Paul was an anxious guy (Philippians 2:28; 2 Corinthians 11:28), but he knew that when he was anxious he had to pass everything to God in prayer (Philippians 4:6).
When he was persecuted he "despaired of life itself", but looking back he saw that was to rely not on himself but on God who raises the dead (2 Corinthians 1:8-9).
HCG Moule said of Charles Simeon:
"'Before honor is humility,' and he had been 'growing downwards' year by year under the stern discipline of difficulty met in the right way, the way of close and adoring communion with God" (p. 64)
Today our pastor, leaning on Jim Packer, mentioned the following passages in which Paul demonstrates the same growth.
1 Corinthians 15:9, AD 51-55:
I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God
Ephesians 3:8, AD 60-62:
I am the very least of all the saints
1 Timothy 1:15, AD 65:
The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost
(dates from IVP Dictionary of the NT)
Wonderfully clear post from Tim Chester:
Think how you would summarise Ephesians 5:1 in your own words: 'Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children.'
I wonder if your summary focused on the call to imitate God or the description of Christians as 'dearly loved children'?
It is all too easy for us to hear only the commands of Scripture and miss the descriptions out of which they arise. The prescription to behave like God only makes sense as the outworking of the description that we are God’s children. The imperatives (commands) of the New Testament always arise out of the indicatives (description). We are already God's dearly loved children so let's live as God’s dearly loved children by imitating our Father.
Reading Paul, and to a lesser extent other Biblical writers, as arguing from indicative to imperative, is probably one of the most important things I've ever been taught. But I sometimes struggle to spell out exactly what it means. It is easy to trot out "be what you already are", but it is more difficult to explain what that really means.
Melanchthon in his commentary on Colossians 3:1 helpfully breaks it down into three things:
I find that quite helpful in actually applying it to my life.
BTW this is my 500th post on this blog. Crazy stuff!
Part of the recent consensus in Pauline scholarship emerging over the course of the twentieth century, just noted, is that Paul's eschatology has a dual or elliptical focus. For him eschatology is defined not only in terms of Christ's second coming but also by his first, by what has already taken place in Christ, especially his death and resurrection, as well as what is still future at his return. Paul teaches an eschatology that for the church is, i part, present, already realized.
In my view, looking at developments over the history of the interpretation of Paul as a whole, the relatively recent widespread recognition of his realized eschatology represents the truly "new perspective" on Paul, one that is far more important with wider-ranging implications than those developments of the past several decades given that designation. I would observe here that a commensurate impact of this rediscovery is still to be had in the doctrine and life of the church, in its preaching and teaching.
(p.26f, Richard B. Gaffin Jr, By Faith, Not by Sight)
I've been away on holiday in the Lakes so sorry for the lack of posting. I have not got much to post right now but the books I ordered on peoples recommendations have arrived so I'll start having a go at them soon.
While I'm here though I'd just like to note down a parallel before I forget it.
A much disputed phrase in modern Pauline studies is the phrase 'the obedience of faith' which is particularly important as it appears at the beginning and end of Romans (1:5 and 16:26):
Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations
...Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith — to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
I've just realised that Paul seems to be seeing in his ministry the fulfilment of Jacob's blessing in Genesis 49:10:
The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until tribute comes to him;
and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
Who says Paul doesn't talk about the Kingdom of God?
The OT seems never appears to see the law itself as a problem. As Peter Enns comments:
the general tenor of the OT regarding [Torah/Law], however it is to be defined in each particular instance, is positive. The law is the psalmist’s delight (Ps 1:2; 119:70, 77, 92, 174). It is an object of devotion (2 Chron 31:4) and of careful study and observance (Deut 6:25; 31:11-13; Josh 1:8; Neh 8:3, 13). It is a source of wonder (Ps 119:18) and grace (119:29). It is precious (119:72) and true (119:142). It is not only to be obeyed, but loved (119:97, 113, 163, 165). The prophet looks forward to the day when the law of God will become part of the very inner fabric of God’s people: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" (Jer 31:33). It is to be taught to the children (Deut 31:13; cf. 11:19-21). This positive view of the law may be best understood in the context of covenant. The law is an expression of God’s love for and commitment to his people. While enjoying a special relationship with Yahweh, the Israelites received the privilege of conducting their entire lives in accordance with his standards of conduct, which are themselves reflections of his character (VanGemeren, 24-35).
("Law of God" in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: volume 4 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 893-900.)
So when we consider Paul's problem with the law it can be tempting to shift his target from the law to a misunderstanding of the law, and this has been done by Christians of all traditions from all times. However Paul's problem can never be avoided in this way; whether by arguing that he was actually arguing against legalism (e.g. Dan Fuller), obedience without the Spirit (e.g. Scott Hafemann), or nationalistic pride (e.g. Tom Wright and Jimmy Dunn). It's not just me who thinks this. Heikki Räisänen agrees:
Heikki Räisänen objects to Dunn's claim that the Jews misunderstood the law in overly ethnic terms according to Galatians 3: "It is altogether impossible to read chapter 3 as an attack on just a particular attitude to the law. Why should the death of Christ have been necessary to liberate men from an attitude of theirs?" (p. 39, Paul and the Jews, A Andrew Das)
So does Andrew Das:
[Dunn argues that] the eschatological Spirit has liberated humanity "from that too narrowing understanding of the law's role" in terms of "pride in national identity" (p.387). Where does Paul address a mistaken understanding of the Law in Romans 7? (p.149, Paul and the Jews, A Andrew Das)
And so does Mark Seifrid:
Hafemann [and Dunn] treat [2 Cor 3] as a discussion of the ineffectual nature of the law apart from the Spirit - as if Paul anywhere speaks of an effectual law through the Spirit! (p. 112, Christ Our Righteousness, Mark Seifrid)
In the light of this there can be only one conclusion for someone who accepts the authority of the whole bible and that is that:
To deal with Paul's language surrounding the law you do have to have to take into account both how there has been a problem with the law from the beginning, and yet that the problem has qualitatively changed with the coming of Christ.
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness [...] For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
Is it a coincidence that the same language pops up in both? I suspect not having heard a talk on Philippians 2 by Jeff Meyers. There are two ways to gain 'knowledge of good and evil' (the power/wisdom to judge, cf. 1 Kings 3:9; 2 Samuel 14:17 - thanks Jim Jordan) be given it or to take it. Take it and you yourself will be judged by THE judge.
It has often been commented that Paul never speaks of Christ's resurrection as something he does for himself, rather it is always something that the Father/the Spirit does to him. It seems Christ was passive in his resurrection, which is also his justification and his elevation to God's right hand.
As you can see I don't know exactly what you can do with all this so I'll continue to think about it. Thankfully Paul does the applying for me when he says 'Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves....Do all things without grumbling or questioning'. It's not complicated but it is hard.
'it is God who works' - just another way of saying Sola Deo Gloria really.
If Romans was a very obedient church (as I suggest in my previous post) and Paul was concerned to justify 'his gospel' against detractors (as I suggest here), perhaps large swathes of Romans are written to show that Paul is not an antinomian, and not just Romans 6. However, while he is keen to show this he remembers his experience with the Galatians and wants to make clear that obedience is 'of faith', and this means that obedience must take into account that Jesus has come and so obedience is to what James calls 'the law of liberty' and Paul 'the law of faith'.
Interesting fact
I don't know if my theory is correct. I'll keep on thinking about it.
Peter Dray has had me thinking about Romans. I always think the beginning and end of a book are the best bits to find out the author's concerns, and when I looked at Romans sure enough the first and last few sentences contain several similar themes. I think it's likely that the same themes found at both the beginning and end of the letter they will continue throughout the book.
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
[...]
Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
So here are themes I see in both the beginning and end:
Things that only occur in one or the other:
So in summary I think Paul has two main concerns in writing Romans.
I don't think that will surprise many, but never mind - novelty is not the goal.
It is simply a travesty that the name "Paul" for most people, summons up a pastiche of Romans and Galatians while the other letters are relatively neglected. Ephesians 2.8-10 might make the cut but not much else.
I say it is a travesty because the evidence indicates that Ephesians was probably Paul’s generic tract–a circular letter meant to summarize the Gospel for any Christian in particular rather than an ad hoc letter dealing with a specific pastoral agenda for a particular church. Thus, if one wants to understand the foundations of "Pauline Theology," Ephesians would be the natural place to begin. (source)
Mightily interesting comment. It is common to believe that Ephesians is a circular letter but this is the first time I have read the corollary that therefore it is in Ephesians rather than Romans that we should look for the summary and structure of Paul's theology.
Why has this not been brought to my attention before? Perhaps because despite the strength of Evangelical scholarship the framework still being operated in is a liberal one where the authenticity of Ephesians is denied. Perhaps though the obsession with 'discovering' Paul's theology is a framework from liberal biblical studies anyway.
Still, its a statement worthy of further thought.
