still feel the need to remind those who forgive us that we still sinned? The father ignores this and has the slaves (δούλους, not μισθίων); this change may emphasize the status of the slaves in the younger son’s stead. The father does not have his son’s body washed, and instead places rings and robes on him (v.22); a father’s happiness covers a multitude of customs. V.23-24 utilizes the fatted calf, showing us that a grand feast is to commence (a reference to Lev. 9:3 as a “burnt offering?”). What makes this interesting is that the imagery of fresh meat is not lost upon those who are outside and hungry during the telling of this parable. When the older son hears this celebration one can imagine his annoyance at not being invited. Indicating the possible shift of social status regarding “δούλους” and “μισθίων” in v.22, here in v.26 the older son asks the “παίδων” (child, servant) about the celebration.

We are not told the father’s words when he emerges from the celebration, but the response from the older son reveals that he views himself as a “δουλεύω” (one who slaves) to his father, thus viewing himself lower than the “παίδων.” The father is shocked, as he believes “all” (πάντα) that he has belongs to his older son. This reveals the selfishness of the older son: his status was never under dispute, and was never at odds with the father’s character and love for his younger son. Thus, when someone lost repents (v.32), we celebrate and rejoice.

The fact that the older brother—now likely representing a Pharisee who is already a part of the kingdom—reacts negatively when the dirty and repentant return to the family of God reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a part of God’s kingdom. This is all over a meal, an intimate setting. Pharisees are already included in God’s kingdom, but to some of their chagrin, so are the outsiders who repent and return. 

NQ

Suffering and Triumph: An Analysis of Philippians 1:12-30

Paul’s words in Phil. 1:12-30 are often used as a reminder for Christians to “persevere” and “be faithful”; these words, though certainly helpful, are often chanted by brothers and sisters who believe they are in dire straits. Ancient suffering is viewed as superficially equivalent within a first century Western context, and this raises the concern of death in v.21-24. It has become necessary to revisit the paradoxical themes of triumph and suffering within Paul’s personal letter to Philippi.

The letter genre that seems to fit Philippians 1:12-30 is paranetical topoi and maybe gratitude. This is could be due to Paul’s emphasis on “joy” and “rejoicing” throughout this section. 1:12-30 is the follow-up from 1:1-11, beginning with “I want you to know.” This phrase implies a break between sections, moving us in a new direction and suggesting that Paul is intending to update his readers after assurances and prayers (V.8-11). The themes in v.12-30 (joy, love, goodwill) are hinted at in v.1-11 and are to be more fully developed in v.12-30.

Paul’s brief reference to his “imprisonment” (v.13-14) suggests that he was likely under the authority of “the whole imperial guard” (v.13).[1] Where would there be bases of operation for this “impartial guard? Paul speaks of πραιτωρίῳ and some other cognates (c.f. πραιτώριον) appear in Matthew (27:27), Mark (15:16) and John’s (18:28, 33; 19:9) gospels during the crucifixion narratives. Is this theological intentional and significant?

While Paul’s precise location is nebulous, his comments about the motivations of those who profess Christ (v.15-17) are clear and may push readers of Paul to carefully consider the motivations of those who preach the gospel, (“proclaiming from envy and rivalry vs. goodwill” and “love”) since it does not seem to concern Paul as of now (v.18; though see 3:2). Was this an ethnically diverse congregation? Paul ultimately believes that how “Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether out of false motives or true,” he will rejoice (v.18-19).

Once Paul has spoken of his hope in deliverance (v.19-20), he then turns to his desire “not to be put to shame.” This phrase echoes Psalm 119:6, where the Psalter proclaims that those look upon God’s commandments “will not be put to shame.” This phrase appears throughout Psalm 119 (c.f. v.31, 46, 80 and 116). Paul’s hope is to exalt Christ with his body, through life or death. In the backdrop of imprisonment, the πραιτωρίῳ, possible disunity amongst the believers (4:2-3), and the opponents in Philippi (1:27-28; 3:2), Paul’s joy is manifested in “boasting” only of Jesus Christ and—subsequently—not of Rome. This will lead to the Christ “hymn” in 2:6-11 where the exaltation of Christ is hinted at already in 1:20 where Jesus “will be exalted (μεγαλυνθήσεται)…whether by life or by death.” Paul will exalt Christ by his death by the manner of his life and by his sufferings (v.21-24). His desire to be “with Christ” may be a Christological claim, possibly echoing Hosea 11:12: “But Judah still walks with God and is faithful to the Holy One [my emphasis].” The echo may illustrate Paul’s relationship with Christ as a suffering one who was yet faithful.

The references to “flesh” (v.22, 24) and “body” (v.21) may illustrate that Paul does not believe that σὰρξ and σώμα may to be used interchangeably and I wonder if this reveals that Paul does not have an entirely negative view of σὰρξ. Rather, he views it as something preferable. The comparative adjective κρεῖσσον is translated as “better” (NRSV; CEB) and “is more necessary for your sake” (NASB). Is Paul thinking from a dualist or monist perspective here?

Suffering is dominant in the Old Testament (Ps. 4:2; 9:13 with its reference to “shame”). Paul may also be invoking the servant song in Deutero-Isaiah 52:13-15 as an intertext, where the servant “shall be exalted and lifted up.” In essence, the “suffering” of Deutero-Isaiah 53:3, together with Paul’s repeated emphasis on “boasting” and “joy” throughout Phil. 1:12-30, establish the paradox of gladness in suffering for the sake of Christ. This may also be a reference to martyrdom, as Paul intimates elsewhere that the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thess. 4:17). Imitation is thus a primary point for Paul here, and Christ will be the ultimate example of imitation in ch.2. Because of Paul’s conviction of this (v.25-26), he participates with the Philippian community, sharing with them “abundantly” as they boast “in Christ Jesus.” The Old Testament backgrounds demand further research.

The use of the adverb Μόνον in v.27 may indicate that Paul has moved away from his circumstances and applies the previous section to the Philippians. The emphasis on unity (“one spirit”… “one mind”) illustrates the probable conflict brought by “opponents” in v.28. This is the first time Paul has said he’s heard of troublemakers in Philippi, and there is little indication about how he’s heard of these adversaries (c.f. 1 Cor. 1:11), though his co-worker Epaphroditus may have told him these things while in his presence (2:25; 4:18).

God has given believers the chance “to believe” (πιστεύειν) but also “to suffer” (πάσχειν). These two active infinitives suggest that Paul views them as a consequence of the other: belief, followed in conjunction (ἀλλὰ καὶ) by anguish. Paul’s conclusion asserts that modern Christians who have not suffered—unlike many of their ancient brothers and sisters—should reevaluate their lives in light of ancient tragedies. We do not come to Christ in order to have a safe reality; we come to Christ because He is the only King that saves. Paul brings his argument around with a bittersweet reminder that he is still in his previous condition (v.30).

Paul’s suffering has still not ceased, despite his continual joy.

NQ

[1] πραιτωρίῳ (imperial guard) is elsewhere used in its dative neuter singular form in Acts 23:35: Paul is to be placed in Herod’s headquarters, which may suggest Rome or Ephesus as a possible place of writing.

Preaching Textual Variants? John 7:53-8:11

This is based on an assignment I did. Of course, this is not intended to be in-depth. For some helpful work on textual criticism, see Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman. The picture is of Luke 11:2 and it is from Codex Sinaiticus (compiled around 330-360 CE, generally).

Various modern English translations confirm in footnotes that John 7:53-8:11 is an interpolation. The CEB notes that “critical editions of the Gk New Testament do not contain 7:53-8:11” and the NRSV supports this with “most ancient authorities lack 7.53—8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.” Metzger explains that John’s pericope is missing from the “most early and diverse manuscripts” (Metzger, 187). There are external factors besides its manuscript omission: early church fathers don’t quote it until the twelfth century, showing a lack of awareness of the text in question (Metzger, 188) and that it also appears in multiple locations through John’s Gospel as the NRSV footnote states. This shows that scribes were uncertain about its placement within the narrative.

The text’s addition may have been due to a scribe’s belief in the truthfulness of the account, and because of this they had little issue in trying to place it within the narrative. Coupled with this, the story is moving and shows Jesus in a consistent and compassionate light (c.f. his interactions with the unmarried Samaritan woman in John 4). After all, Metzger acknowledges, “the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity” (Metzger, 188) as a self-contained story. It may have happened, but John in his original Gospel did not include it.

In explaining this text, a minister must be careful to gently articulate the problems. Text-criticism is a highly specialized field, and requires precision and clarity in explaining the various complexities of the issue. Part of the issue may involve the long, steady process of educating a congregation. It is not as simple as ignoring an issue, especially in an age of Internet experts and popular level works from Barth Ehrman. Educating the congregation would establish a base in the more conservative areas of the Christian family, especially since there are many conservative textual scholars (c.f. Bruce Metzger and Philip Barton Payne) who have not abandoned their faith.

As for preaching this text, one again has to be careful not to overstress historical critical issues to a congregation, for fear of undermining one’s faith. A pastor has several options: she could mention the text critical aspects of this text by pointing to the footnotes in the Bible and suggest that these issues could be covered in greater detail in an adult bible study apart from the main sermon. Some pastors—such as Greg Boyd—do video blogs after their sermons on the more technical aspects of the text. I would personally have no problem preaching from John 7:53-8:11, provided my congregation was aware of the issues within the text, and I would happily explain it in greater detail on the side to anyone interested. Scripture is, after all, an open book and all great and inspired books have history.

NQ

Born of a Woman

This was written for Oliver Crisp's course. I'm actually not a huge fan of this paper, and have plenty to improve upon. In my defense, I had less time than I would have liked to prepare this project, and I had an extra few thousand words that I wanted to include. So if this feels trimmed, that is likely why.

BORN OF A WOMAN

The Coherence of Preexistence and the Virgin Birth in Pauline Theology 

For many, the doctrine of the virgin birth (VB) is a clear testimony found in the New Testament, but for others it is a conundrum—whether it is for scientific or doctrinal reasons. The theological issues continue when St. Paul’s affirmations of the preexistence (PE) of the Son of God arise in the New Testament. When many theologians view VB and PE side by side, both doctrines become remarkably difficult to embrace. This paper endeavors to explanation how the doctrine of PE and the VB are not at odds, but are rather coherent and compatible concepts within Pauline theology.

1. THE “PROBLEM” OF THE VB

The Nicene Creed manages to affirm both the PE of Jesus Christ and his VB. Although many scholars accept some form of PE in Paul’s writings, many are quick to point out that he does not affirm (or is silent about) the VB. Andrew T. Lincoln concedes St. Paul’s high Christology, “which includes the notion of the pre-existence of Christ,” but is quick to counter with “but a virginal conception plays no part in this and it is almost certain that he did not know of such a tradition.”[1] Eminent theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg writes that the VB “stands in an irreconcilable contradiction to the Christology of the incarnation of the preexistent Son of God found in Paul and John.”[2] Raymond Brown also mentions this tension.[3] The belief is that the gospel ‘legends’ “Jesus first became God’s Son through Mary’s conception.”[4] This is further compounded by Lincoln’s emphasis that the Pauline texts affirm Jesus’ humanity, not his VB. He writes, “all three passages [Gal. 4:4; Rom. 1:3; Phil. 2:7] simply assume Jesus’ full humanity in his birth and show no interest in the circumstances of the birth itself.”[5] These are serious charges—coming as they do from serious Christians—and they help lay out the task before us: is the PE of the Son of God and the VB at odds with one another within the contours of Pauline theology?

2. ECHOES FROM THE GOSPELS

The Gospel of Matthew confirms that Joseph had not known Mary, as the phrase “but before they lived together” states (Matt. 1:18). This would imply that sexual activity would commence upon their living together, which is in the near future. Luke simply affirms her virginity and simultaneous engagements to Joseph (Luke 1:26-27). Pannenberg sees these accounts as presenting us with an adoptionistic Christology[6] and seems to agree with Emil Brunner who should be quoted in full: “If it is true that Matthew and Luke are simply dealing with the question: how did the Person of the Redeemer come into existence? And not with the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God, this is a Christological view which the church cannot accept.”[7] These objections are surely not benefitted by an either/or mentality. It is not immediately clear that Matthew and Luke are operating with adoptionistic tendencies, and it is also uncertain that one can completely bifurcate the ‘coming into existence’ and the ‘incarnation’ as two separate claims. Certainly Brunner is inconsistent in affirming the second point of the eternal Son (a phrase that nowhere occurs in the New Testament) while downplaying the ‘historical’ nature of the Gospel accounts, as both present themselves as history. He is indebted to history and simply seems to prefer one type to the other.

Pannenberg and Brunner’s welcomed concerns also face two additional objections: first, these accounts are chronologically post-Paul and Paul clearly affirmed the PE of the Son maybe 20 years before the completion of the Gospel of Mark. Thus, PE is an early theological concept and would rule out adoptionism as a major theological player in the arena.[8] Whether or not Paul’s theology is compatible with the VB remains to be argued. Second, the accounts are of a different genre, intentionally so, and are working with a wider pool of historical accumulation. To dismiss these as ‘legendary’ is to ignore too much of Church history and to downplay the important witness of Paul’s material. It may even be possible that Matthew and Luke were aware of Paul’s writings and had data that fills in the gaps. Thus we have sufficient reasons to affirm the general historicity of the Gospel accounts. Now, we turn to the Apostle Paul.

3. PAUL AND THE ‘FORM’ OF THE VB

As already mentioned, Lincoln proposes three Pauline texts and rejects them as simply affirming the humanity of Christ. Although this is certainly not untrue, it overstates a key point of contention. The contention is this: Gal. 4:4 and Phil. 2:7 are far closer to an affirmation of the VB than they first appear. “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law.” Paul does not use the term for virgin, and uses the standard noun for a woman/wife (γυναικός). However, contextually, there is nothing to suggest that Paul did or did not have a VB in mind. Gal. 4:4 may include a nod to PE, as the phrase “fullness of time had come” indicates a prior interval before a birth where the Son existed.[9]

It is also worthy to note that Paul does not mention any of the sexual impropriety of the Son’s birth in any form, whereas the Gospel accounts may include various elements of such things. For example, the inclusion of various women such as Bathsheba (Matt. 1:6) may indicate some form of sexual indecency. Lincoln notes that early sources attempt to attribute ‘legitimate’ means of the Son’s birth, such as Mary committing adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera.[10] This is significant because illustrates the fact that Paul didn’t view Jesus’ birth as sexually licentious. Other forms of ancient Judaism held that sin was transmitted through women, as Sirach 25:24 suggests that sin came into the world through Eve. It reads: “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die.” 1 Esdras 4:27 suggests that men have become sexual slaves to women, or sinned because of women, thus implying (coarsely) that it was sinful women who were the downfall of men.[11] Some strands of Judaism held that sin entered the world through Eve (or women in general), and this may give us some perspective on women in Judaism around the time of Paul These concepts are curiously absent in Paul, who specifies that sin came into the world through Adam, not Eve.[12]

Rather, Paul’s conclusion of the Son’s birth is the affirmation of his full and sinless humanity; in this he can affirm that Jesus was one who did not know sin (2 Cor. 5:21). If Christ was without sin for his entire human life—as Paul and other New Testament writers maintain[13]—then it may be held that the Son was without sin and Paul did not envision Mary as being in sin within his conception. The sinlessness of the Son means that he was not affected by the sinfulness of the human race. This belief may be compounded in speculating about the nature of “taking”[14] enacted by the Son in Phil. 2:7, where he took the form of a slave by being born in human likeness. The fact that the Son was without sin in his entire earthly life and in his previous state in eternity may indicate that this was a state he willingly entered into, and the belief that he assumed non-sinful flesh, being born through a sinless woman. Either he was unaffected biologically by the transmission of sin, or Mary, being a virgin, did not pass this onto him. Therefore, the continuity between PE and VB seems to be assumed in Paul, even though he never explicitly mentions the latter or fulfills our systematic concerns. His coherence may aide us in a further perspective found in the Old Testament.

4. OLD TESTAMENT AND SACRIFICE

Paul states in Romans 3:25 that Christ was the ἱλαστήριον (variously translated ‘place of atonement’ or ‘mercy seat’) by his death. This is an explicit Old Testament echo referring to the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25:17-22). For Paul the sinless nature of Christ is what is important. What makes this interesting is that a female animal could be offered as a sin offering in the Torah. Leviticus 4:27-35 specifies that a female animal may be offered as a guilt or sin offering, where “the priest shall make atonement on your behalf” (v31). The specificity of an unblemished female animal is remarkable, since this is a section dedicated not to rulers or kings but to lay people[15]—a social status that suits Mary perfectly. In order for atonement to be made, the Holy Spirit required a woman who had no blemish. This would include chastity. Without her being pure within that specific cultural context, one wonders to what extent God, who knows no sin, could produce the human and sinless Messiah. It seems that the Holy Spirit, in order to produce a human nature free from sin, needed a woman who knew no sin or blemish. Thus, there may be—and I stress the tentative nature of my proposal here—some Old Testament reasons to consider the non-blemished feminine emphasis in relation to the Virgin Mary as the one who bore the eternal Son of God. A person (or animal as “type”) without blemish is not a foreign concept in Paul’s Scriptures and his view of the atonement.

5. SYNTHESIS

While Paul’s writings nowhere explicitly state that he affirmed the VB, his broader theological and cultural context does seem coherent with a view of the ‘fittingness’ of the birth of the Son of God.[16] The Son was without sin his entire human life. The VB is a key and clear bridge between the eternal Son and Jesus the Messiah. This may be confirmed for two reasons: first, his sinlessness from PE to his assumption of humanity requires a perfect gateway in order to maintain his sinlessness in order for atonement. The VB fulfills this as it explicitly rules out sexual impurity and affirms Mary’s high standing as Θεοτόκος. The Son was sent in the likeness of “sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), though he was not himself sinful.[17] The ontological nature of the Creedal phrase “light from light, true God from true God” may be invoked in this way: we affirm that the sinless may beget the sinless, but the sinful cannot beget the sinless.

Second and finally, the VB seems to rule out adoptionism. Rom. 1:3-4, while a difficult Christological text, seems to emphasize the kingship of Jesus by the reference to the “seed” (σπέρματος) of King David and Christ’s human nature. The mention of King David is meant to affirm Christ’s role in salvation history as King and Messiah, not explain his ontological orientation. Rom. 5:14 speaks of Death[18] as King, and a possibly Pauline extrapolation is on the theme of kingship, the Human One coming to destroy the destroyer of life. Joshua Jipp of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School points out that several church fathers, including Athanasius, used Romans 1:3-4 to affirm Christ’s true humanity.[19] If Jipp and the Fathers are correct, then the VB is certainly coordinate with Rom. 1:3-4. Adoptionism is thus ruled out because Mary’s relationship to King David’s genealogy emphasizes Jesus’ birth of a specific line of Kings, not that God adopted the eternal Son. Thus, the gospel accounts are consistent with Paul. Coupled with this, the VB is consistent with the sacrifice of atonement and with the humanness of Christ expressed in Romans 1, as flesh without blemish is required under the Old Testament sacrificial system.

Because of the VB we can lay claim to the miraculous nature of Son’s incarnation, as it affirms a main Pauline theme of Christ’s sinlessness. A miraculous birth demands our attention and is no more a scandal than the idea of a PE person becoming flesh, or that the immortal would dare to become mortal, to dwell among us. The VB presents us with a truly unique historical event that defies easy categories.

5. CONCLUSION

I have attempted to bring together two variegated threads in Pauline theology, as well as several wider Pauline and Old Testament themes. The sinlessness of Christ is upheld as a central pillar in Paul’s thought, and when coupled with the nature of a spotless atonement yields some surprising fruit. The VB is, I argued, is necessary to maintain Pauline coherence and does no damage to Christian theology. We have seen that the dismissal of the Pauline witness as regards the doctrine of the VB is unwarranted, and that when one brings the threads together a beautiful tapestry begins to form. It is because of Paul’s witness that we can confess:

“I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. Under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again.”

Amen.

[1] Andrew T. Lincoln, Born of a Virgin? Reconceiving Jesus in the Bible, Tradition, and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2013), 22.
[2] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1977), 143.
[3] Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York, New York: Paulist Press, 1973), 45.
[4] Pannenberg, 143.
[5] Lincoln, 21.
[6] Pannenberg, 149.
[7] Quoted in Pannenberg 149 n.84.
[8] One cannot be both the eternal divine Son and yet adopted. The two seem contradictory.
[9] Gordon D. Fee concurs and believes PE is assumed here. Pauline Christology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 211-220.
[10] Lincoln, 153-154. However, given the polemical nature of many critics of Christianity, it is likely that such criticism itself has a biased edge.
[11] As remarkably sexist as some of this material is, we find none of this in Paul’s letters—a remarkable reversal is even found in 1 Cor. 11:11-12.
[12] Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-28.
[13] The author of Hebrews asserts that Jesus was like us in every way—except as regards sin. Heb. 4:15.
[14] Λαβών (taking) is an active participle. This shows the self-actualization of the preexistent Son who took a form he previously did not have—namely, flesh.
[15] Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus (Downers Groves, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 97-99.
[16] C.f. Oliver D. Crisp, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2009), 77-102.
[17] It may also be noted that other New Testament writers speak of Christ as sinless: Heb. 4:15.
[18] “[The] Death reigned…” (ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος), with the definite article seems to suggest Death’s kingship over humanity. Christ, as King and Messiah, gives us the gift of righteousness, which now reigns “in life” through Him.
[19] Joshua W. Jipp, “Ancient, Modern, and Future Interpretations of Romans 1:3-4: Reception History and Biblical Interpretation.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 3.2 (2009): 252.

Paul and Musings about the Authorship of Ephesians

Inspired by my last blog post (which I shall post here without shame), I've continued reading various commentaries regarding Pauline authorship of Ephesians. I do this for several reasons, one of them personal, so I shall elucidate that reason right here.

In the past, I simply assumed a lot of things about Scripture and what she taught. For example, the one-sided submission of wives to husbands was one such idea that I assumed. In finishing up my first quarter at Fuller, I've begun to reconsider and reexamine many theological foundations I built my life upon. Scripture has always been (since I've come back to Christ) the primary authority over my life, theologically. So, I consider many doctrines to be thoroughly Scriptural i.e. a high Christology in many places (John, Phil. 2:6, Titus 2:13 and others) and the Doctrine of the Trinity. However, I've become quite impassioned to reconsider many theological options (regarding human anthropology and other ideas) based on going back to Scripture. So, frankly, I can no longer assume much of anything without careful study. Everything is on the table. This includes the option of authorship as it relates to Ephesians.

As per the rest of this post, I won't be offering every reason for or against Pauline authorship. I'd have to write an entire book on the topic, a project that I would love to do post-seminary. But that's another story.

So a few things that I'm thinking about:

1. This is the main one, and it concerns a single partial phrase: so what?

So what if Paul did or did not write Ephesians? Why is it important?

Fair enough. If it turns out Paul did not write Ephesians, then Ephesians must be relegated to secondary status when working through a Pauline chronology and theology. Perhaps Ephesians (and subsequently 1-2 Timothy and Titus, most likely) must be placed within a Pauline school (or schools). This would keep Ephesians canonical, but would not allow them primacy of place within the construct of Pauline theology. Similar to Acts, though it is not an exact analog. 

So the question of authorship matters to me, as an evangelical who is passionate about Paul and his theology. Ephesians would still be considered authoritative Scripture (as it is impossible to determine whether or not someone was of ill-will in writing in his name) in the same way that Second-Isaiah would be. It informs our understanding of the various texts, and God saw fit to include it in the canon.

2. The issue of historical criticism and the search for truth.

Simply put, truth matters. The questions of historicity within the biblical texts matter for dating and chronology and the influence of development within Pauline thought. It can also showcase the materials utilized by a Pauline author or school at a later date, thus illustrating similarities and developments within Pauline theology.

3. Some Authorship Issues and Musings

Many put the issue of women in ministry right here. Lincoln, for instance, alludes to this issue in his commentary (I forget the page number; can find it if someone is truly interested), citing the mutuality and equality in 1 Cor. 7:1-16 and Gal. 3:28. For my money, I see no contradiction between the historical Paul and "deutero" Paul in relation to his views on women. I fully support the ordination of women.

The textual issue in 1:1-2 includes the omission of "in Ephesus." Most commentators that I've read think this is strike one against Pauline authorship, relegating the epistle to a circular letter. Included in this discussion is the explicit relationship between Colossians and Ephesians. Proponents for or against authorship cite this and use it to try and discredit the other side. For my money, I think the utilization between the two is definitive but the relationship is not decisive, though if there are other factors that push one towards non-Pauline authorship, then the writer most certainly copied Ephesians. One could cite a similar method used by Matthew and Luke in their use of Mark, but this more relies on whether or not Q exists. For my money (a phrase I love and will happily beat into the ground), I doubt Q.

Another issue is that the writer of Ephesians seems somewhat ignorant of the state of the recipients of the letter (1:15; 3:1-6 esp. 1-2; 4:20-24 esp. 21-22). This is not a usual way for Paul to write, especially given the way he writes his epistle to Rome (a place he had never been), especially since Acts 19 reveals Paul's ministry to Ephesus. This is especially potent when one thinks about how much Paul wrote in Romans to a church he had never been; indeed, he writes about the state of the world in 1-4, the nature of grace and love in 5-8, Jew and Gentile 9-11, and practical issues in 12-16. That is a lot of writing to a place he had never been. Ephesians, some have said, feels more like a summary of Pauline thought. Especially with no controversy evident in Ephesians at all, compared to the rest of the Pauline corpus.

This is not definitive but it reveals a possible tension. A lack of facebook and email does make a correspondence difficult. Although, reading

So none of this is definite or conclusive for me. More thinking this true. Thanks for reading!

NQ

The Fathers on Philippians 2:6

I was combing through some of my notes for patristics, and Philippians 2:5-11 is a fun passage to see them wrestle with. This is no way to suggest that all Fathers thought the same things about Jesus, but I found these to be most interesting. So here are some interesting quotes:

Epiphanius, Ancoratus 4.4:

"You see that he reveals Christ to be a man but not merely so, since he is the mediator of God and humanity... He is trueborn God by nature with respect to his Father, but with respect to humanity he is Mary's trueborn son by nature, begotten without the seed of a man."

Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrheticus Against Apollinarius:

"He did not say "having a nature like that of God," as would be said of [a man] who was made in the image of God. Rather Paul says being in the very form of God. All that is the Father's is in the Son."

Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on John 20:18:

"First one may contemplate him existing in his primary form, that of God, before he emptied himself. One will then see the Son of God not yet having come forth from him, the [incarnate] Lord not yet having proceeded from his place. But then compare the preexistent state of the Son with that which resulted from his assuming the form of a slave when he emptied himself. You will then understand how the Son of God came forth and came to us and as it were became distinguishable from the One who sent him. Yet in another way the Father did not simply let him go but is with him and is in the Son as the Son is in the Father."

Augustine, On Faith and the Creed 5:

"God who is eternally wise has with him his eternal Wisdom [the Son]. He is not in any way unequal to the Father. He is not in any respect inferior. For the apostle too says who, when he was in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God."

Lucifer of Cagliari, On Dying for the Son of God 12.16:

"It was he who was and is and always shall be in the form of the Father, the true Son, immutable and unchangeable because he is God and the all-powerful Son of the Almighty, who nonetheless deigned to lower himself for our salvation, so that he might cause us to rise even as we lay prostrate."

Ambrosiaster, Epistle to the Philippians 2.6:

"Knowing that he is in the form of God, he committed no theft .... Rightly, then, he equaled himself with God. For the one who thinks robbery is the one who makes himself equal to another whose inferior he is."

Eusebius of Vercelli, On the Trinity 3.4, 7:

"You must choose one of two paths. Either there is a single inequality in the two [divine Father and divine Son or there is a single equality in the glory of divinity itself. For no one is either greater or less than his own form...This singular equality is seen not only in the concord of their willing together. It is rather in their very deity, since the form of equality is in no way divided into parts. Where there is one equality there is no discord. Where there is one equality neither is prior to the other. Neither is posterior nor subordinate, since there is no distinction in the united equality, which is the fullness of divinity."

These can all be found in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Paul's epistle to the Philippians.

NQ

When God Came to Earth

For centuries, Mark's Gospel, the shortest one, was regarded as not much more than an abridged version of Matthew and Luke. . .there is agreement that Mark's Gospel provides the outline for the rest of the Synoptic Gospels and was written first. Therefore, it is an appropriate starting point for a study of the Gospels' Christologies (1).

Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 

For my own amusement, I did a bit of translation on the Greek above, coming to roughly "the commencement of the good news of Jesus Christ." My Greek New Testament has a footnote that includes [υἱοῦ θεοῦ] below, translated "Son of God." My initial bias was to use "origin" instead "commencement" or "beginning," but instead I think origin brings about connotations of beginning or creation and I don't think Christ was 'created' or had a 'beginning.' He certainly, however, was born into this world and thus, the "commencement" of the Son of God within a temporal context seems to make more sense to me. At least from a theological musing sort of point.

The Greek word εὐαγγελίου is translated here as "good news." So, immediately, we have a picture of a person we know nothing yet everything about. If we take my translation as commencement (as tentative as it obviously is) we see the commencement of a ceremony, as God coming to earth as Christ. We don't get this in Mark obviously in terms of birth, but the ceremony of birth is portrayed in the other Gospels. This gospel assumes that Christ had an earthly beginning.

This is good news. Particularly with how Mark portrays Jesus as "healer" and many other things. The physical nature that Christ enacts for His people is often overlooked, but Mark sees this as central. Certainly as deliverer, but also tangible evidence of what the Son of God intends for His creation:

Healing and restoration.  

This includes the removal of sickness, eating with sinners and driving out demons. This presupposes some form of preexistence. This is the commencement of the ceremonial aspect of Jesus coming down to creation and enacting inaugurated eschatology.  

And this is only the beginning of the good news. 

--Nick

Citations.

1. Karkkainen, "Christology: A Global Perspective" pg30.

Paul and the Gospel of God

I thought about going through the entire book of Romans to really deconstruct everything, but got hung up on the very first verse. Lucky me. The purpose I suppose is to really discover the text and avoid as much as possible reading into Paul what simply isn't there.

Anyway.

These are more musings and scattered thoughts. 

I got hung up on the phrase translated "gospel of God" rendered εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ in the Greek New Testament 2nd Edition. The genitive ending of θεοῦ gives us "of." But, what would be the "gospel of God" according to Paul? It is quite reasonable to assume that the Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ phrase indicates that to whom Paul considers the εὐαγγέλιον to be located in Christ. However, it isn't made explicit in this opening verse.

Thankfully, Paul explains later in v16 that he is not ashamed of this εὐαγγέλιον for (γὰρ seeming to indicate an explanation) it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes. Karl Barth says, "the Gospel is not a truth among other truths. Rather, it sets a question-mark against all truths" (1). Barth goes onto say that the resurrection is the δύναμις (power) of God (2).

In short, I think resurrection (ἀναστάσεως) is at the heart of Paul's gospel. Here are the seeds of Paul's εὐαγγέλιον which he explains in 1 Corinthians 15 and elsewhere. The δύναμις of God is shown forth in the resurrection. I think this is why Paul's εὐαγγέλιον ends not with a dead rebel but a magnificent appeal to not only the preeminence of Christ, but also that death itself is nowhere to be seen in 1 Corinthians 15:55. Death has been remade into the image of Jesus, restored beyond the grave.

Of course, this begins with Christology, as Scot McKnight suggests. This also goes far beyond what Paul says in the immediate context and far more beyond anything I am prepared to muse about at this present fading hour.

--Nick

Footnotes:

1. Barth, The Epistle to the Romans pg 35.

2. Ibid.

Thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and the Interpolation Hypothesis

I was reading through Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians[1] and managed to make my way into a studded field of land mines and hand grenades when I broached the section on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Before I get into my thoughts on the matter (and I acknowledge I write from the standpoint of an egalitarian), I should just post the text and get on with it.

ACCORDING TO PAUL

According to BibleGateway (TNIV):

³⁴ Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. ³⁵ If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.^[a]

Footnotes:

1. 1 Corinthians 14:35 In some manuscripts these verses come after verse 40.

Kurt Willems, a blogger I enjoy very much (who is a fellow egalitarian), offers his response to this "seemingly" clear section of verses in what follows.

Kurt:

In this first Corinthian letter, Paul spent several chapters discussing orderly worship.  In the flow of the letter, this text seems out of place and what some scholars refer to as an interpolation.  It appears to be an appendix that was added by a second or third generation Pauline letter compiler. This means that it was not authentic to Paul, but was inserted by a scribe because of some pressing agenda that was facing a segment of the church.  Both Richard B. Hays and Gordon Fee believe that this is indeed the case.  [1] If interpolation is not viable and this is authentically Pauline, then there are several explanations; one of which seems to be plausible.  Clearly, in 11.2-16, Paul has already stated that women may pray and prophesy in church as long as their head is covered in appropriate cultural dress.  Therefore, it is proposed that in the ancient Middle East women and men would sit in separate parts of the gathering area.  Most likely, worship gatherings in Corinth would have been taught in the popular language of the day: Greek.  Unschooled women lacked education and were less likely to understand, as they were fluent in their own local ethnic dialects.  They could have become bored or had questions that caused them to talk loud amongst themselves until the minister would have had to say: “Women, be quiet!  Ask your husbands at home.”  Paul may have written this to promote order in the Corinthian context so that worship would be orderly.  In any case, it was not a prohibition on women in a general sense, but an occasional circumstance.[2] 

You can read the rest of the post and his series here. I don't find his reasons compelling, but I won't rule them out as impossible. Just highly unlikely. I will offer my thoughts on the interpretation of this text below.

For my part, I never was quite certain what to do with these verses. My initial response was to laugh and say Paul was contradicting himself again (given my annoyances with Paul initially when I started studying him). But this wouldn't do.

So I ventured into the bombed out realm of this terrain and discovered a few different hypotheses, none of which seemed to make sense entirely of the text. The refutation of a "false prophecy" seemed to initially solve some of the issues, but when I started listening to textual critics, I considered a different option. I still consider the "false prophecy denouncement" to be a possible option, but it still doesn't answer my questions.

A QUESTION ON INERRANCY

The reason I write this is because inerrancy is the first thing people think about when these sorts of issues are discussed. As of this current moment, I affirm the inerrancy of the original autographs of Scripture. However, if these verses (or any other verses) were not in the original autographs, then they are to be rejected.

DEFINITION

Simply, an interpolation is an addition to the text not originally written by the author.

SWINGING THE PENDULUM

The list of scholars who argue for the interpolation explanation is impressive. Seriously. Most text critics analyses of this passage have concluded that it is indeed an interpolation[2]. I will list a few:

Richard B. Hays[3]. E. Earle Ellis [4]. Eldon J. Epp [5]. Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger [6] [7].

So, just thinking about the likelihood of this interpretation is not without it's heavy hitters in support.

My (tentative) reasons:

One, they contradict Paul's affirmation of women of women elsewhere. People have tried to reinterpret those verses, but haven't been successful.

Two, as you can see with the footnote from BibleGateway, some manuscripts have the two verses at the end of the chapter, several verses away. The movement to verse 40 doesn't assuage any of the problems, introducing more issues into the text, both theologically and exegetically.

Three, in accordance with the nearly universal recognition of John 7:53-8:11 as an interpolation (an interpolation far longer than 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which should silence comments about "length"), we see that both manuscripts contain varying locations of both texts. The movement or replacement of "texts" is a strong sign of an interpolation[8].

Four, I believe verses 1-25 are an affirmation of prophecy, and verses 26-40 are instructions for such principles and is of chiastic structure. The climactic moment is in verse 33, where Paul announces that God is "not a God of disorder, but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints." Verses 34-35 do not reflect the arguments made in the previous chapters and interrupt the flow of the argument.

Five, most manuscripts have verses 34-35 as separate from 33.

Six, the phrase "just as the Law says" does not fit Paul's use of language as we cannot find any OT law that restricts the speech of women. Also, he speaks of Christ "redeeming us from the Law" (Galatians 3:13).

I'm still wading through this territory, but having read D.A. Carson and various other responses to the arguments made, I haven't been convinced. As the evidence stands, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is most likely an interpolation.

As I mentioned, if this text is not from Paul and wasn't in the original autographs, then it does not carry authority. It should not be used to establish doctrine nor should it be given a proper place in studying the Scriptures to determine the standing of women in ministry.

--Nick

Footnotes:

1. D.A. Carson, "New Testament Commentary Survey" pg94, recommends Fee's commentary as one of the best general commentaries on the epistle despite what Carson terms "extraordinary lapses" in Fee's treatment of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as an interpolation. I found Carson's response far from compelling.

2. For the long list, P.B. Payne, "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pgs226-227. Its all one footnote. Its an entire page long. Seriously.

3. Richard B. Hays, "The Moral Vision of the New Testament" pgs54-59 for footnotes. Also see "First Corinthians" pgs244-248.

4. E. Earle Ellis, "New Testament Textual Criticism, Its Significance For Exegesis" pgs213-220.

5. Eldon J. Epp, "Junia: The First Woman Apostle" pgs15-20.

6. Meztger and Ehrman, "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" pgs288-290. Say what you will about Ehrman, but he is a studied textual critic and I consider him an authority on textual criticism.

7. See Payne, "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pg247 for Dr. Payne's conversation with Dr. Bruce Metzger. Dr. Metzger is in agreement with Dr. Payne on the likelihood that Bishop Victor of Capua (who commissioned the writings of Codex Fuldensis) regarded 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as an interpolation.

8. D.A. Carson, "The Gospel According to John" pg333. However, Carson unfortunately doesn't apply the same principle to 1 Corinthians 14.

The Destruction of Death, the Final Enemy

"The asyndeton (lack of conjunction) gives the sentence a "strong and decisive prominence" between the two scriptural adaptations (Cf. McCaughey, "Death," p. 251). The present passive is best understood as referring to what takes place at the time of v. 24; that is, it refers to Christ's destroying "every dominion, authority and power." In a sense death, the final enemy to be subdued, is already being destroyed through the resurrection of Christ' but Paul's concern here is with its final destruction, which takes place when Christ's own resurrection as first fruits culminates in the full harvest of the resurrection of those who are his. Death is the final enemy. At its destruction true meaningfulness is given to life itself. As long as people die, God's own sovereign purposes are not yet fully fully realized. Hence the necessity of the resurrection -- so as to destroy death by "robbing" it of its store of those who do not belong to it because they belong to Christ!"

 Dr. Gordon Fee, "The First Epistle to the Corinthians," regarding 1 Cor. 15:26. pg757. 

Anger and Inerrancy

This post is maybe 25 years in the making, especially with emphasis on the past 5 years in particular. A lot of this began with me being told that "Scripture is inerrant" and especially in regards to scientific and historical issues. This had been settled a hundred years ago, the folks told me, and I believed them. Or, just didn't care enough to really dig into it.

Lately, I've begun to rethink a lot of things, doctrines that I have always held but never for any particular reason. Doctrines like the Trinity, hell and others. For the most part, I think I've come down on the side of orthodoxy, albeit more or less on the more moderate side of evangelical scholarship.

But this post is something different. When I began to read Ehrman and Sparks, I was struck by a lot of seemingly contradictory elements in Scripture, both textually and theologically. The amount of this stuff was just mind-blowing.

Of course, a few years ago, I was under the assumption that the Bible was written in English. I kid, mostly.

But, in going through Biola University and getting a minor in Biblical Studies, I was struck by how little I really know of critical scholarship. Allison informed me that she learned about a lot of this at Biola while getting her Bachelors in Biblical Studies. This was news to me, because either I turned out most of my theology courses (admittedly a mild possibility) or they simply didn't mention such things.

I'm inclined to think they didn't mention them, and I'm certain I didn't get such resources in high school. When I discovered this, I was furious. I felt like I had been lied to. Allison mentioned that she knew about these things and Biola professors had worked on them, I literally shouted into the phone, "then why the hell didn't someone tell me?" Mind you, I wasn't angry at her at all. I was more angry at the fact that I found things were hidden from me.

I'm now reading through Kenton Spark's book Sacred Word, Broken Word and am now delving into critical scholarship to dissect this idea of inerrancy to see if it is applicable and actually true. I hope it is, but I've slowly come to realize that if inerrancy isn't true (or has been improperly defined) then I wouldn't have much of an issue not believing it.


So, in essence, I think my anger is and was reasonable. However, cooler heads prevailed and now the research can actually begin. My bank account may suffer a bit, but in between buying and aging beers, inerrancy seems like a more worthy hobby.

--Nick