Dunn on Jesus' Death in Paul

Rob Bradshaw has provided us with an exceptional article by Jimmy Dunn:

James D.G. Dunn, "Paul's Understanding of the Death of Jesus," Robert Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L.L. Morris on his 60th Birthday. Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1974. pp.125-141.

So be sure to check it out...

Luke and the Pastorals?

Ben Witherington has advocated the case, concerning the authorship of the pastorals, that “the voice is the voice of Paul, but the hand is the hand of Luke” suggesting that “these letters reflect a combination of Pauline and Lukan style.”[1] C. F. D. Moule put it this way: “Luke wrote all three Pastoral Epistles. But he wrote them during Paul’s lifetime, at Paul’s behest, and in part (but only in part), at Paul’s dictation.”[2]

This should give us cause for serious reflection. What is the apparent relationship here? Either the writer of the Pastoral Epistles is aware of the Acts, or vice versa? Or is there a connection in authorship? If the plausibility of the “we” passages in Acts is historically probable, chronologically, it seems possible that Luke and Paul were together long enough for Luke to have acted as an amanuensis for Paul. However, the proposal of Lukan influence in these letters has been seriously critiqued by scholars, such as I. H. Marshall who notes, “The hypothesis of a Lucan origin for the PE should be dropped from consideration.”[3] Thus, in response to Steph's question, my mental jury is still out on the possible and/or probable connections between these documents and authors. I think it's possible, but the question remains: Is it likely?

[1] Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, pg. 60

[2] C. F. D. Moule, “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal,” Bulletin of John Rylands Library 47 (1965): 434. Quoted in Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, pg. 58

[3] Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, pg. 88

Dating the Pastorals

Brant Pitre and Richard Fellows are having an excellent discussion on dating the pastoral epistles. Check it out here. My jury is still out on this issue, especially since I've heard Luke could have composed these letters. Which makes things a whole lot more interesting...

S. G. Wilson notes the following parallels:

1. Paul looks back on his past career with some confidence, believing that he has fulfilled the tasks designated for him (Acts 20:18-21, 25-6; 2 Tim 4:6f.). Moreover, the striking metaphor of an athlete finishing his race is used in both Acts 20:24… and 2 Tim 4:7… At the same time he is deeply concerned with the fate of the church in his absence. This is indicated by the whole of Acts 20:17-35 and each of the Pastoral Epistles.

2. The problem Paul foresees and warns of is heresy, which will assault the Church from within and without (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim 1:3f. 3:1f; 6:20f; 2 Tim 2:14f. ; 3:1f.). The heresy appears to be an early form of Gnosticism and its centre is in Ephesus (Acts 20:17f.; 1 Tim 1:3). Paul urges constant alertness (Acts 20:31; 2 Tim 4:2f.).

3. The responsibility for resisting the false teaching is placed on the church leaders or on Paul’s assistants. The church leaders are, in both cases, elder-bishops (Acts 20:17-28; 1 Tim 5:17; 2 Tim 2:2; Tit. 1:5f.), and it is Paul’s example and instruction which will be their chief weapon (Acts 20:27, 30-5; 1 Tim 3:14; 4:11f.; 6:20; 2 Tim 1:8f., 13-14; 3:10f.; Tit. 1:5).

4. Paul speaks of his own suffering for the sake of the gospel (Acts 20:19-24; 2 Tim 1:11-12; 2:3; 3:11) and indicates that for him a martyr’s death lies ahead (Acts 20:25, 37; 2 Tim 4:6f.).

5. The ministers whom Paul appoints and exhorts are warned of the dangers of the love of money (Acts 20:33-5; 1 Tim 6:9-10; Tit. 1:11).

6. Paul commits his successors to the Lord and his grace (Acts 20:32; 2 Tim 4:22).[1]

[1] S. G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London, 1979) pg. 117f.

Banish Romans?

So, I have this (nasty? beautiful?) habit of waking up in the middle of the night with a million questions running through my mind. Usually they concern what I’m currently working on, but this morning was different. I’ve taken to reading “Monster Jewett”, you know, that mammoth commentary on Romans that took 25 years to research and write [and will probably take me almost as long to read, comprehend, digest and then respond to]. It’s really taking its toll on my intellectual abilities. I’ve read through his summary in The Cambridge Companion to Paul, I’ve followed his précis of the argument in The Romans Debate, and now I’m trying to read the actual commentary. SHA!

If Jewett is right, then most Roman’s commentaries have completely missed the point of Romans. But then again, is this not true for Cranfield, Dunn, and perhaps Wright as well? Which leads me to my point. If Romans is so plagued by the history of interpretation, and the “ugly ditch” that separates us from them, then would it not be helpful to ban all commentaries on Romans for the next hundred years and bury all those written already for the next two hundred years? At least this way, the next generation of scholars could start afresh, with fewer distractions.

Or perhaps, Romans should be left last to study. Romans was my first NT letter we worked through at college. I think I got an “A”. What a joke. I have no idea what Romans is about, what it’s trying to do, and how it’s trying to do it. I think the only clues I do have, is that it was written to various house and tenement churches, beset with racial strife and cultural barriers, explaining the MASSIVE and EXPLOSIVE implications of the gospel for the purpose of gaining a united apostolic base for the mission in Spain. Other than that, ask Jewett, Dunn, Wright, or perhaps Longenecker since he will be the next significant victim to fall prey to the allure and seduction of Romans.

Me, I’ll stick with 1 Peter for now. Romans can be avoided for at least a little while longer.

1 Cor 14:26 - Then & Now

Thanks to those who emailed me the articles, they were of great help.

I'm busy working on New Testament models of "worship gatherings" with a view to practical implementation. Personally, I'm glad that the NT doesn't give us an order of service. I like the variety of various churches. In fact, I would argue that variety is definitely needed.

I think what we need is to study the Scriptures and our context and negotiate what we deem the most essential elements and values of a Christian community, and then ask ourselves how we're going to put them together in a sustainable network of relationships that allows these elements and values to shape our praxis. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Here, I want to analyse one verse that has been put forward as an "Order of Service".

1 Cor 14:26 What follows, then, my dear friends? Suppose that when you assemble together each contributes a hymn, an item of teaching, something disclosed, or speaks in a tongue, or puts the tongues language into words, the point remains: “let everything serve the building up of the community.” [Thiselton]

It is strange that the reading of scripture, prayer, the Eucharist, the offering, baptisms, church discipline, and various other elements should not be mentioned. This should quickly alert us to the fact that Paul is here more focussed on the communal work of the Spirit and Spirit activities, especially on the use and abuse of “tongues in the assembly”, whereas at other times he will encourage other elements, such as the public reading of scripture (1 Tim 4:13).[1]

Paul’s overarching principle in all these matters has consistently been the well-being and benefit of the community. Everything is to be done for the building up of the community (14:3, 5, 12 and 26). Paul is more concerned about strengthening the body, and correcting various over-emphases than he is on describing an orderly pattern of gathering for worship. We would do well to remember this thought as we navigate through this pericope.

Some have suggested that this verse (14:26) amounts to an “order of service” or “the description of a typical gathering for worship.”[2] Others then take this further and declare that this is a call to participatory, open, and interactive meetings. “Everyone”, it is suggested, must have the opportunity to share, and “everyone” must bring “a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation” (NKJV). But this seems highly unlikely for several reasons, the simplest being 1 Cor 12. Here Paul has clearly articulated that each member of the body is different, has a different gift, and thus will contribute differently to the gathered community. Thus, those without the gifts of knowledge or wisdom, cannot contribute a teaching. Those without the gift of tongues, cannot contribute a tongue. Those without the gift of discernment or interpretation, cannot discern or interpret a tongue. In fact, Paul makes this even more emphatic when he notes in 1 Cor 12:27-30:

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

The clear answer to the final verses here are, “NO!” So, the point of the verse? We’re all different, so expect different people, with different gifts, to do different things. Those without the gift of teaching, should not bring an “item of instruction”, since that could be disastrous for a community concerned with truth and accurate doctrine.

In fact, it seems rather pastorally insensitive of Paul to suggest that people move in gifts they don’t have. And in fact, placing to much emphasis getting people to share creates an unhealthy environment. Gifts emerge within appropriate contexts. In a theological conversation or setting, my gift emerges. In a business meeting with lots of administration, I have little or nothing to say. And when I have tried to contribute, people look at me like I’m an alien – because I’m moving beyond my gifting. This is clearly not what Paul has in mind.

The first thing to note is that Paul does not expect “everyone” to participate. The logistics of having 40 or more people sharing and participating would be impossible for the early Church. A few reasons for this would include: a) Christians had to work, and since they met on Sundays, which was a working day, most of these gatherings took place before or after work, i.e., before sunrise or after sunset. The length of time it would take for each person to participate would make it unlikely b) The word “everyone” should better be translated “each one”, and by that, given the context and content of 1 Cor 12, Paul means “each one” with a gift in a specific area. Thus, teachers (those recognised as having a teaching gift) should share. Prophets, (those with a recognised prophetic gift) should share, if they feel prompted to do so.

So verse 26 is definitely a call for participation, but it is a call to the participation of those with a gift in a particular or specified area. And this list is definitely not exhaustive, because look at how many vital elements are missing. It also means that those with gifts in other areas, won't share in the Christian gathering. Thus, those with the gift of mercy will probably use their gift most of the time outside the community. Those with the gift of administration will be busy before or after the gathering, but probably not during. Again, 1 Cor 12 notes that these gifts are still to be honoured, even though they’re not seen in “corporate” times of worship.

Now, this should also be set within the context that Paul encourages prophecy as a gift available to one and all. And thus, everyone with a word of prophecy should be given an opportunity to share. And if someone with another gift feels they want to share, this should be submitted to the leadership that it may be assessed and encouraged (1 Thess 5:12-22).

[1] Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, pg. 285

[2] Dunn, The Theology of Paul, pg. 583

Looking for Two Articles!

Good old SAGE has provided us with free access to articles from various journals. Unfortunately, they are only providing access to journal articles after 1999. I'm in search of these two articles... Anyone who can help me will be readily rewarded with showers of praise and thanksgiving... Please get hold of me on: primalhcc AT gmail DOT com

Patterns of Worship in New Testament Churches : Ralph P. Martin Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Jan 1989; vol. 12: pp. 59 - 85.

The Testing of New Testament Prophecy : John Penney Journal of Pentecostal Theology, Apr 1997; vol. 5: pp. 35 - 84.

Shot!

Free ICC Commentaries

Charles Halton has provided a helpful link to free downloads of ICC commentaries and other commentaries. These volumes are the older ones that are now out of copyright. Check it out here.

Matthew (Allen)

Mark (Gould)

Luke (Plummer)

Acts, vol 1 and vol 2 (Gloag)

Romans (Sanday & Headlam)

1 Corinthians (Robertson)

2 Corinthians (Plummer)

Galatians (Burton)

Ephesians & Colossians (Abbott)

Philippians, Philemon (Vincent)

Thessalonians (Frame)

Pastoral Epistles (Lock)

Hebrews (Moffatt)

James (Ropes)

Peter & Jude (Bigg)

Johannine Epistles (Brooke)

Revelation, vol 1 and vol 2 (Charles)

Enjoy! Thanks to Rodney!

Hebrew Scriptures & the NT

Chris Tilling asks the important question about how we understand the Hebrew Scriptures. He offers three positions. I'm currently reading David Horrell's guide to 1 Peter. It offers an introduction to "1 Peter", aimed at undergraduate students. He suggests that "1 Peter" is an important text not least for the ways in which it both reflects and constructs early Christian identity, in its relationships with Judaism and the Roman Empire.

I'm about to hit the two important chapters, 4-5, but with regards to Chris' question, Horrell makes this comment:

In effect, this constitutes a claim that the true subject of biblical prophecy – and, by extension, of the Jewish scriptures as a whole – is Christ, and that the fulfilment of what is said by the prophets is found in the Christian gospel and is appropriated by Christian believers. The author of 1 Peter shares with other early Christians the conviction that the coming of Christ marked the beginning of the end-times, the final act in God’s drama of salvation (1:20; cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:2).

Horrell, 1 Peter, pg. 62-63

My question now arises, if this is the perspective of NT authors, does this mean that we, being those who submit ourselves to the worldview of the NT, have to embrace this view? Assuming we could demonstrate that the authors of the NT held strictly to a Christological interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures, would we be bound to that hermeneutic?

I'm slowly creeping through the pages of Goldingay's offering: Israel's Gospel. I've never been so refreshed and envisioned by these scriptures as I am now. Goldingay has done a tremendous job of showing the dynamic vision presented in the Hebrew narratives. So now I'm stuck, am I constrained to reject his view, because that is not the view of the NT authors?

This is ofcourse a deeply theological question, and those concerned with history only have the freedom to choose their option. But do we?

These thoughts occupy my time... You got any on this matter?

Guess who's back?

ME!... So watch out blogosphere...

the exile and return

of sean D. Well, some big things have been happening in my life lately. Changing jobs, leaving Primal, joining the staff @Jubilee. And now a travelling schedule that keeps me away quite a bit. So unfortunately there has been no time for blogging or anything else. Studying 1 Peter has been put on the shelf. But January holds hopes of returning to academic life, or at least a life where I can read academic books...! So for those of you who pray, please continue to do so, and include Susan and myself in them.

1 thess 2:12