Seminary Library Essentials: Introducing Paul and Judaism

As the five people who read my blog know, I’m a “Paul” guy. Specifically, every paper I’ve written here at Fuller Theological Seminary has largely surrounded Paul in some form, except when the professor did not give the option for me to write about the beloved apostle.

So this series will attempt to accomplish several things. First, this is a blog series by a seminarian and is subject to the whims of seminary life. As such, there will be material I recommend today that I will not recommend in a year. Such is life.

Second, and more importantly, the goal of this series is to offer students, readers, pastors, and theology nerds (like myself) resources for specific epistles and topics within the realm of Pauline studies. I may expand it to different topics outside of Paul, or even the wider New Testament, but for the time being I will focus only on my beloved Paul.

Third, the goal of this series is to offer the essential resources for Paul for under $100. This will go by Amazon prices (assuming you have Prime!). This is necessary simply because we are not rich and do not have significant shelf space for the entirety of Pauline literature.

So, in a nutshell, this is a series about essential resources that should cap out at $100. In the form a question or a hook, “I’m interested in X and I have $100 and a week to study and learn as much as I can from the experts, who should I buy?”

My first post is on introducing Paul specifically, and his relationship to Judaism. As a New Perspective guy, I find the Greco-Roman and Jewish literature around the time of Paul to be almost—almost—as interesting as Paul himself. Thus, the resources offered here will surround the Jewish literature and resources that I think will help you dig into the backgrounds of Paul and the milieu in which he lived.

Because I also want to cheat a little bit, I will include recommended resources that I feel are almost as necessary, but are simply out of the price range I have arbitrarily set. And away we go!

Second Temple Jewish resources and literature.

·      James C. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 Volumes (Hendrickson, 2010), 2104 pages. $48.

Encompassing Second Temple literature from the Second century BCE (1 Maccabees) to even the Ninth century CE, Charlesworth has assembled a vital and truly necessary anthology of Jewish literature into two volumes. You have histories, apocalypses, poems, and even lost fragments. If anyone wants to understand Judaism, you need this collection. Richard Bauckham has recently released a large volume on additional documents, but I have not had a chance to peruse much of it, sadly.

·      The Apocrypha is free if you have an NRSV Bible. Free.

It is free. That is enough. It is similar to the Old Testament pseudepigrapha.

·      Shaye Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah 2^nd edition (Westminster John Knox), 272 pages. $24.

Cohen is an immaculate scholar. He lectures at Harvard, and his book is an excellent introduction to Jewish history. He takes a strongly historical and critical approach to history, and even covers sections about gender and ethics, just to name a few.

He has a third edition out of this text, which is mandatory, but that would put me over the $100 limit I set.

·      C.D. Yonge, The Works of Philo (Hendrickson, 1993), 944 pages. $16.

Philo is a first century Jewish philosopher, and as such, he is tendentious, odd, and highly weird in his interpretation of the Law. That said, he is necessary to read simply because of his contemporary status with Paul and some other Jewish writers within the New Testament.

·      William Whiston, Josephus: The Complete Works (Thomas Nelson, 2003), 1200 pages. $11.

Same with Philo; Josephus is a Jewish historian who wrote what is essentially a commentary on the entire Old Testament.

·      Total: $99.

Not too shabby, right? There are of course more I could suggest, but these works I consider definitive for a person who wants to dig deep into the well of Pauline theology and literature.

Recommended:

·      James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Eerdmans, 2000), 248 pages. $14.

Not as expansive as Cohen, VanderKam is still a great introduction from a non-Jewish perspective.

·      Richard Bauckham, The Jewish World around the New Testament (Baker, 2010), 560. $47.

An excellent anthology of Bauckham’s essays.

·      E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. $30.

The book that changed the face of Pauline studies, ushering in the mainstream nature of the “New Perspective.” 

These works have challenged me and changed me in multiple ways, the chief one being that I have begun to learn who Paul "was" in respect to his cultural context, and the assumptions I bring to the text. Thanks for reading!

NQ

Animated Stardust: A Reflection on Paul and Christian Materialism

http://angelicfm.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/stardust.jpeg

This little post is long overdue, and my apologies for that. I really should blog more often.

It is no secret that I subscribe to what is called Christian physicalism, also called monism or materialism. This means that I believe I do not possess an immaterial immortal soul; rather, I am a body comprised of purely—but not merely—physical components that comprise a person.

In New Testament scholarship, much has been written regarding how Paul and others utilize bodily imagery, and this is relevant to the current mind-body problem, and especially in light of modern discussions on eschatology. For instance, if one is a materialist like I am, then the doctrine of the intermediate state becomes unnecessary. Much more could be said and explored, and perhaps I will do this later. Its in a written “to research” document.

I preached some time ago about 1 Corinthians 15 and the nature of the resurrection. As someone who believes he does not possess immortality or a soul, the resurrection has become a foundational (can I say that in a post-modern world? Well, I will) basis for my Christian faith. As Paul writes, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). Pretty simple.

If Christ has not been raised, you will perish. The aorist middle/passive verb ἀπώλοντο refers to former Israelites who suffered annihilation in the desert (1 Cor. 10:10) and the rebellion of Korah (Jude 11). In the New Testament among personal active and divine agents, the root (ἀπόλλυμι) most commonly refers to the act of death, or being killed/murdered (Matt. 2:13), or being destroyed (Matt. 10:28).[1] For Paul, I suspect the term refers to the natural state of decay that results in the complete extinction of the human person.

While I am working on a further study of how Paul uses "death" language, I wanted to reflect now on 1 Cor. 15:44-45, as well as other parts of 1 Cor. 15. In describing the “natural” (ψυχικόν) and “spiritual” states of universal human—though I doubt he separated the two—Paul uses σῶμα ("body") here in both instances. Σῶμα most commonly refers to, well, the human person—usually the totality of the human being. It is used over 140 times in the New Testament. 

In contrasting “dishonor/weakness” and “glory/power,” Paul does not stray from the bodily nature of resurrected life.In fact, it is likely he had no other category to work with, and even while writing to a highly dualistic culture (Corinth), he seemed interested in using their language to convey his principle point:

σῶμα is the operative continuance of what God gave us, and what we be in the New Creation.

The “natural” body is appositionally defined as “dust/ earth” (χοϊκός), not of “spirit.” The very nature of embodied life is that we are “living souls/persons/lives.” As dust, we are passive, subjected to death and mortality and the inevitable cyclone of cosmic breakdown. All matter eventually breaks down, resulting in returning to “dust”—if that.

A happy thought.

If you came here for happy Christian theology, this is the part you are looking for.

Christ is described as a πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν—“life-giving spirit.” In a world ruled by Death and the destructive powers of human sin, Christ is proactive, giving “life” to our bodies. The intrinsic nature of human life is mortality and death. We may be able to get out of paying taxes, but death is something that cannot be cheated.

But if Christ is raised, then there is hope for our mortal bodies. Putting on immortality implies a continued state where we are changed, but not entirely undone. It is something added to us, not something to be found within us. The author of Ephesians describes us as “putting on” various pieces of armor (6:11), implying that these things are to be added to an existing constituent.

Once this happens, then this soulless, mortal, animated piece of cosmic stardust will then say, “Where, Death, is your victory?” Thus, the resurrection of the animated piece of stardust that comprises the human person is the consequence of the victory of God in Christ over the final evil power. 

Without this resurrection, I am animated stardust. Nothing more. Until then, I await the redemption/liberation of my body (c.f. Rom. 8:23: τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν).

Just something I’ve been chewing on for months.

In Christ,

NQ

---

[1] Glenn Peoples, The Meaning of Appolumi in the Synoptic Gospels,” http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/10/the-meaning-of-apollumi-in-the-synoptic-gospels/ 

A Letter of Thanks to my Mentors from a Distance

It is always odd to read books that impact you, especially when you've never had the privilege to thank the author/s in person. I imagine it is incredibly awkward to shake his or her hand and say, "your book was really helpful" as most professors or theologians are a bit awkward as well!

But, in beginning my second year at Fuller Theological Seminary, I feel a bit of an impulse to thank and mention various theologians who have made my time easier, and helped influence me in my journey. So here goes nothing.

My thanks first and foremost go out to John Goldingay. Besides being a really helpful spiritual mentor (he is my priest at S.B., after all!), I've been greatly impacted by his work in Old Testament theology, and I recall a deep sense of calm after reading the first volume of his Old Testament Theology. If you haven't read it, please do yourself a favor and do so.

In thinking more about John, I have to thank him for being available for my often goofy questions about issues in the Old Testament, and his kindness in simply being a spiritual mentor. He may not know this, but I am enriched and rewarded every time I sit down in S.B., and the members there have made it feel like home.

The second major influence of my academic study has been Craig Allen Hill, who teaches at Fuller Irvine and other places. He was my Greek professor for my first two quarters, and my professor for Interpretive Practices. Aside from being gracious, he took the time to just meet with me for coffee, and I was honored that he did so. He was patient, and he taught me the language of the New Testament. I recall the first time I opened a Greek commentary (Ephesians, by Andrew T. Lincoln) and was able to read most of the Greek text, and I broke down. It was an empowering experience, and it confirmed a deep-seated desire to learn and grow into my Christian vocation.

I never had confidence that I could learn and do well at something, so the fact that I was able to learn a dead language and use it effectively was empowering. So I thank Craig Hill from the bottom of my heart.

Many more could be named, but Richard Hays (Duke Divinity School) has been a major influence on my theological development, especially his work in 1 Corinthians and the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. He revolutionized how I read Paul, and really pushed me to consider the ethical nature of Paul's instructions.

Ronald Pierce at Biola University has been a continued influence on my life. His course at Biola on women in the Bible was the first bible class I ever took seriously, and I was honored that he took the time to come to our wedding and see Allison and I take our vows. He's been a kind and spirited mentor from a distance and also a close spiritual guide for the difficulties in seminary. His course changed how I viewed the vocation of women, and challenged me to reconsider what I had previously been taught. For this, I am forever grateful.

Another influence (and I should really wrap this up!) is Philip Barton Payne. His book on Paul and women really settled a lot of issues I had, and his continued relationship at various conferences and over email has been helpful and delightful. The man is a walking lexicon and I am constantly grateful for his insight and grace as he helps this student meander through the rocky terrain of New Testament studies.

So, thanks Dr. Payne.

Last (and there is no 'last' to this list), my heart goes out to Gordon Fee. His commentary on 1 Corinthians was the first commentary I ever bought on my own, and it has continued to be a light into my life. He has alzheimers now, but his work in New Testament and also on behalf of women in ministry (c.f. DBE) has been a spiritual breeze in a Summer of spiritual difficulty. I wish I had the chance to study under him, but in watching his lectures on 1 Corinthians on youtube, you can catch a glimpse of the spiritual ferocity and sensitivity of this veteran interpreter of Scripture.

More could and should be mentioned, but these are the one's that have been most influential.

NQ

Psalm 110: Some Initial Reflections

WHY PSALM 110

There are several reasons why Psalm 110 has grabbed my attention and imagination. The primary cause for my selection is that the Psalm appears to be quoted throughout the entire New Testament, with a plethora of diverse voices quoting or alluding to it. For example, Paul seems to paraphrase or allude to 110:1 in 1 Cor. 15:24-25, Rom. 8:34 and Col. 3:1. The (possible Deutero?) Pauline epistles make some reference to the same verse in Eph. 1:20-22 and 2:6. Psalm 110 seems to be an important eschatological verse for Paul and the Pauline tradition. A strand of the Gospel tradition (Matthew 22:43-45; 26:63-64; Acts 2:33-36; 5:30-31; 7:55-56) seems to also see this verse as significant Christologically and eschatologically in the later parts of the first century CE. While almost certainly not part of the original Gospel, Mark 16:19 seems to contain a possible allusion to 110:1; given the textual tradition of Mark 16:9-20, it seems that even later scribes saw the importance of this Psalm. Hebrews is keen to cite or allude to 110:1 multiple times (1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12-13) as does 1 Peter (3:21-22). Thus, this Psalm is widely known amongst the diverse authors of the New Testament from the middle of the first century to the later parts of the first century. Since my research interests lie with the New Testament, it is necessary to understand this popular Psalm on her own terms. 

DIVERSITY OF PSALM 110 AND HER TRANSLATIONS

As per Fuller Theological Seminary’s preferred translations, I will limit my use to the CEB, NRSV, and NIV. Much of the differences between these three translations lie in the realm of emphasis. For instance, in 110:1, the NRSV does not include the apposition phrase, “for your feet,” whereas the CEB and NIV do include the phrase. There is also a difference in punctuation in the apposition phrasing. The CEB concludes the sentence with an exclamation point (!) and the NIV does not.

In v.2, there is a distinct difference in translation over the relation of the scepter and the Lord. The NRSV says the scepter is sent “out from Zion.” In addition to the addition of “may” at the beginning of the verse, the CEB views the scepter as reaching “far from Zion!” The NIV views the King’s scepter as an “extension from Zion.” The focus of the narrator is on the King’s scepter being extended or sent (“your”). In each case, the scepter’s point of origin is found as coming “from Zion,” though there is some tension regarding the exact nature of this scepter’s leading.

Continuing with v.3, the NRSV has an interesting phrase, “will offer themselves willingly” as opposed to the CEB’s rendering, “stand ready,” which illustrates a contested concept. The nature of a willingness to “offer themselves” suggests a deep conviction on the part of the King’s soldiers to die for him. “Stand ready” (CEB) makes sense, but “will be willing” (NIV) is less precise as to what is “willing” and suggests a future tense orientation. Regarding v.4, the CEB adds an appositional phrase, “a solemn pledge” in order to clarify the “sworn” language immediately before. This helps modern eyes see the seriousness of “swearing an oath or pledge” in Scripture and actually helps draw out the meaning.

V.5 appears to be a difficult verse to translate. The CEB seems to focus on the King’s actions: “by your [the King’s] right hand” which implies the activity of the King, and not God (NRSV, NIV). The focus of the other two translations is on God’s “crushing/shattering,” of the King’s enemies. The question then becomes, who is the one enacting judgment upon the enemies? Is it solely God, or is it the King through God’s providence? The tenses of “crush/shatter” are also different. The NRSV and NIV have a future orient, “will shatter,” and the CEB has a present tense, “has crushed.” Are the tenses in Hebrew meant to evoke a more prophetic (future) alignment, or is this an invocation for the present king?

Within v.6-7, there is some variation between 6a amongst all three translations. The NRSV emphasizes, “Execute judgment among the nations,” suggesting that the Lord is at work amongst the nations, but the nations are not the exclusive focus of judgment. The CEB counters this with, “bring the nations to justice,” which seems to highlight a less retributive aspect of the Lord’s action, and the NIV is explicit in making the “nations” the direct object of “judge.” Thus, there seems to be some differences in translation regarding the style of judgment, and the direct focus or recipient of that judgment. In v.7, both the NRSV and NIV state that God “will drink,” as opposed to the CEB (“drinks”). The emphasis from the NRSV and NIV appear future oriented rather than the CEB’s emphasis on the present action. There may also be an issue in 7a; the NRSV makes this a result of drinking by beginning the final clause with “therefore he will…” which suggests a more specific result action.

In conclusion, the differences in translation are often minute. However, a major issue may be summed up as such: how did the original author or editor intend for this Psalm to be understood, with an eye towards the future installment of a King, or with intent toward the present King? How do these variant tenses and other translational issues affect our reading of this particular Psalm in relation to Israel’s story? Is this Psalm possibly meant in a Proleptic fashion, anticipating a future of deliverance? Is this Psalm intended to instill hope in an idealized future figure? Time will only tell!

Why Paul and Not Jesus? A Brief Reflection

As I sip grapefruit from a wineglass, I recall a question someone asked me a long time ago. Well, long ago in the sense that I do not remember the specific time. In between the insanity at work, the joy of marriage, and the pressing of seminary, I can now think about this unmentioned comment in more detail

"Why Paul and not Jesus?"

In the spirit of New Testament scholarship, one could write a few dissertations about this very question, and I'm quite confident at least someone has. For me, Paul remains the singular apex of frustration and inspiration. In between being an iconoclast and an impeachable brick wall, Paul has shown himself to be a remarkably profound and infuriating dead man.

A key difference for me, in terms of my love for Paul, is that we have so much diverse material about him. Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are attributed to him, which roughly equates to 25% of the entirety of the New Testament, and so he is the second most prolific author we have in the canon. However, in terms of influence, Paul is second to none here in the Western world. Justification, gender, sexuality, the rapture: all of this is largely filtered through a Pauline lens (and this is a good thing in many ways), and so it is not unheard of as to why I prefer studying Paul over the Gospels.

Another possible answer is that Paul explicitly (and implicitly) challenges his congregations in the midst of immense ethical turmoil, and the reconstructions behind this-through the blessing of historical criticism-are particularly fascinating.

Finally, Paul haunts me. The man is our first interpreter of the sayings and significance of Jesus, and the fact that he is so culturally removed from myself (I say this while typing on a computer, after all!) makes him uniquely fascinating insofar as his writings continue to influence a large portion of humanity. It is easier to study Paul simply because he often just tells us what he feels. Anger. Joy. Sorrow.

Part of me wonders if Paul ever considered that his epistles to his dysfunctional and often bonkers churches would end up all collected and put between two covers and recited on Sunday mornings everywhere. I like to hope he would be flattered, but part of me thinks his reaction would be more earthy than that.

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.

Love and Participation in Philemon: Reflections

A dominant theme is how a hierarchical structure can (or even if it should) exist within the body of Christ. The master/slave relationship was rarely seen as reciprocal though there may have been leeway as regards the rights of slaves (Gorman, 7-8). But, what I think we see is Paul’s pressing for Onesimus’s freedom. For instance, Paul’s strong and consistent use of “in Christ” applies here because Paul can claim that he is “bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty,” thus seeming to imply that both master and slave are ‘in Christ’ and that Paul is as well: this is fitting as love is a grand Pauline theme (1 Cor. 13), and he consistently applies his principle here in a sensitive situation. Indeed, Paul’s claim for Philemon to “refresh my heart in Christ” may place the abolition of slavery directly within the freedom the Gospel offers (c.f. the “in Christ” language of Gal. 3:28). When there are no divisions within the body of Christ, we must then ask why the church attempts to perpetuate such division in—for example—excluding women from the pulpit, and why our individual churches do not include minorities in positions of equal standing in the Church. 

The character of the Church (and Paul is writing to a church here! See v.1-2) is one of participation in unity, where there is no slave or free in Christ. Paul’s advocacy for Onesimus seems to open up a seat at the table of fellowship.

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.

Resurrection as Liberation (Rom. 8:23)

τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν.

“…the liberation of our bodies.” Romans 8:23b.

All of creation has been groaning under the bondage of slavery and the forces of death. In some sense, human beings are tied to this. A certain echo can be found in Exodus, where Israel was under the oppression of a foreign power.

Paul seems to press this into something more unique, as we await the “ransom” or “liberation” of our bodies. The genitive use indicates that this ransom is not “from” or “out of” our bodies, but rather ransoming’ of our bodies.

The flesh (that is, the entirety of the human person) is ransomed, likely from death.

The reference to the “απαρχηε” (first fruits) is likely in line with Paul’s view of resurrection, with Christ as the “απαρχηε” of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20-28). In that context, Death is seen as task-master, and death-dealer, as king or as one who reigns over (ἀλλὰ ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος). The personification of θάνατος (with an article) likely indicates that Paul viewed Death as an impersonal yet ‘living’ force, something that had the ability to dominate or control. Yet, through the resurrection of Christ, θάνατος has no power over those who attach themselves to Christ. In this sense, we are liberated from the oppression of death. In the same way as Israel was oppressed by Egypt, Assyria and Babylon, so did God ransom them from said oppression.

Yet this is uniquely personal. It affects a corporate group of those in Christ, and yet it affects their bodies as well. It is the setting free of something from something.

The writer also indicates that Christ is a ransom in 1 Timothy 2:6 “αντιλυτρον,” though death is not within the immediate context and it is not certain what we are ‘ransomed’ from. Perhaps the “kings and those in authority” in v2. See also the ransoming of Titus 2:14 (λυτρώσηται), the purification of the people of God.

The adoption of us is the salvation of a people from death, from oppression. The body, both individually and corporately, is healed and restored. Resurrection, then, is liberation.

Just some thoughts.

NQ

If Paul Didn't Write Ephesians, What Then?

This is an excerpt from my notes on episode 5.If you are interested, click here to listen.

So a few people might be wondering about why I’m not bothered, or why we should or should not be bothered by this question of authorship. I suppose for me, I’ve more or less accepted a critical mindset once I graduated from Biola (though I don’t think Biola would want to take credit for this criticism) and began to read material about the New Testament in greater depth.

In doing this, I told myself over and over that the truth is what the truth is, regardless of how I felt about the matter. So that is, in small part, why this doesn’t bother me.

It also may be the case that the Holy Spirit saw fit to include Ephesians in the canon of Holy Scripture. The same reason that the Holy Spirit had no issue with there being at least two (or three) Isaiah’s in Holy Scripture.

A text can be timeless regardless of who wrote it. It speaks from history to our history and communicates truth that God wants taken to heart.

So Ephesians is a bit of an enigma and we’ll explore this a little bit more in the next episode. Until then, thanks for listening and blessings. For my money, if it turns out Paul did not write Ephesians (and I’m leaning that way at the moment), it would matter very little in relation to interpretive authority. It would cause issue only if one were doing strictly Pauline theology, but as far as its use in general theology, it is fair game and has been damn near essential in formulating Christian doctrine since …

Well since the early times.

That means something.

NQ

Should Evangelicals Assume Inerrancy when Doing Theology?

I confess to being on the fence regarding the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. But now, let me be clear: this is not because I am at Fuller Theological Seminary, or that I’m an Egalitarian, or because of any other doctrinal commitments. No other doctrine has prompted me to reconsider the doctrine of inerrancy. In fact, I have very little interest in affirming or denying the doctrine. For many people (bless you all), this is reason enough to shut down this tab and move on; more power to you.

For the others who did not shut down the tab, I pose the question: should evangelicals assume inerrancy when doing theology? This isn’t a sustained case for or against the doctrine of inerrancy, just some musings and personal reflections.

I should get some things out on the table: I am uncertain that Paul wrote 1-2 Timothy and Titus and Ephesians. I also think it is more likely that there are at least two parts to Isaiah. In reading about these textual and theological difficulties, I have not once considered the implications for my thoughts on inerrancy.

In doing theology, inerrancy has not mattered in any substantive way. In fact, I wonder if one could affirm a doctrine of inerrancy and affirm non-Pauline authorship of certain epistles. I tend to think the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. But this is an aside, much like this post as a whole. So moving on.

Inerrancy, then, has not factored in my theology or research. Should it? I offer these two thoughts in response:

No. Because I’m not convinced one should be considering secondary issues when doing research. The research should yield fruit, not uproot a tree in search of ghosts.

No. Because the diversity of Scripture should not cause evangelicals (like myself) to rush to systematize. We should first let the options and viewpoints stand.

So I think my perspective has been to simply let Scripture stand and say what She needs to say, regardless of my thoughts on other doctrines, authors or matters. Paul is not John, John is not Paul. Do they line up? Should they?

Then one gets into the discussion about what constitutes an actual error or contradiction. A conversation that seems as helpful a discussion as a car made out of biscuits. Rather, one should assign immediate authority to the author or text that one is researching before bringing in other authors or texts to supplement or, even, correct. Or should they?

I suppose these thoughts are too scattered to be of much help. I’m still working through them myself and this post is is coming in between my Greek homework and casual exegesis. Still, in not having a doctrine looming over my shoulder, I’ve been able to simply take the text as what it appears to say and let it stand in the middle of the room, like the great, authoritative elephant that Scripture is.

Then again, do we conflate authority with inerrancy? Not going to open that can, but the thought did just cross my mind. In doing New Testament exegesis, one should simply be content to read Paul (or Deutero-Paul, if he/they exist) without pondering doctrine.

This raises a whole other question: can one actually do non-dogmatic exegesis? In a strong sense, exegesis is theological. But I suppose that is a question that must wait until I have time to think about it some more.

Suffice to say, Scripture has and will always have authority over my life. Not only because I submit to it, but because it has shown that it doesn’t quite care what I think. The reciprocity of Scripture is just that, a God offering us words written through his creation for his creation.

Would He have it any other way?

I apologize for not answering the question. Or did I? Too tired to scroll up.

Blessings,

NQ

Apostles, Deacons & The Women of Romans 16

ROMAN HOLIDAY

Paul speaks strongly to the Jew/Gentile division in the Church of Rome with a particular emphasis in ch9-11 which culminates with the idea of universal mercy and the mystery of God’s ultimate plan (11:32-36).[1] While these three chapters have over 400 years of sordid and divided history in the post-reformation age, they aren’t the main focus of this paper. We will instead be focusing on the women mentioned in ch16. As we will see, the women listed by the Apostle Paul indicates his inclusion of women in all aspects of church life.

PHOEBE

The final chapter of Romans is most pertinent to the contemporary gender debate,[2] beginning with the very first verse, which commends “our sister Phoebe, a deacon (diakonos: minister, patron, servant) of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.” (NRSV).[3] There are numerous indications that this chapter is intended as a letter of recommendation. For one, this was a common way of recommending someone in the Greco-Roman world,[4] the New Testament era (2 Cor. 3:1) as well as in Second Temple Judaism (1 Macc. 12:43; 2 Macc. 9:25).

Second, the honor of being named first indicates (many times) priority,[5] and Paul’s use of the term “adelphe” (sister) is indicative of two things: one, Paul views her in the Body of Christ, implicitly assuming their shared unity in the Gospel of God, and that he views her highly enough to showcase her personal involvement in his life.

Simply, Paul trusts her, and he makes it plain that the Church is to follow in his stead, for she has been a leader (or patron) of many, including Paul. It is most likely that Phoebe is the first recorded “deacon” in the churches of God within the New Testament. “Help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a great help (prostatis) to me” lexically enforces the notion that she was akin to a leader/patron/champion of Paul.[6] Many complementarians concede that Phoebe was a deacon in the church[7] and that this most likely refers to a position of leadership.[8] If Phoebe was indeed a deacon as well as a leader, which would likely require not only financial benefaction, but also spiritual guidance.[9]

PRISCA[10] & AQUILLA

“Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the convert [first fruits] in Asia for Christ.” Romans 16:3-5 (NRSV). There is an implicit connection between Luke/Acts and Paul, with Prisca and Aquila being mentioned numerous times already.[11] This wife and husband couple is so close to Paul, that they even risked their lives for him. Four of the six times in the New Testament, Prisca is named before Apollos, which is unheard of in ancient patriarchal culture.[12] In fact, this same culture would’ve largely found fault with this. For example, in Democritus in his Sayings 111, “To be ruled by a woman is the worst insult for a man.” Also Pseudo-Lucian’s (Am. 38 8:210-11) says, “Let women be ciphers and be retained merely for child-bearing; but in all else away with them.”

If we accept the standard belief that ancient women were elevated by their husbands’ status,[13] then the reverse would most likely entail something quite unique.[14] It is entirely plausible that Prisca is the dominant evangelist, and this would showcase the fact that class meant little to Paul in the calling of all people to proclaim the Gospel of God.[15] In Acts 18:2, Aquila is named first in the context of a traveling journey; ministry doesn’t appear to be in the picture. In Acts 18:18, Prisca and Aquila accompany Paul, but the description appears neutral. However, if the three of them were together, it is most unlikely that they would be discussing only the weather. Acts 18:26 shows Prisca and Aquila together explaining the word of God to Apollos “more accurately.” This is active ministry (accompanied by the Way reference in 18:25; 19:9; 19:23 as well as Paul’s inference that he persecuted this “Way” in 22:4, putting both men and women in prison.) Paul’s three references include two priority placements of Prisca, and one of Aquila.

The most convicting aspect of these few verses is the revelation that a church was a home, the place of dwelling. The church that meets in “their” house (plural) (v5) indicates a shared view of property, but also of ministry. Those who would exclude women from ministry fail to account for this data, especially in a time where ‘church’ as we know it often took place under the cover of night, in secret and in tenement houses. For Paul, Prisca and Aquila, ministry wasn’t bound by a location; instead it was a community of called people, born again into the image of God, reflected in the desire to convert the whole world for Him. Ministry in the home and in the ‘church’ was shared mutually, given to us by Paul. An interesting side note: to invite someone into your home then (and to some extent now) is to break bread and fellowship. To eat with one another in the time of Paul was to set aside difference, which is why Paul reacted so strongly against Peter, who withdrew from the table of Gentiles (Gal 2:11-14). Imagine how strongly Paul felt about this, and how little this seems to matter to God’s church. Imagine what is now at stake, especially when we not only refuse to break bread with the “other” but with one another.

JUNIA, THE OUTSTANDING FEMALE APOSTLE

Unanimously for the first one thousand years of church history, Junia was a woman[16] and most contemporary scholars echo this fact.[17] Church fathers who confirm these are Origen of Alexandria (185-254), Ambrosiaster (375) who used the variant (and very common female name) Julia; Ambrose (339-397); Jerome (345-419); Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-458); Pseudo-Primasius (who died ca. 567); John Damascene (675-749); and most importantly John Chrysostom (344/345-407) who said what deserves to be quoted in full: “Greet Andronicus and Junia...who are outstanding among the apostles”: To be an Apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles – just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.” (Ep. Ad Romanos 31.2). Chrysostom’s argument renders that objection vacuous. He explicitly gives it the name laden with meaning, “title.” This was reserved for the ‘elite’ of the apostles, and he includes her in this range.[18] As we will see in Richard Bauckham’s study, this objection is furthermore not to be taken seriously. Bernadette Brooten notes that, “To date not a single Greek or Latin inscription, not a single reference in ancient literature has been cited by any of the proponents of the Junias hypothesis. My own search has also proved fruitless. This means that we do not have a single shred of evidence that the name Junias ever existed.”[19]

Richard Bauckham has offered us an enormously attractive reading of this text.[20] His main thesis is that Junia[21] is the same Joanna from Luke 8:3 and 24:10. To be “in Christ” not only indicates church life, but as Bauckham argues, Joanna was a patron of Jesus. The two women are one and the same. He gives several reasons: the practice of [Jews] adopting Greek names was well established before the Roman occupation,[22] and when Jews did adopt these names, they chose sound-equivalent (nearly identical) names.[23] A common example is that the Greek name Simon is a sound equivalent to the Hebrew name Simeon.[24] He gives several examples of this, contrasting Greek with Hebrew, but quoting only two will suffice: Jason – Jesus (Yeshu’a) and Julius/Julianus – Judah.[25] That both Luke and Paul are aware of each other could indicate a shared knowledge of those ‘in Christ.’ Also of note is that this is likely of Paul as well, for he was called Saul in Acts, and that “Luke can call John Mark retrospectively, ‘John whose other name was Mark,’ when in Luke’s narrative he is still in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12, 25) is a valuable clue.”[26] It is clear that it would not have been outside the range of plausibility’s that Joanna could’ve adopted a Greek name for missions work, and that Luke and Paul would’ve known her.[27] This would then make Joanna an eyewitness to Jesus, having served with him in his earthly ministry (Luke 8:3) and having proclaimed his resurrection to the male apostles (Luke 24:10).[28] She would be an Apostle of the Apostles.

This would give Joanna apostolic authority, and would actually place her over Paul, as he never witnessed the earthly Jesus or his resurrection. The fact that Joanna/Junia’s husband isn’t mentioned in Luke indicates that she may have been his source of spiritual conversion and calling.[29] Bauckham’s revelatory and powerful historical sketch deserves careful attention but the concluding paragraph is especially poignant:

“It was because of their apostolic labors in Rome for more than a decade, while Paul was founding churches in Asia Minor and Greece, that Paul, writing to the Christians of Rome in the mid-50s, was able to call Junia and her husband “outstanding among the apostles.” Christians in Rome were often suspected of being politically subversive, and from time to time their leaders were arrested. When Paul wrote his letter, Junia and Andronicus were imprisoned. We know no more of them, but perhaps, some years later, the evangelist Luke spent many hours with Junia, hearing from her the version of the Gospel traditions as she had been long telling them.”[30]

One can only imagine the honor of hearing the stories of one of the most outstanding women God has given to the world, and what a debt we owe to her.[31] Christian history, it seems, is built off the deeds of such women.

--NQ


For further resources, see Philip Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ; Linda Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church; Christians for Biblical Equality; The Junia Project; Ronald Pierce (a prof of mine), Discovering Biblical Equality.

End notes:

[1] Grant Osborne, Romans, offers a magnificent explanation of these contentious chapters. For something more focused, Brian Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis.
[2] The firestorm for most exegetes involves this chapter, and Paul names many women who seem to be in positions of influence and power.
[3] The primary influences of this section involve the commentaries of Ben Witherington III, James D.G. Dunn and C.E.B. Cranfield. Special attention is paid to Eldon J. Epp wonderful study on Junia in the manuscript tradition, Junia: The First Woman Apostle, as well as the study of Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women.
[4] Pseudo-Demetrius (Epistolary Types 2) is a good example. Certain phrases stand out: “You will do well if you deem him worthy of a welcome both for my sake, and his, and indeed for your own.” Notice the thematic consistency between this type of language and Paul’s letter to Philemon.
[5] Most likely, this would indicate some sense of social standing; however, since Paul is less inclined to elevate one’s societal status, this more probably refers to her level of influence within the Christian communities.
[6] LSJ 1526-27 has numerous examples for the feminine form of “prostatis”: one who stands before... leader, chief, ruler, administrator, patron, guardian, champion.
[7] For example, Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 460-61; Charles C. Ryrie, The Role of Women in the Church, 88, 140.
[8] James D.G. Dunn, Romans, 2:885-890; Leonard Swidler, Biblical Affirmations of Women, 310-11; Philip B. Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus: A Response to Douglas J. Moo’s Article, ‘1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance’,” Trinity Journal 2 NS (1981): 169-97, 195.
[9] Ben Witherington III says “Paul calls Phoebe and those with Philologus “saints,” which is probably a code word for Jewish Christians.” Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 380.
[10] Many modern translations usually render her name Priscilla. I have chosen to be as faithful as I can to her original context, thus the name will be rendered Prisca. This diminutive form of her name is supported by p46 as well as other early manuscripts. Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the New Testament, 475.
[11] Paul has already mentioned them 1 Cor. 16:19, using the same language. See especially the greetings to the “church in their house.” The only difference is that Aquila is named first. Paul will also mention Prisca and Aquila in 2 Timothy 4:19. Acts 18 presents Prisca and her husband working together, instructing Apollos.
[12] Witherington also notes that her being mentioned first “has also been explained on the basis of her being of higher social status than her husband or more prominent in the church.” Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 385. While it is not impossible that women in the ancient world would be wealthier than their husbands, the evidence would expect the reverse. When mentioning their active ministry, it appears that Prisca took the initiative.
[13] Plutarch (Advice to the Bride and Groom. 14, Mor. 140a), “The wife ought to have no feelings of her own, but she should join with her husband in seriousness and sportiveness and in soberness and laughter.” (19, Mor. 140d): “A wife ought not to make friends of her own, but to enjoy her husband’s friends in common with him.”
[14] If they shared the same religious belief, cultural custom would demand that she share in his conversion. However, given that Christianity wasn’t a religion of “force,” it may indicate that whoever converted the other, it developed beyond the cultural assumptions of male/leader and female/subordinate; seen in Aristotle, Pol. 1260.a.23- 24 who says, “the courage of command [is male] and the other [woman] is that of subordinate.” What we have here instead is an early Christian witness towards an egalitarian marriage.
[15] Galatians 3:26-29; 1 Corinthians 11:5; 14:5, 31.
[16] Eldon Jay Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle documents this, citing Linda L. Belleville’s findings as well, 32-33.
[17] Other scholars who confirm this are C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans, 2:788-90; James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, 894; Peter Lampe, “Junias,” ABD 3:1127. He identifies over 250 examples of Junia in ancient literature, while finding none of Junias; Richard S. Cervin, “A Note Regarding the Name Junia(s) in Romans 16:7,” NTS 40 (1994): 464-470; Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, 165-186; Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 241-242. Grant R. Osborne, Romans, 406-408, who notes that if “they were among the “apostles” of 1 Cor. 15:7, that would mean they had probably been followers of the Lord himself.”
[18] As does John of Damascus (ca. 675-749), who writes “and to be called “apostles” is a great thing...but to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is.” (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles 95.565).
[19] Bernadette Brooten, “Junia...Outstanding Among the Apostles,” 142.
[20] Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, 165-86. His work is cited favorably by Witherington, Payne, and Epps.
[21] He argues forcefully for the now vastly mainstream (in line with patristics, a nice link between tradition and modern exegesis) view that Junia was indeed a woman, and is to be counted as ‘outstanding among the apostles.’
[22] Gospel Women, 182.
[23] Ibid, 182.
[24] Ibid, 182. Bauckham favorably cites N. Lewis, Y. Yadin, and J.C. Greenfield, eds., The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters, nos. 21-22.
[25] Ibid, 182.
[26] Ibid, 185.
[27] Considering that Paul wrote Phoebe a letter of recommendation, it isn’t difficult to imagine he did the same for others.
[28] As well as other women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James and others that sadly go unnamed.
[29] Considering that he isn’t mentioned, it is possible that he hadn’t been called into Christ yet. Assuming also, as many scholars do, that Andronicus is indeed her husband. I see no issue either way and haven’t personally decided. If he wasn’t her husband or relative, then the relationship would be best explained as two members of the Body of Christ.
[30] Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women of the Gospels, 194-198, 198.
[31] That Paul would include not only her, but the mother of Rufus (who was ‘a mother to me also’) but also Tryphena, Tryphosa as ‘workers in the Lord’ v12, Mary “who worked very hard among you” in v6. TDNT 3:829 notes that the Greek word for “worked hard” means “missionary and pastoral work...of the highest esteem.”